Saturday, January 14, 2017

Christians need to become the Church Militant again

I have been going through a spiritual upheaval of late, which has made me cranky and somewhat angry. I think it has been resolved, and for the first time I am finding again peace and serenity, in knowing that God is in control, and I am not. But though God is in control, if I ask Him, he will tell me what I can do today. I did. And he led me to an interesting piece on by Michael Brown entitled Will the 'Trump Effect' Trickle Down to Conservative Christians?.

I have come to believe that conservative Christians have been convinced that they have lost the culture wars by the constant drumbeat of the faux news media, television and movie entertainment, schools and other cultural outlets that have constantly told us that the Left is winning.  And it has been remarkably effective.  The Left has also infiltrated and hijacked our mainline protestant churches such that abortion and the ordination of openly gay individuals is not just tolerated but openly celebrated.  At the same time, the old Christian hymns are no longer sung, favoring instead a milquetoast infantile "Christianity" instead of the old militant style.  But I have seen our Congregational charter, and it talks about our commitment to be the "Church Militant."

For those who may not remember the militant style of Christianity, I do not mean that we should be out killing anyone (except in defense of ourselves and our loved ones when someone presents the real threat of death or serious injury.)   That we leave for Islam, representing the pretender to God's throne. Rather the militant style is to speak with authority and conviction about things we know, and to boldly testify about things we know are wrong.  But these things must be said in love, for though Jesus loves, part of that love is to allow us to choose.  Heaven of hell, it is our choice.  The only thing separating us from God is---us.

Michael Brown is correct, but you may not be convinced.  Perhaps you need a little more.  No doubt you are aware of the displays of the tantrums the left has been going through, the crying, the gnashing of teeth, the attempts to claim victory by some set of rules, not of course THE RULES, the attempts to have the Electoral College overturn the election, and now the attempt to delegitimize the President Elect by the use of faux news.  No doubt as well these have provided some schadenfreude to shell shocked conservative Christians.  Note, if you did feel some sense of schadenfreude, shame on you, but in all fairness, I did too.  Anyway, to put some of this in context, here is Thomas Lifson over at the American Thinker to explain it to you.

Lifson, writing in a blog entitled Why the Left hates Trump so intensely, that nails the reason squarely on the head. It turns out that what the Left has been preaching is not real. Oh, they have put up a beautiful facade, rather like a Hollywood set, complete with the cowboy sleeping in a tilted back chair with his hat pulled down over his eyes. Everything is correct down to the furniture and the period costumes until you notice that an extra is wearing a wrist watch. What???  That is the Trump Effect.  You can read more about it by clicking on the Reddit link in the Lifson piece.

We must all softenour hearts, and toughen our minds if we are to become once again the Church Militant, who once conquered the world, not with the sword, or bullets, but with the Truth.

Father, may I have a softer heart and a tougher mind to carry out your work today.  Amen.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

The god who hates

It is Sunday morning, and my church has cancelled services, as have most of the churches in the area due to the weather.  I have just read Raymond Ibrahim's article at the American Thinker entitled Muslim Persecution of Christians. Ibrahim points out that Muslims hate Christians because Christians rejected Muhammad's religion of hate in favor of the religion of God, which demands love. Part of that hate is generated by a gross misunderstanding of Christian religion, and I suspect goes back to the Council of Nicea wherein the doctrine of the Trinity was ratified by the Bishops, and Gnosticism was rejected. Ibrahim writes:
How much hate must a woman have to enter a church, smile in the faces of Christians, pretend to be worshipping alongside them -- here’s a similar example from Turkey -- and then knowingly leave a bomb precisely where it would kill mostly women and children? How much hate must a man have for people who are peacefully praying that, in order to kill as many of them, he is willing to kill himself?
The answer is an unfathomable -- and, to Western and Christian minds, unbelievable -- amount of hate. Yet, the wonder isn’t that the church was bombed but rather that many are surprised by it. After all, many Muslim scriptures, clerics, mosques, schools, satellite stations, and Internet sites -- even the ministry of education -- openly incite hatred for Egypt’s indigenous (but “infidel”) inhabitants: the Christian Copts. Among other forms of animosity, they teach that Muslims must hate -- and show that they hate -- Christians, even if they are their own wives.
Worse, they teach that the most abominable crimes in God’s sight -- “worse than murder and bloodshed” -- take place inside churches: there, Christians flaunt their rejection of Islam’s core doctrine of tawhid (“monotheism”) by ascribing partners to God (shirk) via their worship of the Trinity. This is why some of Islam’s most revered ulema (scholars) describe churches as “worse than bars and brothels” and “dens of iniquity” which “breed corruption throughout the lands” (see Crucified Again, pgs. 32-36).

Muslims for some reason, I suppose lack of imagination, believe that the One, True, and Living God could not be at once experienced by humans as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To believe that our God could not at the same time be in the Heavens, and on the earth, while inspiring people everywhere with his love is to think that God is too small. God is not in a box. He is not only in Heaven, which is a convenient construct for limited humans, but rather God is everywhere, at all times, in all places, always the same. God was there at the beginning, but so was his plan for salvation through Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. All three are but manifestations of Him. They are different ways of experiencing Him.  God will be there at the end because he is already there, waiting for us to arrive.  God truly is the alpha and omega.

The greatest gift, of all the many I have received from Him, is love.  In turn, I must try to love my fellow man (and woman) as he has loved me.  Of course this does not mean romantically, but rather to attempt to understand, to empathize, and to do my best to help my fellow creatures.  Remember that Jesus performed the ultimate act for us.  Though innocent, in the real sense of the word, and not just legally innocent, he died for us, to take our sins and wash us clean, then rose from the dead to show us that death had been conquered for all time, for all people.  This was how much God loved us, that He would die for us, since we were incapable of reconciling ourselves to Him otherwise.

Why couldn't we reconcile ourselves?  Because there is no man who is perfect.  We all deserve to die, and so sacrificing ourselves does nothing.  Whether we die sooner of later makes no real difference since we are all under sentence of death.  Only God Himself could come down, live the perfect life, and die to atone for our sins.  Nothing less would do.  Nothing more was needed.

So, where do the Gnostics, who now call themselves Muslims, go wrong?  By trying to pin down where God is.  I do not pretend to understand the Trinity, because being a limited human being, I can not.  I just accept that it is so.  I accept it as a matter of faith, and I accept it as a great, most generous gift.  It is a gift so magnificent that I can only call it Grace.  But the Muslims insist that God can not be both Father and Son simultaneously.  But as we have seen, why couldn't the God of Creation, who made everything that is, and everything that is not (for there are many things that COULD have been had not He discarded them) also put a back door, so to speak into physics to allow Him to be everywhere all the time?  I see miracles happen daily, and those miracles would not happen without divine Providence.

Whenever Muslims kill Christians for their faith, eulogies for the latter -- including for St. Peter’s 28 slain -- often invoke the words of Christ: “The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God” (John 16:2). Not only is this verse prophetic; it’s key to understanding why Christians are under attack throughout the Muslim world: Their persecutors truly “think they are offering a service to God” by killing Christians. And they believe this, not because they are “radical” or have “perverted” the teachings of Islam, but because the impostor god of Islam tells them so.
Muslims will only stop hating and killing Christians when they finally abandon the god who hates and accept the God who Loves.  But, while the God who Loves, directs us to pray for them, to proselytize to them as best we can, he does not expect us to go about unarmed and incapable of defending ourselves.  You need to carry a gun with you even in church.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

If you are not armed, you may be depending on the kindness of strangers

John Hawkins has an excellent article exposing the nasty underbelly of racism at the heart of the events that unfolded in Chicago this week.  Four black men and women tortured a white mentally challenged man for 48 hours, made him drink toilet water, yelled F*** white people, F*** Donald Trump, and streamed the whole thing live on Facebook.  I doubt the victim here voted for anyone, but in any case these young men and women knew whether he voted and for whom he voted if he did.

Hawkins as entitled his article If you Listen to Liberals, Why Not Kidnap and Torture White People? And, of course, he is right. In their rush to delegitimize the election and make it seem as if they have a legitimate reason for obstructing the Trump agenda, Leftwing websites have offered up a barrage of anti white hate articles.
Think about the significance of that. These animals WANTED their friends to see what they were doing and assumed they’d react positively to it. They thought that because this kid was white and they talked about Donald Trump a little bit, people they knew would be okay with what they did.
This attitude does not come out of nowhere; it comes out of a Faustian bargain that liberals have made on race. If you are a white liberal, you call people whom you don’t like racist. This protects you from the charge because if you’re calling someone else a racist, how can you actually be a racist? Then you imply that, “If you join us in calling everyone who opposes our plans racist, you will also be protected from being called racist.”
From there, liberals turn up the heat. They encourage groups like Black Lives Matter and obsess over people who get shot while doing stupid and dangerous things around the police even though more whites than blacks are shot by the cops. They claim that common sense measures like having ID at the polls are the equivalent of “voter suppression.” They promote and encourage “bigoteers” like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, Deray Mckesson, Shaun King and Michael Eric-Dyson among many others. Their entire careers are predicated on coming up with new and exciting ways to accuse people Democrats don’t like of being racist. Then there’s “white privilege” which is really a generalized and dumb way of attacking people for being the wrong color.
There it is. The Left is using black people to advance their agenda, which of course is an agenda of white people. By constantly picking at the wound, igniting the flame of black resentment, and than pouring gasoline on the fire, the Left is exploiting black people to do their own bidding. The fact that some people, like Van Jones seem to profit from this is all the more irksome.

Truth be told, this is why a black conservative like Clarence Thomas had to be 'borked' at his confirmation hearings. The existence of a conservative black Justice delivering rulings from the bench of the Supreme Court was just too much for the Left to stand.  Fortunately for conservatives, Thomas did not bend under a ruthless attack, and today sits on the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile the Left plays with fire and depends on the goodness of the American people to keep it from becoming a holocaust. While I don't believe that any of them actually cares a whit about blacks or their plight, which in some cases is desperate, they wouldn't play these games if they thought they might actually ignite a race war that would end in their own deaths. Fortunately for them, only a small percentage of the population either black, white, or brown, is racists. Only a small percentage of the population is homophobic.  And what they
 call Islamaphobia is simply recognizing reality.

For this reason, all good people should be armed.  Those who are not are depending on the kindness of strangers.  Truth be told, such kindness may be in short supply when needed.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

National Reciprocity Introduced

Katie Pavlich points out that it was a North Carolina Representative, Richard Hudson who introduced the National Reciprocity bill into the House.  You can read Ms. Pavlich's post at Townhall, entitled NRA Backs Newly Introduced National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill  Pavlich quotes Mr. Hudson:
“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits," Hudson released in a statement. "As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line."
The National Rifle Association is throwing its support behind the legislation.
Just so.

Then there is this take, from Leesa K. Donner over at the American Thinker entitled Donald Trump and the Gun Law Revolution. Ms. Donner writes from the perspective of someone coming out of the American gun culture:
The problem with current concealed carry laws is this: concealed carry gun restrictions are so muddled and baffling that they have citizens wondering whether they can even go from county to county within their states with their firearms for fear that they are violating one law or another.
Case in point: Most of my youth was spent inside gun clubs around western Pennsylvania, where firearm safety was indoctrinated in us with every type of firearm available – from a Colt .45 to a .357 Magnum. By age fifteen, I was entirely comfortable with pistols and by sixteen a .20-gauge shotgun. Having spent a lot of time on the firing range, I decided that a concealed carry permit was in order when my husband ran for public office in 2011. There are a lot of crazies out there, and one never knows.
Living in liberal Fairfax County, Virginia meant filling out and then filing a half-inch sheaf of paperwork along with a personal trip to the county courthouse. Finally, months later, my permit arrived. Whew!
But because we reside in the D.C. Metro area, the permit served only to complicate things. Could I take my firearm the twenty-minute drive into the District of Columbia? What about when I traveled fifteen minutes in the other direction into Bethesda, Maryland, where we worship and belong to a club? If you know anything at all about D.C. and Maryland, you know that those are two places where you most certainly do not want to get caught with a gun unless you want to find out what's on the menu at the county lock-up. The constant confusion about what was allowed where ultimately proved to be a fundamental impediment to my right to carry.
I can attest to the the problems she faces as a resident of Fairfax County, Virginia. I lived there for 20 years, and worked in downtown Washington, DC. Crossing into Maryland is like crossing into a foreign country. With license plate readers now, it is possible for anyone with a concealed carry permit from a different State or Commonwealth to become the target of over zealous police. I just didn't go to Maryland unless I absolutely had to.  Even if you left your gun at home, they can and will sometimes detain you for hours for just crossing into the State.

National Reciprocity, or making gun permits as regular as drivers licenses is a logical next step.  I hope it passes.  Meanwhile, don't get too comfortable.  Our next step is Constitutional Carry for everyone..0

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Teaching Boys to be Men

David French today had an interesting article in the National Review on the war on boys and men being waged by the radical feminists entitled Dear Feminists, 'Male Vulnerability' Isn't a Virtue. French notes that boys will be boys, because boys are hard wired to be more aggressive, more energetic, more prone to risky behavior than are girls. It is just biology.

So, the great task before the parent of a boy, and particularly the father of a boy, is to channel boyish behaviors in such a way as to produce a purposeful man.  Let's face it, left to their own devises, and without any correction, boyish culture results in Lord of the Flies.

Having gone through adulthood in the era of Gloria Steinem, and having now watched both my grand daughter and grandson growing up, I can attest that the boy came out different, from the start. He was a boy, period. He still is, because my daughter does not buy off on the nonsense of the feminists. French writes:
Indeed, traditional concepts of masculinity, which asked men to cultivate physical and mental toughness, to assume leadership roles in the home, in business, and on the battlefield, and to become guardians and protectors, became the “trap” or “man box,” to quote the University of Richmond’s ridiculous “authentic masculinities” site. The most destructive words a boy can hear? “Be a man,” at least according to the mandatory freshman orientation at Gettysburg College.
But here’s the problem — vulnerability isn’t a virtue. It’s a morally neutral characteristic at best and a vice at worst. Yes, some men are more naturally sensitive than others, but we now ask — no, beg — men to indulge their emotions, as if the antidote to awful male aggression is a good cry.
There are good reasons why generations of fathers have taught their sons to “man up,” and it’s not because young boys are blank canvases on which the patriarchy can paint its oppression. It’s because men in general have essential natures that are different from women. We tend to be more aggressive, more energetic, and less nurturing than women, and the fundamental challenge of raising most boys is in channeling that nature in productive ways, not in denying or trying to eradicate its existence. In other words, we need to make men more purposeful, not more vulnerable.
A single mother who happens to grow up among boys may be able to deliver the message, but will be unable to demonstrate it. This why every family needs a father and a mother, Neither are dispensable. Children need both. The role of the mother is fairly well defined, but the father's role has become muddied. The father needs to be not just the main bread winner, but also the source of protection of his brood, and the transferer of the traditional male values. I would count in that list of things all boys should learn, in no particular order, to sharpen a knife, to correctly wield tools, to tie a tie, to respect women and to value family and friends, to polish shoes and mend clothing, and a hundred other things that a father needs to teach his son. But most of all, a father teaches his son, by his actions, how to be a man.

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Can the Left Deliver Us from Rock?

Kevin Williamson penned a blog post over at the National Review "Corner," which is their version of a blog spot, entitled The media's dishonest reporting on firearms. We in the gun rights movement have been complaining about this for years. The media generally imbues the discussion of firearms with loaded language rather than simply reporting the facts.  Indeed, the facts are often clouded by garish descriptions of the weapon used.  Instead, the focus should be on the criminal who chose to wield whatever weapon to kill someone. It is the criminal mind with evil intent that is the problem.

The reason journalists report firearms this way is partially out of ignorance. Most of the press has no idea, indeed has never fired a gun, doesn't know the first thing about them, and assumes what you see in movies is the real thing. But of course no one is going to make a movie that shows the real thing; nobody would come to watch it. It is too prosaic. In the movies, one shot from a 9mm round sends people flying backwards. In reality, they barely move. Handgun rounds are simply not that powerful, and most people survive a handgun round unless it is delivered to someplace like the central nervous system, or something that will bleed out quickly like the heart or the kidney. In a real gun fight, only the coolest of characters (which again, most people are not) is capable of consistently delivering such shots.

Another way to think about hand gun power is to realize that the weapons recoils backward as much as it pushes the bullet forward.  The more powerful the round, the harder it is to control.  Think of it like this: the bang goes both ways.  If a handgun round could push someone down, it would also push the shooter off his feet.

The other reason journalists report firearms the way they do is because of agenda advocacy.  Being of the Left, as most journalists are, and the Left's agenda is to eliminate private possession of guns to enable them to more easily rule us, the journalists see their job as to make guns a scary and as illegitimate as possible.  Thus the Bushmaster becomes a high powered automatic bullet hose, possibly capable of aiming itself.  In reality the Bushmaster is a relatively low powered (though more powerful than a handgun) semiautomatic that produces one shot for each pull of the trigger.  By comparison, the old M1 Garand, firing 30-06 rounds was far more powerful.  But fewer people can effectively handle the 30-06, whereas many more can handle the lighter recoil from a .223 round.

The Left also doesn't want, for reasons I have yet to figure out, to admit that the criminal mind with evil intent is the problem.  It seems that somewhere in the mists of time the idea has become rigidly fixed in the Leftist ideology that man is good, but he is led astray by evil objects.  In reality, men are not good, while it is inanimate objects that are neutral, neither good nor bad.  Guns are such inanimate objects.  They are neither bad nor good.  The user determines whether they will be used for good or evil.

Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God, while Able's was accepted.  Rather than asking God why his sacrifice was rejected, and what he could do to please God instead, he took his anger out on Able.  He grabbed an inanimate object, a rock, and smashed Able's head in.  So it began.  Today's guns are just more sophisticated rocks.  Can the Left deliver us from rocks?

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Happy New Year! And good riddance to the old

It is January 1, 2017, and good riddance to what may have been one of the worst years in recent memory.  Glenn Fairman pens a peace today over at the American Thinker entitled Can You Hear It?. Hear what, exactly? The sound of returning muscularity, and masculinity to American shores. The sound of returning liberty to our shores. That sound. Can you hear it?
And lord, what a bullet America dodged! We have been given an opportunity to strengthen what yet remains, and to bottle up the secularists who would scrub the public square clean of any hope for a moral-political regeneration. Just think: The libs had control of every institutionalized avenue of power, and still they lost! And if you don’t think this is a miracle, then you are not seeing things clearly. In hating the Constitution and its understanding of liberty, should we then be surprised that Progressives despise our miracle -- just as they do we who take refuge in it?
Having slain the personal for the sake of the political, have they not wrung the charm from life by reviling the precious and common virtues that once moved good men to good deeds? Having traded grace and humility for the curse of perpetual dissatisfaction, have they not sacrificed themselves to a distant and unloving idol -- becoming as cold and loveless as their egalitarian god while toiling incessantly to spin affluence into straw? Wracked with guilt and self-loathing because they were heirs to giants, have they not become the most miserable souls on the face of the earth for disdaining their fathers’ house, and thus warranting the curse?
Fairman has a unique style, one long absent from our writing. We, who believe in, indeed have faith in, the God of Creation, who even before he created the Universe, had us in mind, and already had set his plan for our salvation in motion, have longed for such writing. For we can not fully express ourselves without reference to our God, and our faith in his plan for us. While Fairman talks of "patriotic ardor," the reader must understand that it is patriotism in its proper place, under God, and not displacing the duties we owe our families, our communities, and our State.
Listen: for a while it could not be heard or felt, but eventually it began singing through the wires of our shared unspoken desire -- a reemergence of a mature patriotic ardor -- a welling up of love for resurgent liberties. Awakened from the nightmare, we found that noble principles had not perished in our exile. A manly fire is now burning fiercely and it will soon be unstoppable. If we allow it, its spirit will cleanse the land of leaders who had broken faith, and made common cause with the lowest among us. Let their names be stricken: men tentative in their masculine virtues and unwavering in their resolve to dishonor the patrimony of America.
Fairman's message is a happy one. We have dodged a huge bullet, for which we should thank Providence. No one else could have done
this for us. Go to church today, and pray. Have a happy New Year, be safe, but gird yourself for battle in the coming year.

Edit:  To my many readers in Canada, and overseas, we hope to become again the America that leads the world by example.  We hope to become again the America that values its allies, while holding its enemies at arms length.  The America that goes to war only reluctantly, and when all other means for peace have been tried, but when it does goes with overwhelming force.