The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. — Psalm 14:1
There is no such thing as an atheist. Everyone knows that there is a God. The question is whether we recognize Him as Lord and obey His will for our lives, or whether we reject and rebel against Him. The atheist says that God does not exist, but God said atheists do not exist. Fools, however, do exist.
I stirred up a hornet’s nest on Twitter last week when I said there are no atheists. One special snowflake even responded to me, and then immediately blocked me so I could not see his response. (Of course, I can see all responses to my tweet via private browsing!) That is a special kind of cowardice from someone who needs to immediately run to his safe space when reading a 280-character missive from someone he has never interacted with. I found it absolutely hilarious.
How do we know that there are no atheists? Because God tells us so in His Word. We know from Romans 1:18-25 that all mankind knows of God and that no one has an excuse for not believing. However, some refuse to glorify Him as God, and are given over to a depraved mind.
But you cannot use the Bible to prove itself, you might say. Well, yes, actually I can. The Bible enjoys a special status that no other book in human history has ever enjoyed, because it is the divinely inspired Word of God, sharper than any sword. It carries a special authority. As Christians, we should never shy away from appealing to Biblical authority in making an argument.
Doug Wilson said that there there are two primary beliefs of atheism: There is no God, and I hate Him. The blasphemy spewed against my Savior has demonstrated that to be true. I pray that God will soften atheists’ hearts and call them to saving faith in His only begotten Son.
In the tsunami of accusations about sexual assault that broke with the fall of notorious pervert Harvey Weinstein, we are urged to “believe the women.” But should we always automatically believe the women? The story of Emmett Till is a reason to say “no.”
Emmett, of course, was a boy who was accused of sexually harassing a white woman. He was kidnapped, beaten, mutilated, tortured and murdered in an act of racially-fueled vigilantism. It was a shameful chapter in American history. Even if Emmett was guilty of what he was accused of doing, it was a ridiculously disproportionate reaction to his alleged “crime.”
The fact of the matter is that race and racism has always played a big role in sexual politics, especially surrounding sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. Charges of black men mistreating white women have been the basis for lynching black men for 200 years. Racism is deeply woven into the issue of sexual assault and rape.
Even when a crime actually has been committed, racism and racial panic leads to injustice – as in the Central Park Five. The guilty man got away with his demonic crime for decades, while the innocent languished in prison. One of the black teens says he still showers with his boxers on. What do YOU think happened to him in prison? Obviously it was an injustice to the innocent young men who were framed for a crime they did not commit, but it was an injustice to the victim, too.
Obviously, we must have compassion on women who make an accusation of rape or sexual assault. But we must never waver in our commitment to truth and justice. We must never waver in our commitment to withholding judgment – even in the court of public opinion – until we know the facts. We have been whipped up to the point of hysteria, and when society becomes hysterical our worst impulses come out. At a time when white supremacists are more prominent than they have been in generations, we need to be careful to fight against the blood libel of the animalistic black male predator.
Let’s not pretend that Roy Moore losing had anything at all to do with policy. No, this isn’t a loss for Donald Trump or the anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party.
Moore’s defeat was 100% due to the sex abuse allegations against him. He would have won by 20 points without them. Any other anti-establishment candidate would have obliterated Doug Jones.
Even with the scandal, Jones barely won, 673,236 to 652,300.
Alabama is a deep red state. A sex abuse scandal was the only way a Democrat had any chance of winning. This was not about policy.
It is time for the federal government to criminalize Caller ID spoofing. It should also be a criminal offense to possess, sell, manufacture or distribute equipment or software that allows people to spoof their phone number. There is never a legitimate business need to spoof a phone number, and there is no legitimate need for private individuals to do so either. Caller ID spoofing is used only by criminals seeking to commit fraud and steal innocent people’s credit card numbers or other sensitive private information.
But Caller ID spoofing adds another layer of evil to the harm already done by these criminals. They are stealing the identity of completely innocent people and using spoofed numbers for their criminal activity. How many innocent people have been harassed or unfairly reported to the authorities because they were the victim of identity theft by these reprehensible, despicable liars? This is an evil practice.
I am a federalist, so I prefer things be done by the states. However, there are some things that must be done by the federal government. Regulating interstate commerce is one of those things, and telephone service is by its nature interstate commerce. Criminalizing Caller ID spoofing would protect anyone with phone service from these criminals. The law must also apply to anyone who calls a US-based number with a spoofed Caller ID, even those who operate outside the borders of these United States. We have diplomatic, trade and law enforcement tools to bring these criminals to justice.
A stiff fine is not enough to discourage criminals engaged in spoofing. They need to be in prison, because as these criminals are behind bars they cannot defraud and steal from innocent people. All levels of government are charged by God with punishing the evil and protecting the innocent. (See Romans 13.) This would fulfill this commandment from the Almighty that delegated authority to the civil magistrate. It is shameful that this revolting practice was ever legal in the first place. Now is the time to correct this mistake.
It is interesting what sets people off sometimes. I said in HTO comments and on Twitter that “I am always suspicious when Christian pastors preach on SJW issues. I suspect this has more to do with getting the world’s approval than serving our Lord.” Leftists were furious. (Of course, Leftists on HTO became deranged and unhinged when I suggested different snow removal priorities a few years ago.)
So let me expand on this: Yes, I am suspicious of pastors who push SJW issues, especially environmentalism. No, I do not believe that Christians bear no responsibility to protect the environment. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us. (What that means is a whole different issue.)
We should start by recognizing the elephant in the room: The butchered bodies of sixty million unborn babies, massacred in the name of “reproductive choice” while those murders are fully protected by our corrupt legal system. But while opposing the evil of abortion will not bring applause from the world, advocating for “our precious planet” would bring plenty of praise from the world. More importantly, it is easier to get people to open their wallets by tugging on their heart strings about the environment.
It is difficult to take someone’s commitment to protecting life seriously if they are advocating for the environment and saying nothing about well over one million babies murdered by our abortion industry each year – or over one thousand babies massacred in Bloomington, Indiana in 2016, which was a 23% increase over 2015. The wicked and bloodthirsty ghouls at Planned Parenthood have been busy little beavers.
But the real issue I am getting at is motivation. Is Christian environmentalism for the sake of safeguarding God’s creation for future generations, or is it about preening for the world to get adoration and money? We see a lot of “social justice” work in the church today. That will get you puff pieces distributed by the Associated Press. Meanwhile, precious little is done to stand for the babies who are literally ripped limb from limb in their mother’s wombs. That will get you lambasted as an ignorant, backwards, misogynist hick.
Are we about serving God or are we about puffing up our earthly reputations?
Last week I took the dogs on a walk and now I know what the AT-AT drivers felt like in “The Empire Strikes Back.”
Nano managed to tangle himself up in his leash, so I was trying to untangle him and he bolted.
I managed to hold onto the leash so he didn’t get away, but Tera had successfully pulled a “school boy” move on me – setting herself up behind my ankles to cause me to trip backward.
Between Nano pulling on my arm and Tera tripping me, I hit the pavement on my rear end.
The bad news for Tera is that I partially landed on her, too. Good move, Tera.
Also, because I am stuck in 1991, I immediately said “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”
I do not smoke, and I never have. I wish everyone who smokes would stop smoking, and that everyone who does not smoke would never start. I would love to see the tobacco industry collapse because no one is buying their products. But for the government to tell legal adults they cannot consume a legal product is wrong. That is why I am opposed to raising the smoking age from 18 to 21.
The comparison to alcohol is fallacious. Alcohol and tobacco are not equivalent, because alcohol is a mind-altering drug. Tobacco is not. Alcohol slows reaction time, reduces inhibitions and alters judgment. That is why we have laws saying 18 year olds are not permitted to drink because of how the drug affects people. I disagree with the drinking age, but I understand the reasoning behind it. That cannot be applied to tobacco.
It is absurd to tell someone that he is a legal adult, with all of the legal rights and responsibilities that come with being an adult, but cannot smoke a cigarette. If someone is old enough to fight, kill and die in a war, then he is old enough to smoke. It ought to be unthinkable that Republicans, who are supposed to be the party of limited government, would do anything other than reject this nonsense outright.
Why does the Chamber of Commerce care about raising the legal age, anyway? The answer: This is a smoke screen. (Pun intended.) The Chamber wants it to be legal to deny employment to smokers, so by including an increase in the legal smoking age, they can spin this as a public health proposal instead of a business proposal. The problem is that nobody is buying it.
If the Chamber wants to have an honest conversation about employing smokers, then we should have that conversation. This sort of dishonesty, though, is never welcome.
By eliminating the free newspaper program, Indiana University is simply recognizing the realities of how news is consumed and delivering it in a different way.
Indiana University is eliminating the free newspaper program, which allows students to use their student ID to get copies of major newspapers gor free. This has generated some criticism, especially with the concern about scam websites promoting wild conspiracy theories. But is this a bad thing? Will it make students less informed? No and no.
Most students get their news online, and both the Herald-Times article on the program and a letter to the editor miss a critical point: Some newspapers offer online subscriptions for free to students. For example, anyone with an indiana.edu e-mail address can subscribe to the online edition of the Washington Post and The New York Times free of charge.
That benefits students, obviously, but also benefits faculty and staff, who can also get free subscriptions to the online editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post with their indiana.edu e-mail address.
The reality is that students do not read newspapers. (Obviously, there are exceptions.) They get their news online. With a smartphone in your hand, you can easily access the news anywhere from multiple sources without the bulky newspaper and the need to recycle it when you are done.
Indiana University is not taking anything away from students. They are simply providing it in a different, more convenient and more environmentally friendly format.
I understand you somehow hurt your paw. But when I see you limping on the other one the next morning, I suspect that it is no longer bothering you and now you are limping to get attention.
Here’s a tip. For that to work you need to remember to limp on the paw that was legitimately hurt, and not switch back and forth. You also need to limp all the time, not just when you know I am looking. I see you more than you think I do, so when you are not limping and then start limping when you see me watching you, it makes me suspect your “injury” is fake.
You are not selling it properly.
Your owner, Scott