Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The enemy of my enemy....

There was a conference in Iran recently, to discuss the Holocaust, and why the psychos of the world want people to believe it didn't happen. I won't bother to put a link to an article, since they are so numerous you shouldn't have any trouble finding one. And I'm not going to talk about the conference itself, or even the Holocaust deniers. I'm not going to try to disprove the lies, because if you don't already know they are lies then there's little I can do to help you. What I'm going to talk about is why this conference is the most dramatic in a series of recent examples of evil people, with completely incompatible agendas, coming together in ultimately unstable alliances for the purpose of destroying that which is good.

The conference was hosted by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is arguably one of the most evil men of the last 100 years. He actively supports Islamic terrorism, with money, equipment, training, and propaganda. And he's not shy about it. He doesn't even try to hide it, even while trying to convince the western liberals that he wants peace and freedom for all people, like he did in his most recent letter. He aggressively and enthusiastically advocates the destruction of both The United States and Israel, and the imposition of Islamic rule over the whole world. He has delusions of grandeur, believing that he will be instrumental in the ushering in of the age of the Mahdi, the Islamic savior figure that will destroy the world.

One of the other more prominent participants of the conference was David Duke, the former national director of the KKK. If you aren't familiar with this man, I suggest you take a quick look at his website. His pure and unwavering hatred for Jews is staggering, and his paranoia of "Zionists" is pathological. It's clear from his writings that he's a narcissist with delusions of grandeur, seeing himself as some kind of hero figure that will save mankind from the Jews. His hatred for other groups of people is equally disturbing. He believes in eugenics against blacks, among other disgusting concepts, and still he claims to be Christian, but he seems to have no problem smearing the good name of Christianity and getting rather chummy with people who want to kill all Christians just as soon as they're done with the Jews.

The only thing these two men have in common is their blind hatred for Jews. Nothing else. Their agendas intersect nowhere else, other than perhaps their hatred of President Bush and western conservatism. Ahmadinejad wants Islamic rule, and the destruction of the west, Duke wants white supremacy, with his sick brand of Christianity. These agendas are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. And yet, there they were, cooperating simply for the purpose of advocating the destruction of Israel, one of a shrinking number of countries still dedicated to goodness. Without that evil desire to unite them, they would most likely have tried to kill each other.

This pattern has been repeated innumerable times in recent years, people with evil, yet incompatible agendas uniting in the hopes of destroying as much good as possible. Now, let me make myself clear. Not all liberals are evil. I wouldn't even say most liberals are evil. The vast majority of them are just confused and brainwashed. But the leaders of the various liberal groups, the ones that form the policy, the ones that disseminate the propaganda, that legislate and rally, those people are evil. The people that grab onto any scrap of an opportunity that might allow them to justify and praise abortion, the people that legislate to expunge Christmas from the American landscape, the people who want sexual "freedom" to replace marriage altogether, those people are evil.

Since so many people get caught up in the definition of words, trying to strip them of their meaning so that they are no longer good or bad, just neutral, let's quickly go over the definition of evil. The Christian definition of evil is anything that opposes the will of God. For any of you who might not believe in God, let's call it anything that is in opposition to goodness and the things that promote and support goodness. This can range anywhere from Charles Manson to kicking your neighbor's dog. Just as there are degrees of sin, there are degrees of evil. Supporting and advocating the destruction of everything that has made western society special in favor of behaviors and beliefs that have resulted in the destruction of other societies is evil.

So, while Islamic terrorism is probably a more blatant and clear-cut example of evil, the western liberal agendas are also evil. And yet, as I've explained in previous blogs, these two evils are completely incompatible. Liberals want to feminize the world and give preferential treatment to people of "alternate sexual lifestyles", while Islamic terrorists want to strip women of all their rights and slaughter homosexuals. And yet, they have allowed their animosity for Judeo-Christian values to bring them together in a perverse support for one another.

So I ask this question: what do they expect to happen after all the Christians and Jews are gone? To paraphrase one of my favorite radio personalities, Michal Medved, do they think daffodils are going to spring up out of the ground, fluffy bunnies will bounce through the streets, and gays and islamo-fascists will join hands and sing songs of freedom? Because that's not what would happen. Within a matter of days, the fighting would continue, now between the western liberals, the islamo-fascists, the communists, the racist groups of the world, and anyone else that was left. The entire world would erupt in pure anarchy as each group tried to impose its vile agenda on all the other groups. They don't seem to realize that the only thing holding this world together are the Judeo-Christian values that the west and many other parts of the world hold so dear. They're picking away at the foundation of humanity because it's the only thing keeping them from descending into the deepest basement of depravity. They're going to be surprised when the whole thing suddenly collapses on their heads.

11 comments:

Jesse said...

The people that grab onto any scrap of an opportunity that might allow them to justify and praise abortion

Wait... That's evil? What's evil about it?

cyberjacques said...

I take it from your comment that you do not believe abortion is immoral? Well, for those of us that do, the act of justifying and even encouraging abortion by people on the left is considered evil.

Jesse said...

May I ask if you made that decision through religion (Christianity in your case, I'm guessing)?

cyberjacques said...

I believed abortion was immoral long before I ever became Christian. Even as a teenager, when I was agnostic, I felt that abortion was unnatural and wrong. However, Christianity has indeed augmented that belief. I just can't figure out why anyone, religious or not, could be anything but horrified by abortion. Abortion goes against every instinct we have to protect our children, and the psychological effects it has on women, even the ones that adamantly did not want the child, are very telling. Our own neurobiology recoils from abortion. Liberals, who pretend to be so concerned with nature this and natural that, conveniently ignore the natural reaction women have when their child is aborted. Even the most primitive parts of our brains know that it's wrong.

Jesse said...

The most primitive part of my brain says, "Keep breathing." I think your primitive brain is much more advanced than mine.

Your argument appears to be based very much in your own feelings. "Unnatural" and "wrong" and "horrified," I do not make opinions based on my immediate reaction to something without thought.

I believe that many people who use their feelings (and especially Christianity) might make the wrong choice, and so tend to believe that, for instance, homosexuals are "unnatural," "wrong," and "horrifying."

That blacks are not people.
That women should not be allowed to vote...

cyberjacques said...

There are certain things that should be largely based on feelings. Whether or not an innocent child should be killed simply for the convenience of its selfish and irresponsible mother is one of those things. But you're right, people that make decisions based soley on emotion often make the wrong decision. Opposition to abortion is not merely emotional, it's a logical fact that abortion harms society, by damaging the mental health of the women who get them, by deemphasizing the precious nature of human life and our children, and by encouraging irresponsible sexual behavior by providing an easy way out.

I would disagree with your assertion that Christians are especially prone to irrational emotional decisions. Decisions in matters of morality are made primarily according to our faith, that the morality of that faith has been tested and proven countless times in the past two thousand years. You can argue with that statement all you want, but it won't get you anywhere. But I find it ironic that you would accuse Christians, and most likely conservatives, of being emotionally irrational when making decisions based soley on personal emotion is the entire foundation of modern liberalism. Whatever feels good must be right. Whatever is easy must be right.

Also, your other examples of faulty decisions based on emotions are flawed. Homosexuals are not in themselves wrong, but homosexual behavior is. Most everyone who has tried to argue that blacks are not people have attempted (with absolute futility) to prove it scientifically. And the rights of any particular group to vote isn't so much a moral issue as it is an issue of what works in society. Anyone who is considered a citizen, but cannot vote, is by definition second class, and societys with second classes defined by law are societys that do not last long.

If you don't already know that abortion is wrong, I honestly don't know what else to say that might convince you. But I'm willing to bet that most good people already know, on some level, that abortion is wrong, whether they can admit it to themselves or not. They have heard the lie so many times, while in a vaccum of truth, that they have started to believe it. So I leave you with this to think about, and I really do hope you give it some serious thought. You spell your name in the masculine, so I'll assume you're a guy. Imagine your wife or girlfriend becomes pregnant with your child, and tells you that she has made up her mind to have an abortion, regardless of whatever you might say. How would this truly make you FEEL?

Jesse said...

First off, I would like to make sure that I am not distressing you by arguing with you. I love arguing, as it makes me reconsider my positions on things. I don't want to argue with you if you don't enjoy it too.

You ask:
Imagine your wife or girlfriend becomes pregnant with your child, and tells you that she has made up her mind to have an abortion, regardless of whatever you might say. How would this truly make you FEEL?

If I wanted this child and she did not (I guess the birth control pills and condoms didn't work), which I assume you want the situation to be, I would give in to her side, as I wouldn't have a child until both of us wanted a child (for both our and the child's sake).

Whether it be an adoption or an abortion would definitely be up to her, and I would support her fully in either case (many hugs, either one wouldn't -- couldn't -- be easy).

You say:
it's a logical fact that abortion harms society, by damaging the mental health of the women who get them, by deemphasizing the precious nature of human life and our children, and by encouraging irresponsible sexual behavior by providing an easy way out.

To me, it is not a "logical fact". Humans aren't intelligent enough to make assumptions that complex about society. Your argument makes sense to you, sure, as mine makes sense to me. That doesn't make it a fact.

Your argument that abortion harms society has the following premises:
1. Damages mental health of mothers.
2. Deemphasizes the precious nature of human life and our children.
3. Encourages irresponsible sexual behavior by providing an easy way out.

My responses are thus:
1. What studies do you base this argument on?
2. Yes, human nature is precious, and especially our children. How does abortion deemphasize these things? Are you saying, for instance, that in a society where abortions are completely legal, the rate of murder would increase? And that people who are against abortion are people who wouldn't murder?
3. What is irresponsible sexual behaviour? And why would you say that irresponsible people think, "It's all right if I get pregnant, because I can always have an abortion"?

I would disagree with your assertion that Christians are especially prone to irrational emotional decisions.

They are not, and I would never say that. I believe that people are especially prone to irrational emotional decisions, regardless of beliefs. The reference to Christianity was referring to unquestioning belief, or the use of information without logic. I can explain that more if you wish, but it is off topic. What I should have said was thus:

I believe that many people who just use their feelings . . might make the wrong choice.

I believe this under the impression that if our parents tell us something, we will believe it emotionally, whether it is true or not. Thus, without logic, we could easily make a "wrong" choice.

Also, your other examples of faulty decisions based on emotions are flawed. . . [examples]
I think you misunderstood me, as your last two points (disregarding the one on homosexuality) agree with my statement, which was that these things are wrong.

But I find it ironic that you would accuse Christians, and most likely conservatives, of being emotionally irrational . . .

You accuse me of saying something I didn't. Besides, I like Stephen Harper quite a bit (voted for him), and the whole gay marriage thing and perhaps some stuff on the environment are two issues that I don't agree with him on.

Sorry for the long response, but a long response asks for a long response.

Let me ask you a question to end:

Do you believe that everything in the Bible is true?

Jesse said...

Hey Jaques,

I'll just assume you aren't the type of person that likes to examine his views.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas!

Jesse

cyberjacques said...

Sorry for the delay in my response, work and the holidays have kept me busy. And no, I don't mind arguing, as long as it's civil. But now you've started crossing the line and are venturing into the realm of insults. I most certainly examine my own views, as I hope any thinking person does. I find your suggestion that I do not insulting. Therefore, to avoid problems before they start, this will be my last response to this topic. I have a feeling it will not be your last. If you want the last word, you can have it.

I will address only two of your points from your last real comment. First, why would any kind of emotional support from you be necessary for your wife or girlfriend if nothing is wrong with abortion? You said that it couldn't be easy. Why not? If it's not a moral decision, I can't imagine she would feel any sort of guilt or regret. Physically there's very little risk, and a woman recovers physically very quickly from an abortion. But mentally, not so quickly. That's precisely how I know that abortion damages the mental health of women, the fact that they do need support, and even professional counseling offered by the clinics.

Second, your question about the Bible. Non-Christians love to ask this question, they think it will somehow disprove all of Christianity in one fell swoop. But it's a flawed question. Not everything in the Bible is a description of a fact or event. The parables, for instance, are stories designed to illustrate a specific moral concept. There's no way we could ever know if they really happened, and most probably didn't. Look up the parable of the talents and see whether Jesus told that story as a fact, or as an example. Also, there are many different styles of writing in the Bible. Keep in mind that it was written over a couple thousand years, and a lot of it was just oral tradition for a very long time. There are poetic styles, descriptive styles, each chosen by the writer for a specific reason. So to answer your question, let me say that the Bible says exactly what God wanted it to say. The individuals that wrote it were touched with knowledge and understanding, but it was left up to them to write it in their own words, in their own style. Many events may have been exaggerated over time before they were written down, many writings are descriptions from very simple people about very immense things, but the moral lessons are concrete. God, in His mercy, gave them to us one at a time, in stages, over a very long time, and Jesus completed them. The Bible is not a history text book, it's not a science text book, it's a moral commentary.

One thing I am curious about is why, of all the things I have written so far, of all the hard right positions I have taken, is abortion the only one you take exception with? I have to assume from your lack of venemous tirades that you agreed with everything else. And if you liked the Compassion piece then you must be pretty conservative. So what's different about abortion? Or did you disagree with other things but decide to withhold comments?

I encourage you to continue reading this blog, maybe I'll change your mind about something. And I'm always up for a discussion, just don't get insulting, it makes you look childish. I'll start posting again after New Year's.

Jesse said...

But now you've started crossing the line and are venturing into the realm of insults.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize. Most of the time when I have these discussions, the other person stops responding without reason, and I thought you were simply ignoring me. I felt insulted, and I figured the only reason that you wouldn't respond was because of a "I'm right -- you're wrong" mentality.

And what I said was only an insult because I was wrong. I hope you accept this apology.

I'm sorry.

That said, even if you don't respond to this post, I will respond to yours.

---

I think I can summarize your post to, "The Bible is a moral guide, not a non-fiction history of man." If this is incorrect, please correct me.

But the moral part of the Bible was what I was referring to.

http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Evil-Ridiculous-Disgusting-Bible-Verses

As the name of the link probably states, these are some very interesting Bible verses.

I am interested in hearing your opinion on the verses that state, "Man is the head of woman." It seems to me the Bible is pretty clear on where women belong in society.

cyberjacques said...

I accept your appology, and I'm glad you're still interested in our conversation. Let me address the web site you mentioned. I'm sorry to say that it is as absurd as it is flimsy. Those people know nothing of the Bible or Christianity. They are engaged in what is know as "proof texting", which is picking and choosing individual bits of text from the Bible without taking into account the surrounding text, or any of the rest of the Bible. Even a lot of Christians are guilty of this. As with everything else in this world, it's all about context. The vast majority of examples that are given throughout that web site are from the old testament. And yes, by our modern Christian standards many of the things described are disgusting. God was taking humanity through the baby steps toward real civilization, and the first step was teaching them that there's a difference between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, and that both have consequences. The consequences were extra harsh because up until that point the freshly freed people of Israel that demonstrated many times that they were hopelessly stuck in a rather disturbing Egyptian rut, full of drunken orgies and even more distasteful subjects. So, what do you do when a child misbehaves the same way for the tenth time? You spank them extra hard.

As for the stuff regarding women, this falls into two categories. The stuff from Corinthians was written to the Christians living among the Corinthians. These people treated women much like Arab countries treat them today. And if Christians had suddenly started letting the women in their community behave differently in public, not only would they most likely have been stoned to death by the Corinthians, but any Corinthians that might have otherwise been open to Christian teachings would now be closed to them. When in Rome...

The second set deals with the fact that, just like in all human institutions, there needs to be a final authority. Since the man, the father, is the traditional disciplinarian, the keeper of order, he was put in charge of the family and the church. Men are better able to make tough decisions without their emotions clouding their judgements. Usually. Women are much more likely to take it easy on the criminal, to vote against a perfectly necessary war, etc.

There was also a section in there on slavery. You must understand something about the ancient concept of slavery. "Slaves" within a nation were actually indentured servants. Many were given huge amounts of authority in the master's household. Read Genesis and look at how Abraham treats his slaves. Other slaves, the ones captured in war, were only slaves for a generation or two, the purpose being that they were slowly integrated into the nation's society. They also were not treated the way African slaves were, and the way Christian slaves were treated by the Romans. They were usually treated pretty well, since the scriptures of the time said to treat your slaves kindly. The Israelites only took as slaves the people from cultures that weren't totally beyond hope but still needed conquering. And keep in mind that even this would eventually be phased out as humanity got the hang of the beginning lessons and God started them on the harder stuff, like love.

I would encourage people to try reading the Bible before jumping all over it. Get one with good footnotes that explain the translations and cultural relevance of the passages. And don't get a Protestant one, they're missing stuff, and the footnotes are full of proof texting. And don't be afraid to ask a Christian for clarification on stuff. Some of the stuff in the Bible is kinda hard to understand. You don't have to agree with what they tell you, but clarification is more important than agreement.

As interesting as that was, you didn't really answer my last question. What is it about abortion in particular that sparked your need to comment? I'm suspecting more and more that there were other things you disagreed with, so what makes abortion so special? I'd really like to know. If, for some reason, you'd rather not discuss it, just let me know and we can move on to other topics. Also, let's move the conversation to the comment list on the next post I make, this one is getting kinda long. I'll make a new post tomorrow.