Sunday, June 28, 2009

I Love Who Truly?

This link is to a video from the Mississippi United Methodist Annual Conference. I got it from, and it shows a lesbian couple giving their testimonial. To me it's quite sad. They appear to be decent people who love the church. But like most trapped in the lie of homosexuality, they believe that God blesses their union. As indicated two posts down from this one, there are many ways in which homosexuals and their enablers seek to support this notion. But their arguments never hold up under scrutiny, though some of those arguing won't own up to that fact, or are too stupid to realize their failure.

One woman made a statement I found most troubling, and even some heterosexuals buy into this one, as do many atheists in their own way. She said, (paraphrasing here) "I know that to be true to God means being true to myself." This is the exact opposite of the truth. Our true selves are rarely the stuff of glory, to say the least. To be true to God means that our old selves die and we are born again, to live a life that conforms with His Will. Even as we try to co-exist with the rest of society, we often have to deny our true selves to conform to the will of our communities in the sense that we must obey laws of those communities. But God's Law and Will takes a back seat to our "true selves"? How does that make any sense?

Conforming to the will of society, as we try to live our lives within the law, can be difficult by itself. We have to abide all sorts of limits, control our behaviors, obey the law. If we were true to our own selves, how many of us would truly drive like we own the road, over indulge in alcohol, take what appeals to us whether it belongs to someone else or not? It might manifest in more subtle ways by only ignoring the laws of common decency and propriety and decorum.

And we would pay the price for such selfishness. We'd be locked up, fined, shunned by the rest of society, or just be considered total jerks.

Yet somehow, we're to believe that God will be just fine with being true to ourselves rather than being true to His Will. Isn't that self-worship? Making ourselves a god who's pleasure is our greatest concern? I think there's a major commandment against that.

Seems to me that the issue isn't only about homosexuality and imagined rights for those so afflicted. The issue is how badly we want to please God. I'd bet that if each of us take a moment, we'd each find within ourselves (and for some of us it might not take much thought or searching) that to which we cling in order to deny ourselves the struggle it would take to deny the fault. We'll say, "That's the way I am. I've always been that way." as if taking that position absolves us of the effort to improve. Indeed, in this way, homosexuals are just like the rest of us. The rest of us just don't organize.

True to ourselves, or true to Him? One way must take priority at the expense of the other.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Judicial Empathy?

Headline in today's Chicago Sun-Times


It's the story of the sentencing of an off-duty cop convicted of beating up a lady bartender. This jerk weighs about 250, and the bartender, 115. Apparently, he got all liquored up and surly as well. Anthony Abbate played tough-guy with two others in the bar before turning on Karolina Obryka, who was trying to get him to leave the pub. His actions were caught on tape via the pub's security camera and the sight of this ogre beating down this girl is disturbing to say the least.

But as bad as this jerk's actions are, it doesn't compare to the judge at his sentencing. Judge John J. Fleming sentenced this goon to two years probation, 130 hours community service at a homeless shelter and a stint in anger management classes. He said, "If I believed sentencing Anthony Abbate to prison would stop people from getting drunk and hitting people, I'd give him the maximum sentence."

Never mind that Abbate didn't just "hit" Obryka, he beat her and did so after smacking other people. I don't believe that deterring other drunken jerks has anything to do with administering punishment for law-breaking. More to the point, NOT properly punishing Abbate could lead some drunks to believe that they, too, might get away with beating people up while under the influence. But that ain't all...

Fleming also pointed to the fact that Abbate has no prior criminal history and didn't cause serious harm to Obryka, who only suffered bruises. How nice. Prior history is irrelevant considering the difference in size between the two, at least as far as I'm concerned. If the video is on YouTube at this point, one can judge that for one's self. But it seems that Fleming cut Abbate some slack for failing to beat Obryka more severely than he did. Maybe he was too drunk to succeed, but he looked like he was trying awfully hard in the video.

Now this doesn't compare to the Bill O'Reilly piece of the two year sentence given to a man who raped a little girl, but it is the same type of judical stupidity, only on a lesser level. Obryka is damaged emotionally still, but will likely get over it. The child maybe not. How can judges be so wrong in cases that most anyone can better judge at first glance? How does a behemoth NOT get some jail time for beating up a woman less than half his size? It doesn't make sense, but stories like this should make people record the stories and the names of these judges and then look for their names at the next election.

As a sidebar, it seems the pathetic, annoying and totally useless Perez Hilton has gotten into another little dustup. He reportedly was punched a bit by the manager of the Black Eyed Peas for arguing with a band member over a review Hilton gave of a recent tune or album. What's more, before getting popped, Hilton, a homosexual who's public presence does the agenda no good, called Will I. Am a fag. Imagine. Anyway, he's now suing the manager for, I believe, $25K. I wonder how the judge will rule in that one.

(Oh yeah. Hilton went right to the internet and posted another annoying vid of himself sobbing over this incident. Man. I wanna punch the guy just for seeing him. I feel sorry for him being somebody who's face just begs to be punched.)

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Got Milk?

This is an interesting article I found through a link at Neil's blog. The link was to another blog that reprinted the end of the article. I found the entire thing quite enlightening.

This article presents info typical of both Hollywood and the homosexual movement.

First, as if it's any surprise, it shows how Hollywood airbrushed the warts and blemishes that is the real life of Harvey Milk. Not having seen the Sean Penn depiction myself, nor having any desire whatsoever to do so, I really didn't need anyone to tell me that the film presented Milk as some sort of saintly creature. I didn't need anyone to tell me that his true self would be left out. Hollywood, in some self-destructive, death wish-like mental defect, likes to push liberal crap that draws no one and makes them very little money. This movie obviously stuck to the game plan and so well that the Hollywood loons were properly smitten. But it only showed "their truth", not truth.

Secondly, the article points to the common tactic of the homosexual activist to lie to further their agenda. Milk knew this, apparently, and as is S.O.P., lied as needed. What a shocker.

Thirdly, like the Matthew Shepard case, the murder of the Milk was NOT because of his homosexuality. Yet the movie, and the memory of this low-life, is based on that lie. I had never heard that White supported the right of a homosexual teacher to teach. No. We're to believe he murdered Milk because Harvey was a homosexual.

Such lies, distortions and omissions are typical of the movement. How could anyone support a movement that so easily lies?