Yours truly cannot fully express in mere semantics the
intense and fervent admiration and appreciation for the
most-admirable very-modest decent exposure of
burka/hijab-attired muslim women, plus
patriarchal/non-matriarchal social structure of
islamic-fundamentalist men . . . diametrically-against,
understandably-contrary and righteously-opposed to
diabolical and noxious, sexually-harassing,
general-public-view mopheaded and/or
sleeveslessly-naked-armed, slackslessly-nude-legged,
soxlessly barefooted in noisily-flipflopping sandals
annually-and-incessantly characteristic of many
hellbent-for-imposing-porn-incitement "american"
females . . . along with their despicable and deplorable,
dangerously-irrational, confusion-causing, and irritating
feminist sexism.
The other evening when I saw and heard
homosexual-advocate foreign-Brit Piers Morgan on
CNN tell Ahmadinejad of Iran that Morgan believes
homosexuals are born homosexual, Ahmadinejad
responded with a "Why do want to impose something
so ugly on other countries?"
Reminded me of the Bible verse:
Ezekiel 16:27 Hey, therefore, I stretched out
my hand against you, and diminished your allotted
portion, and delivered you to the greed of your
enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were
ashamed of your lewd behavior.
When Piers Morgan asked Ahmadinejad what he
would do if Ahmadinejad's son told Ahmadinejad
that that son was homosexual, Ahmadinejad replied
that corrective political and educational adjustments
would have to be made . . . and when Morgan asked
the Iranian President what that Prez would do if his
kid wanted to marry a Jew, Ahmadinejad responded
in a relatively ambivalent stoic manner.
Having said that, it SEEMS ('Vas you dere, Charlie?') that
Mohammed, who lived 500 years after Christ, was at least an
anti-Jews/anti-Christians antagonist and even blasphemer - by
not accepting long-ago-already-written Judeo-Christian (i.e.
Old-and-New-Testaments) Scripture as THE Holy Book. . . then
concocting an alternative, obviously-plagiaristic, anti-semitic
and anti-Christian, satanically-versed Qur'an . . . and
especially not accepting THE TRUE Isaac/Jacob/David-lineaged
Creator, Redeemer, and LORD Jesus Christ - but instead
substituting an imaginary and non-existent fiction he called:
"allah."
Job 19:25 "I know that my Redeemer lives, and at
last He will stand upon the earth."
Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped up the
waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His
name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know!
Isaiah 26:19 Your dead shall live, their bodies shall
rise. Oh dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light, and on the land of the shades
you will let it fall.
Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt.
John 1:3 ...all things were made through Him, and
without Him was not anything made that was made.
Romans 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world, His
invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity,
has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
So they are without excuse
First Corinthians 15:27 God has put all things in
subjection under His feet. But when it says, "All things are
put in subjection under Him,"
it is plain that He is excepted who put all things under Him.
Colossians 1:16 ...for in Him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities
--
all things were created through Him and for Him.
Hebrews 1:10 And, "You, Lord, did found the earth in
the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 3:3 Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as
much more glory than Moses, as the builder of a house has
more honor than the house.
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by some one, but
the builder of all things is God.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened.
Also another book was opened, which is the book of life.
And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by
what they had done.
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it,
Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged
by what they had done.
Not only should the Equal Rights Amendment NOT
be added to the United States Constitution, but there is
NO excuse whatsoever for retaining the 19th
Amendment, which basically states that the right to vote shall
not be denied on the basis of "sex."
For one thing, the word "sex" is inappropriate, and should
instead have been: "gender."
If the 19th Amendment was repealed, women could still vote and
run for political office.
However, they would not be ENCOURAGED to do so with repeal of
the 19th Amendment, which would obviously be concordant with
repeated and clear directives of the 66-books Judeo-Christian
Holy Bible upon which America was founded and yet operates --
congruent with such anti-sexism, anti-feminism,
anti-chauvenism, patriarchal imperatives and inferences within
Sacred Scripture as Leviticus 27:1-5, Numbers chapter 30,
Ecclesiastes 7:26-27, Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First
Corinthians 11:1-16, First Corinthians 14:33-38, First
Timothy 2:12-15, and First Peter 3:7.
If there are objectors to women either voting or running for
political office after the 19th Amendment is repealed, the
case should be handled by the Judiciary, and needs to go no
farther than a majority decision by judges of the United
States Supreme Court.
I Peter 3:1-4 =
1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands,
so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won
without a word by the behavior of their wives,
2 when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.
3 Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding
of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing,
4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the
imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's
sight is very precious.
What "right" did God (i.e. Christ, the Son of God associated
with the name: 'Jesus') have to create you and me?
First of all, no one made God. It is an invalid imposition of
human errancy to presume that every existing entity had to be
made by another entity, past or present or future, and
pertaining to God, such is the case. God did not even make
Himself. He always was, is, and will be.
No "right" is involved in God creating you and me. "Rights,"
of necessity, imply the existence of a superior umpire in
perceivable situations, which umpire allows or gives permission
to do things while forbidding other things to be committed
with viable threat and enforcement of punishment for
disobedience as to what is required by him.
In the case of the LORD, there never was, nor is now, nor
will be, any equal or higher authority or referee than Him.
God did what He wanted done, because He had the capacity,
the ability, the intention, and the power to do it all. So
He did it all, because He could, and wanted to.
Therefore, we humans now exist, and will exist forever, as
He (albeit somewhat indirectly in most cases) has informed us
in His Divinely-inspired-and-conveyed Sacred-66-Books
Judeo-Christian (Old-and-New-Testaments) Holy Bible.
It is not only senseless . . . in my opinion and the opinions
of others similarly and essentially compliant with the Almighty
. . . and the ultimate manifestation of disgusting obnoxiousness
along with despicably-obscene and insane foolishness and
stupidity, to react insubordinately and negatively in arrogant
defiance against that admittedly benign and
environmentally-accommodating Creator.
I myself, and others like me in attitude, sincerely and eagerly
anticipate when such rebellious, hateful, and harassing filth
will eternally be completely disassociated away from us.
Jesus actually did take upon Himself the sins of all HIS
penitent homo-sapien creatures on planet Earth for all time,
past and present and future . . . having benevolent,
understandably-compensatory, and quasi-obligatory fair-minded
compassion (as Garden-of-Eden-stumbling-blocks-Imposer) - being
Creator and Owner of this Terrestrial and Celestial Spheroid of
HIS, which such humans who HE owns have inhabited, yet inhabit,
and will inhabit.
********************************************************
The Mombasa Registrar of Births has testified that
Obama's birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital
in Mombasa is genuine.
The grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. reveals the story
of his birth in Mombasa, Kenya, a seaport,
after Barack Obama's mother suffered labor pains while swimming
at ocean beach in Mombasa:
"On August 4, 1961 Obama's mother, father and grandmother
were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya. Ann
Durham Obama-Soetoro (Obama's mother) had been refused entry
to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot
August day at the festival so the Obamas went to the beach to
cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced
labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial General
Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later
at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his
birth in Honolulu as a Certificate of Live Brth which omitted
the place and hospital of birth."
How did you like the creative way I spelled: "dialogue"?
That's to preclude the possibility of duplicate webpage file names . . . I have written so many.
Better to be safe than sorry. Cheap insurance.
Speaking of that, consider the following imaginary discourse between me (M) and an atheist (A):
A: I simply cannot understand why you who so boldly and dangerously claim belief in Intelligent Design and the Bible leap ahead presumptuously to emphatically state that both are infallibly believable. Why not instead purport that both might be substantially credible rather than dogmatically asserting that both are non-deniably entirely valid?
M: Why not? I have free choice to do that, as you have free choice to rudely and disappointingly question my belief. Am I harming anyone by proclaiming that both Intelligent Design and the Bible are not only for real, but iron-clad fact?
A: Not really. Words are merely words. You can - within reason - utter and mouth anything you darn please.
M: At least you acknowledge that I have that much leeway. By the way, on what basis would you question the veracity of the existence of Intelligent Design and the entire contents of the Holy Bible?
A: Just for the heck of it, to be confrontational and try to pick a fight with you.
M: Any why would you want to do that?
A: You're asking a loaded two-part question. We must first ascertain if I would want to do that, then we could contemplate concerning the why of it.
M: True. So you mentioned you are attempting to pick a fight with me. Why?
A: To make you mad to see if you claim that that gives Intelligent Design the right to command you to hit me.
M: I see. So you want me to say: "Just do what I say and nobody gets hurt"? And what if you discovered that the merely-non-lifeform concept of "intelligent design" did not command me to harm you?
A: That would be disappointing.
M: Why?
A: Because I apprehensively anticipate (for lack of a better word) that you are going to question my disbelief, which will cause me uneasy discomfort by trapping me into a silently-speechless corner.
M: Disbelief in what? That phenomena around us, and which we both were born into, was not intelligently designed, and/or that the Bible does not even exist.
A: To allege that environmental entities around us have not been intelligently designed would be stupid, ludicrous, and arguably insane plus pathetically laughable. And to purport that the Bible does not even exist would also be asinine and foolish.
M: So why not admit the deductive and consequential conclusion that what has been intelligently designed was created not by illogical and impossible randomness of it's own lifeless, inanimate, and non-preexisting supposed free will and intention, but rather created by a Creator who clearly was quite intelligent, and moreover is - or at least was - highly imaginative, and profoundly benevolent, in terms of what He or It accommodatingly placed us into for our continued survival?
A: Assuming that the Creator is at least somewhat superior, in all ways, to all of what the Divine Entity or Force created, calling Him an "It" leaves much to be desired.
Look, the name and general purposes of that Superior Being are not engraved with His identity disclosing such on anything in nature, whether blades of grass or tree leaves or clouds or water or rocks and whatever.
M: I know, I know. But we do have the Bible, which informs us of a lot of that. Don't you admit that much of what is in Scripture ties in perfectly with entities and processes within our environment? They are congruent with each other. Impeccably so.
A: The rules and regulations of the Bible are admittedly a well-thought-out and workable, viable and detailed-enough, set of Operating Instructions for pleasant and orderly human interdependence and morality-awareness interaction. But how about the story of miracles? I do not see anything like that happening nowadays.
M: Miracles in Scripture are not that frequent, and unusual or spectacular events in nature can theoretically happen - at least once in human history and beyond. But you mean that you haven't see a fly give birth to a flea or worm, or a chimp giving birth to a human yet? Or planetary lava magically changing into ocean water or kosher Jewish wine at Cana of Galilee?
A: Don't be funny with me. This is serious stuff. How can you presume that God audibly spoke to humans, especially out of the blue from the sky, or that weird and incredibly bizarre miracles written in the Bible actually happened? Is your leap of faith in proclaiming such without photographic or audio proof something to be admired?
M: It's somewhat of a question of probable cause. A gamble. You cannot quickly or even gradually prove much of what others claim is "historical." The Earth is anything but flat, and does not revolve around the moon. Vehemence or persistence in asserting something is no proof, but can be mere obstinate stubborness.
But when pieces of the big puzzle all fit together as they are discovered and assembled, assumptions can, and should, be made and acted upon based upon my own observation and analysis, which - by the way - is not to be sniffed at. And a whole host of others have concurred with me. Groups of rational sane-minded Bible-believing witnesses never having been arrested and comfortably thriving financially. Not only that, but I have generally adjusted to phenomena of nature around me just as the Bible dictates, with the result being I am yet alive and live on quite adequately, comfortably, and non-damaged.
A: But why is that enough to go ahead, make a huge and almost wild leap of faith, and dogmatically assert that Biblical contents are all true? Do you really have enough viable hard facts to do that? Why not simply state that such might be true instead of assuredly is true?
M: Evidence continues to accumulate that it all is true, even though I obviously was not present in person eyewitnessing much of what apparently happened historically according to the contents of Scripture, and neither were you there at the time.
A: But, again, why not hold off dogmatically claiming it all is true until you have enough and sufficient proof?
M: Again, it's a gamble. And sometimes we are put under pressure to make a crucial decision for-or-against without knowing the totality of all that there is to know, which - I gather - is impossible anyway for any human being to be completely omniscient.
If the police or credible news source informed you of something ahead that would be lethal to you (and maybe him also), would you not act in faith at his warning and divert your pre-planned path and activities? Do you believe cellphone radio reports of a severe traffic jam ahead, or instead presume that a bunch of jokers are trying to deceitfully manipulate you and everyone else who happens to hear them?
If a game warden told you to not jump off a high cliff with sharp rocks far below, would you doubt or question his warning?
He never did it himself, so how can he religiously judge for you or tell you? Isn't that hypocritical on his inexperienced part? How does he know? Is he not a Christian-fundamentalist know-it-all, greedy for offering or taxpayer money?
But if you do not jump, [non-gullibly?] believing his warning, why not? How many persons have you seen jump off that particular cliff and then both excruciatingly and fatally crush themselves to death by having jumped against the warden's persistently-harassive demand or urgent advice? Maybe it never had happened before. So mere legendary heresay to instill anti-self-esteem inferiority-complex fear? How do you know that gravity would work in your case if you did not want it to, or ordered it not to, thus defy it when you jump and pretend that you're some graceful bird, butterfly, bat, or Superman blithely coasting around in mid-air then gently landing at your own particular whim and timing?
Who would conquer: God's sovereign non-alterable will manifested in gravity and sharp rocks . . . or instead your dumb-donkey/mule/burro/other-bottom-ended lying and defiant contrary presumptions?
Go jump if you presume to adversarially compete against the Almighty . . . and good riddance!
A: So you think that we have enough proof and confidence to go with it?
M: Glad you included "we". We both essentially walked off the same Ark together, and before that had the same super-grandparents. Nothing has credibly contradicted my claims regarding and not concerning the validity of Scripture, if one reads it all and compares verses with other verses to clarify what is therein to avoid being connived or forced into claiming what seems to be irreparable contradictions.
During pre-Election 2016, most network newspersons emphatically asserted that Hillary was going to easily win, but which was confusing because of conflicting reports of Trump drawing 10,000 and more to his rallies while Hillary was only attracting around 200 or so.
Super-smart atheists and agnostics have tried their damndest to discredit the Bible - only to end up bitterly frustrated and pitifully dead, or being converted.
A: So simply because someone presumptuously declares the Bible untrue in certain parts does not make it untrue?
M: Exactly. Impudently-arrogant naysaying is no proof at all, but simply despicable and shameful belligerence exhibited.
A: Let me get this straight. You are saying that environmental entities and phenomena which obviously were intelligently designed were created by a Creator God, who you have understandably associated with a male instead of a female pronoun? But you trust that the totality of the limited contents of Scripture per se are completely believable and something one can non-embarrassingly depend on?
M: Let's take an example. Suppose an atheist is taking a Driver's License Road Exam with the Examining Officer sitting beside him as the two are traveling along, and the atheist sees some road signs which state: "Right Turn Only" and: "Stop Ahead," then he blurts out to the Officer the words: "Those signs are not true."
What would the Exam Officer reply, if anything?
A: I suppose that if he did reply anything after hearing that surprising comment, it might be either: "Why would you say that"? or "How do you know that"? or "On what basis do you claim that"? And the atheist might then respond with either: "I know that that is the case" or: "I simply do not believe what I read on and about those signs".
M: And the Officer might then add: "If you do not prepare ahead of time for what the signs you read claim, you will not accommodate in time to what the predictive signs warned you about, resulting in at least possible if not probable complications". And if the atheist then retorted: "I do not believe that" what would the Officer then say - if anything?
A: If the atheist non-hypocritically acted upon atheistic-type disbelief, and assuming that there was not a resulting traffic accident, and that the Officer patiently and quietly held his peace to see what happens, the Officer might finally (and thankfully) order the atheist to drive back to the Examining Station, then give the atheist a document stating that the atheist failed the Driving Test.
M: Upon receiving that, the atheist might query: "Why did you fail me"? to which the Officer might reply: "Because you did not believe the warning road signs to prepare you for what actually existed to properly act upon when arriving at the predicted situation".
A: So what you are implying is that it is better to be safe than sorry, in that if Christianity and the Bible thereof is actually and really true, it would be better for my eternal destiny - assuming that there is one - to take the child-like leap of faith and dogmatically claim it all valid.
M: What would you have to lose? Would someone, like ISIS, have the audacity to try to murder you for doing that? If they tried, would you not defend yourself if and as able? Would you not self-defensively try to kill them instead?
Or are you waiting for someone to come along to prove - beyond a shadow of any doubt - that all within Scripture is a sadistically-depriving maliciously-deceitful fabricated lie, or even a silly but non-funny childish myth or make-believe fairy-tale story? Are you internally waiting for or craving that? And if so, why would you want to do that?
A: I do not want to be embarrassed and laughed at for being ridiculously naive and gullible. To hamper or interrupt my lifestyle because of conspiracy theory or fake news is beneath my dignity.
M: Is there any factual and credible basis now for presuming that believing Scriptural contents would classify you as ludicrously gullible?
A: No. Not that I current know of. But who knows what will be exposed and publicized someday? What if we discover illegal aliens from outer space sometime in the future?
M: So if push comes to shove, and it will sooner or later, which choice will you choose pertaining to Scripture?
A: I'll cross that bridge if I come to it, when it would come to it.
M: And until then, realizing that you might not have that much longer to live to choose?
A: Are you threatening me to prematurely make critical decision at this time?
M: Don't you think that it is better to be safe than sorry? To assert that Scripture is valid now will cause disdain, rebuke, and persecution from other fool atheists who are persisting in their despicable unfounded disbelief. But if you come to the conclusion that the Bible is remarkably and admirably valid and sensible, and verbally admit such, don't you think that you will then be acceptable in the determination of the God of the Bible, far more honorable than hatefully-reviling vile-vermin-scum atheists?
A: Don't push me. You are asking a do-or-die life-changing question with profound consequences. I will think about it.
M: Just don't wait too long. Time for you, and the other atheists, is running out.
A: I know, I know. Let me alone so that I can ponder all this before it is too late. To appease you, I will try to give you my audible response at lunch around noon tomorrow.
Another thing just occurred to me. If I go along with this God-and-the-Bible-is-correct thing, how would He react to me, being that I have grossly disbelieved Him previously? Is He not already seriously ticked off at me for proverbially slapping His face with my noxious disbelief, and so is not my potential interaction and reconciliation with Him already ruined?
M: We all have often not accommodated to His immutable and benevolent environmental phenomena and principles, whether because of outside duress imposed on us or our own deliberate and non-thinking faithlessness. Ever since He allowed pollutive evil disobedience into society - humans misusing His resources to hurt themselves and others - by causing the dilemma of suffering having imposed the Tempter, Lethal Tree, and Free Will into the otherwise-perfect Garden of Eden, we were dumb enough to make use of it all. But part of the contents of the Bible states that He had expected that by mercifully pre-planning and providing a fabulous Contingency Plan for rectification for us asinine-but-sorry screw-ups.
A: Which was . . . ?
M: Having one of His own (by the name of Jesus Christ) being born, live a few years, be intensely persecuted by disobedient-against-morality jewish and other disbelievers, murdered as an innocent criminal by experiencing a bloody death on some Roman cross over in Israel, and thus became and continues to be the Divine Sacrifice which atones for the sins of all sinners guilty of not simply "whoopsies" but diabolical deeds of disbelief-and-disobedience-based treachery against Him and His natural phenomena. Simply believing and professing that "gospel of grace" - as they call it - and desiring to not sinfully screw up anymore, comprises the complete Restoration Package, and it works.
A: Kinky. Sounds easy as pie, a piece of cake, and less fattening than both.
M: A little exercise never hurt anybody.
