Wednesday, October 21, 2009


Did you know, that any word with "lib" in it (liberty, liberal, libertarian, liberation, ad lib...) refers to freedom (it's Latin, darlin' :D)? Don't you find it ironic (and all the more proof that liberals are liars), that those on the "left" consider themselves "liberals"??? They abhor freedom! They think we, the American people, are a bunch of ignorant rednecks who can't be trusted to make decisions for ourselves (particularly with regards to the use of our own money, where to go for healthcare, what to drive...). If it were up to liberal politicians (and thanks to Americans, who really have made themselves look like ignoramuses, for voting in one of the most liberal senators into the White House), they wouldn't let us even wipe our own... butts... (which reminds me, who willingly and proudly lets themselves be represented by an ass anyway? All the more proof Democrats know exactly who they are and are NOT simply blissfully ignorant... but I digress...). While I most definitely am a "conservative", I consider myself a Libertarian rather than a Republican, because the core of my political beliefs (and my religious beliefs, as well) is FREEDOM. LIBeration. But not the freedom FROM certain things (responsibility, law, etc) but the freedom TO DO certain things (wipe my own... Democrat... for one, manage my own money, decide where to get my healthcare and what kind of car I want to drive - be it a gas guzzling beast or a "eco-friendly" POS). I am a true liberal, and "liberals" are just lying... donkeys.

Yet we still die...

I was just thinking today about those who believe that one no longer has "original sin" if one is baptized. Being a Confessional Lutheran (or a true "catholic," if you will), I naturally know this to be false doctrine, and I will prove it to be false. Rome (i.e the "Catholic" church) asserts that we only need confess willful sins, since original sin has been dealt with by baptism and no longer exists in each one of us. This is false, and here's how I know it ('drum roll please')... if that were the case, baptized believers would not die, for the consequence of original sin is physical death. If original sin no longer existed, you wouldn't die. You would simply live on, confessing and repenting of each willful sin unto eternity. That would suck. I rest my case.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Liberal naivety - sheer evil or blissful ignorance?

Is it just me or do Democrats seem to have a very naive understanding of the world? It seems like the Democratic party is made up of two kinds of people: (1) Liberals who love and revel in sin and evil, and (2) Socialists who have good intentions but are naive to the existence of sin and evil, or at least to the extent that it exists in the human heart and the world. I'm not sure which category Obama fits into (likely the latter), but neither type of person should be the Leader of the Free World.

On a related note, I've always thought it fascinating that Liberals willingly accept the label of "Left" and call conservatives the "Right". It's like they are acknowledging that conservative philosophy is right, correct, true, pure, good, etc, and that their philosophy is wrong, evil, bad, deceptive, impure, etc. Left has always been associated with evil (and not just in the English language and American culture, but in the other languages and cultures I've studied), and it's like they are proud to be labeled that way. It's not like they get their panties in a wad about being called the "Left" and demand to be considered the "Right". It makes sense, though, because the Bible tells us that God's law (i.e. absolute right and wrong) is written on the heart of every human. So, it should be no surprise that liberals understand their place to be "left" of center, because deep-down they know what's right and what's not. It's as simple as this: those on the Left have traded the truth for a lie, and what is good they call "evil" and what is evil, they call "good".

Sunday, June 15, 2008


Apparently several African American conservatives/Republicans have been indicating that they may vote for, will vote for, will find it very tempting to vote for, or will find it very difficult NOT to vote for Obama because he is African American. Their reasoning is that having an African American voted into office as the President of our country would show we've made significant progress through history from emancipation to integration to Affirmative Action. They all say something along the lines of "I don't agree with Obama's policies, but I (insert excuse for voting him in because he is black)". What if a white person said "I don't agree with McCain's policies, but I'm going to vote for him because he's white"? You would immediately think that person is a racist. And what a ridiculous notion to vote for someone simply because he is white. How ignorant and archaic, wouldn't you say? So, why is it not alarming when conservative black people want to vote for one of the most liberal senators with whom they have nothing else in common except the color of their skin, for the sole reason that he is black? What a kick in the cahones to Obama who is, though I disagree with his policies, an accomplished man. People like him who are intelligent and achieve the American dream should be respected for their character, talents, and achievements, which have to do with who they are as individuals and what their core values are. Those are the reasons (rather than race) why you should respect a person, and show your support at the polls. All I have to say is that if your desire to vote for Obama is because of the color of his skin, you are a racist, and we have made absolutely no progress in the war on racism.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Joel Osteentatious

I was flipping through the channels yesterday and happened across Joel Osteen giving a sermon, so I watched for a bit. Though I admittedly didn't watch the entire sermon, I noticed that he didn't mention Jesus. He mentioned God a lot. But his message was very simply one of karma (what goes around, comes around - ala 'My Name is Earl'). This is not really a Christian principle, per se; it is a distorted view of the law. And though karma may resemble God's law, it certainly is not the Gospel; and a preacher who professes to be a Christian, yet doesn't preach the Gospel, is not doing the job God called and ordained him to do. Don't be fooled - Mr Osteen's message is distorted Christianity. It's self-help 101 with a little karma and the golden rule thrown in for good measure. I have no doubt that he is a wonderful father, husband, and friend. However, he's missing the mark as a pastor. Mr Osteen is a peddler of works-righteousness, the false doctrine that asserts we must be good people to get into heaven, or at the very least, that we are only blessed by God if we do good works (however, see Isaiah 64:6 for the truth regarding how God views our "good" works - they are referred to as "filthy rags"). So why is Mr Osteen's "ministry" so lucrative, you may wonder? Isn't that evidence of God's blessing, you argue? Not necessarily. It could simply be evidence of the world's "blessing", and not God's. And what the world "blesses" is the exact opposite of what God blesses. Consider how the world treated Christ, who was unquestionably blessed by God and preached God's message in truth and purity. Yet He was treated as cruelly as possible - tortured in a way that today we wouldn't consider inflicting even on our worst enemies. Compare the world's treatment of Christ to how the world uplifts preachers like Joel Osteen. Which one is the one blessed by God? Christ who was flogged and crucified for our sin and raised to sit at the very right hand of God with the world as His footstool, or Joel Osteen who preaches motivational speeches and is showered in wealth and fame that have meaning only in this world? And what about Job - one of the most faithful and righteous people in the entire Bible. And what happened to him? God handed him over to Satan to be tested with all manner of curses; including a leprosy-like skin disease, and the loss of fortune, friends, and the respect of his wife. I think these examples very clearly show that God's way of blessing is not what we would call "blessing". So, Mr Osteen's abundance is very likely evidence of the world's favor, and not necessarily God's. Furthermore, the word "bless" actually comes from a word meaning to "mark with blood". Mr Osteen frequently says "this is how God blesses us" followed by various examples of people (sometimes Biblical characters) gaining money, friends, respect, etc. However, the way God really blesses us is by marking us with blood - the blood of Christ - not necessarily heaping health, wealth, prosperity, or popularity on us. True, He can (and certainly there is evidence that He does) give people such things, but He "blesses" through blood and agony. If that isn't the case, then we can't see Christ as being a blessing to us from God.