The intolerable tolerance movement strikes again

You may have heard about Kathy Griffin’s photo by now – you know, the one she thought would make people laugh by holding a decapitated and blood-covered head (or mask) made to look like the current President. This is the same woman who used an expletive aimed directly at Jesus after winning an award a few years back too. She’s a model of the true leftist agenda … preach tolerance but retain none for anyone you disagree with (the photographer of the image has offered no apologies).

Now, the irony of the latest situation Ms. Griffin placed her self in is that somehow she views herself as the victim!

Politics is politics for sure, but make no mistake – when politics takes aim at true morality under the guise of tolerance, the motivation is a lack tolerance for the said morality every time.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 NKJV)

#intolerance, #liberal-inconsistency, #news

The Oxymoronic Task of Defining Diversity

Diversity! Diversity! Diversity! We demand diversity!

Tis the oxymoronic rallying cry of today’s warped western culture.

“But how can diversity be an oxymoron?” you may ask. That’s easy. When you follow a cry for diversity with an erring definition of diversity, by default, one fails to be the very thing that the “cry” claims to be seeking – diverse!

When one narrows a scope (which is what today’s diversity call is all about) by limiting the participation of one group, or any number of groups, so that another group may participate in whatever they desire to whatever level someone else deems fit, well that person is confusing a feigned notion of “equality” that will never exist with the true definition of diversity.

Have you ever thought about how many number combinations can result from combining the numbers one through ten? The answer isn’t ten! According to this website, the possible combinations that come from a limited group of four is found by realizing that in, “[E]ach choice of the first two digits you have 10 choices for the third digit. Thus you have 10x10x10 = 1000 choices for the first three digits. Finally you have 10 choices for the fourth digit and thus there are 10x10x10x10 = 10 000 possible 4 digit combinations from 0-9.

And who was it that thought diversity could be found by only having an equal number of men and women presented? True “diversity” (according to today’s use) would mean every combination of sex, eye-color, hair-color, skin-color, birthplace, childhood experiences, nationality, age-group, education-level, net worth, height-to-weight ratio, religious background, criminal background, political leaning, spoken language, and, last but not least, the modern-times coveted “sexually orientated” points of view would have to be diversely (a.k.a. equally) represented. And I’m sure by only including those limited number of differing factors that I have unintentionally restricted the diversity that I’m seeking to create.

In today’s sidewinder world, words aren’t about their actual meaning – they’re about what a group wants them to mean. All you have to do to understand what I’m saying is think about the difference in the way the words gender (which is actually about the roles that words play in language) and sex (you know, that word that defines the way we’re born physically) are used today.

The word “diversity” (which simply means variety) has been hijacked and is, in an oxymoronic twist, being forced to represent a viewpoint that constricts its original meaning!

Don’t think so? Disagree with the crowd that’s calling for diversity and see what happens to the seat that you bring to the table.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord.” (1 Samuel 8:4-6)

Related Articles:

#diversity, #liberal-inconsistency, #western-culture

If you don’t want to hear it, then I don’t want to hear it from you

If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to the consequence of sins such as homosexuality and fornication, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to God’s forgiveness of sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7).

If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to women and their role in public worship, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to the role of pastors and deacons (1 Corinthians 14:34-37, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9).

If you don’t want to hear what the apostle Paul taught when it comes to baptism and salvation, then I don’t want to hear you talking about what he said when it comes to salvation and our confession (Romans 6:1-5, Romans 10:8-10). Continue reading

#doctrine, #liberal-inconsistency, #rejecting-pauls-words, #whole-counsel-of-god

Racial identity is clear cut, but sexual identity is a personal choice?

By now the average person who keeps up with any sort of news headlines in the ole’ US of A should be familiar with the firestorm controversy that was created by the “racially confused” woman who served in a leadership position for Spokane, Washington’s NAACP. Because of the strong emotions that she had felt for some time in her life, it was discovered that a “white” woman had viewed and presented herself to others as “black”.

Well, to some people this situation was just too ridiculous! The crazy bell had sounded. How could a person deny what race they were born? Even the parents had spoken up on the issue, and the childhood pictures were too clear! And people who would normally be considered very “liberal-minded” on social and moral issues jumped at the opportunity to get a few laughs at Ms. Dolezal’s expense.

But my previous sentence is where I find at least a little irony.

You see, how could people, who support individuals like a homosexual on the basis of that homosexual feeling like they were born with the wrong body, make fun of someone who genuinely feels like they were born as the wrong race? How can media outlets do nothing but support a former male Olympic athlete who decided to run on the “opposite side of the track”, but at the same time help ridicule a woman who decided to attempt to physically transform herself into the very people for whom she had become an advocate?

If something such as race, which is supposedly a characteristic that is based largely upon physical appearance, can be determined according the physical evidence alone, then how is it that sexuality is nothing but a personal choice that should not be made fun of?

If you were to ask me, I think many “liberal-minded” individuals failed to see that they played the role of a kettle that was calling Ms. Dolezal black…which, in that case, the former NAACP leader would have been glad to hear it, were it not for the fact that they were laughing at her and not with her.

If an individual must be supported simply because they “feel” that they were born into the wrong body, sexually speaking, then one would have to explain to me why an individual should be castigated because they feel the same way about their racial identity.

#liberal-inconsistency, #rachel-dolezal, #racial-identity, #satirical-commentary, #sexual-identity