Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Musings of I.M. Kane’ Category

Welcome to the new world of American politics where Alinskyites have been hoisted by their own petard and beaten over the head with their master’s playbook.

Things are becoming progressively worse for American leftists when Saturday Night Live begins satirizing their snowflakes.

Check out SNL’s skit, The Bubble, a safe-space community where life goes on for progressive “Americans” as if the 2016 general election never happened.


“The Bubble is a planned community of like minded freethinkers and no one else. So, if you’re an open-minded person come here and close yourself in.”


I think Hell will include many people who never learned to laugh at themselves and took themselves much too seriously throughout their lives.

we-6068a8709ff62f918927aa8e3aec94be

 “…Those two, in paradise, were given a choice: happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative…” ― Yevgeny Zamyatin We

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We is a first-person narrative written as a diary by D-503, a mathematician and builder of the Integral, a spaceship destined to travel to other planets to subjugate the inhabitants who may still be living in the primitive condition of freedom.

The diary is to be carried on the space mission and is addressed to the unknown beings of these planets in order to explain and justify their subjugation.

The structure of the novel is based on forty diary entries which describe a futuristic society of the twenty-ninth century in which all citizens live in a single city-state called the One State, under the authoritarian rule of the Benefactor and the watchful eye of a secret police force known as the Guardians.

The society developed as a result of the Two Hundred Years’ War, in which the city triumphed over the country, and has separated itself from the primitive world of the ancients by the protective Green Wall. The inhabitants of the One State live in a rationally planned society in which all activities are programmed according to the Table of Hours.

The only human activity which has not been completely organized is the sexual act. Citizens are allowed free unscheduled time each day, referred to as the Personal Hours, in which they are allowed to draw the curtains of their glass rooms and engage in sexual or creative artistic activity.

Love and marriage have been eliminated. Any citizen may register to have sexual relations with any other citizen by obtaining a pink coupon. Conformity of thought, dress, and behavior is rigidly enforced. All citizens wear blue-gray uniforms and are identified by a number.”

Read Full Post »

laugh-and-the-world-laughs-with-you-cackle-maniacally-and-3561716


In October 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter having  learned from one of her aides only moments before of the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

This 11-second video shows Clinton gloating over the fall of Libya and the brutal murder of its deposed leader.

Clinton’s maniacal reaction to Gaddafi’s murder is one of the most disgraceful comments ever made by a member of the US State Department.

“We came, we saw, he died,” quipped State Department head, Hillary Clinton.


 

Read Full Post »

Vote no trump

The man who said to vote your conscience and to vote for the candidate who best upholds Constitutional principles was resoundingly booed exiting the convention stage by party delegates.

Conversely the male who heads the PayPal corporation currently boycotting North Carolina because of its law restricting men from using women’s bathrooms and who shamelessly declared his pride for being a homosexual was applauded, cheered, and given a standing ovation by the delegates at the convention.

Those delegates who booed Ted Cruz and cheered Peter Thiel don’t belong to the party of Lincoln and Reagan nor do they represent its principles and values.

Those delegates belong to the Party of Trump and represent his progressive principles and New York values.

Trump has said on several occasions that he doesn’t need the party’s conservative base to win in November and doesn’t want their vote.

So I am honoring Mr. Trump’s request to not vote for him, and I encourage every principled conservative, evangelical, and patriot to do likewise.

 

Read Full Post »

religious confusion

Religion is a social construct created to cultivate altruism, promote the greater good, and help ease the burden of conscience stricken people seeking answers to the meaning of life and why they exist.

Conversely, biblical Christianity is not a social construct; therefore, it is not a man-made religion based on human effort and will. Christianity is a God created, faith-based life centered in the death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus Christ for the praise and glory of God alone.

Therefore, if religions, in fact, are social constructs, then Christianity, in truth, is not a religion.

Read Full Post »

Fox News, the satellite television news channel, has relinquished every pretense of “fair and balanced” reporting to purposely destroy Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The cable “news” giant now bashes Trump or features Trump haters 24/7.

Last night on Fox Faux News’ Kelly File, Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative neoconservative National Review Peeyew magazine, told host Megyn “Me-Womyn” Kelly “that last debate … Carly [Fiorina] cut his [Donald Trump] balls off with the precision of a surgeon and he knows it.”

Lowry has never, nor would he ever, make such a crude comment or use such vulgar language on a talking-head news show to describe what happened to Hussein I (peace be upon him), Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat during a nationally-televised primary debate.

Lowry’s contemptible remarks regarding Trump are far more damaging to the Republican Party and its conservative wing than are the combined attacks from the left-leaning pundits at CNN, MSNBC, and the alphabet networks.

Unlike low-life Lowry, the networks’ left-leaning pundits will never brutally attack a Democrat presidential candidate with significant base support. And on those rare occasions when they do criticize a Democrat presidential candidate, they are careful not to offend and alienate the base constituents who support that candidate.

Lowry’s impudence and girly-man male qualities make testosterone-challenged dweebs the likes of Byron York and George Will look masculine by comparison.

Byron York Dork George Georgy-Boy Will

Byron York                                                         George Will

If NR Publisher‎, ‎Jack Fowler, had Trump’s balls, which are allegedly missing due to Fiorina’s surgical skills, he would fire the rumpswab Lowry so fast that his pointy little head would spin.

Incidentally, Chris Salcedo, political pundit from the Blaze Blasé Radio Network, joined Lowry as Kelly’s other “Trump-bashing” guest. His school-girl giggling at Lowry’s remarks brought to mind Anderson Vanderbilt-Cooper’s hysterics on CNN.



 

(his giggling begins around the 2:25 mark)

Read Full Post »

christian symbol2

If God Didn’t Create Evil, Then Who or What Did?

By Jerry A. Kane

Occasionally I’ll respond to a comment on one of my news stories or commentaries, but rarely will I take the time to write a lengthy reply to a commenter. However, there are always exceptions to any rule.

Below is an exchange of comments between me and a responder to my latest commentary, “Whom God Means to Destroy, He First Makes Undiscerning” published at Canada Free Press:

He wrote:

“Wrong!!!!

He [God] does not make them so [undiscerning], but allows them to make themselves so.

God does NOT create evil, but allows it so they can damn themselves – then He destroys them, more often by other evil entities”

To which I responded:

“First off, I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong. Secondly, your theology appears to be Arminian, mine isn’t. I believe God is sovereign, not man. Finally, as to whether or not God creates evil, the prophet Isaiah clearly says He does:

‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.’ Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)”

Then he responded:

It appears we agree on most of this – we are using different terms to say the same thing except for one item.

“Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?’ He knows of the evil, he does NOT create it. If that were so, He would no longer be God.

‘God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.’ (James 1:13) and ‘God is light, and in Him there is NO darkness at all’ (emphasis mine) (1 John 1:15) As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.

Arnminian? No, but many of his [I think he’s referring to the author of the piece, which of course is me, but he doesn’t realize it] thought processes are in the correct realm, but your [I think he’s addressing the commenter, not the author of the piece] assessment of that group is just opposite of what they say. It is their claim that God is Soverign, and that is the reality of our creation.”

And I wrote:

“How can I discuss the never-ending debate over biblical manuscripts and the central issue of Christianity with someone who knows so little, but thinks he knows so much? The short answer is I can’t. Yet, I won’t let your unsupported assertions go unchallenged.

You say, “Isaiah 45:7 should match Amox [sic] 3:6 where the more correct translation would be ‘..shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD not done [known] it?'” The word “ra” translated evil in Isaiah 45:7 (the same word used in Amos 3:6) is never translated as sin in the Hebrew text.

In the context of Amos 3:6, ra can be correctly translated to mean “sorrow, afflictions, adversity, wretchedness, or calamities,” but in Gen. 5:6, 8:21, 13:13, 38:7 and fifty other verses in the OT, ra can be translated “wickedness,” which clearly implies sin.

In the context and plain meaning of Isaiah 45:7, ra means wickedness and not calamities and afflictions as the fruits of sin. In context, if ra means external calamities in the verse “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil,” then the word “peace” must mean a military peace, i.e., a political matter, because the phrases are parallel.

However, the verses preceding and following verse 7 are not restricted to trivial political matters, verse 3 speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God; verse 6 speaks of God’s knowledge extended throughout the world; and verse 8 speaks of righteousness falling down from heaven like a pouring rain.

The following chapter in Isaiah makes it clear that God just doesn’t know things, as you put it, but He actually brings about what He has purposed:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: … yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. Isaiah 46:10-11 (KJV)

You write that God “knows of the evil, he does NOT [please, let’s not be sophomoric] create it.” By “know” I assume you mean that God knows or permits evil to happen. What you fail to understand is that “permitting” man to sin does not absolve God from the charge of being the “author” of sin, as you seemed to suggest in writing “If that [God created evil] were so, He would no longer be God.”

God “permitted” Satan to afflict Job; but Satan could not have afflicted him without God’s approval. Permission does not exonerate God. If God could have prevented, not only Job’s trials, but all of mankind’s sins and temptations, if He foresaw them and decided to let them occur, how can He be less reprehensible than if He had decreed them?

Put another way, if a bystander could rescue a baby from a burning building, but decided to “permit” the baby to die in the flames, would you say that the bystander’s decision to watch the baby burn was morally acceptable because he wasn’t the one who lit the building on fire? Your position puts you on the horns of a dilemma whether you realize it or not.

You also write that my “assessment of that group [Arminian] is just opposite of what they say.” By sovereignty I mean that God has eternally decreed all that ever comes to pass, and providentially controls all things in his created universe, including the “free will” of man.

The Arminian notion of man’s free will cannot coexist with God’s omnipotence. If man’s free will to fulfill his sinful desires and purposes can resist and thwart God’s perfect will and purpose, then God is not all powerful, man’s free will is.

Neither is the Arminian view of free will compatible with God’s omniscience, because knowing all things renders the future certain. If God foreknows all things, then of necessity those things will come to pass; otherwise, they could not be “foreknown.”

Acts 2:22, 23 and 4:27, 28 teach that God foreknew, even foreordained Jesus’ crucifixion by the hands of sinful men, yet the men who carried out his execution are responsible for murder. If God ordained it, could the high priest and Sanhedrin have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? Scripture plainly teaches that God determined or decreed their actions.

I’m not saying that men are robots and don’t make choices. They do have “free will” in the sense of “free moral agency.”

All men have freedom of choice in that they choose to do what they want to do and can’t do otherwise. But man is not free to be indifferent, i.e. his freedom to choose is always governed by the fears, desires, and habits of his sinful nature. Yet, all his choices are subject to the eternal decrees of God.

Romans 3:9-18; 8:7, 8 and Ephesians 4:17-19 teach that man cannot choose what God requires. Man will always choose the evil desires of his flesh, which are dictated by his sinful nature. Man is never indifferent in his willingness to do anything. Even though God has determined all things that will ever come to pass, man is held responsible and accountable for his sinful actions.

As the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (3:1; 5:2, 4) put it:

“God … did … ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established…. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently…. as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”

You’re right that “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13).” Nowhere does the Scripture teach that God is evil; however, it does teach that God is both the cause of sin and the cause of salvation. Scripture also teaches that God is not responsible or accountable to anyone or anything for what He does; yet His creatures are accountable and responsible to Him for what they do.

God is holy and righteous, but our sinful nature taints and limits our understanding of His holiness and righteousness. As Paul writes, “For now we see through a glass, darkly… but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).

You write, “As there is much less error in translation in the New Testament, I will believe God Himself over other ideas.” I am always willing to teach those whom God has made willing to learn, but I will not waste my time and energy on people who dogmatically hold to their erroneous preconceptions of Christianity and what Scripture teaches.

So you know, I spent hours researching and writing this response, and you have taken enough of my precious time. Thank you for your response to my piece and please accept this as a final response to any further discussion.”

NOTE:  The hot links were added for this post at The Millstone Diaries. There were no hot links in my responses to in the comment section at Canada Free Press.

Read Full Post »

Americans are witnessing a wave of looting, arson, and rage in black communities.

In the aftermath of the April 2015 riots in Baltimore, Maryland, Time Magazine’s Lily Rothman quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “A riot is the language of the unheard” in a feeble attempt to rationalize its devastating effects.

What Rothman’s piece didn’t mention was that Dr. King also said that “Riots are socially destructive and self-defeating” because black Americans end up on the losing end, hurting themselves.


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. responds to rioting:

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »