Humor

This evil satire of Calvinism is not funny at all!!!

2 Comments

I don’t even think you should read it. It’s so evil!

Excerpt:

In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let’s take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.

And:

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?”

This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

This is so awful, that I have no words to describe how awful! Awful!

Here’s another thing that you shouldn’t read!

All kidding aside, I do believe in definite atonement. Sufficient for all, efficient for some, based on God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to his taking the initiative to draw a specific group of people toward him, who did not want him at all, but who he knew would freely responding to his loving them FIRST.

I apologize to all of my Calvinist readers for posting this. Please forgive me. You have to allow me my fun once in a while. Isn’t that what friendship is all about?

News

61-year-old British man convicted for cutting up fruit with a Swiss Army knife

7 Comments

Story from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Overlawyered via ECM)

Excerpt:

A disabled caravanner who kept a penknife in his glove compartment to use on picnics has blasted the authorities after being dragged through court for possessing an offensive weapon.

Rodney Knowles, 61, walks with the aid of a stick and had used the Swiss Army knife to cut up fruit on picnics with his wife.

[…]He said: ‘There is no previous conviction history whatsoever and it was not in his possession and was in the car glove compartment in a pouch.’

The retired maintenance engineer, from Buckland, Devon, had no criminal record before the case.

He said: ‘The tool was in my glove box in a pouch, along with a torch, first aid kit and waterproofs.

‘It is everything I need for the maintenance of my car or if I break down.

‘Now I have a criminal record for the first time in my life. I am upset by that.’

This is good, because once the public is disarmed, then the poor helpless criminals who are only criminals because of the social injustice of the capitalist system will have no one to fear as they execute crimes. Stealing isn’t wrong – nothing is right or wrong. And criminals shouldn’t be deterred from crime by having their victims defend themselves – even if law-abiding people have to be injured or killed.

Besides, it’s illegal for men to be protectors of their families in the UK – that’s the government’s job. Men just get to pay the taxes for the government. After all, men don’t really care about their families. It’s not like men have some sort of innate desire to protect and provide for and lead their families that would be thwarted by gun control, high taxes and mandatory public schooling. They’ll still want to get married, right? Besides, not having to defend the family leaves a man more time for looking at homes for sale and shopping for women’s shoes.

What went wrong in the United Kingdom?

I wonder if you all remember a while back when I linked to all the chapters of Theodore Dalrymple’s famous book “Life at the Bottom”, which is about the worldview of the British lower class. It’s also about how rich, well-meaning secular leftists hurt the poor by enacting public policies that reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. Dalrymple is a psychiatrist in a hospital, so he sees it all firsthand.

Commentary

MUST-READ: Mark Steyn discusses how Britons inform on each other

4 Comments

Mark Steyn writing in MacLean’s magazine. Apparently, the practice of informing the government about speech that is not in conformity with political correctness is widespread in the UK.

Excerpt:

A couple of years back, 14-year-old Codie Stott asked her teacher at Harrop Fold High School if she could sit with another group to do her science project as in hers the other five girls all spoke Urdu and she didn’t understand what they were saying. The teacher called the police, who took her to the station, photographed her, fingerprinted her, took DNA samples, removed her jewellery and shoelaces, put her in a cell for 3½ hours, and questioned her on suspicion of committing a Section Five “racial public order offence.” “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark,” declared the headmaster Antony Edkins. The school would “not stand for racism in any form.” In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said they took “hate crime” very seriously, and their treatment of Miss Stott was in line with “normal procedure.”

And:

Six weeks ago, Roy Amor, a medical technician who made prosthetics for a company called Opcare, glanced out of the window at their offices at Withington Community Hospital, and saw some British immigration officials outside. “You better hide,” he said to his black colleague, a close friend of both Mr. Amor and his wife. Not the greatest joke in the world, but the pal wasn’t offended, laughed it off as a bit of office banter, and they both got on with their work. It was another colleague who overheard the jest and filed a formal complaint reporting Mr. Amor for “racism.” He was suspended from his job. Five days later, he received an email from the company notifying him of the disciplinary investigation and inviting him to expand on the initial statement he had made about the incident. Mr. Amor had worked in the prosthetics unit at Withington for 30 years until he made his career-detonating joke. That afternoon he stepped outside his house and shot himself in the head. The black “victim” of his “racism” attended the funeral, as did other friends.

The part that scares me about this is the confidence that the other side has in pushing their viewpoint using coercion.

Were did this nanny-like opposition to feeling offended, feeling excluded and feeling judged come from? Who puts elevates feelings and compassion over the risky, confrontational exchange of ideas? Who minimizes truth and debate and maximizes self-esteem and happiness? Who emphasizes victimhood?

You know what? Life is tough. Sometimes people say things that make you feel bad. And if you are a grown-up, you let it go. You don’t empower government to coerce people so that you can have happy feelings. Freedom and prosperity are more important than happy feelings. Life isn’t fair.

For the record, I am a very visible minority, and consider the secular left PC thought police to be the worst racists on the planet.