Sunday, June 12, 2016

Stop blaspheming the Gospel

And demeaning the sanctity of human life by shamelessly exploiting human death and suffering in order to advocate only those political and social issues that you care about.   Jesus didn’t go through the agony of the cross just to give you extra leverage in promoting your opinions on Social Media. Mark ordered me off of his Facebook page some time ago, or I would say this there.  But I say it here, lest others get pulled into the maelstrom of politically driven ideology.   Mourning and prayer, not political ideology, should be the focus at this time.  Let's be better than what the powers over this present darkness demand.  That’s all I have to say on the topic.

Update: When I say prayer, I mean pray for the victims.  I don't mean pray for the wrath of God to come down on those who disagree with you:
I've begun pray against the Gun Cult in the Mass, recognizing that this is a demonic stronghold that will require supernatural power to be broken by the arm of God Almighty.
In fifteen years of being in an environment filled with Protestant fundamentalists I never saw the likes of it.  My advice?  Don't follow the link, except to see that it's there.  The bigotry, ignorance, shameful disregard for the sanctity of life, all in the service of advocating various leftist narratives and dogmas is more than should be experienced at a time like this.  Again, the only proper, decent and humane thing to do is pray right now.  Resist the temptation to get sucked into the modern religion of politics.  In a few days we can unpack what happened and why.  Now is the time to mourn, pray, and hold our loved ones close.


  1. Pray without ceasing as Saint Paul says.

    Well in a the Church of "here comes everybody" you have to expect someone would espouse such a view and he isn't the only one. The problem with the gun control argument is that it is tantamount to blame the means instead of the perpetrator or his motive. In other words being either unable or unwilling or both to deal effectively with this kind of violence by focusing on its cause the instinct is to look upon the means. It would be like blaming the gas chamber for the holocaust instead of the NAZIs. This ignores the fact that if one has the will to do evil, and is determined enough, then you will acquire the means necessary. The anti-self defense advocates will ignore the fact that the terrorist suicide vest failed or that France's gun control laws failed to stop the Paris attack. That ISIS has shown it is adept at killing without guns, as in the 19 girls who were burned to death for not having sex with their captors or the gay men who were thrown out of buildings, and the many crucified and beheaded Christian martyrs. The inconvenient truth is that our government hasn't dealt effectively with radical islamic violence and so we need to be distracted by an anti-self defense campaign. The government can count on the MSM and the usual group of useful idiots to help, and in the meantime no one will do a damn thing against ISIS or at least anything that will be effective.

  2. No he isn't. Though I was made aware of his and had to shake my head when I read it. The problem with all of this is that 1. these events are used to advance political agendas rather than solve problems, and 2. something like this is an embarrassment to the dominant narrative, both of the Left in general as well as President Obama's crushing victory over ISIS and Islamic terror. I expect in the coming days to hear almost nothing about his Islamic ties, and hear much about mental illness, crime records, and gun control.

  3. You know I used to "troll" Mark by showing how his rhethoric could so easily be twisted and turned against the Church. Yet it was clear both then and even more now that it wasn't the left's methods he disapproved of, just their targets.

    Which is kind of funny if you stretch a metaphor. He apparently objects to nukes in and of themselves in a war by any side for various at least noble intentions, and yet when it comes to public discourse Mark never seems to realize how nuclear he goes and then acts shocked that he finds nuclear retaliation against him. (I mean, you set the standard of war conduct...)

    There seems to be some irony there that when it comes to real, actual enemies in the world Shea wants to extend every mercy while when dealing with actual neighbors and countrymen and brothers in Christ he offers no quarter.

  4. Nate, just a quick comment on what you are saying about nukes, leaving aside all the personalities and whatever other issues are in play. I suppose we could imagine a world in which nukes were restricted to only a few kilotons and were used only against purely military targets like Truk Lagoon once was, but this has nothing to do with actual history, the actual present, or the plausible future. Both now and in the past, the purpose of nukes was to make (continued) war unbearably horrible, and the means used to accomplish this purpose was burning (civilian) women and children alive. If you think it was about destroying ball bearings factories, you are just being dishonest with yourself.

    So let's substitute this reality for the means used to accomplish it in what you have written above. "He apparently objects to burning civilian women and children alive in and of itself in a war by any side for various at least noble intentions...." Pause here for a moment to consider just how effective "noble intentions" are in mitigating the guilt of deliberately burning women and children alive. (And before you drag out all the lives saved from a hypothetical continuation of WW2 as your "noble intention", understand you would have to explain why announcing terms of surrender that would be as mild and generous -- particularly to Hirohito -- as those actually imposed was simply unthinkable. Nope; better to burn women and children alive than to admit FDR had adopted a foolish policy!) "... and yet when it comes to public discourse Mark never seems to realize how he burns women and children alive and then acts shocked that he finds others burn women and children alive in retaliation against him." That's nonsense, don't you agree? It's nonsense because there is a subtle but important difference between using heated, angry words and burning women and children alive.

  5. MotR, congratulations on proving once again that the internet has made aspies of us all and apparently reduced anybody's ability to ever grasp a metaphor.

    I mean, we're talking about a guy who REPEATEDLY compares gun owners to people who chop up babies and sell their body parts so how about you go explain to Mr. Shea all about subtle but important differences, eh?

  6. If you didn't want to respond to my comment, well then, you shouldn't have responded, but don't say " we're talking about a guy who REPEATEDLY compares gun owners to [blah blah blah]" when I not only was NOT talking about anyone else, I specifically said I was not. YOU were obsessed with Mark Shea; I was explaining why your metaphor will not bear the weight you tried to put on it. You attempted to argue that the metaphor captured enough moral equivalence that anyone who objects to the murder of civilians must, to be consistent, never lose his temper. A massive fail like that undercuts the strength of your argument by bringing your moral judgment into doubt.

    The gun owners I know are not crybabies who give a flip what Mark Shea thinks, since he exists, for all practical purposes, only in the blogosphere.


Let me know your thoughts