Humanity: Trampled Under Foot

>> Monday, December 1, 2008

Ms. Green, always on the mark, analyzes the Black Friday stampede that took the life of a Wal-Mart worker last week.

In conclusion, she writes:


"It is animals that do not have morals. They don’t put others above themselves.It is animals that see what they want, and fight to get it.
It is animals that kill and abandon their young.
It is animals that have sex with whatever and whenever they want to.
It is animals that prey on the weak and will often kill those weakest and sickly among them.
It is animals that have no regard for the wounded among them.
It is animals that will savagely attack when cornered or prevented from doing what they want to do.

Animals don’t voluntarily take punishment or death for an idea.
Animals don’t stop to help a stranger in need.
Animals don’t put their own lives in danger to help another.

God is being rejected by his creations. They have determined that He either never existed, or no longer exists. Christians are despised and ridiculed. God is blasphemed. Human beings are becoming more and more self-focused, with a “me first” mentality.

Evolutionists have been telling us for years that we’re nothing more than animals. Without God, that’s exactly what we are.

Evolutionists also tell us we’re getting better and better.

Tell that to the family of Jdimytai Damour." - Ms. Green


Personally, I believe the whole concept of evolution is nothing more than an excuse to act like animals.

It's the goodness of God within...not intellect, that separates humankind from the animal kingdom.

Read her entire article.

25 comments:

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM  

Intellectual incoherence plus a lack of any self-reflection equals the mumbo-jumbo of this post.

This is the biggest pile of dog droppings I've stepped in in a long time, and I own a St. Bernard.

BTW, animals exhibit all the behaviors Ms. Green claims they do not exhibit, so her diatribe kind of, you know, fails.

Just like your candidate for President did.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM  

Thank you. So are you. We are all animals, genus Homo (I know how much you must love that), species sapien, subspecies sapien. Your refusal to recognize your connection to the world around you is part of the root of your problem.

Al-Ozarka December 1, 2008 at 9:30 PM  

Dude, your refusal to recognize the difference between humankind and animal is your whole problem!

And...as the post implies...so it is with a nation that continues to adopt your errant philosophy.

As an animal, you can justify anything you do. Sort of like leftist political philosophy, you know?

Personally, my spiritual nature gives me pause.

As does yours...but you wish to believe that any personal restraint is all your own doing.

It does give you a free ticket to immoprality, though...dont'cha think?

No wonder you're a Democrat.

Feodor December 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM  

"Evolutionists have been telling us for years that we’re nothing more than animals."

Stupid and shallow understanding promulgated as theology.

Evolution tells us we are animals AND more. It's embedded in the very name of the concept. How can you miss that?

And by the way, you're theology does not allow for indicating anything "within" the human being that is divine or good.

You miss coherence from all angles, Izard.

Marshall Art December 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM  

That God might dwell within us does not mean that WE are good. It means that God dwells within us. Pretty simple, really. But the implications of that are indeed profound. What we do means more when God dwells within us. WE are not good. We can only hope to be as good as possible according to God's terms, and know that accepting Christ is what covers us for not being "good" at all.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 2, 2008 at 7:18 AM  

"Spiritual nature"? Would you care to tell me what, oh most wizened one, means? As a theologically educated clergy spouse, I have come to the firm conclusion that those two words, mashed together in the way you do here, is as meaningless as "frog dancer".

Pretending you have something you don't is called a delusion.

Marshall Art December 2, 2008 at 8:16 AM  

"spiritual nature", "conscience", "higher thought process", "soul", etc., sometimes used interchangably, denotes a marked difference between human kind and the animal world, guiding our actions in terms of right vs wrong as opposed to total instinct, even if an action does not serve us personally. If we have souls, as we are taught that we do, we most certainly have a spiritual nature or a spiritual side. But in any case, hardly something upon which a debate opponent can make points. But go ahead and score one or two if you must.

Al-Ozarka December 2, 2008 at 10:01 AM  

"Would you care to tell me what, oh most wizened one, means?" -J-Off

I don't know...never seen the phrase before. Is "wizened" even a word?

Tell me, animalistic one...from where do you think humankind's goodness comes?

Al-Ozarka December 2, 2008 at 10:03 AM  

"As a theologically educated clergy spouse..."

That's hilarious!

You negate your own perceived credibility, dude!

Feodor December 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM  

MA says humankind has no goodness.

Al-Ozarka December 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM  

"MA says humankind has no goodness."

No, Feodork. MA says that there is no goodness apart from God.

Feodor December 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM  

I will agree that MA is confused about what he means, mostly because he does not have a coherent understanding of his kind of theology, but that it seems he's pretty clear that "WE are not good" despite your denials:

"That God might dwell within us does not mean that WE are good... WE are not good... Christ is what covers us for not being 'good' at all."

His problem is not realizing that while he puts all things "good" in God's basket alone, he then must describe how we can be good without it seeming like demon possession by the one who is the only good.

He's cut off the notion that as part of God's creation we are good. He and you leave that unconsciously behind because you want to give yourselves an out to demonize and attack whatever you think is wicked. Much easier to do that when one does not think of your object as a "good" creation of God.

But then you and he want to claim that if we jump to the right side then God will make us good only that good can't be counted as our merit. Otherwise what would be the attraction to jump to the right side?

Your problem is that you have read Paul in Romans without the reading glasses of the Gospel or the other epistles, or, indeed, some of the subtext of Romans.

So your lack of understanding of human nature as a good and spirituality as a reality (the ways in which we can join in with God's goodness by virtue of being made in God's image and by working in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and participating in God's nature [2 Peter 1:4]) tend to present a Christian emptied of sin by faith being controlled to do good by God. Not very real or attractive, or theologically developed.

Confused, parts are missing, contradictory. Like MA.

If you did have an understanding of human goodness as God made it and watches over it in our flowering in communities and cultures, then you would have a better understanding of sin and more sympathy with divine justice and judgment that sees both how people, at the same time, behave wickedly (trample by desire) and are warred upon wickedly (impelled to live in the status and consumption driven American culture).

Al-Ozarka December 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM  

As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one.

Remember Adam?

Feodor December 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM  

Paul is saying that there are none righteous enough to save him or herself, idiot. He was not talking about whether we are good or totally depraved.

God, can't you read more than one sentence a day?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM  

"God, can't you read more than one sentence a day?" - Feodor

Dude, that would be far too taxing. He certainly can't write more than one coherent sentence without taking a nap and a nip; why assume he can read with comprehension?

Ozzie seems to suggest that human beings are good, but only because we are created beings. Marshall at least has a dim grasp of the idea of original sin. Yet, this begs the question - does this mean that the billions of human beings who either have never heard of the Christian God, or having heard it have said, "Thanks but no thanks," are intrinsically evil?

When people who have no idea what they are talking about, they do not realize that words actually mean things. I really do not care if they answer my question above or not - mostly because I suspect that it wll be ignored - but it is nice to point out to some folks that language actually serves a purpose.

Eric December 2, 2008 at 10:55 PM  

Whether or not someone has heard of the "Christian God" or not is irrelevant. They have the Law of God written on their heart and are without excuse. Besides, anyone who genuinely wants to know God will not be left without a witness. God will send that someone a missionary, preacher, Christian, radio broadcast, television broadcast, book, tract, pamphlet, whatever.

There is only ONE God. And He just happens to be the God of all men... not just Christians. But only Christians and Jews will be in heaven. There won't be any muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Buddhists... only those who have accepted the great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord. He is the ONLY way.

Marshall Art December 3, 2008 at 12:32 AM  

From Matt 19:17

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good."

If the concept is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. Only God is good. We can be as good as we possibly can, but we cannot be good because we are sinners. Only by accepting Christ as our Savior are we acceptable to God, for He will have nothing to do with sin.

So rather than crack wise, why don't one of you Biblical scholars explain where I'm wrong and how you believe yourselves to have a better grasp of plain English.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 3, 2008 at 1:58 AM  

Now it seems you are arguing among yourselves. Too much fun.

Please continue this little moronathon.

Al-Ozarka December 3, 2008 at 8:27 AM  

"Ozzie seems to suggest that human beings are good, but only because we are created beings."

Hey, you've got it!

And you seem to be saying, J-Off, that humankind is no different than the animal kingdom.

Oh, and...Paul continued:

"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Feodor December 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM  

Paul continued quoting from a number of Psalms put together, Izard. If you were to read the psalms you would get a panoply of poetic statements that portray cultural identity from 2500 years ago.

Among the things you will find in them are militant stances equivalent to modern fundamentalist Islam, anger and rage at God, depression and surrender to fate.

But also to be found is awe at being a human being and how all the things God makes are wonderful, including human beings.

Only with the use of reason and modern day values as they have been formed by seven thousand years of religious reflection can we hope to behave with decency, accord, and - for Christians - the model of humility and service and self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

But you guys would have us behave like the Pharisees who used "goodness" as a trap (that Jesus escaped by pointing to the only ultimate good [not the only good]) or like Manichaeans for whom life is a battle between equal forces of good an evil.

Since God is the only God, the only ultimate Good and therefore the only Judge, why are you so anxious about beating down what you consider perverse?

Why can you not trust God and live boldly in love?

Why the fear, MA, Izard, Eric?

And for God's sake, why live like it's 2 BC or 250 AD?

Al-Ozarka December 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM  

"Why can you not trust God and live boldly in love?"

I do, Feodork. I have no hatred in my heart for any person.

It's immoral behavior I abhor. Unlike you who defends what God expressly hates.

Feodor December 3, 2008 at 3:43 PM  

I'm not sure I would defend God's hatred of where you stand.

I'll just get a little further back.

Al-Ozarka December 5, 2008 at 7:09 AM  

"I'm not sure I would defend God's hatred of where you stand."

Of course...you're too busy...like J-Off...and Dan...the "Meek" (LOL!)...defending what God has expressed that He hates.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford December 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM  

What, pray tell, oh interpreter of the Divine mind, does God hate? I distinctly recall somewhere in some book a line that says "God so LOVED the world . . ." Unless I'm mistaken, God LOVED not some Platonic world, or some world where only "created beings" (and somehow I do not believe that human beings are created, just because I accept the reality of evolution?) who are perfect in every way; God loved this world full of hatred and evil and death. This is the world in to which the Son entered, not in love, not to condemn, but to love.

I see a not-very surprising absence of that Divine virtue expressed continuously here. Whether it's Ozzie's nicknames (by the way, Dude, I have no problem with you naming me after a habit far more common, and interesting, than picking one's nose; keep trying, Dude, you may actually come up with something that hurts my feelings), or his constant invocation of "fags" and how evil they are (jealous, dude?). There is just no love here. I keep trying to find it, but it's just not there.

I guess my understanding of love is different than yours, because mine includes respect, an inherent acceptance of the humanity and good faith of others, and a fair consideration of opposing views. Yet, when have Feodor, Dan, or the rest of us ever received such treatment? By any of you?

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP