R. C. Sproul’s popular lecture on Protestant Reformer Martin Luther.
Author: Papa Giorgio
NYT’s Executive Editor Admits Left Doesn’t Want Thoughtful Discussion
Larry Elder notes Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times (the top position in the newsroom), admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful responses to issues from a counter viewpoint. Here is NEWSBUSTERS comments on the issue:
Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages — and the liberal reader anger over signing up right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal — he used the royal “We” in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and “I’m not ‘we,’ I’m a journalist.”
Recode’s Peter Kafka brought up a New York magazine article by Rebecca Traister reporting Hillary Clinton being angry about the Stephens hire: “Why… would… you… do… that?…66 million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them!”
Baquet insisted Stephens is not a “climate denier,” but that he thinks climate activists have turned their crusade into a “religion that brooks no disagreement.” Baquet liked having a “thoughtful voice” like this in the paper. Kafka shot back “One of the arguments that people have is, look, there’s plenty of places to find news from ‘climate skeptics,’ if you want to call them that,” and if the Times wanted to stand for something, they should “embrace the left side” of the spectrum. Baquet insisted the editorial pages were meant to have more than one side.
Here is the link to the other articles referenced in the above audio:
The Paris Agreement B.S. (Updated)
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” ~ TRUMP
(ABOVE) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
I Love Capitalism over at GAY PATRIOT notes quickly this:
Yesterday I wrote a lot of text on this. Thanks to all commentators who made helpful additions.
Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.
- The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
- The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
- The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
- The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.
Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible…
Here is an excellent article via IBD:
The Paris Climate Deal Was A ‘Fraud’ And A ‘Sham’ … Until Trump Decided To Ditch It
Shouldn’t environmentalists be celebrating the fact that President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris climate-change agreement? After all, when it was signed, many of them called it a fraud, or worse.
The reaction to Trump’s announcement was ferocious.
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer said Trump is “committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.”
John Kerry declared that Trump’s decision “will rightly be remembered as one of the most shameful any president has made.”
The ACLU said that dropping out of the Paris agreement is “a massive step back for racial justice and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.”
These are the more polite responses.
Yet it was only a little more than a year ago that climate scientists and environmentalists were viciously attacking the Paris agreement itself. The goals were too low to make a difference. There was nothing binding any of the signatories to live up to their promises, and no enforcement mechanism if they didn’t. It just kicked the can down the road.
James Hansen, the undisputed hero of the climate-change movement, called the Paris deal “a fraud really, a fake. … It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.”
A joint letter signed by nearly a dozen top climate scientists said the agreement suffered “deadly flaws lying just beneath its veneer of success.” These scientists complained that the agreement could actually be counterproductive, since it gave the impression that global warming was being dealt with when in fact it wasn’t.
A study in the peer-reviewed journal Global Policy said that even if every country lived up to its CO2 emission reduction promises through 2030, the Paris deal would “likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”
“Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades,” the study concluded.
Kevin Anderson, a climate-change professor at the University of Manchester told the London Independent that the Paris deal was “worse than inept” and that it “risks locking in failure.”
Friends of the Earth International labeled it “a sham of a deal” that will “fail to deliver.”…
The MSM and #NeverTrumpers Join Forces in “Wooden” Literalism
A friend linked to a WASHINGTON POST article after I posted the above on my Facebook with this statement:
- “Trump quoted the mayor COMPLETELY out of context. Read this:”
(I – RPT – post a section from his link for clarity):
…But then he decided to slam the mayor of the city attacked, who had calmly warned his fellow Londoners: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” Trump took the second part out of context and responded viciously, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor, of course, was telling them not to be alarmed by the heightened police presence.) Trump was not done, however, inanely tweeting, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”…
(He also linked to FOX NEWS’ story on it.) HOTAIR deconstructs Mayor Khan better:
Sadiq Khan, the mayor, didn’t say there’s no reason to be alarmed about terrorism. What he said: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed — one of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.” In other words, there’s no reason to be alarmed that another attack is imminent. The police will be out in the streets as a precautionary measure, not because there’s intelligence suggesting more bombs are about to go off.
I will now post our conversation to help the conservative leave the “woodeness” of the Left, whom complains about the Right not considering grey areas of life — but what Prager rightly notes the “black n white” truly exists on the Left (and so, in the media). BTW, this is a fellow compatriot. These are honest and cordial disagreements between us GOP’ers. I consider this an in-house debate about Trump, like the age of the earth or other theological matters. I am not posting this here to belittle my friend but merely to note the closeness of the #NeverTrumpers to the MSM’s understanding of the view they have of all Republicans since Nixon. They [the #NeverTrumpers] are just now lining up with that same rhetoric from the Left because of their dislike for Trump. You see, I am not an analyse… I am a conservative. I see the larger fight for the soul of America as between Left and Right. I want the right to win in politics… and I do so by defending Republicans from the dopiness of the Media [Left].
These two totally variant views on reality are at their core, two completely different worldviews/philosophies. My job as a polemicist is to make sure we win in arguments where truth is concerned and the ethos of our Founding is defended in some way.
The Trump Derangement Syndrome that infects the #NeverTrumpers is hindering their view that they are siding with the MSM in their false view and inability to pick up what Trump was laying down… specifically in that Tweet. I have to admit as someone who is imperfect, I bet I practiced some of this with Obama. But these people are not seeing the forest beyond a few trees…
…to wit I hope my responses shed a bit of light on this:
ME –
So a mayor who has ignored terrorism, in fact tripling since he’s been mayor, himself having ties to extremism, a police force that ran away from the attackers, and a suspect who master mined the attacks who was warned of 2-years ago, and the populace is not suppose to be alarmed? Please. And the WaPo has never taken Trump (or Rubio) out of context? Please.
J.G. –
I didn’t suggest that WaPo has never published a news article or an opinion piece in which the writer took Trump (or Rubio) out of context. When that occurs, I have no objection to anyone calling them out on it. Most of your posts on your blog do just that (and I think that is good). So, I find it ironic that suddenly, you are defensive when a similar standard is applied to something you posted. Be fair Sean.
[….]
The main point I was trying to make Sean, is that this particular post of yours was spreading a false narrative. Feel free to criticize politicians and others who are hesitant to take necessary and reasonable steps to keep citizens safe, but you can do that without helping Trump spread more falsehoods.
ME –
Trump had all that in mind when he Tweeted that. Others may not know or follow this mayor’s many previous statements about Trump and his connections to jihadists, but, but I have. What is a false narrative from the media is that the people of London are not effed, and mean ol Trump is smearing a good guy. Leftists like to pardon Islamists (like the mayor), lift up severed heads as “art,” because they have similar worldviews (I have an entire chapter from Melanie here on this). Her book Londanistan should be the topic, not something Trump says [laid down] that you or the press cannot pick up.
[….]
I feel like I am responding to an atheist. Let me explain. When I talk to persons who challenge the Bible (and take note Protestants look at Scriptural integrity differently that Catholics), they will bring up points from the O.T. as literal, without applying genres (like poetry, war texts, history, wisdom literature, prophecy, and the like), or subcategories such as hyperbole.
So I merely bring up that using the way the skeptic is using the Bible would be the same as reading Exodus 15:8 and positing that God has a BIG nose, or reading Psalm 91:4 and saying God is a giant chicken.
Similarly, WaPo is taking the rhetoric of Trump as woodenly literal without keeping in mind the following:
- a jihadist sympathizing mayor, police running away, 2-year old warnings unheaded, and now military police in pubs [that is hyperbole in case you are not getting it]… etc.
Are you now taking Trump’s Tweet as literally using the phrase of the London mayor without reference to any deeper meaning J.G.?
J.G. –
Many reasonable people are interpreting many of the things that Trump says as asinine, ignorant, immature, and unbecoming of a POTUS. He better work on improving his communication skills if we’re all misunderstanding him. I’m not talking about left-wing nutcases misunderstanding him. I’m talking about lifelong conservatives (like me) and mainstream moderates misunderstanding him. Please don’t blame the media. The media doesn’t write his Tweets or speak for him when he’s in front of the camera.
ME –
If he was as eloquent as Obama was it would make not a single iota of difference in the stories at WaPo.
Reagan was an excellent communicator, as was Ford, Nixon, etc. But ALL were bumbling idiot according to the press.
J.G. –
Sean Giordano, you don’t get it. There is a huge difference between how conservatives and moderates viewed Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. and how they view Trump both in terms of competence and ability to communicate effectively. I’m not talking about the Washington Post. I’m talking about Americans across the whole country. Trump is perceived as a bafoon by the vast majority of Americans, not just journalists.
ME –
No, trump has done waay more conservative things that any of those before him in the same time.
So I separate Obama’s excellent rhetoric from his horrible policy. LIKEWISE, I separate Trump’s horrible rhetoric from his excellent policy.
He is a buffoon in public. So? So was Mozart, Beethoven, Immanuel Kant, Lewis Carroll, and others. And?
So, Trump is not a Rubio or a Bobby Jindal (my first choice) or a Ted Cruz (my second choice).
Trump still has done more in his first days than I think any of them could have (including winning the rust belt, and thus winning).
The British government have been too weak and too politically correct. We want real action, not more speeches from outside 10 Downing St. pic.twitter.com/NzPAIx4rrF
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) June 4, 2017
…to be continued… maybe?
Here is JIHAD WATCH’S take on the matter:
President Trump has taken London Mayor Sadiq Khan to task for his grossly insensitive statement about the London jihadist attack:
- “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack,” the president wrote on his personal Twitter account, “and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’”
Only a “leader” with either an unsound mind or an unsavory agenda could utter such bizarre words following a gruesome jihad rampage (within two weeks of the one Manchester) that began with the mowing down of innocent civilians and continued with a 12-inch blade “knife frenzy.” All the while, the jihadis shouted “this is for Allah.”
Khan’s words start to look more sinister than obtuse when one considers his own jihadist connections. He was reported by the UK’s Spectator to have known links to “extremists”:
Some of these associations date back to his time as a director of Liberty and a human rights lawyer – trying to get the UK to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man, and speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organisation that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
It doesn’t stop there:
in 2004 he appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organised by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen….In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
Qaradawi is no “moderate.” As reported by Jihad Watch in February:
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
In September, Khan stated that it was necessary for Westerners to be careful not to insult Muslims and to affirm that Muslims can hold Western values, otherwise they would join jihad groups. In other words, Khan was warning non-Muslims to beware of insulting Muslims, otherwise they would kill you.
Also, it did not matter that jihad attacks in Britain tripled in five years: Khan boasted in March that he planned on bringing in 1,500,000 more migrants….
PASSES SENATE: Ca Senate Passes Single Payer…
…Still Has No Plan To Get $400B A Year For It (HOTAIR).
I bet people are scratching their heads thinking, “wait… 400-billion a year? I though it would be free?” Now it is headed to the Assembly:
- …The measure would have died if it failed to clear the Senate this week. Democrats said they wanted to keep it alive as the Assembly tries to work out a massive overhaul of the state health care system.
More from BREITBART:
California Democrats made a surprise move late Friday to foil President Trump’s promise to repeal ObamaCare—by introducing a stand-alone, single-payer healthcare system in California.
The Mercury News reported that two California lawmakers Friday introduced legislation to replace private insurance with a government-run health care system covering all 38 million Californians—including its undocumented residents.
[….]
….After a week that has brought California’s crumbling infrastructure into focus—as back to back storms threatened the nation’s tallest dam in Oroville, California, and forced Gov. Brown to request Federal Emergency Funds from President Trump— Brown and Democrat legislators have come under scathing criticism for squandering money on benefits for illegal aliens and public sector unions at the expense of critically-needed infrastructure.
Only California Democrats would launch a new social program with no specific details or any identifiable funding source in a state that is perpetually broke, and where ObamaCare is unpopular with over 46% of voters—including a lot of Democrats.
Maxine Waters Hilarity
Just when you thought it doesn’t get more retarded — it does.
Tattoos and the Bible
Leviticus 19:28 states: “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves…” (NASB). Is this a forbiddance of getting a tattoo? Or was this written for a specific people, in a specific time, with a specific example in mind (God’s mind). Lets see what some commentators have to say on what this example would be that caused God to forbid marking or engraving on one’s body.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary: v. 28“They shall make cuts or prints in their flesh for the dead; for the heathen did so to pacify the infernal deities…”
New Bible Commentary: vv. 29-31 “The main focus of this section is to exclude rites and practices associated with pagan, Canaanite religion, particularly those which were physically or morally disfiguring. Abuse of the body in the name of religion is a wide spread human aberration…”
The International Bible Commentary: v. 28 “Cutting the flesh was a feature of the worship of Melqart (Baal in Old Testament)…. There are various explanations of this self-disfigurement which have been advanced: to provide blood for a departed spirit, to render mourners unrecognizable to departed spirits, to drive away the spirits by the life-force resident in the blood, and so on…”
The point here is that if one were to interpret this in a wooden literal sense that applies to today’s tattooing of the body for non-religious purposes, then one would apply verse 27 to getting “bowl-cuts.” For we read: “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard” (NASB).
Matthew Henry Commentary: “Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honor of them, cut their hair so that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish in itself, so being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous.”
Yes, Matthew Henry just called the bowl-cut “foolish,” but when done for religious purposes, it is wrong. As with the tattoo, if done for spiritual purposes, it is forbidden. If done for personal reasons, I see no harm. If I am wrong, I suspect that when one receives their glorified body, it will be washed clean with the blood of Christ. Because only then will we be perfect, the creation God originally intended.
I see no clear precedence in the Bible for not getting a tattoo if done for non-religious purposes. If one were to interpret this as following the law, a maelstrom would soon follow; not to mention the book of Galatians being thrown out the window.
Blueberry Fascists!
“…so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark…” (Revelation 13:17[a]).
Comments via LiveLeak:
We already lost rainbow and snowflake… I will not stand to lose blueberry. ENOUGH!
I believe that the story of Lot in the Bible was no different.
The sodomites of his town threatened to banish him if he continued to believe in the purity of the union of man and woman as God intended.
Even if it rained brimstone on these sodomites they would attribute it to the Believers and their impact on “Climate Change” rather than condemn their own unnatural lifestyles.
Larry Elder quickly touches on the story of Country Mill Farms in East Lansing, Michigan:
For seven years, Country Mill Farms set up a booth at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market to sell their produce, offering the only stand with organic apples. [Country Mill Farms grows all sorts of crops at the Country Mill Farm – organic apples, blueberries, pumpkins, sweet corn.]
But this year, Country Mill was not invited back. And it’s not because organic produce is going out of style.
The reason? They chose to communicate their religious viewpoint on marriage on their Facebook page – a belief that is apparently unwelcome in East Lansing. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit on Country Mill’s behalf.
Country Mill Farms, owned by Steve Tennes, is a second-generation family business that grows apples, blueberries, peaches, cherries, sweet corn, and pumpkins. They host a number of community events, including some Michigan fall favorites – a corn maze, a petting zoo, apple picking, and hay rides.
As Catholics, the Tennes family believes that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. Last August, the family communicated these beliefs on their Country Mill Farms Facebook page. But when East Lansing officials saw the statement, the city began taking steps to expel Country Mill Farms from the East Lansing Farmer’s Market.
So, a city official called Country Mill Farms and pressured the farm to not return to the Farmer’s Market. The city official told the Tennes family that the City no longer wanted them at the Farmer’s Market, since the City thought hecklers might protest the Tennes’ religious views at the Market if Country Mill Farms continued to attend.
Country Mill Farms decided to participate in the Market anyway, just as it had year after year. No protestors greeted them. No disruptions happened.
That did not change East Lansing’s position. Absent legal authority to regulate the Tennes’ speech and beliefs, East Lansing adopted a new policy for 2017 Market Vendors specifically designed to give the City a basis to exclude Country Mill Farms. Under the new policy, all vendors must comply with East Lansing’s nondiscrimination laws not just while they are at the Farmer’s Market but in all of their general business practices. That includes all vendors’ speech and activities on their own farms outside of East Lansing.
East Lansing’s nondiscrimination laws include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. And the City interprets the laws to ban statements, like Country Mill Farms’, that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman….
(Read it all: ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM)
RELATED:
Two Lovely and Freedom Loving Lesbians Stand Up To Gay Bullies!
GAY PATRIOT notes this about the above:
…The wedding cake fascists aren’t content to dictate to business owners that they must participate in gay marriages regardless of their personal beliefs; they will now monitor your Facebook posts and ban you from participating in commerce on the basis of your personal beliefs. (All in the name of protecting gay people from hurt feelings.)
Scary Times
Luther’s Dialectics (Two Kingdoms) |Updated|
“[T]he paradox is that God must destroy in us, all illusions of
righteousness before he can make us righteous…”
~ Martin Luther
(Click To Enlarge – More About This Painting Below)
Luther LOVED Paul’s letter to the Romans. In this letter we find a battle of this “two-kingdom” idea (7:14-25[a]), which surely made him meditate on these things listed below.
A WILDERNESS OF CASUISTRY
In 1957, the great Reformation historian Johannes Heckel called Luther’s two-kingdoms theory a veritable Irrgarten, literally “garden of errors,” where the wheats and tares of interpretation had grown indiscriminately together. Some half a century of scholarship later, Heckel’s little garden of errors has become a whole wilderness of confusion, with many thorny thickets of casuistry to ensnare the unsuspecting. It is tempting to find another way into Lutheran contributions to legal theory. But Luther’s two-kingdoms theory was the framework on which both he and many of his followers built their enduring views of law and authority, justice and equity, society and politics. We must wander in this wilderness at least long enough to get our legal bearings.
Luther was a master of the dialectic — of holding two doctrinal opposites in tension and of exploring ingeniously the intellectual power of this tension. Many of his favorite dialectics were set out in the Bible and well rehearsed in the Christian tradition: spirit and flesh, soul and body, faith and works, heaven and hell, grace and nature, the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of Satan, the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, and more. Some of the dialectics were more uniquely Lutheran in accent: Law and Gospel, sinner and saint, servant and lord, inner man and outer man, passive justice and active justice, alien righteousness and proper righteousness, civil uses and theological uses of the law, among others.
Luther developed a good number of these dialectical doctrines separately in his writings from 1515 to 1545 — at different paces, in varying levels of detail, and with uneven attention to how one doctrine fit with others. He and his followers eventually jostled together several doctrines under the broad umbrella of the two-kingdoms theory. This theory came to describe at once: (1) the distinctions between the fallen realm and the redeemed realm, the City of Man and the City of God, the Reign of the Devil and the Reign of Christ; (2) the distinctions between the sinner and the saint, the flesh and the spirit, the inner man and the outer man; (3) the distinctions between the visible Church and the invisible Church, the Church as governed by civil law and the Church as governed by the Holy Spirit; (4) the distinctions between reason and faith, natural knowledge and spiritual knowledge; and (5) the distinctions between two kinds of righteousness, two kinds of justice, two uses of law.
When Luther, and especially his followers, used the two-kingdoms terminology, they often had one or two of these distinctions primarily in mind, sometimes without clearly specifying which. Rarely did all of these distinctions come in for a fully differentiated and systematic discussion and application, especially when the jurists later invoked the two-kingdoms theory as part of their jurisprudential reflections. The matter was complicated even further because both Anabaptists and Calvinists of the day eventually adopted and adapted the language of the two kingdoms as well — each with their own confessional accents and legal applications that were sometimes in sharp tension with Luther’s and other Evangelical views. It is thus worth spelling out Luther’s understanding of the two kingdoms in some detail, and then drawing out its implications for law, society, and politics.
John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002) ,94-95.
More about the painting. Be aware that the text below may be imperfect as it was “Google Translated” ~ via WIKI
- ARTIST: Lucas Cranach Starszy (1472–1553)
- NAME of PAINTING: Cranach Law and Grace Gotha
According to the letters of the Apostle Paul, man’s way out of condemnation, sin and law is presented to eternal life, faith and grace. Since for Martin Luther sin is inextricably linked to the human being, the believer of the Mosaic law needs to be aware of his sinfulness. He must realize that he will fail and despair of the commandments of the punishing Old Testament God. This despair is the prerequisite for salvation through Christ and the Gospel. According to the differentiation made by Luther, the tree in the center of the image separates the contrasted events from the Old and New Testaments. In the left half of the law, the tree of life is dried, on the right side of the gospel it bears greening branches. On the left, death and the devil chase the sinful man into hellish fire while looking to the right to Moses, who points to the tablets of the Ten Commandments in a group of prophets of the Old Testament. Representations of the sin and the Last Judgment in the wide landscape show the origin and punishment of human misconduct. The scene of the bronze serpent from the Old Testament, which is important to Luther, typologically points to the crucifixion and shows the salvation of the Israelites before the poison by following the direction of God.
Right on the right of the tree, John the Baptist can be seen along with the naked man on the left. John, as the last prophet before Christ, stands for Luther between the law and the gospel, which is why he has the role of mediator. He directs the attention of the naked, who stands completely calmly and with folded hands, to the Crucified at the right edge of the picture. From the side-wound of Christ is a stream of blood, which extends over nearly the whole width of the right half, and goes down on the breast of the naked. The dove of the Holy Spirit appears in the stream of blood. It is shown here that only Christ, who died vicariously for man and whose good news is transmitted by the Holy Spirit, can abolish the sentence by the law. Only by his faith, sola fide, does the man of divine forgiveness participate in the form of the delivering blood-stream. By the risen Christ, who rises above the grave-cave behind the cross, the dead and the devil who pursued the sinner on the left side are banned: both lie conquered before the cross, under the Lamb of God, like the Risen One The victory flag. The sinner of the law is, however, a righteous one, with which the Gotha image illustrates the aspect of simul iustus et peccator. At the gates of Bethlehem, in the background of the right, the Annunciation appears to the shepherds. Like the raising of the brazen serpent, which the eye of the beholder finds right on the other side of the tree, this scene shows the recognition of God’s Word by man. For the viewer, it is made clear that the law and the gospel proclaim the same joyous message which always leads to Christ. Quotations from the Old and New Testaments in the lower part of the table underline the statement and also provide the biblical legitimation of the representation.
By 2015 New York Would Be Underwater – ABC (Updated)
[I will] say this much for the climate commies who are squawking so loudly about the end of the world. At least they aren’t dumb enough to believe their own lies. If they were, they would live very differently. Matt Walsh will start believing that they believe what they insist we believe when they start living like the Amish:
I can only imagine how I would react if I actually believed that the extinction of all mankind was imminent, and my lifestyle was directly contributing to it. At a minimum, I would not drive a car anymore. Ever. At all. I would ditch electricity. I wouldn’t eat any kind of meat. I wouldn’t buy mass made consumer products. I wouldn’t give my money to any company that sells items made in factories with giant smokestacks. Those smokestacks are literally killing people. How could you continue shopping like everything is normal?
A great couple of paragraphs are posted by MOONBATTERY after the above… and then this:
…And if those who advocate it don’t believe it, why should the rest of us take so much as a second out of our lives to consider its merits?
The answer: because 97% of scientists agree, quack quack quack.
(The below is RELATED to: UCSB Students Note Rising Sea Levels)
And this is a great transition because we can tell that those who have the funds to put their money where their mouth is (the wealthy) and preach about this the most (Manhattanites and the Entertainment industry) do not believe their own rhetoric. Why? See below…
- “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the National Sierra Club. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Trump melted the ice caps. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17.26-27, with a wee bit of the fear-mongering changed)
(Gateway Pundit): Seven years ago ABC News warned viewers that New York City will be under water by 2015 due to global warming.
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015.”
“One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.”
The only way food would be soo high is if Obama’s war on affordable energy works it’s course! How come Manhattan property is through the roof!
(Breitbart) In 2006, on NBC’s Today Show, former-Vice President Al Gore predicted that Manhattan would be flooded in “15 to 20 years.” He added, “In fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.” Just 3 years ago, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority predicted that within the next ten years, “Irene-like storms of the future would put a third of New York City streets under water and flood many of the tunnels leading into Manhattan in under an hour because of climate change[.]”
By hook or crook, through super storms or glacier melt, Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change has doomed the Big Apple.
What we have here are two of the most respected environmental voices among the political Left — Gore and the government — warning of dire flooding hitting Manhattan within the next 10 years. And at least according to their activism, the predominantly left-wing, Global Warming believers of Manhattan are listening. Furious about the lack of wealth-distribution that will save the planet and their small island, just 6 months ago, more than 300,000 took to the streets of Manhattan to protest.
And yet, a funny thing is happening in the real world of the free market. Manhattan might be the elite media/entertainment/intellectual hub of the cult of Global Warming, but where the rubber meets the bottom line, the cult obviously doesn’t really believe in its own propaganda. If they did, Manhattan real estate prices would be collapsing, not hitting record highs as they currently are.
If people truly believe an area is going to be flooded as soon as in the next decade, those same people would be selling off their real estate. Not just to escape but to sell before conditions worsened and real estate prices bottomed out further. As the deadline loomed closer, prices would decrease further.
What’s happening, though, is the exact opposite.
The average Manhattan home price is now over $1.7 million. With some apartment prices now breaking nine figures, it’s time to take a look at the booming New York real estate market and explore where middle class families fit into the picture.
At 157 West 57th Street, the most expensive New York home sale was just completed with the penthouse of this new building going for over $100 million.
Howard Lorber, the chairman of Douglas Elliman, the city’s largest residential brokerage, told me that there is no sign of this trend slowing down. He called New York a safe place for people around the world to invest in real estate.
Maybe what’s happening is that Manhattan’s left-wing Global Warming believers are suckering right-wing Climate Deniers into buying doomed real estate at record prices?
$$ UPDATED INFO $$
Manhattan apartment sales prices top $2 million for first time: survey
(Dec 14th, 2016)
The average sales price of an apartment in Manhattan is expected to top $2 million this year for the first time, but prices are seen leveling off in 2017 after nearly doubling over the past decade.
Prices were pushed higher by a jump in sales of condominiums valued at $10 million or more, which skewed results, CityRealty, a real estate listings and data website for New York City, said on Wednesday.
The opening of 432 Park Avenue, a 96-story tower marketed by developers as the tallest residential building in the Americas, had an outsized effect on prices, said CityRealty research director Gabby Warshawer.
Fifty-two of the 75 units sold at the tower overlooking Central Park fetched more than $10 million, she said. Some units are priced at more than $40 million.
An increase in new developments and a rise in the price of existing units also lifted the market, Warshawer said.
[….]
The median price for apartments, or the middle of all sales considered, also set a record at $1.2 million, up from $1.1 million last year, in the area examined.
A decade ago, the price of new condo units was almost the same as existing ones, but prices at new developments since 2008 have outpaced those of existing ones.
The average price for an apartment in the area of Manhattan examined was 91 percent higher than in 2006, CityRealty said.
Prices have climbed every year since 2011 but are expected to flatline next year. A lack of expensive, large new buildings will act to keep prices in check in 2017, CityRealty said.
The Media Narrative About the Portland Stabber Crumbles
(The Portland Stabber’s Facebook)
I have a theory that almost all racist/nationalist cults in America vote primarily Democrat for various reasons, but especially white/nationalist groups:
- “They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) or ideological reasoning (socialist), or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak.” (Trump Sized Mantras)
I also have a short bio of many of the early accused right-wing violence (shooters and stabbers) that end up being Left leaning individuals, HERE. However, I am going to facetiously continue my idea that most racist/nationalist-cult members vote Left. The PORTLAND MERCURY reports that the suspect was a “known local white supremacist”…
…The man accused of the brutal hate crime slayings of two people at the Hollywood Transit Center on Friday afternoon is a known local white supremacist.
Jeremy Christian, 35, was booked early Saturday morning on two aggravated murder charges, an attempted murder charge, two intimidation (hate crime) charges, and a felon in possession of a restricted weapon charge.
The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) reported that the man “was on the MAX train yelling various remarks that would be best characterized as hate speech toward a variety of ethnicities and religions. At least two of the victims attempted to intervene with the suspect and calm him down. The suspect attacked the men, stabbing three, before leaving the train.”…
Likewise, NPR reported much the same: “White Supremacist Charged With Killing 2 In Portland, Ore., Knife Attack” Okay, let’s say that I believe the media taking the single statement from the Portland Mercury as factual (more on this in a second), the question becomes this — at least for me: was he a supporter of Republicans (say, by voting for Trump)” Or, did he vote like many other racists white nationalists do… supporting the most socialist candidate?
As usual, merely waiting a few days allows the truth to start to kreep to the forefront — in spite of the mainstream media’s (MSM) narrative. Here is one hint at Jeremy Christian’s political leanings grabbed from ARCHIVE:
As people did more digging, some Facebook posts by Jeremy showed a more Left-leaning bent in his politics. Here are a couple of responses to Jill Stein’s Tweet via TWITCHY, the first incorporates the Facebook post (h-t to GAY PATRIOT):
Oh man! Accepting he is a white supremacist and now knowing his politics — this goes a long way to support my earlier claims. Below is a video of Tucker Carlson correcting the lawyer defending the Leftist professor hitting Trump supporters by throwing bike locks at their heads in the name of Antifa (SEEN CLEARLY HERE thanks to 4CHAN):
The above was merely an excerpt of a longer video seen at Donetec’s YOUTUBE HERE. So, another media narrative crumbles… it still is not as hilariously obvious as this one!
But it exposes the Left’s propensity to shape false American opinion through the MSM. Take note as well that he affiliated with paganism and hated theism apparently… what I term as “theophobia”
- “Fuck all you Christians and Muslims and fucking Jews,” he says. “Fucking die. Burn you at the stake, just like you did to my pagan ancestors.” (WILLAMETTE WEEK)
TOWNHALL makes a great point in regard to the above hatred for theism:
…On his Facebook wall, Christian called for a “Monotheist Holocaust,” the “Final Solution to the Monotheist Question.” He wrote that he wants to “put an end to the Monotheist Question. All Zionist Jews, All Christians who do not follow Christ’s teaching of Love, Charity, and Forgiveness And All Jihadi Muslims are going to Madagascar or the Ovens/FEMA Camps!!!”
In another post, he wrote: “I want a job in Norway cutting off the heads of people that Circumsize Babies…Like if you agree!!!”
Judging from what we know, it would seem that Christian equally disdains all three of the Earth’s great monotheistic traditions, or at least those of their forms that Christian takes to be their perversions (Zionist Judaism, Jihadi Islam, Christians who do not follow Christ). Police have confirmed that Christian was hardly the obsessed “Islamophobe” that the media is making him out to be, instead ranting about all sorts of matters.
Yet the Christophobes in the media, always on the hunt for the Big, Bad White Supremacist—who they want for the public to at least subconsciously associate with Christianity—ignore Christian’s “Christophobia” to make it sound as if he has a singular obsession with Muslims.
I also note he is into “Info Wars”/”Prison Planet” type stuff as well. I have a section rebutting the FEMA camps/coffins here. He was a “Misanthropic Nihilist” — which he described online as combining elements of Norse mythology, a disdain for women and minorities, and the right-wing “patriot” movement that wants to overthrow the federal government.
Okay…
Earlier, I promised more on an aspect of believing a narrative about his racism. And this is more of a commentary on a point (a threshold really) made by someone in discussion with me that the four people arrested for kidnapping and torturing that disabled white kid NOT BEING CHARGED with a racially motivated or politically motivated hate-crime (even thought they said “fuck white people” and “fuck Donald Trump” as they kicked him) — was because the young black male teens dated white girls. Newt Gingrich was right, BTW, when he said: “If this had been done to an African-American by four whites, every liberal in the country would be outraged and there would be no question it is a hate crime.”
So, using that threshold of black people in one’s life to be the determiner of whether an attack is racially motivated, I submit this:
…Tomica Clark is black and the pair became friends in elementary school.
Clark told The Oregonian Christian had many black friends.
“He never disrespected me,” Clark said. “Prison took the real him away.”
On his Facebook posts, the six-foot, 235-pound accused killer said he likes comics, reefer and heavy metal…
Granted, he changed during his time in prison according to his friend Tomica Clark… which having been to jail I could see this changing a person not grounded in some sort of Judeo-Christian values vs. “comics, reefer and heavy metal.” But, going for my Leftist friends threshold, Jeremy wasn’t a racist… right?
So let’s recap a bit… He:
- had many black friends;
- was a Pagan;
- hated Christians, Jews, and Muslims (of all colors);
- smoked weed;
- was a criminal;
- was a segregationist (like most nationalist groups and many Democrats [Cal State L.A.; Harvard; University of Connecticut]);
- called Timothy McVeigh (an atheist) a “true patriot”;
- supported Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders;
- hated Hillary Clinton and Trump…
- etc.
Nope, no right-wing Christians here stabbing people.
Do White Americans Have White Privilege?
What exactly is white privilege? Documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz finds out as he interviews attendees at the White Privilege Conference in Kansas City.