Saturday, January 26, 2013

Blah, losing interest

What's the use?  My blogging attention span is waning.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Ordain a Lady?

Found this here at the Museum of Idolatry. No wonder the Youtube video closed the comments. I could only get a few seconds into this before turning it off in disgust.


"Don't listen to Saint Paul?" Wouldn't that eliminate almost the entirety of the New Testament?

What sort of man would lead his family spiritually by submitting to the teaching authority of a woman?  What sort of message is he sending his children?  "Oh hey, I'm just a big wuss spiritually.  Let's let a woman lead us, like Israel did during the height of their apostasy with Deborah in the book of Judges..."

I could go on about how disgusting this is, but I think that the Museum of Idolatry rightly cited these verses that sum it up best.

 “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:11–14) 

 “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33–35) 

“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:2–7)

Fox News and Flu outbreak: Why are so many not getting vaccinated?

Fox News seems to struggle to maintain the line between news reporting and propaganda, and this article is no exception:

Flu outbreak: Why are so many not getting vaccinated?

Or, "Why are so many people so stupid to not trust in the power of drugs?"  What caught my attention right away is that nowhere in the article is "mercury" mentioned at all (of course, I've heard the arguments that it's no different than eating a can of tuna, but I STOPPED eating tuna because of the mercury!)

I also found this peculiar word repetition in the article.  Do they even use editors?

However, just because a person does get the flu vaccine doesn’t mean he or she won’t still get sick.  However, many people can mistake flu-like symptoms for the flu virus.  Esper noted there are many different viruses capable of causing disease, so people shouldn’t necessarily assume that if they are sneezing and coughing, they caught the flu virus.

I didn't do the greatest in English class, but don't you generally use "however" following a previous statement that you want to respond to with the contrary?  So how could you however a however?  Wouldn't that be arguing both sides of an argument?  Goofy.

I've debated getting the shot, but only because I'm curious if I had an adverse reaction if I could get some money filing a vaccine damage complaint.  But the fact is, I'll take my chances.  If people want to soup up their bodies, more power to 'em.  Not me.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

More thoughts on gun control nonsense

Expanding on some comments I left on the Houston Chomical, namely on a story about VP Biden meeting with gun violence people (of course, his agenda doesn't include meeting with drug comany representatives to find out what the drugs did to warp these people's minds to turn them into killers.)
The impression you get from this administration and the MSM is that, if you put a gun in someone's hand, it somehow magically turns them into a bad guy (complete with a goatee and a maniacal laugh...), so the only solution is to get rid of the guns. And of course, the administration and the Chomical wouldn't bother considering that maybe... maybe... the problem has more to do with mind-altering medications and drugs that the FDA gleefully approves. The media silence about the involvement of the drugs in these cases is a little bit troubling. Why does this get absolutely no attention?

 Do reporters for the MSM know how ridiculously partisan and biased they sound when they only trumpet one side of the issue?  And do people in the media and the government know how crazy people are for their guns in this country? (let alone in Texas?)

Friday, January 4, 2013

Mainstream Media seems to really be playing up gun control lately...

The mainstream media is really hammering at the gun issue lately, with non-stop story after story about gun control, like this one (of course, being Yahoo! news, the story is mostly a joke, but I just read it for the comments, which are far more rational than the actual "news" article). So there were shootings recently, and now the press is getting involved in doing what it can to play one side of the issue over and over again, while ignoring any and all stories about guns used responsibly, or for hunting, or for protection. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't own a gun, but I'm all for those who do, especially when it's my neighbors. Maybe it's time to get one before the mainstream media pushes out another hundred or so biased stories about guns.

Moore to the Point -

Thoughtful question by Dr. Moore on Time's article about the pro-life movement, and my response.  Either my comments are blocked or just not being saved correctly due to my browser (probably the former) but here's my response regardless:

A very good article, and I think you make some good points from a political standpoint that most of the legislation from a "pro-life" standpoint is merely symbolic in nature, especially from so-called pro-life candidates.  But I think the issue is much bigger than simply the abortion platform as well.  I've wondered why it is that in the evangelical church today, you find married elected officer serving that are either deliberately childless, or only chose to bring up one child.  Can one truly be "pro-life" if at the same time they shun the blessing of a fruitful womb? (either biologically or adoptive.)  What testimony does a married church elder make, in light of the "pro-life" viewpoint, when he and his wife willingly decide not to raise any children?  The abortion issue is big... but I wonder sometimes if an issue like this is just as big, but avoided being taboo?