This is Philip France's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Philip France's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Philip France
Recent Activity
I wish to add to Shaun's Point #2. "Racism" and "racist" are terms used by children (albeit adults who argue as children) who cannot articulate ideas based on factual and empirical evidence. It is also a misleading term, as the idea behind it is actually racial bigotry. For hundreds of years, Americans have celebrated genius regardless of race. I cite as some examples George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas and Grandma Moses as just three of many. Go on through our history and observe Americans' love for Louis Armstrong, Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, Charlie Christian, Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Ollie Matson, Jim Brown, Flip Wilson, Sidney Poitier, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and the pattern is clear: When it comes to greatness and achievement, America has long been color-blind. What about other races? If there were a race that should have been hated and bigotry bestowed upon it would be the Japanese. They bombed our homeland, for Christ's sake! They look different, their accent is peculiar and there were nationalist grounds for which one could bear a grudge. And yet we embraced Japanese immigrants. Why? Because they have both assimilated and achieved with nary a word of grievance. Let's move to immigrants from India. They are dark complected, have a nearly indecipherable accent and come from a culture vastly different than ours and prescribe to a religion very foreign to our Judeo/Christian sensibilities. Yet we embrace them. Why? The answer again is simple: assimilation and achievement. The Left and their soft-headed useful idiots like to use name-calling as their counterpoint to their aversion and hostility to facts. Terms such as "racist", "sexist" and "homophobe". Real argument-enders. Give me a freaking break. How childish! When it comes to achievement, the vast majority of Americans are color-blind (and, by extension, racially impartial). Where America is not so blind is when we see racial minorities given special victim status and afforded opportunities and preferences that are denied to the cultural majority; programs and policies such as Affirmative Action and racial quotas. THIS is true racism; er, ahem, racial bigotry. And THIS is perpetrated by Leftists and modern liberals. The stellar radio talk-show superstar Michael Savage summed it up best: Liberalism is a mental disorder. It truly is. Most of my liberal friends are intelligent people, but when it comes to matters of social and political ideology (add to that knowledge of history and the embrace of actual fact), they are daft. They are children. They are nincompoops. Can someone please tell me the last liberal ideological cause that has any proof, whatsoever, that they were correct? I dare you.
1 reply
Once again I applaud Selwyn Duke for his inimitable logic and his articulation into plain, understandable and indisputable fact. In a previous post I recommended that one follow the arc of cultural and technological advnacement and compare it to the arc of the spread of Christianity. The correlative is undeniable. I invite and welcome any and all arguments to the contrary.
1 reply
Many thanks to Selwyn for posting this priceless exchange. I sound this out to any liberal/progressive reading this: When has a liberal/progressive ever acknowledged that they (and the thoughts they champion and espouse) are wrong? Please cite me one instance? Answer: never. A casual listen to this discussion ENDS the debate. Pronounce the benediction and let's grab a slice of cake and then go home. One reading this would logically conclude that I am "a" Conservative. You make this determination simply by my opposition to Leftist/progressive ideology. You are incorrect. Please allow me to explain: I detest labels. They over-simplify and cocoon thought and debate. You may describe my thoughts, values and lifestyle as "conservative" without the indefinite article "a" but please do not label me. Let me be more plain: I am conservative in my thoughts and actions but I am NOT "a" Conservative. In this is the inherent fact that I am open to debate and the desire that I wish to be proven wrong. If so, I will gleefully reject my prior understanding of circumstance to embrace a new enlightenment. I live for this (among other things, of course). Bring it on! I LOVE to learn new things, even if it means that tenets that I held so close to my bosom have been proven as falsehoods. Hallelujiah! Lawd Gawd Awmighty, I'm free at LAST (this is not meant to be as facetious as it appears in print). Back to the original point: Those that have been either self-labelled or labelled by others as "Conservative" arrived there by the Baptism of fire of given fact. Undoubtedly, we all would like to share the Utopian vision of the Left but we realize that this can only occur in dreams and fantasy. History is our harsh instructor and history has proven decidedly and unanimously AGAINST any ideal of Leftist/liberal/progressive ideology. I leave room that I might be wrong (thus distinguishing me from my Leftist/liberal/progressive opponents) but before I might concede my position, please show me SOMETHING/ANYTHING by way of fact or evidence whereby I might consider your opinion as anything more substantial than that: your opinion. I have one too; just like something else we share in common.
1 reply
My dear friend W. Tieff, I beg to disagree. They ARE indeed devoid of judgement. As proof I offer any and every public statement by Rep. Barney Frank. Every word out of this deviant's mouth is the epitome of one that is at once reprobate and "devoid of judgement". To Rep. Frank's credit, wouldn't he look divine in an orange jump-suit?
1 reply
In agreement with Selwyn, and with compliments to Walt for a fine post, Ron Paul is a passionate defender of our Constitution. His argumnts should be considered deeply. I differ from him in foreign policy, however. I do not disagree with his passionate defense of the intent of our Founding Fathers, but I reluctantly admit that we have strayed so far from this intent that we must adjust to current circumstance (with regard to foreign policy). As for our econimic malaise, I encourage readers to learn of the sudden and rapid drain of the money markets that occurred on September 15, 2008. The coincidence is too frightening to be ignored. McCain (permit me to declare that I did not like him but felt that he was an infinitiely better choice than Obama) had been surging in the polls after naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, our money markets were being siphoned in astronomical proportions, resulting in a refocus toward economic despair and a perfect storm for an uninformed electorate to favor Chancellor Obama. To paraphrase Machiavelli; too many of us are willing to accept appearances. That the majority of us are willing to accept things as they seem, rather than how they are. Community Organizer-in-Chief Obama knows this and his henchmen are shoving this down your throat.
1 reply
Bravo to Selwyn Duke for another indisputably articulate and logical presentation. I have so many supportive points to make that I would like to scream, but I will narrow them down. When do whites get to make claims for reparations to their denial of opportunities resulting from the institutionalized racism known as Affirmative Action? I further the point of Selwyn's that it was white Christians who brought us out of the dark ages and into the advanced culture that we now enjoy the benefits of. Simply follow the arc of history and, unless you are an utterly deluded fool, you will plainly see that cultural and technological advancement is commensurate to the arc of the spread of Christianity. Lastly, in the U.S. it was evangelical Christians who championed civil rights. The Democrats and liberals hijacked this cause after the heavy lifting was done. The evidence of the Left's embrace of civil rights has resulted in the victimization of blacks as a political tool that far too many have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Evidence abounds that the number one factor in the economic disparity between blacks and other assimilated races and cultures is single motherhood. Liberals/Leftists are alone in the blame for this travesty. I further this point by correctly pointing out the media and cultural elitist demonization of successful Afro-Americans such as Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Michelle Malkin and Bill Cosby. Add to this the eradication of discussion about historical black innovators such as George Washington Carver. Racial bigotry is a tool employed by the political Left to sow discord into an otherwise harmonious society. The evidence is abundant that what racial bigotry exists in America today exists because of white liberals and black militants.
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on In Defense of the White Man at SelwynDuke.com
1 reply
Dear W. Tieff, I have read your blog posting and I applaud your articulation of this point. I have read significantly on this subject and wish to add to the argument this point: Many of us are led to believe that homosexuality is inherent at birth and that those that demonstrate this proclivity can't help it, and therefore have no choice. This is rubbish and, in all of my study of this matter, there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim. Furthermore, there are entire ministries devoted to rescuing individuals suffering from this delusion into deliverance from it. As a matter of fact, I myself have shepherded a young man away from this dangerous, unhealthy and unwholesome lifestyle. If this person, his name is Paul (last name withheld for obvious reasons), were born with this proclivity, it follows logically that nothing I could have done by word or deed would have convinced him to forsake this choice. Thus far, my point has been securely made on secular grounds. I encourage a reading of Paul, the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans; specifically chapter 1, verses 18-22. Herein is the explanation, namely that those of this lifestyle, as well as those that consent to it have a "reprobate mind". They are devoid of judgement. I believe that it was Aldous Huxley who observed that "the eye altering alters all". This is a classic case.
1 reply
As usual, Selwyn Duke is spot-on and correct in his commentary about the abuse of semantics. Lawyers have made fortunes in this endeavor. Who can forget Bill Clinton's infamous testimony that, "that depends on what the meaning of is is"; the most pathetic form of spin-control foisted on and accepted by the American populace. Perhaps the most important point of the "faux marriage" debate is this: Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. They have the right to marry under traditional family tenets that are beneficial to the proliferation of the human species and the natural design of their bodies. They are legally able to marry a person of the opposite sex, corresponding to traditional and cultural law stemming the expanse of recorded history. I seldom hear this point being debated. Instead, those of us that oppose the oxymoron of homosexual "marriage" are portrayed as bigots who wish to deny human rights to ceratin individuals whose proclivities are in abject denial and even hostile to the proliferation of the human race. Homosexuality is in direct violation to Darwinian evolutionaray theory which holds that random and undirected natural selection "weeds out" the elements of our genetic code that are hostile to the survival of our species. By Darwin's theory, homosexuality would have been eradicated by its second generation. By the same logic; if homosexuality were normal, the human race (and species) would be extinct after our second generation. You can't have it both ways. If homosexuality were normal, the human race would be extinct after one generation. It is therefore, inarguably (even by Darwinian theory) abnormal. Back to the original point: Why, therefore, should homosexuals be afforded rights uniquely different than those already afforded to them under the existing Constitution? I invite, in fact defiantly DEMAND, your arguments to the contrary.
1 reply
Another brilliant op-ed by Selwyn Duke! I would like to add that we have the government that we deserve. I blame this misfortune on America's desire to be entertained. Think of what we pay Hollywood's miscreants; men and women who would be absolute losers in most of life's other endeavors if not for their "gift" for pretending to be someone other than themselves. Why are we so willing to be deluded? Think of what we pay athletes. This is truly obscene. The New York Knicks are paying guard Stephon Marbury some $23 MILLION dollars NOT to play. The reason? He is a cancer to their desire for teamwork. Tiger Woods makes hundreds of millions a year. An unknown cornerback with an unpronouncable name for the Oakland Raiders just signed a contract worth $45 million for three years. Nothing against these fine athletes (excepting the head-case Marbury)but this is absurd! In the broader scope of life, their accomplishments are utterly meaningless. What about Oprah Winfrey? What about America's obsession with American I-Dull? Again, utterly meaningless, yet we throw fortunes their way. Singers, bands, live performances... while I appreciate music and its inestimable charms and relaxing and edifying properties, difficult times command this to be a frivilous expenditure. If one were faced with the 'difficult' decison of choosing one's daily bread over the latest single by Flava Flav, which would you choose? Wake up, America. Grow up, America. Adults should not need to be entertained to this degree. We should instead serve and find the joy (and ourselves in the process)of serving a higher cause than our own amusement. At the heart of this delusion is our desire to never grow up. The Peter Pan Syndrome in which we endeavor to prolong our childhood. Setting aside any religious/spiritual implications, would our lives not be richer if we served America the beautiful? The purple mountain's majesty; the amber waves of grain? God shed His grace on thee. We need it.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2009 on When Small Men Cast Big Shadows at SelwynDuke.com
1 reply
Where is the outcry from the sissies who cried foul about the Patriot Act or FISA? What? It's ok to surveil the common citizenry, but not the Islamofascists that want to plant a dirty bomb in your daughter's Kindergarten? Modern liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
1 reply
Did Socks die in Marcy Park or was she in a mysterious plane crash? And were classified documents in Socks' socks?
Toggle Commented Feb 22, 2009 on Excerpts from a Cat's Daily Diary at SelwynDuke.com
1 reply
Funny stuff, but what about the tragedy in Connecticut? That woman is a lunatic but the animal is dead and her friend is left mutilated and traumatized. Are there not insane asuylums anymore? And why isn't Nancy Pelosi Exhibit A?
Toggle Commented Feb 21, 2009 on Excerpts from a Cat's Daily Diary at SelwynDuke.com
1 reply
Thank you Selwyn for this terrific article. I have the highest esteem for Walter Williams and his logic in this article is undeniable. This poses the question to me: Are soft-hearted (and equally soft-headed) liberals truly altruistic in their veneer of compassion or have they simply exchanged their undeniable self-interest for the self-interest of the supposed victim class?
1 reply
Yes, Mike. Why don't we (go after the ACLU on RICO predicates)? I do so sublimely by contributing to The Thomas More Law Center (www.thomasmore.org) and another fine citizens' advocacy group known as The Aliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org). ADF are remarkable Christian lawyers that challenge (and win) the ACLU at nearly every turn. Their ministry is devoted primarily to freedom of worship cases but they are the vanguards of 1st Amendment Freedom. In addition, let's get the word out there that citizens like you and I and other like-minded patriotic Americans are willing to pool our resources to hire a private investigator to tail the likes of the pock-marked ACLU-chief Anthony Romero. Let's see what little boys that he shows interest in. Let's videotape him entering and exiting NAMBLA meetings and bath houses. While we're having so much fun, let's organize the Christians and Jews (and why not Moslems?) of the Greater Sacramento area and make s schedule in which we take turns appearing in front of the home of Michael Nudow (he of the "remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and from our currency" infamy) and sing hymns of praise 24/7. Let's take our Country back!!!!! We HAVE the numbers. I seldom trust polls, but the most objective ones that I have seen have some 36-37% of Americans espouse conservative values. 28% procalim to be liberal (and of these, I would estimate that only 1-2% are true believers; real psycopaths... but they sure are loud). That leaves the considerable decision point to those who are dispassionate and undecided. It is time for you and I to speak up.
1 reply
Mike and Walt, I appreciate your compliments and I welcome you into my bosom as fellow Patriotic Americans that can think with their intellect and not through the kaleidoscopic filter that is our human emotions. Mike posits the question that "why the heavy hitters", et al, are not backing Berg and Keyes. I have heard Savage speak on this subject and I reluctantly agree that it would be bad for our nation as a whole. While I dispute Obama's election; not only on the grounds of his natural-birth status but also because of the rampant voter fraud that no doubt added to his electoral numbers in immense capacity; his support from the pants-peeing press and how they would portray any investigation and dismantling of his election would result in strife and discord. My hope and prayer is that common Americans will feel Obama's incompetancy and lurch toward Marxism in their wallets, in their gun safes and in their very freedom to disagree. I pray that the good people of the United States of America will awaken from their slumber and ask, "What happened?" while they were watching baseball, football, "All My Children" and "American I-Dull". In the meantime; let sensible, sober people like you, Walt and I; with the help of great thinkers and voices like Michael Savage and Selwyn Duke never relent on the opportunity to shout down the lunatic fringe. They are a very small, albeit loud, minority. Let's show them to be the mentally disorded psychopaths that they really are... and their useful idiots along with them!
1 reply
Kudos to Selwyn Duke for another brilliant article. Selwyn, your gift of expression meets or exceeds you gift for logical thinking. This is meant as the utmost compliment. I have two points that I would like to put forth: 1. How many "ducks" were actually ducks (as in "Daffy")? How many were dead ducks? How many were ducks that voted multiple times in multiple districts? BHO's background as community organizer not only fomented such voter fraud, but likely gave him valuable insight as to how to perpetrate it. How can we demand an investigation? 2. I read, with alacrity, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" which was an indictment of the Clinton presidency and his blatant disregard for White House security (among many other things). In it, I learned of the scrutiny that is in order for one to work at the White House. Well, guess what? Based on these criteria, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle Robinson Obama; based on their associations with known terrorists and convicted felons could not pass the security screening to work at the White House as even a (prepare for your sissy gasp) janitor; let alone occupy the Oval Office. That's right: BHO could not even qualify to be his own bodyguard. Give him a chance? My arse. No chance is more like it.
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2009 on Giving Obama a Chance at SelwynDuke.com
1 reply
Mike, I am very grateful for your kind words (toward me, that is). I appreciate your opinion about Mr. Plankton, but let me run this by you: I believe that clear-headed thinkers preach to their own choirs too often and not enough to the lunatic fringe, or even benign liberals, for that matter. Regardless, truth is a clarion. I think of this as ringing a bell that cannot be "unrung" and that we should speak the truth regardless of how it is accepted. My friend, we need to take our Republic back, if it has to be one sound-byte at a time. Your thoughts?
1 reply
Nihil; I work during the day (you should try it sometime). I therefore do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. I take it by your accusation that you are conceding the argument. This is typical when one opposes another that is armed with facts; something liberals/Leftists are almost always devoid of and demonstrate a hostility toward.
1 reply
Nihil is a case in point that liberalism is a mental disorder. He demonstrates a reasonable modicum of intelligence, but his brain is twisted. My presumption is that he is a marijuana user or addicted to psychotropic medication. I would further presume that his upbringing was absent of a loving father. Nihil, my deluded friend; the United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy. You probably do not know the difference. In a Democracy, majority rules (for better or worse). In a Republic, we subject ourselves to the law of the land. Take a timeout; take a few deep breaths and then resume: The law of our land states that one of only two qualifications for our highest office is that a candidate be of a certain age and that he be a natural-born citizen. This makes Ambassador Keyes' case extremely relevant. If we defy our rule of law, we invite anarchy. I will further point out that President Obama is demonstrative of anarchy. Consider: His nomination to Cabinet positions of a man under Federal investigation (Bill Richardson). His nomination of at least three more who are known tax-cheats (not to mention a woman whose husband is one). His nomination to Deputy Attprney General of a pornographer (technically a sympathizer of purveyors of pornography, but a disgraceful and an aberrant human being). That Obama has blatantly lied (as has his VP Joe Biden) throughout his campaign and early Presidency. Remember that he PROMISED to make available the "stimulus" plan for 48 hours prior to Congress voting on it. He lied. He is lying when he has repeated, ad nauseum, that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We are not. The economic crisis at the end of the Carter administration was far worse. He lied. I could go on, but for the sake of brevity I will conclude with one final point. Barack Hussein Obama's primary experience entering politics was that of a so-called "community organizer". That is one who encourages voter fraud and enables the incompetant and unproductive members of society to vote themselves generous gifts from our Treasury; at the expense of the competant and the productive. This made a temporary celebrity of Joe the Plumber for candidly pointing this out. This man studied at the feet of deranged Marxist professors and mentors. His associations are dangerous terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn), racist lunatics (Rev. Wright, Pastor Fleger) and felons (Tony Rezko) to say the least. Clear-headed Americans have every right to question his competancy and we should know the truth about his birth status. You should be afraid of him, my friend. Look at what he has done so far in just four weeks in the Oval Office. Look at it HONESTLY; OBJECTIVELY. Are you capable of objective thought? Probably not, but there is hope: at least you are reading Selwyn Duke's columns.
1 reply
God bless Mr. Keyes. Here is the question that I have sought an answer to that has yet eluded me: What happens if BHO's fraud is exposed? Does that mean that Biden becomes President, God forbid? Or is a new election in order? Is there a Constitutional scholar that can please provide the answer to this question?
1 reply
Walt, Your suggestion is more chilling than you may realize. This (sub-hu)man will probably be defended by the ACLU, who will argue a cultural defense citing that this is justifiable homicide in that it is an "honor killing". Some Marxist judge in a filthy black robe will then suspend whatever sentence is meted out. I have heard of Islamberg(sic). A man named Paul Williams has launched a one-man crusade to expose this and other similar cells in the U.S. John Mohammed Allen and Lee Boyd Malvo of the infamous D.C.-area snipings are products of such sewage. I appreciated your humor in invoking Janet "Sterno" and John's response is painfully accurate.
1 reply
This is downright fightening. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology. I have heard Selwyn speak that the greater problem is the West's embrace of multi-culturalism. He is absolutely right-on. Michsel Savage is yet more succinct: Liberalsim is a mental disorder. Islam is incompatible with Judeo-Christian culture and heritage. Where it does not accept this and assimilate, it must be purged. What if Islamofacists succeed in subjugating the West? Well, while certainly uncomfortable and less-than-desirable, I could easily grow a beard and fake my prayers five times a day. But if one of these insects attempt to perform a clitorectomy on my daughter or if they try her in a Sharia court for flirting with her boyfriend, I will not permit this without a violent struggle. The problem with us clear-headed Americans is that we tend to preach to our own choir while the lunatic Left blasts the less-informed with massive media campaigns and blocks us out by refusing to even consider our counter-intuition. Islam has been a radical and violent ideology since its inception. Their spread has been prolific and remarkably unopposed since the 7th Century. In the words of Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather, Part I: "This war stops now".
1 reply
While being a devoted reader of Selwyn Duke's material, one who looks forward to his opinions with outstretched neck, I protest his most recent post at The New American. This Op-ed started with a valuable and important subject: the sanctity of human life and devolved into a tirade about the irresponsibilty of the lunatic media. He was factually correct, artciulate (as always) and to-the-point. My protest is that he left the original subject hanging like a loose tooth. We have had yellow journalism as long as we have had journailism. Yes, it has reached critical mass with sissies like Chris Matthews peeing in their pants about 'The Lord Messiah' and outright lunatics like Keith Olbermadmann suggesting that former VP Dick Cheney has done more harm to Americans than actual terrorists. The subject of one of the greatest movies in American history (Citizen Kane) was about this very subject. Thinking people know this. That is why we visit Selwynduke.com and why we listen to talk radio. Let's get back to the orignal subject: the sanctity of human life (and all life, for that matter) and that brilliant commercial ad. As part of my occupation, I travel International Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 50 to Lake Tahoe (I am not bragging, though I could; my point is yet forthcoming). During these drives I see plants growing out of hardened rock. I marvel at the instinct for survival demonstrated by these comparitively simple organisms. Now, need I remind you that most Leftists and liberals are die-hard belivers in Darwinian evolutionary theory whereby subsequent generations evolve from the survival and the fitness cause of the best genetic qualities of its progenitors into bigger and/or better offspring. Yet obvious examples such as these are cast to the scrap-heap when it comes to human life and the dogmatic support of abortion-on-demand and homosexuality, both of which ideologies fly in the face of Darwinian evolutionary theory (my term would rather be "orthodoxy"). The miracle of life continues to elude us, despite our scientific and medical advances. We see this form, this body and we learn a great many things. Be it plant or animal or cell or bacteria we know that all life struggles to survive. And yet with all of this knowledge, we cannot take any component of living organisms and "make" it live. This is the mileau of The Department of the Divine. It is time that we articulate this message to the masses that all life; whether human, animal, plant, or growth be understood as a gift from metaphysical causes. Heck, we have had thousands of years of trying to deny it with zero results! Once more back to the sanctity of human life theory: Once upon a time there lived a filthy, ugly hag named Margaret Sanger. She was a filthy, ugly hag not because of her appearance but because she was a racist bigot who fantasized of the elimination of the negroe race. Her operational weapon was eugenics, or to purge these (in her opinion) mutant genes from the human race, a sort of forced Darwinism. She found a soul-mate in a lunatic named Adolph Hitler; who had the same fantasies of ridding the earth of Jews. Remarkably, in a profound inversion of the word "choice", this filthy hag has succeeded in the destruction of countless negroe embryoes (the vast majority of aborted fetuses). Like all evil incursions into God's design, there has been collateral damage, i.e. the unintended destruction of fetuses of other races. In the name of "choice" of course. Let's talk about "choice" for a moment. By reading my rant to this point, you would label me as "pro-life" (and you would be corrrect). My opponents on this issue would declare that I am not "pro-choice" (and they are terribly wrong). Here's the difference: I am pro-choice regarding the following: Abstinance, Contraception (and the hundreds of "choices" that this includes), Adoption, Acceptance of this miracle of life known as a child and raising him or her. I am pro-choice in all of these "choices". Where Leftists and liberals demonstrate their derangement is that they disregard the choice of a living organism that struggles for life with the same visceral yearning as that plant growing out of the rocks on my way to Lake Tahoe. The fetus is not given this choice, and yet all biological and Darwinian evidence points to its desire to survive. I will conclude by stating that our new President Brokeback Hussein Obama is (forgive the expression) dead-wrong on this subject and is therefore woefully inadequate to preside over our Republic. May God bless you, Selwyn Duke and the readers of his articles and subsequent commentary and God bless the United States of America.
1 reply
Walt's post is very good. Xander's post is a humanistic understanding of God's Word, which is to be of no "private interpretation" (II Peter 1:20). Ancient man attributed all acts, good or evil, to God for two primary reasons: 1. They were mindful of the 1st Commandment wherein there shall be "no other gods before me" and 2. Satan had not been fully exposed until the advent of Jesus' ministry on earth. Satan is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament. The negative consequences that are visited upon sinners throughout the Bible and history are the works of Satan, not God. Walt mentioned John 10:10b, a very valuable verse declaring Jesus' "mission statement", if you will. The first part of that very same verse is Satan's "mission statement": "The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill and to destroy." This phrase is worded deliberately so as to show that Satan has no other purpose but these three goals. He has had millenia of "practice" at this and he is quite successful. The repitition of the word "and" is a Figure of Speech known as "Polysyndeton" (or many "ands"). The purpose of this Figure is to add emphasis to the items between the "ands". The Bible appears to many to be (aside from historical text and devotional passages) a book of rules. It is not. Taken as a whole, it is a love story. It tells the greatest story of love; the love of The Father for his creation. Jesus Christ is the hero of the story and the subject of The Bible from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22:21. God's plan of salvation is to restore mankind to oneness with him that Adam originally enjoyed when he was created "in His image". Jesus Christ was the human sacrifice that replaced the Old Testament offerings that substituted for temporary approach to God. This salvation is available this very day, but will be fully realised for those who believe on Jesus after the events recorded in I Thessalonians 4:15-18. For all others, the prophecy recorded in the Book of Revelation apply.
1 reply
Firstly protesting the utterly childish post by bigTom, I both praise and criticize the esteemed Mr. Duke's article. I am an amateur, but accomplished student of God's word. One of the most fundamental keys to understanding scripture is to understand difficult verses in light of clear verses. This one is abundantly clear: I John 1:18 - God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. Sewlyn had it right when he said that our God is love. He is incorrect when he asserts that God exacts punishment. This would be darkness, rather than light (and by extension, love) no? We are behooved to know our enemy. The great Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote a timeless volume stressing this (The Art of War, for those of you who enjoy blissful ignorance). The enemy has a name. It is Satan. The devil is his job description (transalted literaaly from the Greek and Aramaic texts of which our English Bibles were derived, it means "the accuser"). Our enemy has been inordinately successful in convincing us to blame God for his evil "handiwork". Needless to say that I am disappointed that the esteemed and brilliant Selwyn Duke failed to mention this in his op-ed. I urge you to read Matthew, chapter 4, verses 1-11. In it you will see that Satan makes some interesting offers to the Son of God in exchange for his worship. Did he have the goods or not? Would Jesus not have called his bluff if he did not acknowledge that Satan had such authority? Satan has had the dominion over the heavens and earth ever since he usurped it from Adam during the fall. Christ Jesus has won this dominion back from him to the extent that we believe he has done so. To the extent that we do not believe this, our salvation shall not occur until he returns again in glory. And he will.
1 reply