0 comment Thursday, November 6, 2014 | admin
God Will Be an Illegal Immigrant With An Ankle Monitor
I have a friend with an interesting theology.
He believes that God takes the form of whoever we are disgusted by.
He believes that God takes the image of the person, or group of people, that most revolt us. God does this to teach us mercy, compassion, humility. God does this to teach us grace.
He tells the story of a conversation with two policemen. Going back and forth, the two policemen spoke with great disgust about certain populations of people in the area.
''I can't stand the homeless,'' said one policeman. ''Yes, and I hate those Hispanics,'' said the other. ''And the gays and queers too,'' returned the first policeman.
And at that point, my friend realized that for those two policemen, God will take the form of a gay, homeless, Hispanic who will ask them: why did you not love me? Why were you so estranged from your fellow human?''
Frequently in various discussions around the Internet, some conservative accuses Christians of being to blame for the crises of our age, namely, mass, uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, and politically correct universalism. Ultimately, all of these things are facilitating our dispossession, all of us in the West, and our ethnic cleansing, in effect.
I've grown weary of trying to offer a defense of Christianity to deaf ears; people are just not willing to listen to arguments which absolve Christianity of blame for what is happening to our countries -- especially when they read things like the above-linked piece. The writer is a prime example of why a growing number of people think that Christianity is a mushy one-world socialist religion.
I thought to post this piece over in the Forum in the Christianity section, but decided that it isn't just an issue that Christians only have to deal with; it affects all of us, because it has to do more with liberalism/leftism/cultural Marxism than with real Christianity. The article illustrates the perverse thinking of liberals and leftists very vividly.
I've remarked on this many times: liberals and leftists are obsessed with society's downtrodden, or those they perceive as downtrodden, almost to the degree of idolatry. They actually place the 'others' of society -- those who are antisocial or aberrant in some way -- above the rest. They perceive that mainstream society mistreats and looks down on these aberrant people, whether illegal immigrants, prisoners, sexual deviants, or other such outsiders, and rather than merely treating these others as brothers, they overcompensate and exalt the outsiders as actually being above the rest of us, and in this piece, even equate these people to God himself.
It's true that our Lord exhorted us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, and give to those who ask, saying ''Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.'' But when we are enjoined to feed the hungry and be hospitable to the stranger, does this refer to occasional individuals, or does it extend, as the liberals insist, to feeding and welcoming tens of millions of uninvited guests?
I cannot imagine that the scriptures in question ask us to welcome mass invasions or to help people to the extent that we are harming ourselves and our own people, which we are doing when we welcome mass influxes of aliens. And the illegals for example: are they not guilty of covetousness, of greed, of avarice? Are they hungry? Or are they merely wanting more and better material goods than they have in their countries?
Our Christian forebears were much more devout, in general, than many Christians of today, with our casual, undemanding brand of Christianity. And yet for all their devoutness, they never imagined that the Bible told them to welcome mass invasions or to martyr themselves in the name of charity or hospitality. They had no qualms about fighting the Moslem invaders of Europe, but according to these modern liberals, they should have simply acquiesced to conquest in the name of hospitality. They should have 'seen God' in the Moslems, after all, if God chooses to manifest as the thing we most recoil from, they should have fallen on their knees to the Mohammedans.
Liberals in general, not just Christian liberals, tend to idealize and romanticize the outlaw, the deviant, the alien, and the marginal. To exercise tolerance toward such people is one thing, but the liberal/leftist goes much further: he, or should I say she (liberals are all feminine in their attitudes) lionizes the deviant or the transgressor. Look at the way liberals and leftists make heroes of killers, as with Mumia Abu Jamal . Look at the way the French liberals protected the fugitive murderer Ira Einhorn , and thwarted justice for years. Why? Because he was a leftist himself, or because he was a member of a 'protected' group like Mumia? I notice that liberals are rather discriminatory in choosing which criminals to defend; the criminal has to be of a victim group.
It seems as if the French were very impressed with Einhorn's supposed intellectualism and more, they wanted to stick a thumb in the eye of the bloodthirsty Americans who were demanding Einhorn face justice:
One thing that has impressed him and many French people about Einhorn is his voracious reading, the constant references to literature, historical events, scientific concepts. Concludes Guilloton: "I think this guy is a superior intelligence." If Einhorn is representative of an evolved American, then his case presents the opportunity to chastise uncivilized, fanatical, wolfish Americans. A number of people invoke boilerplate examples of despicable behavior, mostly hyperbole from Philadelphia columnists and editorialists, such as encouraging folks to throw tomatoes at photos of Einhorn. Fayaud had told me she was appalled by American blood lust and what looked to her like a kind of hysteria, conduct unbecoming.''
Liberals and leftists: they're the same the whole world over. Leftism, not music, is the universal language, it seems. The excerpt sums up the liberal attitude: defending the criminal is often just an in-your-face to ''the system'' or those evil conservatives who actually believe in backward ideas like law and order. The same motives are at work with the leftists who defend illegals. It's just a way of spitting in the eye of the rednecks, the nativists, all those troglodytes who aren't as 'compassionate and evolved' as the liberals. The liberal or leftist is in a permanent state of rebellion against Daddy and therefore all authority, order, and tradition, and will in a perverse way defend everything that offends ordinary, law-abiding people.
The homeless, a group that the left especially champions, are in rather a different category than say, illegal immigrants or criminals or sexual deviants. There are no doubt some who are homeless through some set of circumstances beyond their control, but in general, in our country, only a lifetime of bad choices can explain chronic homelessness. Some estimates put the rate of alcohol and drug abuse at 65-80 percent among the homeless.
The liberal will no doubt answer that addiction is a 'disease' over which these people have no control, but I am not convinced the 'disease' model has been proven. There is always an element of choice in these things. The liberal, of course, believes that most people are mere pawns, that they are victims in some way of bad upbringing, cruel conservative policies, and an uncaring society. In the liberal universe, we are all children who are not accountable for our actions -- with the exception, of course, being conservatives, who are to be blamed and held accountable at all costs.
Am I a bad Christian or a bad person if I find it hard to see the divine in a drug addict or a street drunk? I do feel pity and compassion, but if I give money to that person (which I have done, many times in the past) am I only helping them to harm themselves? Of course even the criminal and the addict are made in the image and likeness of God, I believe. But living a life of addiction and criminality tends to efface God's image in the human being; that's one of the tragedies and the sins of living a debauched or lawless life -- we deface the image of God in ourselves.
No doubt we should do all we can to help those lost in this kind of life; some Christians are very good at reaching out to the people most in need of help, but the individual has to want to be helped. And when we do 'reach out' to the criminal or the addict, do we embrace the image of God in them, or do we exalt instead their defects as being something admirable? I think the liberals and leftists do the latter: they have a lurid fascination with the dark side, and they tend to be drawn to criminality and the transgressive for its own sake.
In addition, many liberals are exhibiting pride in their superior 'compassion'. They feel puffed-up because of their superior ability to be 'caring'; they think they are the moral betters of the rest of us who don't share their morbid fascination with darkness. They don't try to lift the addict or criminal out of their sordid lives, but instead treat this kind of life as being something valuable in itself. For example, liberal Christians have decided that homosexuality is not unnatural or sinful, and they would like us to remove the stigma from that behavior, if not to outright 'celebrate' it.
In all of these habits, they are putting themselves outside the mainstream of Christian belief. I understand many liberals proudly call themselves ''allophiles'':
...positive attitudes for a group that is not one's own�is a term derived from Greek words meaning "liking or love of the other" (Pittinsky, 2005). Studied by social scientists, allophilia is the antonym of negative prejudices and the antonym of a host of "�isms": sexism, racism, heterosexism, ageism, anti-Semitism, elitism/classism, and phallocentrism. Allophilia can be felt towards members of a different race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, class, nationality, school, team, or workplace (occupation).''
Of course they try to make it a virtue, but in the old order of things, people like this were just called turncoats or, despite their delusions of moral superiority, traitors. For all their vaunted compassion, they are merely acting as accomplices and apologists for evil when they defend criminals and aggressors. The pharisaical liberal asks why some of us are 'so estranged from our fellow human beings'. I ask in turn: why are you so estranged from your blood kin, your fellow American human beings?
I have a friend with an interesting theology.
He believes that God takes the form of whoever we are disgusted by.
He believes that God takes the image of the person, or group of people, that most revolt us. God does this to teach us mercy, compassion, humility. God does this to teach us grace.
He tells the story of a conversation with two policemen. Going back and forth, the two policemen spoke with great disgust about certain populations of people in the area.
''I can't stand the homeless,'' said one policeman. ''Yes, and I hate those Hispanics,'' said the other. ''And the gays and queers too,'' returned the first policeman.
And at that point, my friend realized that for those two policemen, God will take the form of a gay, homeless, Hispanic who will ask them: why did you not love me? Why were you so estranged from your fellow human?''
Frequently in various discussions around the Internet, some conservative accuses Christians of being to blame for the crises of our age, namely, mass, uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism, and politically correct universalism. Ultimately, all of these things are facilitating our dispossession, all of us in the West, and our ethnic cleansing, in effect.
I've grown weary of trying to offer a defense of Christianity to deaf ears; people are just not willing to listen to arguments which absolve Christianity of blame for what is happening to our countries -- especially when they read things like the above-linked piece. The writer is a prime example of why a growing number of people think that Christianity is a mushy one-world socialist religion.
I thought to post this piece over in the Forum in the Christianity section, but decided that it isn't just an issue that Christians only have to deal with; it affects all of us, because it has to do more with liberalism/leftism/cultural Marxism than with real Christianity. The article illustrates the perverse thinking of liberals and leftists very vividly.
I've remarked on this many times: liberals and leftists are obsessed with society's downtrodden, or those they perceive as downtrodden, almost to the degree of idolatry. They actually place the 'others' of society -- those who are antisocial or aberrant in some way -- above the rest. They perceive that mainstream society mistreats and looks down on these aberrant people, whether illegal immigrants, prisoners, sexual deviants, or other such outsiders, and rather than merely treating these others as brothers, they overcompensate and exalt the outsiders as actually being above the rest of us, and in this piece, even equate these people to God himself.
It's true that our Lord exhorted us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, and give to those who ask, saying ''Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.'' But when we are enjoined to feed the hungry and be hospitable to the stranger, does this refer to occasional individuals, or does it extend, as the liberals insist, to feeding and welcoming tens of millions of uninvited guests?
I cannot imagine that the scriptures in question ask us to welcome mass invasions or to help people to the extent that we are harming ourselves and our own people, which we are doing when we welcome mass influxes of aliens. And the illegals for example: are they not guilty of covetousness, of greed, of avarice? Are they hungry? Or are they merely wanting more and better material goods than they have in their countries?
Our Christian forebears were much more devout, in general, than many Christians of today, with our casual, undemanding brand of Christianity. And yet for all their devoutness, they never imagined that the Bible told them to welcome mass invasions or to martyr themselves in the name of charity or hospitality. They had no qualms about fighting the Moslem invaders of Europe, but according to these modern liberals, they should have simply acquiesced to conquest in the name of hospitality. They should have 'seen God' in the Moslems, after all, if God chooses to manifest as the thing we most recoil from, they should have fallen on their knees to the Mohammedans.
Liberals in general, not just Christian liberals, tend to idealize and romanticize the outlaw, the deviant, the alien, and the marginal. To exercise tolerance toward such people is one thing, but the liberal/leftist goes much further: he, or should I say she (liberals are all feminine in their attitudes) lionizes the deviant or the transgressor. Look at the way liberals and leftists make heroes of killers, as with Mumia Abu Jamal . Look at the way the French liberals protected the fugitive murderer Ira Einhorn , and thwarted justice for years. Why? Because he was a leftist himself, or because he was a member of a 'protected' group like Mumia? I notice that liberals are rather discriminatory in choosing which criminals to defend; the criminal has to be of a victim group.
It seems as if the French were very impressed with Einhorn's supposed intellectualism and more, they wanted to stick a thumb in the eye of the bloodthirsty Americans who were demanding Einhorn face justice:
One thing that has impressed him and many French people about Einhorn is his voracious reading, the constant references to literature, historical events, scientific concepts. Concludes Guilloton: "I think this guy is a superior intelligence." If Einhorn is representative of an evolved American, then his case presents the opportunity to chastise uncivilized, fanatical, wolfish Americans. A number of people invoke boilerplate examples of despicable behavior, mostly hyperbole from Philadelphia columnists and editorialists, such as encouraging folks to throw tomatoes at photos of Einhorn. Fayaud had told me she was appalled by American blood lust and what looked to her like a kind of hysteria, conduct unbecoming.''
Liberals and leftists: they're the same the whole world over. Leftism, not music, is the universal language, it seems. The excerpt sums up the liberal attitude: defending the criminal is often just an in-your-face to ''the system'' or those evil conservatives who actually believe in backward ideas like law and order. The same motives are at work with the leftists who defend illegals. It's just a way of spitting in the eye of the rednecks, the nativists, all those troglodytes who aren't as 'compassionate and evolved' as the liberals. The liberal or leftist is in a permanent state of rebellion against Daddy and therefore all authority, order, and tradition, and will in a perverse way defend everything that offends ordinary, law-abiding people.
The homeless, a group that the left especially champions, are in rather a different category than say, illegal immigrants or criminals or sexual deviants. There are no doubt some who are homeless through some set of circumstances beyond their control, but in general, in our country, only a lifetime of bad choices can explain chronic homelessness. Some estimates put the rate of alcohol and drug abuse at 65-80 percent among the homeless.
The liberal will no doubt answer that addiction is a 'disease' over which these people have no control, but I am not convinced the 'disease' model has been proven. There is always an element of choice in these things. The liberal, of course, believes that most people are mere pawns, that they are victims in some way of bad upbringing, cruel conservative policies, and an uncaring society. In the liberal universe, we are all children who are not accountable for our actions -- with the exception, of course, being conservatives, who are to be blamed and held accountable at all costs.
Am I a bad Christian or a bad person if I find it hard to see the divine in a drug addict or a street drunk? I do feel pity and compassion, but if I give money to that person (which I have done, many times in the past) am I only helping them to harm themselves? Of course even the criminal and the addict are made in the image and likeness of God, I believe. But living a life of addiction and criminality tends to efface God's image in the human being; that's one of the tragedies and the sins of living a debauched or lawless life -- we deface the image of God in ourselves.
No doubt we should do all we can to help those lost in this kind of life; some Christians are very good at reaching out to the people most in need of help, but the individual has to want to be helped. And when we do 'reach out' to the criminal or the addict, do we embrace the image of God in them, or do we exalt instead their defects as being something admirable? I think the liberals and leftists do the latter: they have a lurid fascination with the dark side, and they tend to be drawn to criminality and the transgressive for its own sake.
In addition, many liberals are exhibiting pride in their superior 'compassion'. They feel puffed-up because of their superior ability to be 'caring'; they think they are the moral betters of the rest of us who don't share their morbid fascination with darkness. They don't try to lift the addict or criminal out of their sordid lives, but instead treat this kind of life as being something valuable in itself. For example, liberal Christians have decided that homosexuality is not unnatural or sinful, and they would like us to remove the stigma from that behavior, if not to outright 'celebrate' it.
In all of these habits, they are putting themselves outside the mainstream of Christian belief. I understand many liberals proudly call themselves ''allophiles'':
...positive attitudes for a group that is not one's own�is a term derived from Greek words meaning "liking or love of the other" (Pittinsky, 2005). Studied by social scientists, allophilia is the antonym of negative prejudices and the antonym of a host of "�isms": sexism, racism, heterosexism, ageism, anti-Semitism, elitism/classism, and phallocentrism. Allophilia can be felt towards members of a different race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, class, nationality, school, team, or workplace (occupation).''
Of course they try to make it a virtue, but in the old order of things, people like this were just called turncoats or, despite their delusions of moral superiority, traitors. For all their vaunted compassion, they are merely acting as accomplices and apologists for evil when they defend criminals and aggressors. The pharisaical liberal asks why some of us are 'so estranged from our fellow human beings'. I ask in turn: why are you so estranged from your blood kin, your fellow American human beings?
Labels: Allophilia, Cultural Marxism, Leftism, Liberalism, Open Borders, Political Correctness, Xenophilia