thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

movie review--The Dark Knight Returns, part 2

I have a bit of a memory of when The Dark Knight Returns comics came out, way back when. I didn't read them until later, though. And now, a bit later still, I've been watching the second part of the recent animated movies based on the comics.

Despite some points of interest in the comics, I remember being put off by some things in it, too. Having learned a bit more since them, I can say that things I found off-putting are even more numerous.
To put it more plainly, this isn't so much an animated movie as a piece of clumsy propoganda, and if people actually knew and remembered history, they would find it ridiculous.

When this comic was first put out, there was this thing called the Cold War going on. The place we know call Russia was at that time a major part of what was called The Soviet Union, along with a lot of other countries around present-day Russia that at that time were a part of the USSR, and not exactly by choice.

That figured into the comics, and is in this animated movie, too. What's happening with Batman and Gotham is set against a grow internationsl conflict between the USA and USSR over a fictional country. While Batman fights the Joker, again, Superman is winning this international conflict. Whether the guy writing the comic is happy about the US winning this conflict is an interesting question, and simply judging by how he handles it, I'd have to say he wasn't.

Somewhat odd. He has a psychiatrist try to say that Batman is the one at fault for the Joker's crimes, right before the Joker kills him and a TV studio full of people. But because of this victory by the US, the Soviet Union launches nuclear missles, which detonate and cause an EMP event, wiping out electronic across the US. One wonders if he thinks the US, or the president in the movie, isn't to blame for this strike by the Soviets.

The writer of the comic included a character that is basically the former US President, Ronald Reagan, though I don't know if he ever names him or now. He basically makes this character a klutz, incompetent, and has newscasters go one about how shameful his handling of the crisis after the EMP event was.

Now, for a touch of reality. One of the big reasons the USSR collapsed was because of Reagan's refusal to back down from them. Far from being as this comic depicts him, Reagan was one of the better US presidents.

This writer, and of course the movie, portrays this Reagan president as someone who would send Superman to take Batman down, because of how Batman is embarrassing him. Can't help but think that that's not how Reagan was.

The writer's politics show through in other ways, too. At one point, Batman is trying to rally a gang of young men who were part of some kind of Batman-cult like group, so he could use them to help restore order to Gotham because of the lack of electrical power. He grabs a rifle or shotgun one of them had, holds it up, tells them that these gusn are the weapons of cowards, and proceeds to destroy it.

It's always interesting whenever these comic book heroes, who often have access to some kind of powers of their own or, like Batman, to really advanced technological weapons, get all worked up because a normal person dares to have a gun. Batman can have Batmoblies, Batcopters, Batplanes, Batarangs, Batcycles, and many of those with some kind of weapon that can blow stuff up, not to mention a bullet-proof suit with all the neat trimmings, and all that stuff in his utility belt, but let some poor normal person dare have a pistol, and that's just unacceptable and cowardly.

Then, when Batman is restoring order and making himself the law in Gotham, he becomes the thought police, deciding who stays "tied up" based on their willingness to display a proper cooperative attitude.

I can't help but think that this animation is pretty much the left's ideas of how things should be run, how the 80s should have happened. For them, Reagan should be seen as incompetent old man, all evidence to the contrary. Having guns in the hands of the average person is a serious problem, one they need to fix. And if you don't want to cooperate with them, well, there are places you can be "tied up" so you don't interfere with their utopia.

Basically, don't bother with it. There's very little in this movie worth seeing.

movie review: 2016

I had been wanting to see this movie since it came out a few weeks ago, and finally got the chance. And, overall, I wasn't disappointed. Evaluating a documentary-type of film is somewhat different from doing so with the regular movie. I'll admit here that my own political views are very similar to d'Souzas, so knowing a bit going in about what the movie was about, it was the kind of thing I had anticipated. It pretty much follows de'Sousa around, showing his conversations with other people. There are also a few re-enactments, and excerpts of the president reading from one of his books. D'Souza visits Indonesia and Kenya, along with places in the US that are associated with the President's past. The over all tone of the movie is fairly reasonable; indeed, d'Souza at times seems not entirely unsympathetic to the President in some ways, as for example when he notes similarities in their backgrounds. But there's little doubt that his ideas are very different from the Presidents, and that this film is not one friendly to him. Overall, the movie is fairly well made. It seems fairly coherent and doesn't engage in much over-the-top rhetoric. But the value of a film like this is in how accurate, or not, it's claims are. We've had examples from Gore and Moore that have played fast-and-loose with the facts, so has d'Souza, too? I'm not sure how to answer that, though if he had, I would imagine in the couple of weeks since it was released, someone's fact-checked it more thoroughly than I'm able or have the time to. Not to encourage sloth or mindless acceptance, because claims by anyone on this side or that should be tested and confirmed so far as possible. I know that this movie is essentially an election movie, and the fact that it's released a few months before an election in which it's primary subject is a candidate should be noted and kept in mind. I recommend it. The information it gives seems relevant, especially since it's stuff we should have been told this time four years ago.