Jon's Random Thoughts
Updated June 2, 2004
 
Liberals
Islam & Terrorists
Christianity
AIDS
Homosexuality
Abortion
Love
Evolution
Hmmm
Page 2

 The hypocrisy of liberals

"Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat." (Frank Herbert) Today's liberals honestly believe they know what is best for everyone.


A liberal believes that men can solve all social and personal problems through application of intelligence, and through use of technology and education. A liberal believes that we "evolve" both as individuals and as a society. A liberal believes that every man is basically "good." In other words, liberals don't pay attention.


Liberals have stopped "thinking" about things. They now "feel" about things instead. "Compassion" is more important than right and wrong. Which cause a person supports and the words they say are more important than their own personal deeds.
     They say, "I feel that a woman's choice is more important than a fetus." They don't take time to think, which would mean researching the fetus, the woman, and the consequences of her "choice".


Liberal's believe that all men in all cultures have the same goals. Liberals believe that a sincere desire to solve a problem on their part can bring a peaceful solution to any problem. In other words, they don't pay attention.

 Islam and Terrorists

Muslims have a holy book (Koran) and a Tradition (ahadith), as do Jews. It is not the holy book that usually rules day to day behavior - it is the ahadith. Don't quote the Koran to me as "proof" that Islam is peaceful. The Koran is not a peaceful book - I've read it. The ahadith is full of incitement to kill, steal, and abuse other people.
     Ahadith can "legally" be interpreted by any Muslim leader any way he likes. Like the Catholic church - in which a priest stands between you and God - in Islam your Imam directs your beliefs where he chooses.
     Most Muslims do want very much to take over the world, by force if necessary. Arab-language publications scream it loudly every day. Unfortunately, few Americans read translated Arab publications.
     The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Christians do not advocate using force to convert people to their religion - Muslims do. It is recommended in the Koran that you beat your wife if she won't please you in every way. It is still required for every Muslim to kill any other Muslim who converts to another religion. Is this a peaceful religion?


On October 17 of 2001, the Israeli Minister of Tourism was assassinated at Jerusalem's Hyatt Hotel by terrorists belonging to the PFLP. The US State Department said this should not slow down Israel's peacemaking with The PFLP's close friend, the PA.
     If someone assassinated Secretary of State Colin Powell on American soil as an act of political terrorism; and then Israel told us to make peace with - and give concessions to - his murderers, how would that sit with us?
     Every single day Arab terrorists murder Israeli men, women, and children. Arab terrorists even fire mortar shells at Israeli childrens' playground. Just the other day (early March, 2002), they shot and killed a 9 month old baby in her mother's arms.
     Yet the USA tells Israel to make peace with these same terrorists. If that's how we really think things should work, why don't we just make peace with Osama bin Laden?

 On Christianity

My faith blinds me? I was non-Christian for 36 years and I have been a Christian for 9 years. So I have seen both sides: the side where I believe a God does not exist, and the side where I believe God does exist.
     You have lived on how many sides of this question? Just the non-believer side? I guess I have a more balanced perspective of the God-no God issue than you do. If someone is blind, you are more likely to be that person. Imagine that!


We Americans like enthusiasm, don't we?

The more they do this in public, and the more enthusiastic they are about it, the better we like them - but when a man shows the same enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, what is the reaction of the media, educators, Hollywood elite and "social commentators?" They say, the man has gone "too far," he's "extreme," maybe even "dangerous." Worse yet, he's not "tolerant!"
     What happened to their "tolerance?" Obviously, it applies to everything but a man who loves God and says so. Liberals even preach tolerance for Islam, which in many countries is a religious government forcing everyone to be of one religion or die.
     A Moslem religious government can stone you or chop off your head for speaking your mind and that's okay with a liberal. But here in the good old USA, you're not even supposed to say, "I love God" in a public place. Tolerance?


God is not another "being" with whom you can choose to be involved, or not. God is "being" itself. He cannot be avoided. You must "be" in relationship to Him, whatever that relationship is. Sinners build an imaginary universe where they are free of God. If they managed it, they would simply cease to exist, having cut themselves off from the one who powers their existence


There are true Christians and professed Christians.
     True Christians are literally different people than before they accepted Jesus as Christ. They are convicted of their sin by God's Holy Spirit, they repent, are baptised, are justified by Jesus Christ, and then sanctified by God's Spirit. They know that God resurrected Jesus. They know that we are viewed through the lens of Christ's perfection once we undergo this process.
     Argue details all you want, but every true Christian has gone through this process or is going through it. This does not make our behavior perfect. We struggle because our "old man" is rooted deep in our flesh and gives us fits. However, we have accepted our need for Jesus as Savior because we aren't perfect on our own. A Christian is a person who acknowledges his own moral weakness and finds a solution to it in Jesus Christ.
     A lot of people who never seem go through this process say they are Christians. Why? I have no idea. I cannot point to any person and say "You are not a true Christian." The Bible says it is up to each Christian to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. If the following fit you, please think hard about your beliefs:


Just about everyone agrees that Jesus was an outstanding moral teacher - probably the best who ever lived. So if He was not the Son of God, he must have been completely insane to claim that He was the Son of God. Can an insane man be one of the finest philosphers and moral teachers to ever live?


"A good God wouldn't condemn billions of people to hell for eternity." I hear that one a lot. You know what? A good God wouldn't, and He doesn't. You get to hell by stomping all over the Son of God, whom He sent to save you from hell. You have to work at getting to hell because the way out is right in front of you and it's completely free. It's your choice.
     Jesus said that hell was not created for men at all. We just begged for it so much that God decided to go ahead and give it to us. See Matthew 25:41.


"A good God wouldn't allow all this misery in the world. Why doesn't He do something about it?!" I hear that one a lot too. He did do something about it. He put you here. You can lift your fellows out of their hunger and poverty. How hard have you worked at it today? Quit blaming God and get busy. Doesn't His plan say to love your neighbor as yourself? If you're not following His plan, why are you blaming Him for the results?

More  here

 On AIDS

A medical study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June of 2002 shows that babies born to HIV-infected mothers have persistent heart problems - whether or not the babies have HIV themselves. Read it here.


From July 10, 2000 AP wire [Presentations from the 13th International AIDS Conference] - The populations of some AIDS-stricken African countries will quickly fall as millions die. By 2010, life expectancy in Africa will plunge to around age 30. "It's hard to comprehend the amount of death we will see in these countries," said Karen Stanecki of the U.S. Census Bureau, which compiled the numbers.
     25 million Africans are HIV-infected. Most will die by 2008. In Botswana, more than 1/3 of all adults carry the virus. Stanecki said this is the first time the Census Bureau has projected negative population growth due to AIDS.
     Because of the disease, life expectancy is now only 39 years in Botswana instead of 71, as it would have been without AIDS. By 2010, life expectancy will be age 29 in Botswana, 30 in Swaziland and 33 in Namibia and Zimbabwe. Without AIDS, it would have been around 70 in those countries. [end of AP article]
     Screwing around kills people, plain and simple. We spit in God's eye and wonder why the world gets darker every day.


From June 27, 2000 AP wire - The UN Program on AIDS says that over 13 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. Six of 10 women under age 24 in the South African town of Carletonville tested positive, says UNAIDS. The high death rate among teachers has forced widespread school closings in the Central African Republic. In 1998, Zambia lost over 1,300 teachers to AIDS. [end of AP article]
     Yet the media, researchers, and doctors continue to downplay the fact that immoral life styles power this epidemic. The AP says, "Lack of needle-exchange programs has condemned drug addicts to high levels of infection." Now, we all know that people using illegal drugs to get high spread the disease, not lack of some government program!
     As long as we insist on blessing sin, people will keep dying. We have turned our backs on God and we are paying the price.


So you think you're safe? Think again. From the February 24, 2000 AP wire - Georgetown University Medical Center is trying to contact 300 former patients to warn them they may have been exposed to HIV and other diseases by a medical technician stealing painkillers using contaminated needles.
     On February 2 of 2000, a nurse caught x-ray technician Jeffrey Royal siphoning the painkiller fentanyl from a patient's IV line with a syringe. He was arrested. Royal worked there 5 months and every patient who had been in his area of the hospital and who received painkillers is at risk.
     He worked on teams that inject radioactive dyes into patients' blood. Officials think Royal took needles and syringes from an infectious waste container to get patients' drugs from their IV lines. He replaced the painkillers with saline solution. [end of AP article]
     So we are all at risk, even in high-tech, "safe" countries like the USA. All it takes is one immoral person to infect hundreds of people. Think about it.


From the Journal of Family Planning Perspectives (1999;31:272-27) - Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston report that condoms, when used properly and consistently, reduce the chance of contracting HIV during regular sexual intercourse by 87%. That statistic destroys the famous claim that condoms are 99% effective. The study was led by professor Susan Weller. She says, "Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, but they don't eliminate it." [end of article]
     If it were your son or daughter, would a one in 8 chance of AIDS with every sex act seem "safe" to you?

More  here
 On Homosexuality

Before you get all lathered up, try to read what I write. Don't read what you think I am "trying" to say - just read what is actually here.
     I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe it is against God's Word as found in the Bible. Of course, so is any sexual activity that happens outside marriage, and so is telling lies, and so is stealing, and so is turning your back on a brother in need. Homosexuality is one of many sins and we're all sinners. To a holy God, I'm not sure any one sin is worse than any other. The point is that they are all sin and we need God's grace through Christ to escape sin's weight.


The word "gay" is pure hype like a slick TV commercial to make homosexuality seem okay, even good. Are homosexuals really gay?
     Two recent mainstream studies challenge the "gay" label. One - from Harvard and other medical centers across the country - shows "substantially increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men" compared to heterosexual men. The homosexual men studied were more than 4 times as likely to have wanted to die or to have had fantasies about committing suicide. They were almost 7 times more likely to have actually tried to kill themselves.
     The second study, from New Zealand, showed that homosexual or bisexual men and women are 4 times more likely to be depressed, 3 times more likely to have anxiety disorder, 4 times more likely to have conduct disorder, more than 5 times as likely to think about suicide and more than 6 times as likely to have tried to kill themselves than heterosexuals.
     Gay? I think not. Please note that at least in the first study, the numbers were adjusted downward to avoid including problems possibly caused by drugs or other psychological issues. Gay?


I don't believe that homosexuals have no choice; that it's all genetic. To have sex at all is a choice. The next choice is with whom to have it, when, where, and how. All these are choices. A tendency toward desiring a same-sex partner, perhaps?
     I'm sure you've heard about some medical study somewhere that "proved" homosexuality is genetic. That's what happens when you blindly trust today's "journalists" - the media. Here's some study information that did not even make the news.
     In April of 1999 a study contradicted previous research that claimed to show a "homosexuality gene." Dr. George Rice and researchers at Stanford Medical School said, "Our data do not support the presence of a gene influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28." Their findings were published in the April 23, 1999, issue of Science.
     Previous research suggested that male homosexuality might be linked to a set of 5 markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, which is passed from mother to child. That study said that homosexual brothers shared these sequences: a genetic reason for homosexuality.
     However, in a group of 52 homosexual brothers from 48 families, Dr. Rice's team could not find any "excess sharing" beyond that found in any 2 brothers, regardless of sexual orientation. The researchers say it is "unclear" why their findings are so different from the first study.
     Lack of an agenda, maybe?


Can a homosexual be saved? Of course. They're sinners just like everyone. Jesus came to earth to save sinners. They will have to give up sex outside marriage and with same-sex partners to grow closer to God, but they will have the help of God's Holy Spirit, the same as all Christians.
     Stopping their sinful behavor may be as easy as stopping smoking was for me, thanks to Jesus; or it may be the hardest thing they will ever do. However, we all have to submit to God, allowing Him to remove our desire to intentionally sin if we want to grow closer to Him after being saved.
     We are not made perfect when we are saved. We are viewed as perfect by God because He then looks at us through the lens of Christ, who is perfect. We may slip in a moment's laxness, or struggle with a sinful habit of many year's strength, but we cannot just thumb our noses at God and decide to keep on doing things God hates, and expect to get closer to Him. Grace prevails, but without obedience, intimacy with Him as our Father goes nowhere.

Should homosexuals be accepted into a Christian church every Sunday? Yes, for awhile. However, if a person continues to intentionally sin on and on and on, a church community must make the decision to give him up to his own desires because he does not really want to give his life to God. The same applies to a person who continues to have heterosexual sex outside marriage or to shoplift or beat his wife. Prayer and compassion for such a person should be maintained, but chronic fellowship may put the whole flock at risk.
     Christians should take these people in and help them, teach them how to approach God for the help they need, and help them open up to Jesus and walk away from their sin, whatever it may be. If such a person refuses to stop his sinful behavior however, we are to ostracize him, so he does not cause other Christians to sin. A little leaven affects the whole loaf!

 On Abortion
Jon's wife speaks about abortion here

If I made a game called "Abortion" with a medically accurate "fetus" in a transparent plastic womb; if it came with forceps, scissors, suction devices, and syringes, would the toy stores sell it on their shelves? Would they advertise it in their catalogues and on TV, encouraging parents to start teaching their kids to do abortions now?
     Would parents let their kids murder the "fetus" through the transparent womb: slice, dice and tear apart the little baby with a vacuum hose and skin-scorching injections? In this game, the babies' mouths would open and emit little screams just like they do in real life, but that's okay because they are just a "choice."
     It's legal, isn't it? Doctor's do it, don't they? It must be moral or we wouldn't allow it, right? So let's encourage our children to do it. Like eating apple pie or waving the American flag, our children proclaim, "We kill babies with pride!" Excuse me while I get sick over what this country has become. See what a "choice" looks like after being "aborted" here.
     For those of you who think abortion is just a "medical necessity" - grow up! There were 1,221,585 abortions done in the USA in 1996 alone. It's birth control by homicide.


Brochures now advertise tiny body parts of unborn babies for sale. Step right up and buy a baby's eye, a baby's kidney or a baby's brain right now! If you wonder what baby parts look like after being ripped off, you can see photos here. Take a long look.
     Congressman Tom Tancredo showed one of these brochures to Congress. After looking at a company brochure selling babies' eyes, brains, lungs, and hearts, Democrats were outraged - but not over the sale of baby organs.
     The Democrats were outraged because the Republicans called these body parts exactly what they are: "babies' body parts!" That's inflammatory language and we can't have that, no sir. It's way more important to be politically correct than to stand up for the rights of defenseless human beings being slaughtered like cattle.
     These are babies' body parts, as any idiot can tell by looking at them. They are instantly recognizable. They are for sale cheap: $50 for an eye, $999 for a baby's brain, only $150 for a heart and lungs. We all know what this means. Clinics can profit by selling bits and pieces of aborted babies. Those clinics and doctors will certainly encourage women - especially impressionable teen-aged girls - to have abortions. Why? Because they want those tiny body parts to sell for profit.
     According to the World Health Organization in 1999, 50 million abortions - that's right, 50,000,000 abortions - are done every year across the globe. That's birth control by murder.

More  here
 On Love

The word love has been stretched beyond all recognition. "Love" now means a vague all-encompassing emotion that we are just supposed to "feel" toward everybody everywhere. Real love is an act of will by which we seek the highest good for others. That's why Jesus can command us to love. It is a controllable act, not an emotion you either have or you don't. If we love our brother, we seek the very best for him at all times - actively.
     Love is the walk, not the talk. You can say you feel my pain, but that's not love. Love is doing something about my pain. A Christian can tell a hungry bum that he will pray for his soul, but that's not love. To a hungry man, love is a ham sandwich.
     Political correctness is killing the fact that love is an act of will, reaching out and actually doing something to help a brother in need, not just flapping our lips.
     Either walk the walk, or stop talking about love. It's more than a word and it's more than an emotion. It's an act of will resulting in real-life action. If God hasn't made a difference in the way you live your life, if you're not reaching out to help someone, you have a long way to go yet, brother!   My thanks to Tony Evans' book "What Matters Most"

 On Evolution

I see 3 main ways to view the origin of the universe:

  1. I don't care
  2. It evolved
  3. Somebody made it
  1. If you don't care, you don't care
  2. It evolved. The only real problem with this is that the universe must have evolved from something, which evolved from something else, and so on. Sooner or later down this road you have to admit that you believe something came from nothing
  3. Somebody made it. An eternal being has always existed, with no beginning and no end. Is it more scientific to believe that something came from nothing or that such a being has always existed?
  4. Of course, someone might say that the universe itself has just always been and will always be. Strangely, I never hear that one. Science doesn't support that view and I guess it's just not appealing somehow

From Science 1999;286:2524-2525 - A new scientific discovery casts doubt on some common beliefs about human evolution. Scientists have always assumed that a set of genes found in the mitochondria of cells is passed on only by the mother. This theory "has been used extensively to date events in human prehistory." New research shows that mitochondrial DNA may contain contributions from the father. [end of article]
     This is just one more "proven" dating method used to push evolution that has now been proven inaccurate or just plain wrong. I haven't heard this reported in the news. Have you?


From The UK Telegraph, Issue 2227; June 30, 2001 - There is now proof that carbon dating is inaccurate to the tune of at least 10,000 years. Researchers have found large variations in carbon-14 levels in a sample containing matter from across a long period of time.
     The holy grail of telling how old things are has been that the amount of carbon in earth's atmosphere has always remained steady. Anyone voicing a different view was scorned into oblivion by scientists and the press.
     The new findings suggest dramatic changes in the amount of radioactive carbon in Earth's atmosphere, at least during the last "Ice Age,". This may be from changes in earth's magnetic field, which shields Earth from the cosmic rays that create carbon-14 in the atmosphere.
     It has always been known but never advertised, that carbon dating is not reliable if the item being tested is older than "16,000 years." Scientists are now certain they know how far this method is "off" so they can now accurately date items with this method anyway. <g>
     Let's see - they were sure it was accurate until this new discovery. Now they are just as certain it is accurate once they "adjust" their findings. There go all those assumptions about the age of everything, built on a house of scientific playing cards. After all, if atmospheric carbon has varied at one time in the past, how can we be sure it didn't vary at other times as well?
     Update 2004 - It is now thought that such magnetic changes happen every so often "naturally."

 Hmmmm

Most Americans are not intelligent. Websters' says that intelligence is the skilled use of reason. Most people who write me in disagreement don't spend one second thinking about their own views. Most Americans now "think" with their emotions, not their brains.
     Americans often blather on in sound bytes that have no meaning or no relation to the original topic. When asked specific questions about their statements, they refuse to answer the questions that have actually been asked. Instead, they point fingers and say, "Aha! You have no compassion!" Other times, they say, "You shouldn't judge people!" However, when asked which of my statements is a judgment, they never reply.
     Often they respond to a question about topic A with an answer to some topic B that was never under discussion. Other times, they assume I believe this or that when I haven't even spoken to those topics.
     Sadly, this trend is seen in many young, college-educated people. The American educational system has become so liberal that rational thought is strongly discouraged. It' no wonder the work force is largely incompetent. They have forgotten how to think, if they ever knew.
     For most Americans, just as it is more desirable to win a lottery than to earn a living, it is more desirable to feel strongly about something than to understand why you should - or should not - feel strongly about it.


From December 6, 1999 AP wire - The National Institute of Mental Health uses only 1/3 of its budget for research into mental illness. It spends more to study AIDS than schizophrenia, according to a recent report. "NIMH is not doing what it is supposed to do," says study co-author Dr. Fuller Torrey.
     Here are some examples from the report. Decide for yourself. Keep in mind that NIMH is a federally-funded insitute for studying mental health. You pay for this stuff!

  1. NIMH spends more on AIDS research ($60 million) than on schizophrenia research ($57 million). About 5.6 million Americans suffer from schizophrenia.
  2. NIMH spends only 12% of their budget on actual treatment research for mental illness.
  3. NIMH funds "human behavior" research that is irrelevant to real mental illness, such as a $200,000 study of teen romance.
  4. NIMH spent $100,000 to create a web page on sleep.
  5. NIMH spent $99,873 to study the social behavior of a rodent - the prairie vole.
  6. NIMH spent $83,743 to study aggression among eastern bluebirds, that's right, bluebirds.

"The Justice Department estimates that 1,000 murders a year are committed by mentally ill people, many of whom are not taking their medication," said Torrey. "Yet the NIMH does little direct research to determine how to keep people on medication that controls violent outbursts."
     The NIMH Director denies that the agency spends only 36% of its budget directly on severe mental illnesses. However, figures supplied by Genna Weidlinger - an aide in Director Hyman's office - show that the agency is spending $260 million directly on severe mental illness research out of a budget of $743 million a year. This is only 35% of their budget!


Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Italian-Americans and on and on and on. It's one of the reasons this country still has a problem with racism. If you call yourself a hyphenated-American of any sort, you are part of the problem!
     People used to come to America to be Americans. We were the world's melting pot and it strengthened us because we all had something in common: we were Americans and that was a good thing. Now people actively resist any Americanization.
     Americanization is the process where everyone tries really hard to be nice to his neighbor, to work together for the good of the country, their church, their children, their community, their company, and to have as their number one concern helping to create a strong America. It's the process of caring what happens to your country, of striving for excellence in all that you do so your children will have a real shot at happiness and financial security.
     Americanization is knowing that the media and politicians will do what is best for America - for the most part anyway - simply because Americans won't stand for being second best, or for lies and treason.
     Now politicians lie and ooze divisiveness. The media lies and actively promotes the destruction of honor and truth. There are countries within a country, where you are not welcome and may even be in danger if your skin is the "wrong" color or if you speak the "wrong" language.
     The more we talk about racism, the worse it gets; that's because we refuse to address the roots of the problem. It's not politically correct to talk about patriotism, God, and country; or honor and respect. Try calling a black person racist and watch what happens. Yet they are just as likely to hate and act racist as any other human. There is no honesty.
     Liberals scream for legislation about hate crimes, yet it violates every concept upon which America was founded; It supposes that 12 strangers can know the inner thoughts of a fellow-citizen. Once unleashed, the gun of "You Hate!" can be pointed at anyone any time, and there's no defense against it because justice is not involved, only opinion.


My wife's vehicle stalled at a very busy intersection during rush hour the other day. Luckily, she had a cellular phone, which we recently purchased for such a possibility. She called a tow-truck company and waited for half an hour. The point is that during the entire half-hour wait, not a single person - not one - stopped to offer assistance or to ask if they could contact someone for her. My daughter was also in the car.
     As recently as 20 years ago, this would have been unthinkable in my area. People helped other people. Not anymore. In fact, the tow-truck driver was vigorously cursed by passing drivers for being "in the way." Where has America gone? We have shut God out of our lives and bad things are happening.


Apparently, all these school sex education programs haven't slowed down teen sex at all. What a surprise. Teens are losing their virginity at younger ages than ever and they are passing around sexually transmitted diseases at an alarming rate.
     Dr. Trevor Stammers of St. George's Hospital Medical School in London says that the media filters the results of sex studies. He says the media focus on a few positive results and completely ignore the many negative results of such studies.
     One study showed that boys whose main source of sex education was school rather than their friends were more likely to stay virgins until age 16. However, the study also showed that school sex education had no effect at all on the age when girls had sex for the first time. Although it was in the same study, that part was not reported at all.
     The media pick and choose what information they report. Do you really want the media deciding what you "should" hear? Well, you'd better get off your butt and do something if not, because it's happening to you right now. Yes, you. Now. Write some letters, organize an e-mail campaign. Get your news from multiple sources and when they disagree, ask reporters why, and keep asking until they answer you!
     Teenagers in the USA are pressured toward having sex by music, tv, magazines, billboards, movies, the Internet, and lots of liberal adults who tell them it's okay to have sex and that it's perfectly safe as long as you wear a condom. First, it's not perfectly safe when wearing a condom! (read above) Second, do you really think every time a teenage boy has sex, he takes the time and effort to buy and use a condom?
     The only way to be completely safe from pregnancy and sexual disease is abstinence. You can hem and haw all you want, but that's just the plain truth. We fail as parents and as adults when we don't exert enough pressure on teens to not have sex.
     When we say that teens can't possibly not have sex, we reduce them to the level of village idiots. Let's give them some credit and expect them to live up to a higher standard. I'm willing to bet the vast majority will live up to those higher expectations.

More  here

Any plagiarism is accidental. Content, however, is entirely intentional

E-mail Jon Site Index