Archive for the Sexual revolution Category

Aurora, Colorado. Testing my long term plan for America.

Posted in abortion, atheism, christians, evolution, liberals, political correctness, progressives, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, Sexual revolution, toleration, worldview with tags , on July 24, 2012 by devilbloggger

Senseless?

Surely by now, my friends, you have had time to reflect on what, but for God’s (blechhh!) grace to the graceless left (in both senses of the word) in America, would be normal: the killing of innocent big people.  Yes, those twelve (or thirteen, or fourteen) big people were in the wrong place at the wrong time; and, yes, they did not deserve to die; and, yes, their killer acted with the full intention of killing as many as he could.  And yes, my servants, I am ultimately to blame.

Some of you fret–even my Temptress dared to question my judgment on this.  But fear much, my servants, I may not be the smartest being in the universe, but I do have a plan.  At the risk of divulging kingdom secrets, I’ll tell you what it is.

You must promise to keep this confidential.  Look around.  Is anyone we can’t trust in the room?  If so, casually switch back to email or something until they leave.

Gone?

OK.  My faithful readers know that I have particular designs on America.  America was truly the land of the free and the home of the brave for generations.

America was founded on a Biblical ethos that produced the most solid, grounded, morally upright people on the planet.  Even the millions who claimed to not believe in God grew up in a cultural sea of moral right and wrong.  Traditional, cultural institutions of the land continually reinforced inner moral compasses by instilling Biblically grounded values.

Of course, we cannot have that, can we, Temptress and friends?

No.

So what was I to do?

I had to systematically remove the collective conscience of a moral people.  I had to slowly transform a generally moral society into a society that values “toleration” and hates “judgment.”  I had to remove from America what made America great: its underlying sense of a transcendent right and wrong based in a person to whom somehow and in some way everyone was ultimately responsible.

And this is just what I did.

Consider: do you think James Holmes ever prayed in a public school?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of God in public except to be ridiculed or treated as a throw back believed only by the morally weak and naive?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever in a Christmas play?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of Jesus Christ in public except to be used as in vain?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever taught anything in public school except that he was an accidental product of blind nature?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a TV show or a movie where the subject of religion and/or God was treated with reverence?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a court of law uphold God’s law in the area of sexual expression?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you get it, my servants?

James Holmes is the natural, predictable product of a post-modern, post-Christian, and post-Constitutional America!

The only wonder (and I do wonder) is why there are not innumerably more James Holmses!

James Holmes kills twelve big people and it’s treated as a tragedyTwelve big people in the wrong place at the wrong time; twelve big people who did not deserve to die; killed by a killer acting with the full intention of killing as many as he could.

Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like abortion when I put it that way.

But in that theater it was only big people.

But twelve is considered a big number because it’s still considered wrong to kill big people.

I’ll fix that soon, my friends.  But let me illustrate my genius.

I use killings like those in Aurora, Colorado to test my system, to check if my plan is working out.

And it is.

In all the hand wringing and soul-searching in the media, did you hear one person suggest that America needs to get back on the right moral track?

Did you hear one person suggest that we, as a society, need to get back to moral basics so that we can grow better men?

Grow better men???

Fundamentally different men, with a proper understanding of God’s moral law?

A generation of men who are taught that they are created equal and live under a God who sees all and holds all men responsible?

A land of men who know right from wrong, with toleration and judgment excercised in proper balance?

Such notions sound foreign, don’t they?

That’s my genius, my friends.  Give me credit.

Instead of considering the true reasons for the James Holmses of the land, the Americans started immediately crying about “gun control.”

My friends, let the Americans focus on gun control.  What they are blind to is that guns are merely a tool in the hands of a man raised to do my will on earth because he knows no better.

What Americans should be focusing on is growing better men.

But that’s impossible without God.

So I win, my friends.

I win.

Don’t I?

Advertisements

Gallup causing trouble (again)

Posted in abortion, liberals, Morality, Planned Parenthood, politics, Sexual revolution with tags , on May 24, 2012 by devilbloggger

Gallup.

Bad news on the wires today, my friends.  And I’m blaming the Gallup poll folks.  For my non-American readers, Gallup is a leading polling organization in the United States.  They ask all kinds of people all kinds of nosey questions, including stupid questions (for most Americans) like, “Are you for or against the basic human rights the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution.”

Well, what red-blooded American wouldn’t be for constitutionally protected basic human rights?  The Founding Fathers, by the way, made it clear in the Declaration of Independence that these rights are inalienable because they derive from their creator.

Blechhhh!

Fortunately, no American children are ever exposed to these evil documents.  (How many Americans even know what inalienable means?)

And even more fortunately for my kingdom, my servants, is that those amazing Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with the rights of Mounding Mothers.

You did not know that?

Yes, in addition to ensuring future Americans would have rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to bear arms . . . wait, I thought these rights were inalienable!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(Sorry, my friends.  But those Americans let their rights be taken from them with hardly a whimper.)

But back to my point–for some reason the Americans willingly let government quietly strip their rights to speech, religion and guns, rights for which many revolutionaries gave their lives.  But fortunately, there is one right enshrined in the US Constitution that will likely never be taken away.

In fact, thousands still die for this right each year.

Yes, it’s the constitutionally protected right of Mounding Mothers to end their mounding together with their motherhood.  And with each end to motherhood a little mound-causing person dies.

An innocent person, at that.

Sometime before their little mound is even detectable.

My kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in Hell.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

So, you ask, what does Gallup have to do with this?

Well, the Gallup meddlers are stirring up a non-controversy by asking people if they identify themselves as “pro-choice” or not.

Think about it, my friends, why is the question even being asked?

Really, why?

Does Gallup go around asking people if they consider themselves “pro-free speech”?

You see, my friends, the beauty of constitutionally protected rights that derive from God is that it doesn’t matter if you like them or not — they are guaranteed rights to all (already born) human beings.

And the right for a mother to end her motherhood was, thanks to the amazing foresight of the Founding Fathers, enshrined in the United States Constitution.

So why does Gallup keep asking people if they are for it or against it?

But it’s even worse, my servants.

It seems that in asking the question the Gallup troublemakers found a devastating result.  According to today’s Politico.com,

The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-choice” is at the  lowest point ever measured by Gallup, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

Yes, a record low 41 percent of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-choice” (which is a euphemism for “anti-Mounding Mothers”).  And worser yet, 50 percent of Americans now consider themselves “pro-life”!

Blechhh!  Blechhhh!

Yes, it’s bad, my servants, and I put much of the blame on Gallup.

By continually asking whether people are “pro-choice” or “pro-life” (Gallup has been asking this question since 1995), they keep alive the notion that maybe, just maybe, abortion is not so inalienable after all (there’s that word again; look it up!)

Does Gallup go around asking people if they are “pro-constitutional rights” or not?

Then why ask the same question differently by substituting “pro-choice” for “pro-constitutional rights?”  The terms are synonymous, right?

By asking the question Gallup reminds everyone that, in fact, the right that thousands die for each year might actually not be so constitutional.

In fact, those thousands might actually die for something that is not only not consitutional, but might just be wrong.

And when people no longer have the cover of “well, it’s legal, so it must be right,” they will have to face what they already sense in their hearts: that abortion is wrong.

Plain wrong.

Gallup, please stop.

Me and Rush Limbaugh’s big mouth!

Posted in abortion, freedom, Government, marriage, Obama, political correctness, politics, Sexual revolution, Truth with tags , , , on March 6, 2012 by devilbloggger

Fluke.

It’s not a fluke, I suppose, my friends.  And it’s not your fault.  I leaked some kingdom knowledge in my February 12th post, and I forgot to remind you to keep it confidential.  And one of you must have blabbed.  It looked bad, and I’ve laid low this past week trying to salvage my self-inflicted bad fluck–I mean luck.

My faithful readers will understand.

Just weeks ago I was beaming with pride as the American liberals insisted on putting their hands on (and in) women’s bodies by dictating through their dictator that all forms of birth control must now be dictated as part of the welfare dole for all women.

Imagine my delight in the twisted logic of liberals:  Liberal women love to chant “Keep your hands off my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to kill the products of conception.  But they chant “Put your hands on my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to free contraception.

Go figure.

Liberal women see no inconsistency in demanding control of other people’s money because they have no control over their own money, much less their own bodies.

I was ahead of the spin curve on this, my friends, and it almost cost me dearly.

Recall that I previously dealt with the controversy of the Obama administration’s demand that all employers, including those having a Biblically informed religious conscience, pay for all forms of contraception of its employees.

At the time I was revelling in my great success in confounding the Americans with mediaswirlification around “women’s rights” and “religious liberties.”

But what everyone was missing was my main goal in this, which went to the heart of freedom!  Yes, everyone seemed to be missing the fact that a modern dictator was dictating to private entities what they must provide free to others.

The dictator was dictating that other people must, based on His Dictateness alone, pay for the sex needs of all women everywhere, including one Ms. Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old privileged law student going to one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

In a fit of pride, I gloated a rhetorical question: “Where are the sane Americans?”

Remember?

And then I asked this fateful question:

Where is someone to stand up and tell Ms. Keely and Ms. Sandra to stop begging for someone else’s money and control their own friggin’ bodies or go pay for their own damn birth control?

Well, that’s when my luck turned, and out of nowhere surfaced One Sane American.

My fit of pride became fit to be tied as I listened daily for the next week or so as One Rush Limbaugh, a seemingly singular voice of sanity, picked up on my tactic and drove home the point daily: this issue is bigger than “women” and “religion;” it goes to the heart of FREEDOM.

Blechhhh!

Did someone leak my kingdom strategy to Mr. Limbaugh?

Of course someone did.

But what was I to do?  Mr. Limbaugh has an audience of millions, an engaging (sometimes enraging) style, and a way of putting the complex into simple terms that anyone but liberals can understand.

He is Conservative One, and he nailed this one: on what basis should taxpayers or insurers (i.e., other people) be required to pay for women’s recreational (and apparently uncontrollable) sex needs?

I recall one of Mr. Limbaugh’s more lucid analogies.  He imagined a neighbor knocking at his door and telling him that she didn’t have any money for birth control.  And then, after getting a “so what?” look from him, he imagined her telling him that she wanted him to pay for her birth control.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

But that is exactly what Ms. Fluke is doing.

Exactly.

Ms. Fluke is knocking on every American’s door and demanding that they pay her so she can go get contraception to have all the sex she wants with guys who are apparently getting all the free sex they want.

And I was truly worried that Mr. Limbaugh’s golden microphone might blow my stratetacticification.

And then. . .

Oh, am I one lucky devil.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Mr. Limbaugh, in trying to illustrate absurdity said what many were thinking–paying for Ms. Fluke’s lack of self-control and sex life?  What does that make her??

What do you call women who have no self-control in the area of sex, and take other people’s money for it?

But, of course, the days when loose women were shamed are long gone.

Now, Ms. Fluke’s parents are supposed to be proud of her.

Hey, I know I am.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Mr. Limbaugh?

Well, he flew a little too close to the flame.

Conservative One, meet Liberal One.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(Oh, but he’ll be back.)

Blechhhh!

Your Glee is My (unstoppable) Glee

Posted in Ethics, homosexuality, Morality, political correctness, progressives, same sex marraige, Sex, Sexual revolution with tags , , on November 13, 2011 by devilbloggger

Glee!

I knew it would come to this, my servants.  After all, what (or who) could stop it?  Yes, my friends, I’m bragging about the glorious boyboysex delivered into millions of households this week on Fox’s popular teen-targeted comedy “Glee”.

Comedy?

Maybe for you, but for me?  It’s pure glee!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Boyboysex on prime time television.  According to Fox News’ article entitled “Straight, Gay Couples Lose Virginity on ‘Glee’ Episode, Spark Controversy,” my will on earth is hurtling along almost totally unimpeded.

Who can stop it?

According to the Fox News article, both a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will lose their respective virginities on this prime time fare.

And do you know what I like best?  It’s that the uproar is virtually solely over the boyboysex.  The world apparently yawns at two children of opposite sex “losing it” on television.  That is so yesterday.

But boyboysex?

Well, soon that, too, will be so yesterday.

You see, my servants, how far we have come. Today’s shock is tomorrow’s yawn.

And the beat goes on.

My Glee glee is particularly gleefulicious because it comes during the same week that the world is shocked at the allegations of boyboysex between a grown man and a 10-year old boy in the locker rooms of Penn State’s Happy Valley.

I love the hand-wringing over the fate of that poor little 10-year old (who was merely unlucky in time; within the next 50 years such behavior will be accepted as normal).  The popular press screams in high moral outrage about a grown man enjoying boyboysex with a 10-year old pinned to a shower wall.

You are all my 10-year olds, my friends.

While the world frets about that 10-year old on the receiving end of boyboysex in the locker room, do you know how many 10-year olds (or younger) watched boyboysex on Glee?

I’ll tell you.  I was gleefully counting: 2,744,992.

And do you know what else?  About 31% of those 10-year olds were watching with their parents in the room.

I’m not sure what I’m more proud of — the kids watching with their mind-numbed parents, or the kids watching without.  Both are huge victories for my kingdom.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, of course, there are those against my kingdom who try to sound the warning bell.    Melissa Henson, the director of communications and public education for the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment, was quick to weigh in by refuting the standard Hollywood line:

Hollywood loves to defend teen sex story lines by insisting, “Kids are having sex! We’re reflecting the real world!” But the truth is much more sobering and
complicated.

Yes, of course it is.  Because as Henson states:

Teens are also aware that television influences their behavior. According to one survey, a third of youths age 12 and older say the media encourages them to have sex by making it seem like “everybody does it.” And why shouldn’t they get that impression?

You see, my friends.  I use television to continually push back the lines of morally acceptable behaviour for language, sexuality, and culture in general.  But my greatest achievements come among the little chillen’s of the world.

And I’m proud not only because of what I’ve accomplished, but also at how easy it is.

A few minutes of prime time comedy will prove to anyone how effective my strategy has been.  The airwaves shining into the minds of chillens the world over are full of vulgarity, sexual innuendo, sexual exuendo, glamorized casual sex, shameless gratuitous sex, and, of course sex-laced laugh lines to make you laugh your way to moral rot and decay.

You see, my friends, I have almost the whole world grinning with glee as they face the shower wall.

And, again, who can stop me?

Apparently no one.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(PS: Don’t tell anyone, but television would hardly be my playground of evil if only Christians and those who call themselves Christians stopped watching.  Shhhhh!)

Destroying Society One (Gay) Marriage at a Time

Posted in Bible, christians, Government, homosexuality, perversion, political correctness, same sex marraige, Sexual revolution, theology, Truth with tags , , on July 12, 2011 by devilbloggger

Quote of the Day:  Just say the Bible is pro-homosexuality, throw out a few random verses, talk about the love of God, and sternly warn about judging others.  Do this with a sincere look on your face and you will convince a few, confuse many, and you can go home victorious. — We gays don’t need no stinkin’ Bible (do we?)

Inevitable.

Ahhh . . . the sweet confirmation of my success is here.  And from the entirely reasonable and even-keeled keyboard of Rod Dreher over at Real Clear Religion.  Today’s article, entitled “My Second Thoughts About Gay Marriage,” lays out better than I could the current landscape of gay marriage acceptance in America. 

And the picture is beautiful from my point of view.

Mr. Dreher is reacting to my recent victory in New York, which recently became the sixth, and largest, state in the US to legalize same-sex marriage.  Mr. Dreher noticed with some alarm the same thing I noticed with some delight: the virtual absence of any effective defense of the marriage status quo. 

Mr. Dreher had written a previous column complaining,

. . . that no conservative religious leaders had managed to articulate a persuasive case against gay marriage — this, because so few have been able to mount an effective defense of Christian sexual teaching since the Sexual Revolution.

Ta da!

Dreher is right.  Like magic I’ve virtually silenced any intellectually coherent opposition to boyboysex and girlgirlsex, including state-sanctioned marriage of such sinfulness.

Oops!  Did I say sinfulness?  I’m getting ahead of myself.  Hang on, my servants, while I explain what is really going on here.

My servants, what I’m about to share is highly confidential.  If you are on a public computer, please take note of your surroundings.  If someone can see your screen, casually scroll up or switch to another window now.  Wait until you are alone before proceeding.

Alone?

Good.

I recommend that you read Mr. Dreher’s article for yourself, as he adroitly lays out the situation facing those who oppose same-sex marriage in America.  He makes the following salient observations:

  • It is clear that aside from those who consider their moral judgments bound by Biblical religion … the point of privileging traditional marriage is increasingly lost on contemporary Americans.
  • It is true that the relatively swift popular acceptance of same-sex marriage is breathtakingly revolutionary, and it is a cultural revolution that has been driven by elites. But traditionalists cannot for much longer pretend that gay marriage lacks popular support.
  • [Same-sex marriage] is widely accepted by younger Americans, many of whom view the taboo against homosexuality as arbitrary and irrational.

And what does Dreher rightly conclude from these facts?  Just this:

The point is not that there are no morally serious arguments for same-sex marriage. Of course there are. The point, rather, is that the arguments against same-sex marriage are now so countercultural. Even more depressingly, it seems to me true that so few people want to entertain arguments at all.

Dreher then responds to the question: What should pastors and other social conservatives say now?

First, according to Dreher, such people should acknowledge the truth of the situation, and resign themselves to the fact that the redefinition of marriage, and indeed the family, is inevitable and unstoppable.  Americans are witnessing the inexorable ripening of the fruit of the sexual revolution, characterized by Dreher as “defeat that we are enduring.”

Second, Dreher correctly recognizes that,

For Christians, gay marriage is not the cause of our crisis. It is only a symptom, and a symbol of the new age.

And what is Dreher’s answer to the question above?  This:

I don’t know what, precisely, pastors and other church leaders should say about this issue going forward. But unless it’s based on an analysis that’s sober, deep, and unsparing, their words will continue to be unavailing.

Let me help out here.  There is an effective antidote to the cancer of the liberal-theology-fueled, secularized God-be-damned-politicoreligous-perverted road to legalizing my will on earth.  And it is this:

Convincing one heart at a time of sin and righteousness, and framing the question as “what pleases God?”

Did you get that?  I tell you this so you can deflect any such convincing as you see it.  Silence it.  Ridicule it.  Challenge it as backward, cruel, intolerant, and/or just plain irrelevant.  But stop it.

You see, there is no convincing the mind of a belligerent, convinced sinner of the moral nature of same-sex marriage.  The boyboys and girlgirls simply don’t care.  I ensure that by hardening their hearts and stopping their ears.

But the word of God is powerful, and the preaching of sin opens the mind to the convicting power of one greater than I, and once convicted of God’s righteousness, the question for the changed heart no longer becomes “can I rationalize this in my own mind as OK?” but “can I in my own heart know that this activity please God?”

You see, almost any chosen behavior can be mentally rationalized using and misusing the Bible for one’s own selfish purposes.  Thus when one understands that “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people,” all one need to is convince his own mind that his particular chosen sin is not truly immoral, impure, or greedy.

Done!

But when one frames the challenge as “Live as children of the light and find out what pleases the Lord,” suddenly the mental challenge to justifying sin becomes greater; in fact it becomes insurmountable to the honest heart.

Does anyone really believe the Bible approves of same-sex marriage? 

Well, yes, in fact, many do.

Can anyone really make the case that same-sex marriage “pleases the Lord?”

Those who do can only do so by invoking the “God is a God of love, and a loving God loves all his chillens, including boyboys and girlgirls.”

And by this logic the “loving God” must love all manner of perversion among his chillens, and nothing could be deemed displeasing to him.  Any other outcome makes God arbitrarily intolerant, and, thus unloving.

Clearly the question of what pleases God forces the issue in a different light that even those committed to sin cannot stand against.

Preach sin.  Stress the personal responsibility of finding out what is pleasing to God.  Let God change hearts.

And changed hearts will change society.

It’s as simple at that.

Fortunately I have such a huge advantage in numbers of hearts possessed that it’s unlikely that modern Christians have the staying power to reverse the course of American society toward total state-sanctioned sexual perversion.

In fact, with men it is impossible.  Let’s hope, my servants, that the battle remains among men.

And the beat goes on.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Theologian

Posted in homosexuality, political correctness, progressives, religion, Sex, Sexual revolution, Uncategorized with tags , , on June 9, 2011 by devilbloggger

Finally.

We can all breathe a sigh of relief now, my friends.  The cultural battle waging across the globe on the issue of homosexuality can finally be ended.  A theologian has spoken wisdom to us all, and, not surprisingly, this theologian who no doubt studied God’s Word in its original languages, read it thoroughly to see its overarching themes of holiness before a just God, and who surely speaks with an inspired voice, came to the conclusion that boyboysex and girlgirlsex is okey-dokey with God.

Who is this eminent voice of measured scriptural authority before whom we should all willingly beat our swords of divine truth into plowshares of earthly claptrap?   None other than one whose initials can stand for Gay Pride: Gwyneth Paltrow.

Yes, the excellent actress Ms. Paltrow decided she should join my vocal in-crowd on an issue for which God is decidedly and vocally out: homosexuality.  Writing in her GOOP Newsletter today, Ms. Paltrow, after certainly studying scripture closely and seeking the very heart of God, found the notion of the Bible’s condemning homosexuality “foreign.”

Ha ha ha ha ha. 

I love it.  Once again my lies on earth are working.  How can homosexuality be wrong when homosexuals can be so nice?  We all, like Ms. Paltrow, know homosexual people, and they are our friends, coworkers, and neighbors.  In this case, can’t we love both the sin and the sinner?

I do, of course. 

Theological meanderings such as Paltrow’s are common, but to maintain acceptance of homosexuality on the belief that the concept of homosexuality being condemned in the Bible is “foreign” reveals that it is the Bible itself that is foreign to Paltrow. 

The Bible, like it or not, condemns homosexuality in numerous places.  I wonder which part Paltrow finds “foreign”?  The part where the Bible says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Or the part where the Bible says that homosexuality is a perversion?  Or the part where the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God?

Foreign?

Yes, pretty Gwyneth, who like most of her persuasion apparently has never read the Bible, finds the very concept of the Bible condemning an abomination to be foreign.  And she worries that this concept is “used to justify so much judgement [sic] and separation in our society.”

Tell me, my pretty, does it worry you that “concepts” condemning murder tend to justify judgment and separation of murderers

No?

Really?  Because murderers are condemned in the very same Biblical passages alluded to above.

Do you see, my servants, what is happening here?  Ms. Gwyneth doesn’t really know or care what the Bible says.  She just knows what she wishes to be true.  I’ve said before that everyone has a line drawn in the moral sand, beyond which even they find judgment and separation of offenders justified. 

God has his line.  Gwyneth has her line.  All of God’s chillens have a line.

What I love to see is human beings exercising human wisdom to reason their way to moving God’s line over to their line.  It’s easy to do, really.  All one must do, as other writers on Paltrow’s GOOP page do, is make the Bible something other than God’s inerrant word.

A mighty wise Episcopal priest named Cynthia Bourgeault, for example, sees the Bible as a:

“symphony (sometimes a cacophony!) of divinely inspired human voices bearing witness to an astonishing evolutionary development in our human understanding of God.”

Get it?  We were dumb before to believe homosexuality to be sinful in God’s sight, but with evolutionary development in our understanding we come to see that God didn’t really mean what he said.  Because, according to the mighty wise Bourgeault, “God reveals Godself in time, through process and dialogue, not in unchanging monolithic statements.”

So according to the might wise Bourgeault, it is only a matter of time before we have enough process and dialogue with “Godself” (who seems remarkably similar to Bourgeaultself) to find that murder is not really a sin.

Right?

Why not?

No, really, why not?

To Ms. Paltrow’s credit, she does include, somewhat reluctantly and only with an asterisk signaling her reasoning “to include as many perspectives as possible on this issue,” a correct view by Dr. John Stott.  I urge you to not read Mr. Stott’s view; let me summarize his views as he did in his conclusion:

Here, then, are three truths which Jesus affirmed: (1) heterosexual gender is a divine creation; (2) heterosexual marriage is a divine institution; and (3) heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention. A homosexual liaison is a breach of all three of these divine purposes.

Ouch!

I wonder why Ms. Paltrow didn’t mention Jesus’ view on the subject.  Or the Apostle Paul’s?  Or any other of those “inspired human writers” the mighty wise Ms. Bourgeault writes off?

Maybe because she has never read those views?

Ms. Paltrow ends her schooling of God by wondering:

What does is actually say in the bible [sic] that will cause some people to be upset by my line of thinking?

Yes, what does it actually say, Ms. Gwyneth?

Happy Pride.

Love,

S.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Weining!

Posted in perversion, Sex, Sexual revolution, Sin, Uncategorized with tags , on June 7, 2011 by devilbloggger

Move over Charlie Sheen!

My servants, I must say that I’ve stayed away from the whole Anthony Weiner affair for a few days.  Not because I wasn’t relishing every salacious moment.  But sometimes there is no need for me to comment on such exhibits of my dominance in the lives of men.  The very facts themselves show the world to what depths of sin and depravity I’ve led the greatest nation on earth. 

But today my pride cup overfloweth as I realized Anthony Weiner’s forced apology and the culture of perversion-sensitized ignorance that unflinchingly listened to it go to show my success to an even greater degree.  Let me explain.

My global friends, I’m sure you have heard of Mr. Weiner, the United States Congressman who sponsored the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007.  Yes, Mr. Weiner proved the need for, and the impotence of, such legislation by revealing himself to be a serial internet sexual predator. 

Mr. Weiner the Righteous, who lords over Americans had this to say in 2007:

“Sadly, the Internet is the predator’s venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.”

Today Mr. Weiner revealed that he engaged in online predatory acts with many women, and he didn’t even know their ages.  “To the best of his knowledge” they were adults.

And we’re going to trust his knowledge?  Maybe they were mere children?  Does it matter?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

But listen, my servants, and let me share what you should notice from this whole wonderfully sordid episode.  Step back for a moment, and consider with me just what we are witnessing here.  The Americans are now in a national conversation on the topic of whether a married elected public official who admittedly sent lewd pictures of himself to multiple women multiple times, was dumb enough to get caught, lied about it, and who acted (and continues to act) arrogantly toward others who dare question him, should keep his job.

Pinch me, my servants!  Is this really a serious question? 

Step back with me, my friends. First, can you even start to imagine George Washington doing this?  Abraham Lincoln?  Even Bill Clinton?  George and Abe would not have because they know it’s wrong; Bill would not have because he’s too smart (or at least too smart to get caught).  Which means the Americans have an exposed, morally degenerate, tax-funded idiot as an elected lawmaker.  Is this the America that once was?

This is a wonderful sign of the times, my servants.  Reprobate men believing themselves accountable to no one, feeling no shame but the false shame of regret.  It’s a beautiful thing.  I am proud.

But more importantly, my servants, consider my second point.  Can you believe that there is any question as to whether or not this pervert of mine should resign in permanent shame? 

Ha ha ha ha ha.

The best the Americans can do is call for an “ethics inquiry” to see if Mr. Weiner used any “official resources” to practice his predatory perversion on American citizens?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

This is too good, my friends.  My servants, we have a Weiner!  I am going to start a new catchphrase for my kingdom: Weining!

Every time the facts show a culture so sexually saturated that perverted, lewd, behavior produces no more than a collective “inquiry” into academic questions of technical details, we can all yell Weining!

In this case, the very fact that my little Weiner is defiantly insisting he won’t resign his office of public trust, and the Americans are countenancing this scoundrel’s sick and twisted pubic distrust with no more than an “inquiry” into what “resources” were used, delights me greatly.

This is my will on earth as it is in Hell.

Mr. Weiner, though it’s no doubt been hard on you, and maybe even your wife, I thank you for showing the world just how far we’ve come.

Weining!

%d bloggers like this: