On nudity

No, I am talking about nudes today but I want help with a matter that I find very confusing and it is at the heart of what is a woman and local transgender  student with penis sues school district to be allowed to change clothes openly in woman’s locker room.

What are you views on the two issues?


If Adam and Eve who were perfect, personally created and taught by God himself (according to the Bible) failed the Devil’s tests, where is the fairness in God expecting us to defeat the Devil especially when we are imperfect and never seen God?

I would go beyond this question and say that even Adam and Eve shouldn’t have been punished for their small transgression.

The chapter of genesis that talks about the fall of man says thus

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

The good book says this of the tree

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

from where I am justified in concluding that A&E were dumb as a dodo. They did not know shit. In fact, I would go as far as argue that the serpent knew more shit than the two combined which brings us to some very interesting questions

  1. why was the serpent created sly? did she just become sly?
  2. is knowledge bad? or was it just particular knowledge the gods were not interested in men having?

But back to the question, how are we, who if the story were story, several generations removed from Adam, who were not in the garden where, if god was present, his presence and goodness and whatever else one feels in the presence of a god could be felt, there was enough room and time for the serpent to be crafty, it is akin to asking a Nigerian who has is so far removed from the state to obey its directives.

This brings us to a final question, when the author of genesis writes that god saw that whatever she had created was good, what does this mean?

7 Deadly Worldviews That Threaten Christianity

Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit.
― Elbert Hubbard

Dear friends, I know you  have been wondering what these worldviews are, wonder no more, because Don McCullen has the answers.

If you are Gnostic, which, wait for it is

he rejection of God’s Word as not sufficient for us to know our true purpose or for life to have its ultimate meaning

it is important to remember though, that Gnosticism is

a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

The second worldview is rather confusing. Don calls it legalism but in all of it he is blaming Eve. He writes

This too comes from the Garden. While Gnosticism comes from the Devil, you can blame Eve for laying the ground work for legalism

You would think Don would have no problems with Dualism since it allows him to have a soul separate from body, but no. He tells us

 Overall Dualism views good and evil as part of the same framework, and not as separate concepts.

We need not say anything on his 4th worldview. Darwinism is well covered by The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

If you are a pragmatist, your worldview is a threat to Christianity. You wanna know why?

Pragmatism is “the first-born child of child of Darwinism.” It conflates situational ethics with situational shrewdness.

And how does pragmatism do this?

It allows people to change from what is truth and absolute to a truth they feel is right for themselves.

If ever you have the idea to combine two systems to come up with a better one or a different one, you are a threat to Christianity. Don tells us

However, Christians should never embrace syncretism as a way to get along. Syncretism is basically your “Co-exist” motto (with all of the religious symbols). Truth of the matter is that syncretism is at the heart of the matter, the very essence of intolerance while claiming to be otherwise.

And finally, all you secular humanists, we knew you wouldn’t be spared. So what does he say SH is,

A belief system that rejects virtually every single principle of God’s Word.

He tells us

 Secular humanism truly does bring the worst out of human beings, but yet they claim to be good

and why should this worry us? Well secular humanism will lead to collapse of society and when that happens, wait for it,

Right now, that big threat that will take over a society once Secular Humanism does it damage is Islam.

I don’t know about you, but I find this

That being large and centralized government. It has to be for them, but the problem with big government, it loves to impose itself on the infidels that oppose it, especially Christians.

quite confusing. In the US of A, the evangelicals are trying to take over government. I mean, Pence and his supporters believe he is there because that is what god wants. Methinks Don should choose a struggle.

But there is a solution to all these worldviews. Don suggests

If your able to take out a subscription to CRTV.com, please do it so that you can watch these seven programs. The audio podcasts are free but it is very important to watch and listen to both versions for they complement each other. It is not impossible go with one form without the other however.

And if you are a christian

Now more than ever, we need to move forward with our faith and be bold about it.

How will we you do this?

we really need to understand the Christian faith and show our neighbor that Christianity just does not work for certain people nor should it. It is a way of life, a way that promotes life and gives life not only in this world but the world to come.

Well, as for me and myself, we tell Don, get a life.

Random question

Generally no one takes offence when they are called tall. A few short people, and here I am not talking about Inspired1, but those with short tempers( you see what I did there), seem to take offence at being reminded of their vertical challenges.

Why do some people find it offensive to say someone is horizontally endowed? Or is facing horizontal challenges? That is, polite speak for fat.

But while we are here, what’s the threshold for fat? Do we use the medical descriptors of obese and overweight?

How would an atheist feel if scientists theoretically proved the existence of some higher conscience like God?

Scientists are not obsessed with proving stuff. Prove is not the purview of science but were that to say happen. I see no reason why it should be a problem for atheists.

What would be the nature of this higher intelligence?

Will it demand to be worshiped? Will it give reasons for making this demand?

How would the theist tell this particular existence is their god?

What if this existence is malevolent, will the theists still want to be associated with it?

What if this higher intelligence is just part of the universe?

What is my point here? That finding some existence slightly higher conscience [whatever that is] than humans does not advance the theists argument an iota.

What explains the idiocy of the liberal elite?

James Bartholomew writes in the Spectator UK, it is their education

Responding to his post becomes a little tricky because who a liberal elite changes with whom you ask. For the purposes of this discussion, this definition

is a pejorative term used to describe people who are politically left of centre, whose education had traditionally opened the doors to affluence and power and form a managerial elite.

will suffice.

For James, the world has only two groups; the liberal elite and ordinary people.  I don’t know where most of you are,ordinary people or elite, but we will let him talk to us.

To James, the liberal elite consider ordinary people a disappointment. And because of this, he offers to give us a pathology of this eliteness. He wonders, if they are educated, why are they so silly? And the answer, you guessed it, he says is their education. Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth

Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world. They have been indoctrinated with certain ideas.

and what are these ideas?

They have been taught that capitalism is inherently bad.

They have been led to believe is that governments make things better.

Environment-alism and recycling are taught as doctrine, rather than as subjects for discussion.

This next one is special,

One of the most important things schools and universities teach is that the students must never, under any circumstances, be suspected of racism.

James tells us also that a central tenet of this education

is the dogma that women have been oppressed, are oppressed and, for the future, there is no limit to what we must do to ensure they get to be in the same situation as men — having as many directorships and military medals and anything else one can think of.

Given the above, I don’t know who is to blame here, is it the élite, the ordinary people or James? I believe James is wrong on many fronts.

If he is right on the claim that the liberal élite are in managerial positions, it would be a contradiction for him to claim they believe capitalism is inherently bad while at the same time they are beneficiaries of it. And while at it, is James not saying here, then, that, the ordinary people have been brainwashed capitalism is inherently good even if they are daily screwed by it.

Those people who are opposed to government saying nothing of the military and prison systems which provide employment for the most number of people in almost all countries. Their problem seems only to be with government when it interferes in education or when it fails to ensure they have emergency services. I propose they choose a struggle, either they want government or they don’t.

Any rational person will admit that pollution has deleterious effect on our lives. Look at cities in China where smog interferes with visibility sometimes for days. Or the case of polluting our water bodies. And if the elite are the educated lot, I would believe, ordinary people see the effects of environmental degradation that they take measures to check it. Maybe James should tell us what his problem really is with regard to environmental consciousness.

I must confess at this point that I can’t comment on what is taught in your universities on racism. I am surprised there is an edict against it when for a long time, the white world has been racist in its relationship to others. I mean, Kant, Hegel, Hume and most of those greats provided the foundation material for slavery and colonialism.

His next beef on women is very interesting. Is he denying that women have faced structural challenges in society in their fight for equality and equity? Are there no barriers to their progress? That in most countries, even women reproductive health issues are the preserve of men? Whatever his beef is, I can’t tell at the moment.

Do ordinary people go to school? If you read James, the answer to this is almost no. How, for example, does one make sense of this

If a member of the elite, for example, finds him or herself reflecting that it is usually quite difficult to interest little girls in train sets and guns, they must squash that thought.

Is it really the case that if we made train sets and guns available to the girls, they would not like them? But anyway, who thinks guns are good plaything for kids?

Whilst Brexit and Trump are issues far removed from daily life, I don’t think what James calls the liberal elite is one homogeneous group that voted the same way in both UK and the US of A. Maybe a majority did, but at the moment I have no way of finding out.

It is my contention that he has not, in his attempt to disparage the liberal elites, demonstrated what the problem is with them. The few issues he has raised with their education, are in my view not the purview of a small elite but are matters of continuous debate in the spaces we inhabit.

Finally, when in his final paragraph he writes

They are virtuous. They know best. They are the chosen ones. They have only a token belief in democracy. They expect and intend to prevail.

is he doing this is the spokesperson of the ordinary people? Is the judgement the ordinary people have placed on the ‘others’ or is this James’ own views? Does this mean, on the contrary, that the ordinary people feel themselves virtuous, all knowing, the only chosen ones and they should prevail? I would assume the ordinary people are the majority and so I am unable to see how James thinks the small elite would trample on their wishes? unless he also implies this same elite controls political power too, which I don’t think is the case.

Or maybe, this is a first world problem and entirely don’t understand James for which case, I sincerely apologize.