The Love of Money Leads To The End of the World, & It Appears to be Close. (I Hope I’m Wrong)

racist from the beginning & not slowing down, but actually aborting more black babies than any other

racist from the beginning & not slowing down, but actually aborting more black babies than any other

Planned Parenthood has killed over 10 times as many as the Nazi's did of Jews

Planned Parenthood has killed over 10 times as many as the Nazi’s did of Jews

So much has happened in America & the world at large this year, it is quite numbing to try to keep up. From The Supreme Court violating Constitutional boundaries by re-defining a religious institution into a secular one, to Barack Obama’s Iran deal that seems to put Israel along with the rest of the globe in a worse position due to nuclear potential, to Planned Parenthood being exposed for selling and negotiating aborted babies, it is one shock after another to say the least.

May God have mercy on us.

For those that believe in God, specifically the God of the Bible, all of these events are not too surprising because they are prophesied, but with them happening in this lifetime, they still cause me pause.

It appears to me that civil unrest is in the near future, for America most assuredly. When I think about the number of people and guns in the U.S., I can only imagine how bloody civil unrest will become when it turns into uncivil-unrest.

I hope I am wrong.

Politicians seem to be increasing in corruption.

Corporations funding the genocide of babies.

Nations’ leaders operate outside the laws of the land.

I don’t dare ask, “can it get worse,” because I know it can and unfortunately it seems most people are oblivious to what is going on around them due to pursuits of pleasure and convenience.

 

source(s): 39 Companies That Donate to Planned Parenthood

Advertisements

9/11:When We Were Sucker-Punched. 6/26: When The U.S. Officially Became A Dictatorship. SCOTUS Abrogates Its Authority By By-Passing Congress To Make Same-Sex Marriage Law

supreme court despots

As an artist and Christian, I can’t ignore cultural issues, especially when they directly address my religion. One can’t expect religious adherents to not respond to this Supreme Court ruling when it redefines a facet of a religion, or attempts to. Actually if you are a Christian, or a Jew, Leviticus  5 : 1  says it is a sin NOT to say something if/when you see something done that is wrong. (Check Leviticus 5:1)

(And yes, I know it says to stone people when they do this or that, and not to eat bacon, BUT you’re reading that out of context and need to research its context before using those references as support in a debate. ) 

Anyway, I find it violating that a panel of unelected judges have redefined something they never originally defined in the first place, even if it is only legislatively and in word. 

As a Christian, it is like a secular institution redefining the Eucharist (if you’re Catholic), or Sawm (if you’re Muslim, sawm is the practice of fasting during Ramadan), or what is and is not Kosher (if you’re Jewish).

A government has no place in defining what is and is not marriage since it never defined it in the first place. If one is pursuing this case to attain a certificate of marriage, my question to you is,

…do you really need a government issued certificate (that we happen to call a “Marriage Certificate”) to validate your love? 

I understand a same-sex couple wanting equal tax/financial/other economic rights as a heterosexual couple, and if that is their purpose, even if in part, then that should’ve been the fight, not redefining religious institutions.

Saying marriage is no longer a religious institution but is rather governmentally defined and is hereby and forever more defined by government is an encroachment and violation of religious liberty and in so doing our government has just abrogated its authority in this area and hereby should be ignored, resisted, and fought back against if/when they attempt to arrest those who do not abide by this unconstitutional dictate.

Likewise churches, mosques, and temples whose congregations ascribe to the origin of marriage being defined by God and not government should never, ever compromise their belief by allowing their places of worship to be used in any way that compromises the belief of their religion.

This ruling on 6/26/2015 grants same-sex couples the “right” to unite via a government issued certificate, but in the original context of marriage, the definition of marriage is sacrosanct and unalterable by mankind when it is defined by a holy and truly omniscient Being, God.  

Now if you don’t believe in God, I’m not talking to you here. You’re doing exactly what I believe you would be trying to do to religion, secularizing it, then obliterating it.

But understand I aim to defend the persecuted, religious rights, and in this case, marriage as God has ordained it, until the day I die. Keep in mind, religion has maintained its existence through the most difficult places and times in history, and in many many cases, grows under persecution.  

Our culture did not define marriage. It comes from eons ago by the first male and female man and woman united by God, and as such you should expect responses from Christians and other religious followers when culture attempts to re-orchestrate a component of said faith that predates any government. 

It hasn’t happened yet, but in light of Christian bakers, photographers, and the like, being sued for practicing their faith by not celebrating same-sex marriage via baking a wedding cake or whatever, soon churches, mosques, and temples will also be sued for not allowing same-sex marriages to be held at their facilities.

We must be ready. We must remain steadfast to God and His Word, the Holy Bible.  

By allowing and agreeing that a panel of unelected lawyers can make laws, you agree to a panel of dictators that can, and will, define many other things in the future fast coming. 

Those with their heads on their shoulders know this panel of dictators is most definitely NOT Constitutional, but knowing this and responding to it are 2 very different things. 

Some believers will cower and say,

“This decision to redefine marriage will not affect me.”

“Look, let them marry, it’ll all be okay bruh. They don’t mean any harm.”

Same-sex couples think a right has been won when in fact we have all acquiesced to a panel of unelected judges to dictate what is and is not law.

I have news for you: THAT IS CONGRESS’ JOB.

By using the guise of being in our best interest, our rights and sovereignty are all but becoming erased. Mark my words, soon churches will be sued because they restrict their facilities for member-use-only, then religious followers will be fined and jailed for saying they disagree with the lifestyle despite having a First Amendment, then it will be required to register your place of worship with the State just like Socialist and Communist countries require.

We’ve slid down the slippery slope culturally, so be ready to hear arguments for adults pleading to allow them to marry minors, people choosing to marry animals, trees, and bridge

woman marries bridge

That last one happened a couple of years ago in France, but who are we to say what is and isn’t marriage, right?

I suppose while there is relatively little recourse for sharing my mind, I’ll continue to share it at least until I get jailed for speak freely. 

If this isn’t a wake-up call for Christians and other religious followers, you’re deep sleep may be your death. Hopefully this unilateral, unconstitutional, dictatoresque violation will be a loud enough call to wake-up religious followers and exercise civil disobedience and get very acquainted with their Scriptures.

While we Christians are called to be ambassadors of God’s love, this doesn’t mean to be conforming to a cultural ethics code of relativity. The first Christians were thrown to the lions for exercising Civil Disobedience. Recently, Christians in Kenya were murdered by Muslims for exercising Civil Disobedience.  

Muslims kill Christians

We Christians in America have been fortunate to not experience intense persecution like so many throughout the world. Our persecution has been primarily nonphysical here in the U.S., but Scripture warns us it will get worse. 

gay parade 6-28

We need to love our enemies and be praying God would enable them (Jn 6) to understand His Truth, and when bullied or otherwise, respond like Friar Jonathan Morris of New York City did when he was spat on (#lovewins???) during a gay day parade, basically turning the other cheek. 

Will Globalization Eradicate Cultural Identities?

No doubt the world is increasingly becoming less homogenous and more heterogenous with globalization. While this in itself is not a bad thing, there is the law of unintended consequences to be aware of. One might say it is counting the costs. 

What are we loosing in the process of the world becoming globalized? 

Culture and ethnicity. Is that bad? Not entirely, but it’s not necessarily all good either if you think that the world having distinct races and cultures is also a good feature of our human race.

What am I saying here? Should we stop globalization? 

First, what I mean here by globalization is (in the undetermined future) a push for a one world way of life where there is the same rule of law for all places led by a one world government that conglomerates all nations into a singular one world nation.

To ask the question again, should it be stopped? Yes. And no. 

No. I don’t think we should stop allowing people to freely travel, and intermarry with other races and all that (as if it could happen anyway, nor should it as it is unethical), absolutely not.

Yes. I think globalization fully realized results in things referenced in the definition above, as well as an eradication of subcultures that contribute to our distinct human diversity. 

I am also interested in the question led to by the above,

how can cultures hold onto their cultural identities and characteristics as the world continues to become more heterogenous via globalization? 

And, is it even important for cultures to hold onto their identities and characteristics for better or worse? 

There is a strong push in the United States to make all things secular. Latest example is regarding religious people not being able to express their values and message by what they do for a living and what they make, or choose not to make, as artisans for example, such as bakers. One cannot say they are for diversity if they are against any one component of a culture like religion. If so, they are really,… religionists (my word for being a racist against those of a religion). 

If someone can sue a baker for choosing to not bake them a cake for whatever reason, it can lead to one being able to sue anyone who makes a living as an artisan or artist such as a musician or painter or sculptor, et cetera, who says they choose to not say, write a song celebrating a certain type of lifestyle such as same-sex marriage, or suing an atheist for not writing a worship song to God. (Yeah, we know the pendulum only swings one way on this matter, atheist songwriters, fear not, at least about writing worship songs.)

But the point here is, are we ready to continue down the road towards a secular world monoculture where distinct cultures composed of a myriad of religions and ethnicities contribute to true diversity? Where I live is currently very homogenous (Asia), and I am thankful for that because I am able to experience a different way of life. I am not trying to impose my way of thinking on anyone else, and nor are they trying to do that to me. But back home in the U.S., globalization is taking place and in its process cultural distinction will be lost, for better or worse.

I think for worse. 

Rolling Stone Magazine Calls Rick Santorum “Vile”. Why?

Let me first say I am not a fan of presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. But unlike Rolling Stone writer, Kristen Gwynne, I do not think of him as being “vile” and “extremist.” I think the people of the U.S. are smarter than that. 

On Thursday (28 May 2015) she assembled a list of some of Santorum’s quotes saying because it is official he is running “it’s time to brush up on what he believes about abortion, gay people and more” and then introduced him as “Former Republican senator and known right-wing extremist” (emphasis added, but not really because it’s already there).

As I read through the list, it did give me pause because I thought, “hey, maybe I’m an extremist too. If one believes in marriage as it has been for 1000’s of years between a man and a woman, does that make one “vile”?

Uh oh. Like how the word “sick” in today’s vernacular can mean “awesome,” now “vile” describes someone who doesn’t agree with mainstream media mantras? Hm. Okay. I might be “vile.”

Now granted, I think Gwynne has a bit of a point in her first used quote to her credit, but I wouldn’t paint Santorum as “vile” because of it, I guess because I still use the old definition.

1. On same-sex marriage, 2004: “This is an issue just like 9/11. We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?”

Drawing a parallel between real extremists such as those responsible for 9/11 and those who want to marry the same-sex is a little extreme, but I don’t agree it equates Santorum to being an extremist as being synonymous to a terrorist, as the word “extremist” connotes in Gwynne’s list of Santorum’s quotes.

The only reason I take issue with this publication is because it used extreme adjectives to drive clicks to the page, and when you get there you see it is a bait-and-switch of language. 

The listed synonyms for the word “vile” are:

evil, wicked, shameful, depraved, base

What I think is extreme, and a bit wicked even, is painting those who don’t agree with your worldview as “vile” and “extremist.”

It comes across as desperate and juvenile, and even greedy, considering examples such as this appear to be merely ploys to drive traffic to a site for monetary gain.

A little, base?

I won’t pursue a full critique on the extreme use of terms in this publication. We all know why it’s done.  Click the link above for your own reference if you want more examples from the intolerant-agenda.

Unfortunately though I believe society has very possibly reached the point where if/when one disagrees with another, they are coined as being “vile” and “extremist.” So sad so many are so easily manipulated by words. It gives me pause to make sure I teach my child it is okay to befriend those with different beliefs than her and that when she meets other with different ideas about life, that doesn’t make them vile-extremists. 

There have been other cultures that did this in the not too distant past led by real mouthpieces for intolerance towards those who lived differently and believed different things about mankind and God in society.

And if we don’t pause and see how mishandling terms such as those used in this Rolling Stone article effect culture, we very well might end up burning up books that articulate opposing views to mainstream mantras in the streets .

Weimar book burning cultural rev burning books
(2 different cultures, 2 different times, 1 common goal. Get rid of opposing views)

We’re not yet burning books, but we better assess the track we’re on and the consequence of our words used to describe those we don’t agree with. The burning books may very well become those that are written by opposing politicians, artists, poets, musicians, teachers, and anyone else who is regarded as “vile” and “extreme” by mainstream outlets.

Vile? No.

Different opinion? Yes.

While this is not as juicy as throwing mud on Santorum’s face, it is more accurate and assumes people are smart enough on their own to draw his/her own conclusions. 

The Monotonous Effect of the Tolerance Agenda in the Arts

“I stand corrected” is an idea that doesn’t seem to exist these days, definitely one I do not see in media. Saying those words take a bit of humbleness and one might be able to argue this is one thing lacking culturally.

Art and politics in my mind go hand in hand, meaning art reflects, and in some degree guides and influences culture and vice versa. Over the past five decades, but increasingly more-so over the last ten to thirteen years, the staunch push for tolerance via political operandi has started to contradict itself by resulting in vitriolic intolerance towards those who hold a different belief than others on certain topics, topics such as but not limited to, abortion, war, and marriage, just to name a few.

I will be the first to admit, I do not have it all figured out, and yes I do have to summon up strength externally to in essence, “bite my tongue,” until I can respond sincerely and humbly when disagreeing with someone who holds to a different position than myself. But like most art forms, I understand humbleness and sincerity are process-based that requires practice, much like an art-making process, and is one I will fail at times, but will not cease pursuing.

The prospective consequence of promoting tolerance while exercising intolerance towards art made from a different perspective or worldview is that galleries will end up with a linear, monotonous perspective on the walls and pedestals. The United States, with all its faults, has great potential representing the arts from a myriad of perspectives. And we do a lot of the time.

But ask yourself this, what perspective(s) is being represented when you visit a well-known contemporary museum of art such as The Guggenheim or The Whitney? I really see primarily one these days, secularism. And the same perspective year in and year out, after the initial aesthetic oo’s and ah’s, is just boring because it is a linear, one-sided perspective.

Of course linear presentation of art isn’t a great representation of our culture with all of our philosophies and religions because it negates a truer representation of our culture. Having lived in a Communist country I can say from firsthand experience when a culture eradicates ethereal perspectives such as ones from a religious worldview, it will become black-and-white, i.e. colorless, and/or just the same ‘ol urinal on a pedestal, which after a first viewing is just a urinal on a pedestal that triggers a want to actually use it for its intended purpose.

I would like to see artwork made by artists from every type of background represented in galleries and receptions that intermingled this pluralistic culture we live in. But I think we’re scared of the types of conversations that would commence. We’re scared of words, so we surround ourselves with like-minded individuals for emotional protection.

We can still share dreams without offending someone right?

truth Orwell

Aesthetic Experiential Sciences: Walking Stick Series

Why is that guy walking around with a stick?

Have you ever meditated on the intricate details of everyday objects such as those found in nature?

As the world gets increasingly separated from nature via urbanization and city development, we lose sight and touch of something greater and beyond ourselves.

While we might look at a skyscraper and think, “amazing,” there is nothing man has made that is as detailed as what God has made. Just take a look at a stick.

(cast iron stick, 15″ long)

 

IMG_3083

Modern Feminism

Aired on BBC Newsnight, this performance was articulated as being “irreverent feminism.”

I understand art makes a statement, which gives “creative license” to manifest one’s concept in any number of ways, but look, modernism, post-mod, post-post-mod, post-post-mod-mod, however you wish to categorize it, it is the same. Voidism, the procedure, action, and/or representation of an idea which lacks transcendent purpose, acute craft in its manifestation, and/or relevance to contemporary application.

This, performance reminds me of a Bible verse actually that I believe sheds light on why shallow and deceptive adherents of “art” believe what they believe about, art.

…”just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind”… (Romans 1:28)

Enjoy the, show: