Below is an email someone sent me, below it is my reply, and below it was the original comment of mine that I had sent out in an email.
-----
Hi Robert,
I e-mailed this 4 days ago and it got kicked back to me -- who knows why -- foul play or censorship on the net, perhaps?
I still think it is worth the read, and I might add that your assessment (in an earlier email today) of these people as having "scrambled eggs" for brains applies perfectly.
Here's the e-mail I sent. I hope you get it this time:
I get a self-promoting newsletter from this guy every couple weeks or so. He is a songwriter and we both belong to a songwriter's group. In his latest edition he put this quote:
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences. With such an honest and inflexible openness to evidence, they could not fail to receive any real truth which might be manifesting itself around them. The fact that religionists do not follow this honorable course, but cheat at their game by invoking juvenile quasi-hypnosis, is enough to destroy their pretensions in my eyes even if their absurdity were not manifest in every other direction." ~ H.P. Lovecraft
Though this quote is abysmally stupid on so many levels I have held off with a rebuttal because I would only be getting roped into the game played by "pricks and snares" of this world -- throwing pearls before flaming godless liberal swine. This idiot probably thinks in his pea brain that my wife and I had religion drilled into our heads at an early age, but it is quite the contrary. I would be lying if I said it doesn't make me angry to read posts like this -- particularly having it deliberately sent to my mailbox. The only reason I endure it is because I am trying to keep a handle on how people "out there" in the "real world" of deception think. It's truly terrible. You've been at this for a long time. How do you deal with your emotions in cases like this?
____________________________
Hi, good to hear from you; how I respond...?
— I pray that if they are of God that God delivers them from their delusion and gives them the gift of repentance unto life; and if they are not of the elect, that God swiftly destroys them so they can no longer lead His people astray.
I think you should answer though, since you have the best counter to his cookie-cutter stupidity....
—you were not raised, brainwashed from youth, you made a rational decision after comparing the evidence with what the world has to offer.
The quote itself is pseudo-intellectual... the originator does not define his terms; does he consider all religion to be the same? if he is, he is an utter moron. The greatest minds of the world (Napoleon, Goethe, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) confessed Christ and both the genius and simplicity, as well as the purity of the Gospels. True religion, God Himself (Creator of all) defines:
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world [which means, "keep God's Commandments" for that is the only way that can be effected]." (James 1:27)
The stupidity of the quote concerning letting the (again, undefined) "young" choose for themselves, is tantamount to letting infants play with matches, knives, acid, poison, and hypodermic needles with AIDS-infected blood.
Similarly, by allowing each individual to "find the truth" on his own, makes as much sense as not having any invention or book on the market, but each time anyone needs anything, he should "invent it himself" and manufacture it by himself from scratch, trial by error... and thus, every person would be "free" to live in squalor, destitution, ignorance, poverty, and stone-age barbarism.
His problem is not with religion, not with Christianity, but with God Himself. He denies God exists. Man does not invent true religion (Christianity)—God establishes it and then we are to follow it.
What he promotes is what was lamented in the book of Judges, in that "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (which was not a "good" thing)—and for that reason there was wholesale Judgment from God upon the land, from external enemies, as well as from internal perverts and criminals.
I know of no "bludgeoning" in Christianity (and the few cases in which maybe it did occur by overzealous people, are rare, and only a fool or a liar would take the exception to the rule and then hold it out to be the rule itself).
Society's laws were once based on true religion—Christianity. They demand conformity, even if one's heart is not converted.
(By the way, the phrase "artificial conformity" is redundant, since conformity itself is not natural but imposed, which is artificial.)
However, to the degree we have departed from and transgressed God's Law, so also has our nation departed from just laws, to the point of oppression, while the scrambled-brain, godless philosophers (on drugs?) prate on mindlessly about some nonexistent noble savage, rather than addressing real problems in society—by addressing reality, not some utopian fantasy.
Christianity is not the opiate of the masses; modern philosophy/government is: close your eyes to reality and imagine (pretend).
Of course, the same dishonest hypocrites have no qualms about an evil government / establishment "brainwashing" with "quasi-hypnosis" the minds of the youth from the cradle to the grave, full of all sorts of lies, perversions, and abominations—just as long as they are not "brainwashed" with something pure or wholesome. They have no problem with the daily brainwashing and hypnosis of tv, movies, the media, the music industry, and so-called education.
Such fools reveal their own ignorance, their own hypocrisy, and their own sedition, whenever they open their mouths in the attempt to belittle what is true. God bless, Robert
--------------------
This was my introductory comment to an email with a news story by a reporter who was exposing some Australian university's "study" and claim something to the effect that guns actually cause white people to be racist.
http://politichicks.tv/column/new-study-plays-race-card-gun-owners/—just like the mentality is revealed of the leftist jewish Michael Moore's defamatory cartoon in one of his movies, making the Pilgrims and Puritans out to be nothing other than knuckle-dragging white racist haters who were afraid and that is why they had guns; modern liberals' brains are scrambled like eggs (they are morally degnerate, "damaged"; debateably functional sociopaths). There is no sense even trying to reason with them, they are not wired properly. They must be resisted. They want what we have, everything we own; our very lives—we are supposed to roll over and die. Their mentality, all whites are guilty of slavery (even those whose ancestors never owned slaves; mine never owned slaves, my forebearers did not come to the US until the very early 1900s). Even though it was the blacks and arabs and turks and jews who perpetuated the slave trade and some black chieftains in Africa still have black slaves. Contrary to ignorant opinion, the Dutch South African Boers (farmers) never owned slaves. They only hired them as servants or laborers or employees. And Spielberg leaves the story unfinished in the propaganda piece Amistad, as the "hero" of the story, the poor black slave, after earning his freedom—went back to Africa and became a slave trader himself, selling his own black peope into slavery. How heart warming! Let me write out a check right now! The African chieftains historically sold their own people into slavery, and it was primarily Jewish slave-traders and Jewish ship captains and owners who bought the slaves—but it was the whites who were blamed for it. Further, what is it called when you have to work 50% of the year before you get to keep any of your own money and you are told what you can and cannot do with it, what you can and cannot do in any area? It is called slavery and everyone in the U.S. is a slave—even numbered (and they want to chip us all). The 13th Amendment supposedly abolished slavery. However, the plan was not to free the slaves, but to enslave everyone.
Further, white Americans who owned slaves treated them well. The blacks cooked their food and were nannies to their babies. If they had treated them so horribly, they could have poisoned the family or killed the Master's babies. Some blacks didn't want to be freed and some took the names of their masters; such did they love them. It cost tens of thousands of dollars for a good slave. Only a fool would damage his own merchandize. You don't beat million dollar race horses. Southernors were more Christian and genteel as a whole than Northerners, so to assume all whites beat their slaves is foolish and propaganda. If whites punished slaves, most often they deserved it; if any were lynched, most often they deserved it. It is called law and order White beat and lynched other whites too; most often they deserved it. However, Black African chieftains, or central or South American peoples, routinely murdered entire other tribes and took those they did not kill as slaves; and often killed (even brutally torturing them) for the slightest infraction, or just for their own amusement—yet white people are somehow the bad guys. If there had been no slavery in the U.S., all of the blacks who are blessed to have lived in this country would have grown up in the jungles in Africa, being killed and eaten by their own people. Stop being so ungrateful and irrational or go back to Africa. I heard it was reported when Oprah visited Africa, she could not wait to leave. Why is that, was her heart so warmed that she was afraid if she did not leave right away she would just stay there forever, loving the people so much? She also recently declared that people who have been raised being marinated in racism just need to die. Really, every black that kills white people needs to die? every black who hates white people because of slavery 200 years ago, even though most never had any ancestors that owned slaves needs to die? Or does she mean WHITE PEOPLE need to die? What about people who are traditional (the ony true) Christians? Do they all need to die too? What about people who oppose having someone else's perverse sexual practices flaunted in their face? do they need to die too? So, all of the people who made Oprah a billionaire--all of those stupid white housewives who wasted an hour a day for decades worshipping Oprah, they all need to die? Why does Oprah decide who needs to die? Because she is a Billionaire? Did she build this country? She is no different than Charles Barkley, the retire basketball player commentator who also was made a millionaire by all the white people who need to die, who paid to watch him play basketball. At least he was honest and told kids, "I am not a role model, don't be like me." Recently, he told a white friend of his and all white America where to go. Someone questioned him about his use of racial slurs, sexist slurs, and anti-homo slurs around his friends. He told white America that made him a millionaire to shut up, it is none of our business. When asked why it is appropriate for him to say such things and not others, he revealed the animalistic mindset: you know it was inappropriate when someone bigger than you hits you in the head. So with Oprah and Barclay, "Might is Right." We are not as big as he is, we are not as rich as he is, so it is appropriate for him but not for us. Oprah is a billionaire, we are not, so she decides who should die.
Christ commanded, "Occupy till I come." Adam was given the Dominion Mandate. For centuries the nations of Christendom exercised it. The jewish communists got into it and introduced false theology, marxist philosophy (and evolution) and legislation, and even subverted the psychiatric understanding of mental illness, and normalized abnormality and made normal mental states pathological... then introduced "white guilt" (along with "Liberation Theology", since we are guilty, and since God has blessed us, we need to repent and give everything to the Third World, lied down with the Harlot Church and the Beast)... when the nations of Christendom ruled the globe there was prosperity and peace for all... they defame Colonialism as "racist" and "exploitation"--well, civilization comes at a price and that price is Colonialism.... in exchange for infrastructure, running water, electricity, buildings made out of materials other than grass and mud, medicine, hospitals, law and order, schools, etc., etc., etc., then a tax and some goods/resources are required. If they don't like that, then they can go back to killing and eating each other... but stop crying for handouts and still trying to make us think somehow it is our fault. Beyond that, we then imported the jungle into civilization and then were fooled into turning over the reigns of civilization to the savages... and look where it has gotten us. Anyone have a time machine. I'd let to re-set the dial to 1900 please--better yet, set it forward to the Kingdom.