Today, a mess of people will be scouring the Internet trying to find an answer to this question hoping for some sort of assurance to guilt or proof to attack those who do purchase the ticket. But this subject, like others I’ve done on this site, takes some sober consideration from all angles, which I’ll try to keep pretty short.
ABSTRACT: With a growing population, and thus a negative impact on our resources, I suggest the termination of the senescent, labeled as geripragmus1, under proper stipulations and enforcement.
ARTICLE: What has been oft left unstated in our modern day political campaigns especially in regards to the economy and finances is that no small amount of cutting will properly address the United States’, much less global, fiscal problems. Governments around the world are noting that their economical problems can’t be easily addressed by slightly more taxes or reducing only a portion of some miscelanous spending—what is needed is something that addresses the very core of the issue: the problem of the senescent.
The internet is chockfull of both the good and the bad. The good being that I am on it and the bad being that so is everyone else. In light of my extreme humility, here’s a collection of satire: since most people today don’t know what that is, I have provided a link to the internet’s inerrant repository of knowledge. No, not my site: Wikipedia.
This post will function as a series holding page for all other satire I’ve posted on the site. These things, after all, need a place to live without seeming legitimate.
Oh the universe is full of amazing and wonderful things and very few subjects have been the source of more fiery debates than the topic of evolution. But in all the hubbub of debates about creation, or intelligent design, or cosmological origins one major facet of the Christian faith goes unnoticed: the explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Though the evidence for evolution is vast and far reaching and applied to origins, none of the same thinking has been weighed and married to this oft-neglected field. If we as Christians are failing in our embracing evolutionary models in regard to Creation, we have been woefully neglectful in explaining the resurrection of Jesus Christ in terms of modern science.
In this post, I wish to posit a few possible reasons why the resurrection was not a miracle, but actually quite natural, spontaneous, and purely physical and why the Church must embrace this explanation to prepare for the future, especially in light of the overwhelming amount of data in support of biological evolution.
After some (long) time of hunting, the American special forces have successfully found and killed Osama Bin Laden, fulfilling the mission that was implemented under the command of President Bush. As President Obama echoed the words of said president, the American resolve remained united, and an enemy was stopped. And with the preparation for the announcement came a wave of rejoicing: “Ding Dong, Osama’s dead” and “Obama got Osama” and “Thank God, Osama’s dead!”
This is not the only death that revealed people rejoicing. Adolf Hitler. Saddam Hussein. Pol Pot. Qassem Suleimani. As life goes on and more enemies are killed people will rejoice.
In all this, an ethical question arises: should a Christian rejoice in the death of an enemy?
In this article I will argue that not only is it fine for a Christian to rejoice, but also it should be done—though not done in the gruesome way that I have seen it being done. I think it would also be helpful if the reader references my examination of an imprecatory Psalm (that is, when the Psalmist prays for the destruction of his enemies) and the post on Christian and Curses and my post on the image of God.
This article will be divided into four major sections: (1) Where Rejoicing is Wrong; (2) Where Rejoicing is Right; (3) Where Theology Meets Practice; and (4) Conclusion. The first three major sections will each have a summarizing point to help the skimmers but I strongly encourage reading through them and the cited verses.