Connect with us

Opinion

Mass Shootings: The Roots pt. 2

Published

on

In my previous article, I covered the root cause of mass shootings, which is sin.

“Sin is what you do when your heart is not satisfied with God.” – John Piper

“Sin is not simply making bad choices or mistakes. Sin is having the desire in our hearts to do the will of the enemy of God.” – R.C. Sproul

Original sin, therefore, appears to be a hereditary, depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the divine wrath and producing in us those works which the scripture calls ‘works of.” – John Calvin

In this article, I plan on going more in depth regarding what happens to a person who is ruled by sin, and what a person ruled by sin has the capability of doing.

I encourage you to read Genesis 4 and meditate on God’s truth after you’re finished with reading this article.

Cain’s evil impulse

The story of Cain in Abel in Genesis 4 is a story of evil impulses, bloody hands, and human rebellion.  Cain is an example of someone who was a slave to sin and who was ruled by sin.

In this story, Cain is characterized by a lack of self-control while giving into evil impulses.  He was full of jealousy, anger, and deceit.  Cain harbored a sinful grudge and that sinful grudge was one of the main reasons why Cain killed Abel.  After Cain killed Abel, God confronted Cain and Cain lied to God.  Cain sinned against God, and consequences followed.

Sin was the root cause of all of Cain’s actions.

Cain killed Abel because of sin.

Cain harbored a grudge because of sin.

Cain disobeyed God because of sin.

It doesn’t matter if Cain used his hands to kill Abel or whether he used a rock to kill Abel.

The purpose of Genesis 4 is to demonstrate the sinfulness of man and the consequences that unfold when man is ruled by sin.

All have sinned

God makes it clear that all humans are sinful.

“As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’” – Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23 (ESV)

Depravity

The depravity of sin has infected us all from birth and the effects of sin continue to spread.

Sin is like cancer.  It will eat us all alive until we are dead.

The same sin that has infected Cain’s heart from birth is the same sin that has infected you, me, and every mass shooter that has ever lived.

How do we fix this problem?

What is the solution?

How do we prevent these mass shootings from happening?

Part 3 will reveal the mass shooter solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

Mass Shootings: The Roots pt. 3

Published

on

By

If you haven’t read my previous articles on mass shootings, please read them here:

Part 1

Part 2

Review

In part 1, I briefly touched the question as to why these mass shootings happen.  In part 2, I went deeper into the sin issue, which is the root of the mass shootings.  I provided a small amount of Biblical evidence regarding the sin issue.  I discussed the importance of the story regarding Cain killing Abel, and why Cain killed Abel.  I detailed all of the sin Cain dealt with and mentioned the fact that the same sin that Cain dealt with is the same sin WE deal with as humans.

You and I are not exempt from this sin problem.

we are all fallen creatures standing before a Holy God who demands righteousness and obedience.  The sin that infected Cain has infected us all, and we need help.  The sin issue is the root cause of all mass shootings, and every mass shooter that has ever lived is sinful (like you and I), and they will have to stand before God one day just like you and me.

This is the final part of this mini series.  The reason why I wanted to write some opinion articles on mass shootings is because  society as a whole is missing the mark on why these mass shootings happen.

Society is scratching at surface level symptoms, and I wanted to get to the root of the problem.

Welcome to part 3.

We’re all sinful

The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Romans 3 that we are all sinful.  He says there is no one that is good.  Paul says that we have all “fallen short” of God’s glory.  This is you, this is me, and this is every mass shooter that has ever lived.  We are totally and utterly depraved.  Apart from God, Ephesians 2 says that we are “dead in sin”.

So now what?

The solution

Jesus Christ is the solution.  Jesus Christ is the Gospel.  The Gospel means good news.  He is the answer to every problem we see around us, including mass shootings.  The truth is, we all need Jesus just as much as mass shooters need Jesus.  We need God to save us from ourselves, because when we are left to ourselves, we will continue to choose ourselves over Jesus.

The Apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (ESV)

Jesus calls us to repent and believe in Him.

Repent simply means to change our mind about who we are (sinful), and who God is (Holy).

Repentance leads to the total surrendering of yourself to God.

Belief simply means to trust fully in who God and what He says in His Word, the Bible.

My hope

So there it is, the solution.  It might seem simple, but we like to make it super complex.  My hope is that Jesus will transform destroyed homes and broken hearts.  My hope is that Jesus will convict sinners and will give fathers the courage to lead their homes in grace and truth.  My hope is that Jesus will repair the sinner’s heart and transform that heart into a heart that desires to obey God.  My hope is that the people in America will stop looking for faulty solutions to the mass shooting problem and will look to Jesus for guidance.

I’m not here to speak about comforting lies, I’m here to give you uncomfortable truths that lead to a life of fullness with Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the only solution to mass shootings.

Nothing less, nothing more.

We all just need Jesus.

Soli Deo gloria**

 

 

 

**If you’re interested in the solution, feel free to watch this video

Continue Reading

Opinion

Mass Shootings: The Roots pt. 1

Published

on

By

What are the causes of mass shootings? What are the solutions to prevent these horrific crimes?  What steps do we need to take as a society in order to prevent them? How can someone commit such a horrible crime?

These are some of the basic questions I believe everyone asks whenever these shootings occur, but one question always remains stuck in my head when these tragedies strike the heart of America.

Why do mass shootings happen?

Worldview

All people everywhere will answer the question in different ways depending on what your worldview is.

Your worldview is the way in which you view the world and everything in it. Your worldview answers basic questions such as this:

1. Why am I here?

2. What is my purpose?

3. What is wrong with the world?

4. How can what is wrong be made right?

When it comes to mass shootings, your worldview has the potential to answer the question as to why these tragedies occur, and why murderers commit these atrocities. Your worldview has the potential to objectively call every person who commits these murderous acts evil. This is why your worldview is important, because without a correct worldview, you won’t be able to answer these questions.

Now that I’ve gone over a basic overview as to why your worldview is important, I’m going to go back to the original question and answer that original question through my personal worldview.

Sin

Why do mass shootings happen? Sin. Sin exists, and sin is everywhere. Sin is the reason why we live in such a fallen and broken world. Sin is the reason why so many kids go to school without hope and go home to destroyed homes. Sin is the reason why kids are finding their identity in everything that the world is offering rather than finding their identity in things that could satisfy their hungry soul. Sin is the reason why rampant leftism has spread everywhere, especially within the education system in America. Sin is the reason why parents think they know their kids, but will turn on the news to find that their child was the next school shooter.

Here are a few Bible verses that speak about the sinfulness of man and the destructive nature of sin:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. – Genesis 6:5 (ESV)

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. – Psalm 51:5 (ESV)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? – Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. – Mark 7:21-22 (ESV)

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. – John 3:19-20 (ESV)

Surface Level Symptoms

I’m not here to argue about what you might or might not believe, rather I’m here to simply provide you with the truth.  Without the truth, you cannot come up with a rational explanation as to why mass shootings happen.

You say mental health?  I say the sinfulness of man.

You say broken homes?  I say the depravity of mankind.

Broken homes and mental health issues are all surface level symptoms of the root problems mankind deals with on a daily basis, which is the sinful nature he was born with.

Why do these mass shootings keep happening?  Sin.

How do we prevent these mass shootings from happening?  I will provide the answers to that question in the upcoming articles.

Continue Reading

Media

Washington Post Chief Propagandist For Military-Industrial Complex?

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

It used to be that the New York Times and the Washington Post competed against each other to be the chief propagandist for the hundred or so top firms who sell to the US federal government – the 100 top “federal contractors,” almost all of which are Pentagon contractors – mainly these are weapons-manufacturing firms, such as the biggest, Lockheed Martin. The federal government is a large part of these firms’ essential market; so, invasions by the US against other countries require lots of their goods and services; and, also, America’s foreign allies additionally buy these weapons; and, right now, US President Trump is demanding that they increase their ‘defense’ budgets to buy more of them. Wars produce corporate profits if (like in the United States) the military suppliers are private corporations instead of government-owned (socialized). Selling wars is crucial to such firms’ bottom lines. And, since there is no law against owning a ‘defense’ contractor and owning or donating to newsmedia (especially newsmedia such as the Times and Post, which publish lots of international news and so can encourage lots of invasions), a sensible business strategy for investors in ‘defense’ stocks is to also own or donate to some international-‘news’ media, in order to generate additional business for the arms-maker or other ‘defense’ firm. Not only does this business-plan relate to such newspapers as the NYT and WP, but they’ll be the focus here, because they are the most important of America’s international-news media.

Serious periodicals, such as The New Republic, The Atlantic, and Mother Jones, have also been steady propagandists for ‘defense’ companies, but magazines don’t reverberate through the rest of the mass-media to the extent that the serious national (NYC & DC) newspapers do. TV and radio pick up on, and transmit, their news (and even CNN and others rely upon them more than these newspapers rely upon the broadcast media); and, in America, a lion’s share of the national political news, and especially of international news, is originated in the New York Times and Washington Post. This megaphone-effect forms the public’s opinions about whether we should invade or not. The owners of those two powerful newspapers, via their boards of directors and appointed editorial boards, make the key decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotions, and demotions, which determine news-slants from their employees (both from the reporters and especially from the editors who select what stories to publish and whether on page-one or inside the paper), and this power that these owners have, reverberates immensely (especially in regards to international relations) and thus largely shapes the results in the national polls (sampling the public, who view the world through the newsmedia); and, thus, every US President and every member of Congress becomes heavily impacted by that ‘news’, that ‘world’ the voting public see. And this coloring of the ‘news’ especially concerns international-news reporting, and the opinions that Americans have of foreign countries — such as of Iran.

Back in 2002, when the US Government was lying through its teeth about what it knew for certain and didn’t know about “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD),” the New York Times (NYT) was then the leading neoconservative (i.e., pro-imperialistic, pro-invasion, pro military-industrial-complex or “MIC”) propaganda-organ, stenographically transmitting to the public this Government’s provably false allegations, and the Washington Post (WP) was only #2 in this regard. But that order has now switched, and now the WP is even worse.


The latest MIC-promoted top story-line concerns the protests in Iran – a country the US long controlled via America’s agent, the brutal Shah, by and after a 1953 CIA coup there, and which country thus very reasonably loathes and fears the US Government. What caused these protests, and what they mean, are much in the news; and, the news-reporting and editorials and op-eds in the NYT have been significantly more honest and varied than in the WP. Here’s a sampling of that:

As of the time of this writing (January 5th), there has not yet been an editorial from the NYT regarding the protests in Iran. (Similarly, many other newspapers, such as Britain’s Guardian, haven’t yet ventured official editorial opinions regarding this matter.) However, one opinion-piece that has been published regarding it, has become an especially prominent target of attack by the more overtly pro-MIC propagandists: the NYT’s “How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet.” It’s by “a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was an assistant secretary of state and White House coordinator for the Middle East during the Obama administration.” That writer closes by saying: “If Mr. Trump blows up the [Iran nuclear] deal and reimposes sanctions, he will not be doing the opposition a favor but instead giving Iranians a reason to rally to — rather than work against — the government they might otherwise despise. The protests taking place in Iran today are perhaps a sign that, in the long run, the Iranian people want to be accepted as free, responsible members of the international community and that in time they might demand and achieve real change. The best way for Mr. Trump to help test that proposition and increase the chance of its success is to do nothing.” That’s a rare example of an anti-MIC (military-sales-suppressing) opinion-piece in a major American ‘news’medium.


Less ‘controversial’ (more clearly mainstream) than that has been another NYT opinion-piece, “The Worst Thing for Iran’s Protesters? US Silence.” It’s by “a former Iranian-targets officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, … a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.” The FDD is an Israeli front US think-tank, funded by many MIC-invested billionaires in both countries. The author concludes: “The Trump administration can do better [than did the Obama Administration]. The president’s tweets in support of the protesters were a good start. Washington should also let loose a tsunami of sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards, the linchpin of Iran’s dictatorship. Policy-wise, that would be a good place to start. Contrary to received wisdom, the absolute worst thing that the United States can do for the Iranian people is to stay silent and do nothing.”


Another NYT op-ed is “Why Iran Is Protesting” and it’s by “an Iranian novelist and journalist.” He concludes that in Iran, “something has fundamentally changed: The unquestioning support of the rural people they relied on against the discontent of the metropolitan elite is no more. Now everyone seems unhappy.” That too is mainstream — it implies that the people of Iran have a bad Government, which should be removed.


The closest thing yet to being a NYT editorial on the subject of these protests is a column by the Times’s Roger Cohen, “Trump Is Right, This Time, About Iran.” It closes by advising the Administration: “It should not, whatever happens, impose new sanctions: They only benefit the Revolutionary Guards. And it should learn, finally, that Iran is not, as Steve Bannon told Joshua Green, ‘like the fifth century — completely primeval’ — but rather a sophisticated society of deep culture full of unrealized promise better served by engagement than estrangement.” That is a remarkably sympathetic (to the Iranian people) statement, but it nonetheless argues the exact opposite: “Trump Is Right, This Time, About Iran.” Its conclusion is the opposite of its title, but the main part of the article’s text is irrelevant to both the title and the conclusion. People such as this become columnists at top ‘news’media.

Those are the relevant opinions selected by the owner of the NYT for publication. They’re pro-MIC, but not fanatically so.


The WP published on January 1st their editorial on the subject, “The Post’s View: The West should support the protesters in Iran.” It’s like Roger Cohen’s column in the NYT. It closes: “Mr. Trump should avoid acts that would undercut the protests and empower the regime’s hard-liners. Foremost among these would be a renunciation of the 2015 nuclear accord. That would divide the United States from European governments when they should be coordinating their response to the uprising, and it would give the regime an external threat against which to rally. Reform of the nuclear accord can wait. Now is the time for Mr. Trump to focus on supporting the people of Iran.” Both Roger Cohen and the WP favor “supporting the people of Iran” while opposing and hoping for an overthrow of the President who was chosen by those people in the 2017 Iranian Presidential election, which was at least as democratic as was America’s 2016 US Presidential election. The Iranian polls right before the 19 May 2017 Presidential election showed the top three candidates as being Rouhani 35%, Raisi 18%, and Ghalibaf 2%. (20% “Won’t say.”) Ghalibaf and some of the other and even smaller candidates withdrew just days before the election. The final election result was Rouhani 57.14%, Raisi 38.28%. Raisi campaigned on a platform emphasizing that “Preventing the mixing of men and women in the office environment means that men and women can serve the people better” and advocating “Islamization of universities, revision of the Internet and censorship of Western culture.” Probably many of the recent protesters had voted for him. Perhaps if Iran becomes ruled by a “regime” instead of by an at least marginally democratic Government, then they’ll get a President like Raisi, after the US coup — which would be America’s second one in Iran. But, instead, Iranians chose Rouhani — and the U.S Government and its media call it a “regime” and say that the US Government wants to “support the people of Iran” by overthrowing the Government that Iranians voted for and support — support more than Americans support ours. (But whereas America’s CIA stirs protest-groups to overthrow Iran’s leaders, Iran has no equivalent operating in America, to overthrow our aristocracy’s choice of our leader.)


On January 3rd, the WP issued an opinion-piece by US V.P. Mike Pence, whose views are much closer to Raisi’s than to Rouhani’s. It was titled, “This time, we will not be silent on Iran.”


Another opinion-piece from the WP was the far-right Israeli Natan Sharansky’s ”The West should stop dithering and show its support for the protesters in Iran”, which attacked the Times’s “How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet.” Sharansky said: “As an opinion piece in the New York Times recently put it, the best way for the US government to help the Iranian protesters is to ‘Keep quiet and do nothing.’ Fortunately, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have already shown themselves unwilling to follow this advice.”


Yet another opinion-piece that the WP’s editors selected for publication on this topic was “Europe’s best chance on Iran could soon evaporate.” It criticized the Iran nuclear deal, and urged the Trump Administration to work with the EU “to sculpt a bipartisan policy that can save us from the next crisis, which is quickly coming our way.” This string of clichés ignored the fact that the only two actual available options for the US are to commit to the deal or else to depart from the deal; because Iran won’t leave it unless the US does, but it might leave it if the US does. And then, everything would be worse than it was previously. For the US to leave it while some of its allies don’t, would turn those allies to opposing the US Government and supporting Iran’s Government. And for the US to ‘renegotiate’ it would be impossible. Any European Government that would join with the US in order to attempt to force Iran to renegotiate it, would become embarrassed amongst its EU colleagues, and amongst its public. And yet, still, Iran would promptly resume its prior nuclear program, not renegotiate. To force Iran isn’t going to be so easy as such commentators presume it will. The article didn’t say how anything that it proposed to be achieved, could be achieved. It was simply trash.

Another WP opinion-piece was “The protesters in Iran need real help from Washington” and it was written by a top official of a think thank, WINEP, about which, as one knowledgeable person has said, “WINEP was to be AIPAC’s cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover.” None of this information was revealed by WP about the piece’s author. It can only be called blatant Israeli propaganda, surreptitiously fed to readers as if it weren’t.

The WP columnist David Ignatius bannered “Trump is right to tell Iran the world is watching.” He closed by saying, about the “surprise explosion” of these protests: “Khamenei will want to crush it. The best gift the United States can give the Iranian people is a digital lifeline, so humanity can witness their brave struggle and encourage them to prevail.” The US regime already gave the Iranian people its ‘best gift’ in 1953 when it destroyed their democracy and instituted a 26-year-long dictatorship — and, Iranians can see through the US propaganda-media’s hypocrisies, even if the US public have been too deceived by those media, for too long, to be able to see through those lies.


So, the WP has become even more neoconservative (i.e, more in favor of invading countries that haven’t invaded us) now than it was back in 2002 when it cheered on George W. Bush’s lies about Iraq, after 9/11. How did this change happen?

In 2013, Jeff Bezos and Donald Graham met at the Bilderberg conference, and two months later, Bezos agreed to buy the Washington Post from Graham.

Less than a year after that, Bezos’s Amazon won the CIA-NSA cloud computing contract, vital to the US military.


Bezos’s most profitable operation has been that military contract — it is allegedly responsible for changing Amazon from a money-losing to a profit-making corporation. The money-losing Washington Post already had been, under Graham and before, a longstanding supporter of US armed invasions, which now require lots of cloud computing (and not only of the types of weaponry that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc., supply). For example: the WP was gung-ho for regime-change in Iraq in 2002, as well as, more recently, for bombing Libya, Syria, and the bombing in Ukraine’s civil war after the coup. The main topic at the next year’s, 2014, meeting of the Bilderberg group was the war in Ukraine, but other wars were also on the agenda, such as Syria, and so were President Obama’s ’trade’ treaties: TPP, TTIP, and TISA. Luminaries present at that year’s secret discussions were Timothy Geithner, Eric Schmidt, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Charles Murray, etc., and Europeans such as Christine Lagarde and Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Perhaps some sales were made there, too.


Meanwhile, the NYT became the most-frequently-cited mis-reporter of such things as “Saddam’s WMD” during the years after the 2003 invasion on the basis of lies; and its publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., was forced quietly to fire his close friend and star White House stenographer (oops, ‘reporter’ — and she was even a Pulitzer-winning one!), Judith Miller, on account of the fraud-based Iraq War that she had so prominently and exceptionally helped to promote in her ‘news’-stories. Probably, Sulzberger’s successor, Arthur G. Sulzberger, is happy that when on 14 December 2017 his father handed the corporation’s controls over to him (effective on January 1st), the NYT’s position as the nation’s #1 PR-agent for US invasions has now been taken over by Jeff Bezos’s WP.

But, of course, Sulzberger’s profits don’t depend nearly as much on America’s MIC as Bezos’s do. The WP’s business plan is even more dependent upon war-promotion than the rest of America’s major ‘news’media’s are. However, if, say, a firm such as General Dynamics were to buy out the Sulzbergers, then perhaps the NYT would become #1 in the neoconservative league, once again. But, even when a major ‘news’medium, such as Mother Jones, isn’t owned (like the WP now is) by someone who also largely owns (via Amazon) a major military contractor, it still promotes invasions, and has deep connections to America’s Deep State. You can count on the fingers of a fingerless hand the number of major American newsmedia — online, print, or broadcast — that are not neoconservative. There are none — right, left, or center. Today’s ‘respectable’ American purveyors of alleged news have some ideological diversity, but all exist within the framework of being neoliberal and neoconservative.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.