realitydisease.com

Yes, I heard about this at work yesterday; Russia has legislation in the works that will discourage the so-called “emo” subculture by establishing public dress codes and internet restrictions which will prevent the dissemination of emo-oriented material. Just check out this article (or another one here). Or, you can simply Google the topic; it’s much-discussed on a number of blogs and forums.

Now, aside from this being completely hilarious, there may be reason to take this more seriously. The “emo ban” (which would also target Gothic styles of dress and even the celebration of certain Western holidays such as Halloween) is included among legislation to curb child alcoholism and pornography. In other words, it’s being promoted as an issue of morality and public safety. The Russian authorities are making emo out to be something quite serious indeed. Their argument is that it leads to violence, depression, and suicide. And, no doubt, Russia has seen its fair share of these things since the collapse of the Soviet Union. But among its contributors—emo?

Naturally, there have been many protests in Russia (and elsewhere) against this “emo ban” which, by my guess, must mean runny eyeliner for thousands of long-haired, gratuitously-pierced youth who can’t possibly stand such angst. I don’t know whether or not this legislation will be passed or not, and honestly, I don’t think it makes a difference. What Russia needs—what this whole world needs, for that matter—is not mere legislation. Politics will never reach the heart of the issues that plague our planet.

Of course, that’s not the way we see it. In America, we think that banning video games or certain genres of music will change people’s wicked hearts. Or we place so much hope in a certain politician who promises change, a messiah of sorts, to solve all of our problems. But the truth is that none of these things will truly change the world—at least in the way it needs to be changed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark This

Hide Sites

If any of you have seen Frank Caliendo’s impressions of Charles Barkley, then you’ll probably have to fight against laughing through this whole video, as I did. However, what Barkley is saying is not funny. It seems he holds a very common opinion in our world today which is Biblically misinformed and downright bitter.

If preaching that homosexuality and abortion lead to death is “judgmental,” then what are we to make of all of the Biblical teachings which clearly warn against such things? Barkley has taken one cliché from the Bible (which he apparently does not actually read) and misconstrued it in order to distort the truth. If it is “judgmental” to teach what the Bible says about sin, then I suppose we Christians would be “judgmental” to tell people there is a hell, or that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” In fact, any effort to try to save the souls of those who are perishing must be “judgmental” because it requires that we tell them that there is something wrong with their life. Perhaps Barkley is bitter because the Word of God condemns certain behavior in his own life (be it leading women to abort their children, sodomy, or otherwise). Regardless, he clearly rejects the Gospel and is full of hatred—not toward Christians, but toward the sovereign God.

It may seem silly to say this, but even the old “Round Mound Rebound,” Sir Charles, needs Jesus.

Bookmark This

Hide Sites

In America, we worship choice. We need our 31 flavors, our extensive wardrobes, our buffet line, our Universalist Church, our list of options so we can feel like we’re in control of our lives. It’s a right which all men ought to have, we say, and indeed, we think we’re entitled to a sense of self-determination—it’s the “American way.” Choice is an idol which gives us meaning—it defines our very existence—and we cannot live without it. We need to be able to express our individuality, to choose our own path, to do what is best for us as individuals. And as consumers, choice satisfies all of our desires. We love it—it is a god that serves us and delivers what we want.

But to what lengths are we willing to go, in order that we may worship this idol? Would we lie and steal from others? Would we kill our own child? Would we invade other countries?

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark This

Hide Sites

Well, that’s what the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, says, according to this article. The doctrine of the Trinity, he says, “is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims.” And according to the article, “his comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for ‘the common good.’”

It seems as though the Anglican Church is on the brink of a major division. More conservative bishops seem to be struggling against the current of increasingly liberal ideas, as the Church continues to acquiesce to the wickedness of Western culture. This, of course, began in the early 1990s with the Church’s decision to ordain women, and it only intensified as the Church became increasingly accepting of homosexuality, even among its clergy. Now, the Archbishop of Canterbury is spewing all sorts of ecumenical nonsense, promoting a merely social gospel which, as it turns out, is really no gospel at all.

Of course, Muslims find the doctrine of the Trinity offensive because they believe it to be incompatible with their strict belief in one God. So Dr. Williams thinks it’s time to make nice and cede the point. By blurring the lines between the Christian gospel and false gospels, he hopes to achieve the greater good of helping the environment, fighting poverty, and ending prejudice. After all, it’s something Christians and Muslims can agree upon, and it’s something that we should earnestly pursue even if it means abandoning the faith. If something we believe is offensive to others, we shouldn’t push it on them, even if it is the only hope for salvation.

I sincerely hope all of you see what a preposterous, wicked thing this man is doing. He’s apologizing for the gospel because it is offensive to Muslims. But is there anyone to whom the Christian gospel is not offensive besides those who have received Christ’s grace? Jesus is himself called a “rock of offense!”

This man, Dr. Williams, has eliminated the offense of the cross. He is ashamed of the Christian gospel. And despite of his all-embracing ecumenicalism, I would not be surprised if, before very long, the Anglican church officially splits as a result of such degradation of that gospel.

Bookmark This

Hide Sites

Finally, the RealityDisease Blog is returning to a form its long time readers (all 3 of them) are more familiar with. However, the blog is no longer hosted on Wordpress but right here on RealityDisease.com. I have already transferred some old posts to the new site, where you can now read them in the archives. I don’t plan on transferring everything because much of it, quite frankly, isn’t worth transferring. But look for new stuff in the near future on RealityDisease.com!

And if you haven’t seen it yet, try out my new wiki site at http://www.LifeInCincinnati.com!

Cheers,
Ryan

Bookmark This

Hide Sites