The best way to return volley when dealing with satirists, mockers, and the irreverent is to give them a taste of their own medicine. All the West is taking up for the filth put out by French magazine “Charlie Hebdo” and in favor of their gutter freedom of speech. This is a freedom of speech that found Charlie Hebdo satirizing the members of the Trinity as engaging in sodomite sex with one another simultaneously.
Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are going to mock and satirize Christianity then mocking and satirizing the sacred truths of the secular religion if also fair game. The most sacred truth of the Cultural Marxist Left today is the Holocaust ™. It is an event that dare not be questioned lest one be imprisoned for merely questioning the facts around the Holocaust ™.
Isn’t it curious that while blaspheming the Lord Jesus Christ is a Free speech matter, and insulting the pervert Mohammed is a free speech right, what isn’t a free speech matter is denying the holocaust? I wonder why that is?
So, if we really are going to march for freedom of speech then let it be a march for freedom of all speech. But that will never happen because all cultures and social orders protect via the fence of the law, what is held sacred that culture and social order.
The mocking limericks that follow are here to make a singular point and that point is to eliminate the double standard.
The Double Standard
Trying to get this all straight
Questioning Six Million is hate
But one is perfectly free
To pen the Trinity
As sodomite sexual soul-mates?
It Goes Both Ways
They tell me that the satire pen
Must be free to lampoon all men
But if that is quite true
Then what will they do
When Auschwitz is mocked now and then?
Now Who’s Ox Is Being Gored?
Satire Mohammed as you please
Cartoon the Trinity as in sleaze
But if you do all of that
There is tit for tat
Prepare for jokes about the Holo-hoax disease
Jes Suis Zundel & Irving?
There once were satirists from France
All religions they’d love to lance
But if this is the game
Then others look tame
Give Zundel and Irving a chance
One little, two little, three little Frenchmen,
One and all the Accuser’s henchmen.
The blasphemies they spew like rain,
Shall reign down upon them again,
Christ the King from Heaven laughs,
At all their wisdom: all their gaffs,
The hooks upon which they’ll be hoisted,
When judgment is upon them foisted,
No excuses left, no mercies to plea,
For their vain and pitiful treachery.
Then shall patience have its reward,
By swift and terrible and two-edged sword.
Excellent Joshua
Good to hear from you. Miss you.
Hey Bret, Can you point me to any good reads on holocaust truth?
This is a subject I have been researching as late and would love
some more good reads. Thanks Gray
Graham,
I would start here
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Holocaust-Trial-Landmark-Battle/dp/0970378467/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1421275045&sr=8-7&keywords=Michael+Hoffman&pebp=1421275076181&peasin=970378467
When you finish that I’ll send more your way if you are still interested.
Thanks Bret I will read it. I have read his book Judaisms Strange Gods.
Found it very enlightening.
Sir, are you a holocaust denier? I am shocked to think that a professing Christian could deny the horrific slaughter of Jews and other people that the devilish Nazis deemed worthy of death.
We live in Northern Ireland and we are Bible-believing Christians. The massacre in France was carried out by Muslims. The media prefer to hide this truth and refer to the killers as “extremists” or “jihadists.” They want to perpetuate the lie that Islam is peaceful and that the Muslim murderers in France were betraying Islam when, in fact, they were enforcing Sharia law on so-called “infidels.” By the way, all non-Muslims are considered “infidels” and could be “marked for death” by Muslims simply for being non-Muslims.
The Nazis were friendly with a Muslim leader called the Grand Mufti during World War 2 and he encouraged them to exterminate more Jews. Do you not see the connection between the murderous Nazis and murderous Islam?
The French magazine cartoonists and editors should not have been harmed by anyone even though they produced a vile, obscene publication. The law in France should have banned their magazine. Those (mostly) left wingers who marched in that Paris rally and collectively said “Je Suis Charlie” are hypocrites because they were not out protesting the brutal suppression by the police of the free speech of those who oppose homosexual “marriage”.
You managed to entirely miss the point Susan Anne White. The point wasn’t to deny the hardship of different people groups. The point was to suggest that if one is going to approve of mocking all religions and their sacred truths (as Charlie Hebdo does) then one shouldn’t be opposed to satirizing even those events that are considered untouchable by Moderns. As a Biblical Christian myself, I find Charlie Hebdo’s mocking the Trinity via having each member of the Trinity sodomize the other simultaneously far far more offensive than the prospect of someone mocking or satirizing Auschwitz. Why doesn’t Charlie Hebdo satirize Auschwitz? I’ll tell you why. They won’t satirize Auschwitz because Auschwitz is their sacred truth. Now, you and they will say, “We don’t satirize Auschwitz because it is true.” That is merely to beg the question because I believe the Trinity is true and so untouchable.
We are agreed about the necessity of the French law banning the magazine. Again, the point of the blog post in question was if your not going to ban one distasteful satire you should engage in all distasteful satires.
Now about your usage of the word Holocaust, I’d recommend that as a Christian you quit using that word since it is blasphemy to apply that word to the Jews. Please read information below that will demonstrate that to you.
___________________
Dear Pastor, I have read where you have said, “The only true holocaust is the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Any other use of the word is sacrilegious.” Now, Pastor according to my dictionary the word holocaust means, “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale” Granted, the Crucifixion was death and destruction at its most massive (as well as a part of victory on its grandest scale). But are you really proposing that it is sacrilege to acknowledge that there was ever any other instance of slaughter on a mass scale? Marcia Whittum Woodward
Dear Marcia, Thank you for a very good question. In Leviticus 4:7 we read,
7And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the LORD that is in the tent of meeting, and all the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
What is being taught here and what is taught throughout the Old Testament is that there was to be no approach to God but by way of Atonement. The claim of the altar had to be met first before God could be approached. The offering required that was to be given had to be given totally to God. The ancient term for this offering, much used in earlier centuries is “holocaust.” Indeed, that word was used by the ancients because in earlier translations of the Bible it was referred to as the “Holocaust offering.” Today our Bibles typically translate it as “burnt offering.” It is a offering wholly given to God and setting forth full devotedness. The only true holocaust thus, is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Paul, in Ephesians 5:1-2 refers to Jesus Christ as a wholly given offering – a holocaust offering – on our behalf.
[verse] Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [/verse]
Paul’s phrase here in Ephesians 5 for the offering of Jesus Christ is the same as the Greek word used in the Septuagint for Leviticus 1:9 where we find the world “holocaust.” Since the word originally had to do with sacrifice and offering and was used in the context of worship and specifically is associated with the death of the Lord Christ on the Cross I would say that any other use of the word “holocaust” demeans that word’s original meaning and is a move to try to compare matters which can not be compared. The death of any people group in no way compares to the death of Christ on the cross and because that is true the use of the word “holocaust” to describe anything but the offering of Christ ends up diminishing the work of Jesus Christ by suggesting that others have experienced what He alone could and did experience. Let the word “genocide” be used instead of “holocaust.” “Holocaust” belongs to Christianity and the cross. One wonders if the translators changed the translation in order to be sensitive to the Jews, but I would contend that sensitivity to the Jews on this issue means that their sensitivities are being prioritized over the nature of reality. The reality is that Jesus Christ is the holocaust offering and no other holocaust can remotely compare to the holocaust offering of the Lord Christ. The Jews have for some time insisted that they themselves, as Israel, are the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53. By yielding the word “holocaust” to the Jews to describe their suffering they advance their idolatrous status seeking and make themselves their own Messiah. Jesus Christ alone was our holocaust offering.
In the end Susan Anne White the limericks were intended to be a reductio ad absurdum argument. Sorry that the nuance was lost on you.
Pastor McAtee, I would still like an answer to my question i.e do you deny that six million Jews and others, such as gypsies, were brutally slaughtered by devilish Nazis. I would greatly appreciate a “yes” or “no” answer. Your response to my comment ignored my question and several other points or observations I made therein. May I also ask, why would you want anyone to have the freedom to deny the genocide (your word) of the Jews etc? I end with an example. Ted Bundy was a serial killer. He murdered many women. Fact. If someone denied the fact, would that change the fact that Bundy did indeed commit multiple murders?
The answer was in the second sentence of the last post.
Here it is again
“The point wasn’t to deny the hardship of different people groups.”
You ask again,
May I also ask, why would you want anyone to have the freedom to deny the genocide (your word) of the Jews etc?
You do know what a reductio ad absurdum is don’t you?
The point, once again, is that if you allow freedom to portray the trinity engaged in acts of sodomy then the freedom has to exist for all speech … including the speech you find offensive. (And apparently you find Blasphemy against Christ less offensive then Blasphemy against the dreadful pogram of the Jews.)