San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, July 15, 2016

Why Is Isis Attacking The Peace-Loving French?

I was watching the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC last night as they desperately attempted to make sense of the fellow who decided to drive a truck down a crowded promenade in Nice, France, killing 84 people at last count.  As expected, one of the brilliant luminaries made the comment that the truly "horrible" thing about the massacre was the fact that "two Amerikans were killed."  I would have been sorely disappointed if someone had not perpetuated the concept that only Amerikan lives matter.  The rest of them were essentially sitting around scratching their heads and pondering out loud how it could come about that their god of civil government was unable or unwilling to exercise its omniscience and omnipotence and prevent the attack.  Fools, all of them.
Fox News told me that Newt Gingrich had announced that he believes the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should suspend all civil rights of anyone who is a Muslim until each one of them can prove that they are innocent of thinking that any Koran-Consistent Muslim Missionary could be doing something morally proper.  Most of the folks on both channels agreed that it is imperative that the citizens of the SDA make a concerted effort to continually spy on each other and quickly report any allegedly suspicious activity to the civil authorities.  I have a couple of neighbors I could do without.  Maybe I will squeal on them.
As I also expected, not a single talking head made mention of the real reason why the French find themselves in the sights of Koran-Consistent Muslim Missionaries.  That is right.  They all ignored the fact that the French government has a long and sordid history of murdering Muslims in both Africa and the Middle East.  Let me tell you a little about that today.
Go here for the source of the following quotations.  And here are the quotations (original links are retained):
  • A quick look at social media today reveals that many of the same people who imagined the US was "minding its own business" prior to 9/11 now seem to be under the impression that France has a hands-off approach in the Middle East and surrounding areas.  Of course, this position is even more ridiculous since the French have an even longer and arguably more brutal history than the US when it comes to Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and more. 
  • France has reportedly launched some 200 strikes in Iraq. The French task force is centered around the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf. According to AFP, French air capacity in the region includes 21 Rafale fighters, nine Super Etendard fighters, and some Mirage jets. 
  • It’s worth noting that the ISIS statement translated by SITE makes no explicit mention of Syria. The French military has been heavily involved in operations against Islamist militant groups outside of the Middle East over the last few years, including one group that has pledged fealty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph.
  • France has deployed 3,000 troops to West Africa—a region where they’ve historically had great influence, as a colonial power and otherwise—with a presence in Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Ivory Coast. 
  • Nor do we need to look only to recent events to find evidence of France's long, brutal colonialist history in the region. The Algerian War, for example, which ended only in 1962, led to more than 100,000 dead, which proportionally, was nothing short of a bloodbath in Algeria.
  • So, claims being made today that the French government has been a meek, peaceful lover of human rights will strike the well-informed as absurd. Americans may be blissfully unaware of all of this, but rest assured that angry young men in Iraq, Syria, and North Africa are not.
Here is another graphic you might appreciate.  It shows the locations of French military bases in Africa:

France Military Bases


What do you think?  Could the presence of nine military bases in their homelands inspire Islamic Africans, and their Middle Easter brethren, to rise up and fight a guerilla war against the country that placed them there?
I can answer the questions being raised by Fox News and MSNBC last night.  The reason your god of civil government cannot protect you is because it is a false god.  It is not omniscient nor is it omnipotent.  I know that is a difficult theological truth to stomach but it is a theological truth nonetheless.  Indeed, a strong case can be made that the God of the Bible is judging the citizens of post-Christian western Europe for their practice of murderous and sinful colonialism in the past.  The chickens really are coming home to roost.
What can be done to stop the terrorists?  The answer is quite simple but it runs counter to the imperialistic fantasies and desires of all western nations, most especially in France and the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  A powerful incentive would be created to encourage Koran-Consistent Muslim Missionaries to stay home and leave us alone if both the French and the SDA immediately removed all their respective military presences in all foreign lands.  It would not take long for the various warring factions in the Middle East to turn upon each other, thus making attacks against the west far less likely.
Sadly, nobody wants to hear the truth so the global expansion of the imperial empire will continue, and we will continue to see more of what happened in Nice last night.  When it comes time to assign the blame for those future events just remember, it is your god who is doing it to you.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Mayhem At The Tour de France

I just finished watching Stage 12 of the Tour de France and I am really angry.  If you saw the stage you know what I am writing about here today.  If you didn't let me tell you what happened and how things need to change in professional cyclilng.
Today's stage was scheduled to go from the flat lands in central France to the summit of Mount Ventoux, an enormous shield volcano that rises up at an average gradient approaching 10% for about twelve miles.  The Tour frequently uses the mountain for a stage in the middle of the three weeks to give the general classification boys an opportunity to strut their stuff between the Pyrenees and the Alps.  The stage was shortened today because of 60 mph winds at the summit of the peak, which rises above timberline.  The top three miles of the road were chopped off and the finish line was installed at timberline.  All of the drunken Frenchmen, and many other nationalities save the Welsh, who were partying for the past three days above timberline were forced to descend to the new finish line where they were packed in like sardines.  It was a prescription for disaster.
A group of three riders who were not in contention for the overall win were up the road beating each other up in what should have been a fabulous finish.  The larger group of riders containing all of the contenders for the yellow jersey was several minutes back, waiting to see who might be willing to launch an attack against current leader and yellow jersey wearer Chris Froome.  As the day's Belgian winner was crossing the finish line with a well deserved victory a three man group consisting of Froome, Bauke Mollema and Richie Porte had separated themselves from the peloton and were thrashing their way through the crowds towards the finish line, in hope of picking up valuable time on those they had just dropped.  That is when it happened.
Cycling fans have unprecedented access to the cyclists while the race is taking place.  Barriers are erected only in the last kilometer or two prior to the finish line.  Outside of those barriers the fans are permitted to stand in the middle of the roadway and pretty much do anything they want to do to the racers.  It is not unusual for riders to be punched, pushed, spat upon and generally abused by throngs of drunken fans seeking their personal moment of glory.  Most of the fans are there for only one reason...to take selfies of themselves (is that a redundancy?)  with the best bike riders in the world in the background.  Already this year I have seen several cyclists smash into fans standing in the middle of the road with their eyes glued to their PEDs (personal electronic devices).  Today's stage was complicated by the fact that thousands of fans had descended the mountain and were covering the roadway like ants on a trash pile when the riders arrived.
As Porte, Mollema and Froome were accelerating away from the other contenders they suddenly found themselves enmeshed in a mass of drunken slobs with no room to ride.  The motorcycle assigned to the task of clearing a narrow pathway through the crowd suddenly slammed on its brakes to avoid crashing into some of the arrogant jerks blocking the road and Froome, Mollema and Porte all crashed into the back of the motorcycle.  Go here for video of the crash.  By the time they were able to get up from the pavement, find their bikes and continue onward they had lost precious seconds of time and the group that was behind them had passed them and gained time on them at the finish line.  Most of the riders, including those who gained time,  crossed the finish line shaking their heads in disgust at what had just happened.  It threw the entire race into chaos as nobody knew how the race judges would determine the general classification standings.  Initially defending champion Froome was dropped all the way to 6th place but the powers that be eventually came to their senses and assigned finishing times to all riders at the time of the crash.  That put Froome back into yellow and the other riders chasing him into their proper positions as well.
Professional cycling events need help.  Allowing drunken and selfish fans onto the course is a stupid and dangerous practice.  I recognize that it is impossible to keep people off a course that often spans over 100 miles in length but fans tend to congregate in specific places along the roadway,thus making it possible for someone to control them.  Since the race organizers seem unable to keep fans off the road, I think the riders themselves should be authorized to perform that task.  Traditionally if a rider strikes a fan, which happens fairly often, and is seen doing so, he will be fined or lose time.  That is unfair and endangers the careers of the riders.  With that in mind I offer up the Welshman's Rules of Gentlemanly Conduct for Professional Cyclists:
  1. No rider shall ever be punished for anything that he does to a fan who is standing in the cyclist's path.  
  2. Fans come to professional cycling events at their own risk.  Any injuries or death to fans that occur on the roadway shall be deemed the fault of the fans regardless of the circumstances.
  3. Riders shall be permitted to punch, kick, yell at, spit upon and generally abuse any fan found in the roadway.
  4. Cyclists shall be permitted to place spikes, barbs, machetes, spears and other pointy devices on their bicycles when entering an area where fans are likely to be found upon the road.  Anything that happens after that point is never the fault of the cyclists.
  5. In the Grand Tours (France, Spain and Italy) a new jersey shall be designated for the cyclist who can injure, maim or kill the most drunken and unruly fans.  It shall be called the Red Jersey.
  6. When cyclists team up to chase down fans on the roadway no time penalty shall be assigned to any of the cyclists if they are involved in the process of holding fans while other cyclists beat them up.
I believe these six simple rule changes would dramatically improve the safety and watch-ability of professional cycling.   Maybe you can think of some additional rules yourself.  If so, won't you share them in the "comments" section?

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Freedom Of Religion Is Not A Biblical Concept

Warning:  This is the second time I have composed a post to my blog that contains theological content.  Being fully aware that many people despise the God of the Bible with an intense passion I issue this warning in advance.  If you hate biblical truth please go somewhere else today.  If you hate biblical law you will be better served elsewhere today.  If you worship at the throne of career politicians from the legislative branch of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika you will be highly offended by what follows.  Consider yourself warned.

Two days ago I wrote the audacious, absurd, outrageous and utterly ridiculous statement that the God of the Bible believes His law should be the law of the land.  I would like to follow that preposterous comment up with an additional inconceivably harsh and intolerant argument today.  You already know what I am going to write since it is in the title of today's post.  The God of the Bible does not recognize the right of men to deny Him, nor does He allow them to refuse to worship Him without bringing His eternal wrath upon those who make the irrational and deadly decision to deny His existence and ignore his commandments, statutes and laws.  Simply put, there is no such thing as the doctrine of religious pluralism in biblical teaching.  Although men who hate the God of the Bible should never pretend to worship Him, that would cause the hypocrite to incur even more of His wrath, everyone is expected to at least outwardly conform to biblical law. Most importantly, no competing religions or religious law systems would, could or should ever be permitted to exist.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, as it was originally written, contained a truthful and biblical statement about the relationship of civil government and the Christian Church.  Paragraph 3 in Chapter 23 of the confession, entitled "Of the Civil Magistrate," said, "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed."
You will notice that the Christians who wrote the confession clearly believed that it was the duty of civil government to enforce both the first and second tables of the law of God, thus declaring that blasphemy must be suppressed.  Most everyone remembers from their high school history classes that the Protestant Church took that directive seriously and would either execute or banish those people who decided to engage in blasphemous doctrines and practices.  Most everyone also remembers how we were all told that the practice of enforcing the law of God by means of the civil authorities was a horrible example of religious oppression that free men should never have been subjected to.  The glories of religious pluralism were extolled and the beauty of the then-budding Amerikan empire was praised. 
Amerikan Christians, committed to the evil principles of democracy and religious pluralism, readily amended the original confession to remove the offensive comments about the duty of the civil magistrate to enforce the law of God over all citizens in the land.  Little did they know at the time that it would not be long before Progressives would take over the civil government and begin to enforce their own brand of religious doctrine and practice upon the citizens of the land, all in the name of freedom of religion.
In a June 27, 2016 post to this blog I noted that, in reality, there is no such thing as religious pluralism or freedom of religion.  In every society at every point in time there is one, and only one, system of religious law in force.  Here is my original quotation:  "Please allow me to begin with an extended quotation from a theological luminary that I admire very much.  His name is Rushdoony and he wrote a book entitled The Institutes of Biblical Law.  In the introduction to that book he explains some general principles about the nature of law and society.  It is from that section I extract this quote, 'Law in every culture is religious in origin....it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society....in any society any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion....Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exits without a religious foundation or without a law system which codifies the morality of its religion....there can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion.  Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance....Every law system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system or else it commits suicide.'"  (emphasis mine)
Yesterday I wrote that most people disrespect the police because the police enforce an ever increasing body of law that criminalizes just about everything we do.  That is the nature of the messianic state.  It grows ever larger as more and more laws are created to appeal to more and more groups of voters who want to cash in on their power as voters and receive special privileges from the government.   As long as people worship at the throne of civil government we will be strangled by laws and the people hired to enforce them.  As long as legislators create more laws and then turn those laws over to bureaus which create even more laws which are then turned over to the cops to enforce, we will have disrespect for the cops. 
The rather obvious and simple truth is that there can be no coexistence between competing law systems.  Biblical law was rejected long ago when the Constitution was ratified and the citizens of the then emergent Amerikan Empire made the conscious decision to reject biblical law in favor of laws made by men intent upon feathering their nests and remaining career politicians.  As Progressives generally took over the entire infrastructure of civil government it was only a matter of time until we arrived at where we are today.  There is no freedom of religion in this land anymore than there was freedom of religion in colonial America.  Heretics, blasphemers, Unitarians and Baptists were either killed or banished to the wilderness when they were discovered in the New England colonies.  In the same fashion we see today that Christians are intellectually and culturally banished from the public square when they express their biblical opinions about life in the SDA.
Do you thing I am overstating the case?  Let me ask you a couple of questions.  What do you believe would happen if you quoted the Bible as an authoritative source for law in an SDA court of law?  How about in a government school?  How about in a government bureau?  How about in divorce proceedings?  How about in a custody hearing?  How about when a cop pulls you over for a traffic violation that is not a violation of the moral law?  How about when you are arrested for possession of a controlled substance?  Do you really believe your biblical arguments in your defense will carry any weight?  What happens if you believe the Bible is literally true?  Are you not intellectually marginalized?  What happens when you assert that the Bible is authoritative over all matters of life and practice, as the confessions used to say?  You are banished from the public square.  What happens if you do as I am doing here and call out for biblical law to be the law of the SDA?  I don't think I need to answer that question but I will.  You will end up writing a blog that, after over four years and more than 1000 posts, is read by about 15 people per day.  Make no mistake, the illusion of religious pluralism was only maintained until the Progressives assumed power.  Now comes the ever increasing suppression of Christians and biblical truth.
It is time for us to admit that, in the political arena,  we are at war over law.  It is the Christians against the Progressives and the Progressives are in control.  If Christians were in charge and biblical law was the law of the land all sorts of people would find themselves being executed.  Read Monday's blog post for the list of sins that would get you killed.  We would have no tolerance for dissent. We would have no tolerance for those who cry for tolerance.  We would not pretend that religious pluralism actually existed in our land.  We would proudly and confidently execute the law of God, believing that we were garnering His good pleasure and obtaining an inheritance in heaven for doing so.
Progressives need to do the same thing.  They need to stop pretending that there is some sort of religious freedom in this country.  The illusion of religious freedom that is produced merely because jack-booted thugs don't shoot down ministers as they preach betrays the reality that Christian teaching, doctrine, law and practice is already illegal in many states and bound to become only more so in the future.  So once again I call upon the Progressives who rule over us to stop being sissies and do things right.  Behave consistently with what you believe.   Enforce  your laws.  Criminalize Christianity and jail Christians.  A couple of pogroms would be good for us as it would weed out the fake Christians and soundly prove that the God-hating government of the SDA will tolerate no dissent.  If we were in power we would have the courage and conviction, as we have in the past, to enforce our law upon you.  Why are you too cowardly to do so with us?

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Black Lives Do Matter

I was watching Bill O'Reily last night, with the sound turned down and reading the closed captions instead of listening to his irritating voice, when a segment came up about a new study by a black college professor from Harvard about the use of lethal force by white cops against black citizens.  That seemed like a timely topic so I took some time to look up the study.  A report from the NY Times about the study can be found here. As you can imagine, Bill would not have reported the study if it did not support his presuppositions on the matter.  Despite the fact that Bill liked the story, I found it most informative as well.  Let me tell you about it today.
The newspaper story is entitled, "Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings."  That headline tells me a lot.  Why is it surprising that blacks are not killed by cops at a rate higher than whites are killed by cops?  It is not surprising to me that it is true.  The great majority of the stories I read about police brutality and police murders of citizens revolve around white folks like me.  Were it not for the highly effective propaganda efforts of the Black Lives Matter crowd I don't believe any sensible citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika would have come to the conclusion that cops are out to kill black folks.
Cops, especially those who are ex-military, are as a rule a group of people who like throwing their weight around and beating up people.  They are generally extremely insecure, which makes them even more dangerous, as they compensate for their insecurities by terrorizing others.  The people who are drawn to law enforcement are almost always people who like to control the behavior of others.  Rarely do they believe in the maxim of live and let live.  They also believe in the law and order state.  They are committed to an ever increasing body of laws that criminalizes just about every behavior a human being can engage in, thus giving them myriad reasons to arrest just about everyone.  I can't tell you how many times I have witnessed the attitude in cops that betrays their belief that citizens like us are stupid rebels in need of their brand of enforced discipline.  Put a gun into the hands of these misanthropists and murder is bound to follow.
The newspaper presented the conclusions of Roland G. Fryer, Jr. the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard.   To determine if cops like killing blacks more than whites, "the study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California....He and student researchers spent about 3,000 hours assembling detailed data from police reports in Houston; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Los Angeles; Orlando, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and four other counties in Florida.  They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects."
And what did the good professor discover?  "In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force....But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?  To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified...Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black."
Why does this surprise anyone?  In the politically correct and racially charged atmosphere we live in today it is only reasonable to assume that even jack-booted thugs like the cops will make some attempt to restrain themselves when they know that shooting a black person is going to get them into much more hot water than killing whitey.  Like the bullies and cowards that so many of them are, they will kill those who are easiest to kill and whitey is easier to kill and get away with it.
There have been several utterly predictable reactions to the study.  Black Lives Matter will undoubtedly dismiss the entire study as some sort of white conspiracy, utilizing a convenient Oreo at Harvard, to diffuse their take on reality.  Bill took the route most Christian Republicans would take.  He defended the cops and blamed the citizens, mostly white, for getting shot.  He repeated the familiar refrain that cops put their lives on the line every day to defend us and we should worship them as the heroes they truly are.  That mantra is not true.  Cops die on the job at a rate far below many much more dangerous careers.  Go here for the facts on that myth.  
Bill also informed me that the problem is that both black and white folks disrespect the cops.  Now on that we can agree.  He did not ask the question as to why so many of us have no respect for the cops.  That question would have exposed the weakness of his entire position so it would never get asked.  That does not keep me from asking it.  Quoting myself from my May 5, 2015 blog post, "The reason cops are rampaging all around this disgusting land, beating up and killing citizens at will, is because they have been given the responsibility of enforcing hundreds of thousands of immoral laws that criminalize practically everything we do.  Why just today I found out that if I hang up my Christmas tree lights this Christmas I will be breaking the law prohibiting the use of that particular type of light.  It seems the federal government has determined that I am stupid and the lights are unsafe so they have been banned.  I suspect that the real reason for the ban is economic.  Some Senator or Representative has a brother in the Christmas light business who could not compete with the high quality Christmas lights being imported from China and sold, quite inexpensively, at Wal-Mart.  A law had to be made and it had to be justified as being in the public interest."  
People hate cops because the cops personally represent the bloated system of laws that tyrannize all of us on a daily basis.  There is a fascinating contradictory relationship between the creators of the laws and the enforcers of the laws.  Government worshiping citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika praise and worship career politicians who create laws giving them access to victim status and their fair share of their neighbor's wealth.  Then, when the bureaus responsible for fleshing out those laws create hundreds of new laws that are enforced by the cops, those same people become angry with both the bureaucrats and the cops when the laws are enforced against them.  The solution to the problem, despite what Bill believes, is not more money, more cops, or more government indoctrination programs informing us of the necessity to worship cops as heroes.  The solution to the problem is less law.  
I have a solution to the problem.  It is called biblical law and I will tell you about it tomorrow.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Homosexuality Is A Pleonastic Sin

Warning:  Today's blog post is heavily influenced by historic and orthodox Christian theology.  Those of you who are offended by the truth would be better off going somewhere else today.  This warning includes all God-hating citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika as well as Evangelicals who have long since parted ways with historic Christian theology as evidenced by their extreme embarrassment for biblical law.  Enough said.

If you have ever taken the time to read the Bible or listen to much Christian preaching on the Bible you are no doubt aware of God's opinion about homosexuality.  If you are not aware of God's opinion on the matter I will enlighten you.  He hates homosexuality and homosexuals.
Although it is true that even the smallest sin on the part of a human being is justly punished by the sentence of eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire, it does not follow that all sins are equally heinous in God's mind. God prioritizes the sins that we humans commit and He ranks them according to those which are most odious in His sight.  At the top of the list are those sins for which the Law of God proscribes the death penalty as the just sentence for those who commit them.
God proscribes the death penalty for those sins which are so evil that He wants to have the soul of the offending sinner ushered into His courtroom immediately.  Taking the physical life of the sinner is not the primary point in the sentence of execution.  The primary point is to get the soul displaced from the sinner's body and into the presence of God where He can begin to enforce His punishment upon the sinner directly.  Death penalty sins are sins that God desires to be immediately involved in the punishment thereof, without waiting for human agents to carry out His divine will.
Here is a list of the sins that God authorizes execution for:
  • Murder
  • Striking/cursing a parent
  • Kidnapping
  • Adultery
  • Incest
  • Bestiality
  • Homosexuality
  • Witchcraft
  • Perpetual Juvenile Delinquency
  • Blasphemy
  • Propagation of False Doctrines
  • Refusing to Obey the Judicial Decision of the Court
What a wonderful world we would have if the civil authorities in the SDA actually enforced the death penalty upon all of those who commit the twelve sins listed above.  In a sinful world filled with sinful human beings it will never be possible to eliminate all capital offenses but it would most certainly be true that the incidence of the above listed offenses would dramatically drop if the perpetrators were killed.  Imagine a world in which murder, kidnapping, incest and bestiality were dramatically reduced.   I have a dream!  I can see a world in which adulterers are executed in droves and the sanctity of the marriage bond is preserved.  I see a world in which the honor of God is upheld and all blasphemers and propagators of false doctrines are executed for their sins.  I also see a world in which homosexual practices are punished by death.
There is a further distinction to be made within the category of capital offenses listed in the Bible as shown on the list above.  Some of the capital sins are pleonastic and some are not.  A pleonastic sin is a capital offense in which the death penalty is mandated and not merely permitted.  Half of the above capital crimes do not mandate the death penalty.  In cases where those crimes are committed the victim of the crime has the right, if he or she so chooses, to specify a penalty less than death.  In the other half of the crimes listed above the death penalty is mandated and there is no possibility for a lesser sentence.  Let's play a game.  Can you guess which capital sins are pleonastic?
I will give you a hint to help you come to the correct answer.  Pleonastic sins are sins that have no surviving human victim and, as such, require the instigation of prosecution by the civil authorities.  Does that help?  It should.  The pleonastic sins in the above list are:  murder, bestiality, witchcraft, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrines and homosexuality.  There is no surviving victim in a murder, nor does biblical law recognize an animal as a victim of bestiality.  God is the victim in both witchcraft and blasphemy and He summons the perpetrator to His courtroom via the sentence of death.  The death penalty for the practice of spreading false doctrines is a somewhat different case that I will not be discussing in detail in this blog post.  Homosexuality is not a "victimless" crime simply because those who engage in the practice do so by mutual consent.  Homosexuality is an affront against God and the universe He has created.  Approval for homosexuality is indicative of a tacit approval for the exact opposite moral standard for sexual ethics than the one God created in the universe originally.  As such it must be punished by death.
As a pleonastic sin the civil authorities are responsible to punish people whom it finds guilty of that crime.  There is to be no mercy and there are to be no lesser sentences.  Those God-hating people who fill our system of injustice in this land will be held morally accountable by a morally perfect God for their refusal to do what God has told them to do.  Unless they repent their future is the Lake of Fire as well.
The fact that Evangelicals in the SDA believe that God has changed His opinion about the civil enforcement rules and punishments in regards to the first table of the law reveals that they deny the doctrine of God's immutability and are, by definition, heretics.  God is immutable.  His moral and civil law is the same today, yesterday and forever because it is based upon His perfect moral nature and will.  God is highly offended when first table offenses (blasphemy, propagation of false doctrines) go unpunished by the civil authorities and He will judge them for their refusal to abide by His commands.  He will also judge Evangelicals for their denial of the continuing validity and applicability of the entirety of His law.
So far this year women and government approved medical "doctors" have conspired to murder about a half million citizens of the land known as babies.  Moral reprobates who recoil in horror at the things I have written above about adulterers and homosexuals are not in the least bit emotionally or intellectually disturbed by the truth about the hundreds of thousands of summary executions of innocent citizens that surround us.  When the citizens of a country consider the death penalty as a mandated civil punishment for homosexuals to be a severe and barbaric punishment while, at the same time, they joyfully murder a million of their own countrymen every single year you can be sure we are living in a post-Christian society populated by God-haters who have consciences that are entirely seared.