To all my liberal friends (I have a few), please stop with all the snarky, smart alec, hypocritical freak outs over the public execution of a mass-murdering Allah Akbarbarian. We all know FOR A FACT that you’d be buying tickets and eating organic popcorn if the one being executed was a white Jewish health insurance executive, ICE agent, or Donald Trump.
Don’t talk about conservatives enjoying taking lives when you make billions burning children alive with chemicals; ripping them apart while their screams cannot yet be heard; and having their little brains sucked out as their tiny bodies twitch just outside of the womb in which they were fearfully and wonderfully made….millions more than the 20 or 30 thousand that have perished as shields of those like this Allah Akbarbarian.
The biggest difference is that while we want a public execution so that others may think twice about repeating the crime, you hide all your murders behind the curtains and under the draped sheets so that by not witnessing the carnage you can continue to recruit paying victims.
Please do me a quick favor and re-read the title. It’s important. What does it say? It says what you thought it said the first time. Yes, I cried more for a lost dog than I did when I lost either my father or mother.
What kind of person would say such a thing? Honestly, someone with a better grip on spiritual realities than one might think.
The Sting of Death
“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:55–57) But do you know of whom Paul was speaking? Not animals.
Paul says the “sting” of death is sin. Do animals sin? Of course not. But they do die, don’t they? Romans 8 says that “the creature was made subject to vanity” and that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (vv. 20, 22). It also says that “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (v. 21). Adam’s sin brought death to all creation, not only Eve and himself.
So did the animals benefit from the same victory? Is the “sting” of death present with animals, but not the victory? I’m sure others have wrestled with these questions far more than I have. But my beloved dog George is missing, and it has made me more aware than ever of the blessing Paul describes in those verses.
Inconsolable Grief
If you could have been around me the last few days, you would have heard me weep and wail louder than I have in decades. George is missing, and no body has been found. I don’t know whether he’s alive or dead, and honestly that may be harder than having the closure of a grave.
The closest thing I can compare it to is when I realized my relationship with my first fiancée was truly over. I cried so hard and for so long that I was inconsolable.
By the way, her name was Lisa, if you want to know. Lisa was a huge Disney fan. She even worked at the Disney Store in the mall. Next time you see her, you can tell her I still feel remnants of the pain four decades later, and that I hate Mickey Mouse because of her. Just saying.
And why was the grief so painful? Because there was no hope afterward. It was over. She was gone forever.
Consolable Grief
On the other hand, consider the deaths of both my mother and father. My father’s death was sudden and unexpected, so it was more painful than when my mother finally went home after battling painful pancreatic cancer. But the big difference between their deaths and Lisa breaking up with me is that one loss was final, and the others were not.
Paul wrote that “if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Corinthians 15:19). But because of Jesus Christ, we do not mourn “even as others which have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Death is not the end for the Christian! One day we will be reunited with our loved ones who have gone on.
God’s grace let me be consoled at the death of my parents because their departure is temporary. I will see them again.
The Loss of My Dog
That is why losing George has made me so thankful. Don’t get me wrong, my heart is broken into a thousand pieces over my little buddy. The ache in my chest is worse than anything I felt at my parents’ funerals. But it has made me thankful for the hope in Christ that tells me death is not the end.
So that’s why you’ll see me mourn longer for my dog than for my parents. I may or may not see George again in heaven. That’s still up for debate. But I WILL see my mom and dad!
And yes, Lisa did become a believing Christian, so I’m sure she’ll be there, and I’ll see her, too. But not until I’ve spent time greeting my near and distant loved ones and gone down the list of all the Apostles, major prophets, minor prophets, unnamed prophets, unmentioned prophets, righteous deacons, the entire first-century Church, and all my fellow Baptists who by God’s grace actually made it in. I just doubt her heavenly mansion will look like Cinderella Castle.
I recently posted on a couple of different pro-Israel groups’ Facebook pages. Mind you, these were PRO Israel, not ANTI Israel.
Why do I make that distinction? Because wouldn’t it make sense for normal people to visit the sites promoting the ideals and hobbies they like, not the things they hate?
Of course, it would!
But out of the hundreds of comments I received (or others who commented received), many, many were the vilest representations of humanity. And of course, most if not all of them were people who were members of the page.
Is it just that I am not as passionate about what I believe in? Should I actively search out Facebook groups and TikTok accounts that hate Israel and Jews and harass them with personal, derogatory, ad hominin attacks?
Is it wrong that I do not go to other pages and forums to leave comments full of absurd lies and accusations?
Would my purposes best be served if I were to visit “Humanitarian Friends of Israel-Hating Anti-Zionist Jihadis” and leave comments like this?
“You c— sucking, mother f—— tw–! How can you be breathing and still support such a g–d— murderous, child-raping, group of Nazis? Go to hell, you sick stupid bastard! You’re full of hot sh-t!!! Why don’t you go F–K your sick self!”
That’s just it. As much as I might disagree with someone, I would never speak (or write) that way.
And why is that?
Because people that write comments like that are full of hate, not simply passion. They have crossed a line over which sane discourse cannot cross. They have blinded their own eyes with self-imposed darkness and let Evil provide guidance.
A wise [man] feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. – Proverbs 14:16
Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince. – Proverbs 17:7
[It is] an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. – Proverbs 20:3
But don’t think I’m always going to respond softly and gently. There are times when reproof is called for, while others aren’t worth casting pearls before swine.
Yes, swine. I wonder if Jesus was thinking ahead at that moment, at how much of an insult that would eventually be if spoken of pro-Palestine apologists?
Nah. Jesus was too nice to say insulting things to people who hated him. It’s not like he called people serpents or whitewashed tombs, or anything. Right?
One thing is for sure; He never wasted his time starting worthless arguments on social media.
I use the Chat. I admit it. Especially when I need to quickly come up with a script for a video and I don’t have time to compose it myself.
And by “compose” I mean coming up with important facts and relevant information and putting it all together in a coherent, readable, format for a 6-minute video. When time is of the essence, I just can’t do it myself off the cuff without rambling.
Chat is also an understanding, go-my-back kind of program. It advises me when my tone is a little out of character. It makes suggestions. It tries to keep me from making a fool of myself (based on the way it has come to “know” me).
In many ways ChatGPT is like a fantastic secretary or paralegal that does all the footwork but allows you to get the credit.
Affecting Me
But as I was lying in bed last night on one of those rare occasions when I was not working the night shift, a little voice inside my head (I think that’s where it was coming from) got me to thinking. *
*As I wrote the last four words in the previous paragraph (which is not really a paragraph since it is made up of only one sentence), the thought came to me that a voice inside my head getting me to think sounds a little psychotic. But anyway…back to the flow.
Is ChatGPT and other kinds of AI subtly destroying our ability to write? Is it helping us to be better writers, to better communicate our thoughts with the written word, or is it robbing from us the skills to not only put idea on paper, but to express them at all?
If you really stop to think about it, the parallels are endless. For example, would a marksman become a better marksman if an AI program always lined up the shot? Would a guitarist ever be able to play with the skill of a master like Segovia if all he had to do was strum while AI worked the frets?
What should concern us all is that we are teaching artificial intelligence to do perfectly what we used to be able to do on our own imperfectly. And by doing that, we are gradually going to lose the skill we programed the artificial proficient to do! Pardon my French, but that should scare the merde out of us!
Why We Write
If you are reading this on a blog, you probably already know where I am going with this. Writing is a form of communication that relays information to the reader. But for a great many people, writing is more than communicating information; it’s getting out of us what is on the inside wanting to burst. It’s putting on paper or a screen our feelings and emotions and ideas so that we can look at them and better understand them.
Writing can be a key component of brainstorming. But what happens when the ability to write becomes dependent on the skill of artificial intelligence? What if we are no longer able to express our thoughts on our own? Will we not then be the puppets of thought masters?
I write for the joy of writing. It is when I write that my brain exercises its ability to imagine, to create, to describe, and by describing better understand what it is that I describe.
I write for the comfort and therapy. Often, I find myself at a keyboard, like right now, receiving the tangible satisfaction one feels when passionately pounding away on a keyboard. In the act of writing, whatever I write, I’m coming to terms with issues, I’m literally facing (looking at the words) what was heretofore stuffed inside.
What will happen…where will we be as humans…when computer chips are crafting our expressions? What happens to us when we filter our expressions of emotion (such as pain, fear, trauma, hope, and faith) through the “suggesting” and “protecting” brain of Artificial Intelligence?
It’s Really Me
I give you my word, other than for the spelling suggestions, every word you are reading has been composed by me. I unloaded every thought and physically typed them into this program on a 7-year-old Dell laptop. No AI program had anything to do with it.
If there are mistakes, then yay! I make mistakes! I am human! The real me is imperfect, flawed, yet always trying, still kicking, still surviving.
But what I am afraid of – for all humanity’s sake – is that even the “real me” within us all will be impossible to recognize as distinct from the personas developed through our use and dependency on Artificial Intelligence.
Let me know what you think …. the real you.
Let’s Experiment
As I was typing in the last few words in the above post, I thought it might be interesting and illustrative to copy the article to a few different AI programs, then ask to offer their “thoughts” about the content in 200 words or less.
Below are excerpts from each.
ChatGPT
I think this is a strong and genuinely worthwhile post, especially because you’re not writing as an anti-AI crusader. You openly admit that you use ChatGPT and explain why. That gives the argument credibility. You’re essentially saying, “I love this tool—and that’s precisely why I’m worried about what it might do to me.” That is a much more interesting argument than “AI is bad.”
The strongest section, in my opinion, is “It’s Really Me.” The line “If there are mistakes, then yay! I make mistakes! I am human!” gets to the heart of the whole piece. Your concern isn’t really about writing ability; it’s about human agency and identity. That’s much deeper.
I would make one significant change: tighten the middle. You make essentially the same argument several times—AI does something for us, therefore we may lose the ability to do it ourselves. The marksman and Segovia examples are excellent, but you don’t need quite as much repetition afterward.
I also love the final challenge:
“Let me know what you think …. the real you.”
Keep that.
Perplexity
The post also makes an important distinction between writing as producing information and writing as a human practice. For many people, writing is how they think, process emotion, develop ideas, and understand themselves. If AI replaces that process entirely, it could weaken more than grammar or structure—it could reduce opportunities for reflection and self-expression. Still, AI need not become a replacement for a writer’s voice. It can function more like an editor, research assistant, or sounding board, provided the writer remains responsible for the ideas, judgments, experiences, and final message. The danger is not necessarily using AI; it is surrendering authorship to it.
Grok
The blog post raises a legitimate worry: over-reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT risks atrophying the very human skills of composing, refining, and expressing thought. The marksman and guitarist analogies land well—outsourcing the hard practice can leave us less capable when the tool is unavailable. Writing is not just output; it is thinking made visible, a form of self-clarification and emotional processing that AI cannot fully replicate for the writer.
Yet the concern can be overstated. Calculators did not erase mathematical understanding for those who still practice it; spellcheck and search engines did not end literacy. AI is a powerful assistant, not an inevitable replacement. The author himself demonstrates the point by producing this piece without it—imperfect, personal, and unmistakably human. Skill loss occurs mainly through disuse, not through occasional leverage of better tools.
The deeper risk is cultural: if we stop valuing the struggle of original expression, we may gradually prefer polished proxies over authentic voices. The remedy is deliberate practice—writing without AI often enough to keep the muscle strong—while still using the tool where speed or structure helps. Human imperfection remains a feature, not a bug.
I know it’s controversial, but it needs to be said.
I’m attaching a video I just uploaded this morning. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good effort and at least a start.
Should you watch it, understand that the purpose is to warn America that without a common soul, a common sense of identity worth defending, Islam will most certainly destroy Western civilization.
If you can, leave a like and comment directly on YouTube. It helps.
