Trigger Warning

What you are reading is verboten.  If you are unfamiliar with the term verboten it is because you are not a German-speaker:  verboten is German for forbidden or prohibited by authority.  The Nazis used this term a lot.  At his acme, only Adolf himself could define what was not verboten in Germany.  Thank God that he lacked the means to decide what was verboten everywhere.  As yet, this weblog is not completely verboten.  But it contains ideas that are verboten--ideas that are currently being censored in America.

This introduction to what you are about to read constitutes a 'trigger warning' for readers.  A trigger warning is a new American literary device.  It is becoming popular on campuses, in media, and on social websites.  It warns a prospective reader about content that a specific someone, somewhere in America may not savor.  It discloses, before its presentation, content that may conjure post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a reader--stress not unlike that which a soldier suffers from a shelling.  Because the reactions of readers to the force of one's words are not predictable, because this author is vehement in his opposition to verbicide (the possible killing of others with one's words?), it would be impossible to overstate this exposal in the form of a trigger warning:  PLEASE BE APPRISED THAT THIS WEBLOG--THAT EVEN THIS TRIGGER WARNING--MAY CONTAIN CONTENT THAT SOME CONSIDER INTOLERABLE AND PROVOCATIVE.  Also, be aware that this weblog contains opinions:  it will not affirm everything and everyone.  Said opinions may not be diluted by considerations of popularity or even propriety (ie. economic propriety).  From wee ones, censors should ward away words that they consider unsavory.  Notably, this blog may contain what some readers consider to be hyperbole and hysteria.  In reading, some may encounter deep or dark thoughts that blight the brightness of their positive outlook.  Posts may indict others--however indirectly--but only because the author considers them to be capable of better than the behaviors indicted herein.

This weblog contains hefty religious content.  This content is not compartmentalized:  the author treats religion as a unity--it is not, as is common today, discriminately segregated from other visceral topics like politics or law or economics.  It may quote Jesus, a zealot who once said that “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15)”.  For this reason, it may be traumatic reading--even for readers who are ascendant, esteemed, successful, or elitist, even for persons who enjoy mass popularity, even for persons who are not commonly victimized.  For example, it may incense persons:

• who are vested in a self-exalting state of things;
• who are opposed to self-abasement;
• who represent (ie. overrepresent) good as self-actualized, or self-actuated, or as epitomizing one's self or one's exclusive society;
• who consider all evil to be external, or elsewhere, or non-existent;
• whose security is worldly substance and standing--who do not trust God.

Some may consider this content to be discordant to society--its views too "extreme" to be expressed; its author considers it to be concordant with the will of God.  Reading it may be considered tortuous to persons who hate the idea of God:  instead of rationally redirecting their attention elsewhere, they may choose to persecute or prosecute the author.  Antipathy toward those professing faith has precedents:  religion has been often unpopular; to many, this is evidence for a spiritual adversary; and God's Word so chastised a certain caste of persons that they persecuted, prosecuted, and executed His own Son.