Pilgrims Regress Redux & the Sodomite Marriage Debate

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Today, with Sodomite coupling (“marriage”) we have reversed engineered Lewis account. The account should now tell the story about a man who ordered Cow Urine and Chicken fesus from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the Cow Urine he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied “Cow Urine is only cow’s milk.” After eating the Chicken poop he commented on the tastiness of the poop. Again the waiter responded that Chicken poop is really the same as chicken eggs.

A person at the next table observed all this in incredulity and shouted to both waiter and customer, “You two are insane. You don’t know the difference between what God has meant for garbage and what He meant for nourishment.” At this the waiter and customer along with much of the rest of the customer clientele, who was also dining on Chicken shit and Cow piss, arose to denounce the man who pointed out the insanity of the waiter and customer. They denounced the intruder as being a urine-ist and from suffering from fecalphobia. They insisted that he was a “hater” and demanded to know where his compassion was. They quoted scripture to him about the evil of judging. They insisted that all restaurants, in the name of fairness and equality, be forced to sell Chicken shit and Cow piss to all who wanted to buy it from them as a breakfast entree.

With the normalizing of sodomite “marriage” we are insisting that grotesque garbage is in fact the very same thing as Marriage. We are insisting that we call that which is destructive to human flourishing to be the same as that which is nourishing and refreshing to human thriving. We are in even worst shape then the waiter and customer in Lewis’ original parable. In the orignal parable the customer was at least eating and drinking the proper production of Cow and chicken, even if Lewis’ waiter was trying to draw an equivalency between nourishment and refuse. What we are doing instead is consuming the refuse while insisting that offal garbage is the same as nourishment.

And the really odd thing … the thing that is breathtakingly bizarre is that many in the Church are telling us that we ought to join in the celebration of a grotesque impossibility thus giving our whole hearted approval to the equivalency of someone dining on chicken shit and cow piss all the while insisting that it is really eggs and milk. It is ministers in the Church who want us to call and support a grotesque impossibility as the same thing as “Holy Matrimony.”

Actually, neither C. S. Lewis, nor Lewis Carroll could have ever conceived of this scale of utter madness.

Goodbye Detroit Tigers

I am 55 years old. Followed the Tigers all my life. In 1968, when I was 8 turning 9 I rejoiced to see Mickey Lolich win three games in the World Series and hit a Home Run to boot. In 1972 I groaned when the Tigers lost in 5 games to the A’s for the AL Pennant. Through the down seasons of the 70’s I took a little transistor radio with me as I delivered papers and listened intently to the likes of Woody Fryman, Joe Coleman and Al Kaline try to win. In 1976 I never missed a game that “the Bird” started in his “Rookie of the Year” season. In 1984 I was in my first year of Graduate School but in October I was watching the Series as opposed to hitting the books. In 1987 I could’t peel myself away from the games in the incredible pennant run to catch the Blue Jays. In the Leyland era I was overjoyed with the unexpected run in 2006. I was on Holiday in Maine in 2009, without a television, when the Tigers lost in the one game playoff to the Twins giving the start to Eddie Bonine. I managed to find a bar in order to view the game. In 2011 through 2015 I have been there every step of the way, usually following along with Jim Price and Dan Dikerson. I manage to go to the park at least once a season with my family. That tradition started when my children were toddlers. I would fly up from South Carolina and meet friends and take a game in and fly home the next day.

Before my first child was born I had bought the unborn child a Tigers baby outfit and ball glove.

Now that the Tigers have come out in support of the LGBT agenda all that is over.

Goodbye old friend. I will miss you and the soothing rhythms of “the boys of Summer” but some priorities are more important then the American tradition of Baseball.

I hate that you did this. I hate that I have to go.

Bret L. McAtee

An Anti-Gnostic Resurrection Celebration

John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw hot coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread. 10 Jesus said unto them, Bring of the fishes, which ye have now caught. 11 Simon Peter stepped forth and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred, fifty and three: and albeit there were so many, yet was not the net broken.12 Jesus said unto them, Come, and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? seeing they knew that he was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took bread and gave them, and fish likewise.

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him on a tree. 40 Him God raised up the third day, and caused that he was showed openly: 41 Not to all the people, but unto the witnesses chosen before of God, even to us which did eat and drink with him, after he arose from the dead.

John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord: but he said unto them, Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put mine hand into his side, I will not believe it. 26 ¶ And eight days after, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 After said he to Thomas, Put thy finger here, and see mine hands, and put forth thine hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but faithful.

Luke 24:36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,[b] 43 and he took it and ate before them.

Clearly what we can see that the Gospels are trying to have us understand is that when the Lord Christ resurrected He resurrected remaining 100% man. True, His body was glorified so that it had capacities that it did not have before but those added capacities did nothing to negate him remaining very man of very man.

Considering these texts we find the Lord Christ eating. Eating implies digestion. It all very human. We find the Lord Christ putting on display His injured body parts. We find the Lord Christ commanding them to touch him to confirm his bodily resurrection. The Gospel writers went out of their way to communicate a post resurrection human Christ.

This physicality of the Lord Christ was in defiance of the early Church heresy of Gnosticism which taught that the physical and the corporeal body was inherently evil. The Gnostic divided the world into two halves — Spiritual reality and physical reality — and proceeded to say that the spiritual reality was what was really important and the material reality was a lesser reality. The Gnostics denied the bodily resurrection of Christ because for them there was nothing noble in the physical.

 Gnosticism taught that salvation was found through secret and hidden knowledge which enabled the redemption of the human spirit from its yucky mortal coil. Salvation in the Gnostic scheme was not from sin and death — and it certainly didn’t include the body — salvation was a setting free of the divine spark that was and is trapped in our material bodies. The goal was to get to a pure spiritual existence. So, for the Gnostics there was a revolt against our creaturliness in favor of the attempt to live a higher form of life that rose above the creaturliness given by the Spirit creator God.

In many times throughout Church History the Gnostics succeeded in reinterpreting Christianity to fit their pagan religion. They superimposed their understanding upon Christianity and co-opted the Christian faith to do service for their pagan faith system. In their scheme the importance of Jesus death and resurrection gives way to the importance of His bringing this special esoteric knowledge to awaken the divine  in all of us and so set free the divine spark trapped in all of us living in these humdrum bodies.

The teaching about the person and work of Gnosticism differed from the Christology we find in Scripture. In some forms of Gnosticism it was asserted that both the humanity and materiality of Christ were a deceptions.  The Lord Christ did not really become man. It only appeared that way. In other forms of Gnosticism Jesus was only a man though the divine Spirit / Logos came upon him after Baptism and inhabited departing before the crucifixion.

The Scripture resists this by going out of its way to repeatedly give us a resurrected Lord Christ who did things that pure spirits don’t do. He consumed fish with His disciples. He showed off His scars.

This Gnosticism … this desire to get outside of our creaturliness … this trying to rise above the God givenness of who we are … has plagued the Church throughout her history. They’ve had, what sounds to us as funny names. Bogomils, Flaggelants, Albigensians, and Cathari. They’ve been called Diggers, and Ranters, Levelers, and Fifth Monarchists men.

This 1st century Gnosticism remains with us in the Church today. It takes on different forms but it all stems from this denial of God’s pleasure in corporeality. That we have a problem with this ancient heresy is seen in a TIME magazine report.

At the close of the last century Time magazine had reported that two thirds of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of the dead do not believe they will have bodies after the resurrection. More recently, a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll interviewed 1,007 American adults and discovered that only 36% of them said “yes” to the question: “Do you believe that, after you die, your physical body will be resurrected someday?” Yet most of these same Americans also acknowledged being believers and going to church.

One of the innovators of this type of belief was a chap named Rudolph Bultman. Bultman’s dates are, 1884-1976.

“An historical fact which involves a resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceivable,” Bultman admitted. For him, the Easter event is not something that happened to the Jesus of history, but something that happened to the disciples, who came to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. Moreover, the resurrected Jesus is indeed a living presence in the lives of Christians.”

A living presence in the lives of Christians but not a living savior back from the dead.

In a recent conversation I found a modern Gnostic saying,

Gnostic: And that resurrection can only take place when the spirit is free from the flesh, free from the pain and the pleasures of physical existence . . . and that separation of spirit from flesh at the crucifixion is how a Gnostic would describe Jesus’ resurrection. So you see the resurrection of Jesus was not a resurrection of a mass of flesh and sinful temptations, but an rising of the spirit up out of the physical nature.

Robin Phillips tells us

“For the Gnostics Jesus merely appeared to have a material body. In some versions of Gnosticism, such as that reflected in the Gospel of Judas, it seems that Jesus did have a physical body, yet wished to reject His body since it bound Him to this world. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus gives Judas permission to betray Him in order that through death the spiritual person imprisoned within might be liberated. Again, the basic idea is that the realm of the spirit is at utter odds with the realm of matter, and in order to accept the former one must reject the latter.”

Clearly there is confusion about this matter of the Resurrection. And yet we know that our bodies shall be resurrected because we are told in reference to the resurrection, “Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” The thrust of  this is that as Christ was resurrected bodily so we will follow being bodily resurrected.

This our Catechism confirms reflecting the teaching of Scripture,

What comfort does the resurrection of the body offer you?

A.  Not only shall my soul after this life immediately be taken up to Christ, my Head, but also this my flesh, raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul and made like Christ’s glorious body.

This denial of the goodness of a bodily resurrection manifests itself elsewhere in different ways in the Church. The idea that physicality is ignoble compared to spiritual categories makes its ways into other thought realms.

What I’m trying to get at here is this original denial of the goodness of our creaturliness and the physical givenness of who we are via the denial of the physicality of Christ began to shape shift into other thought areas. Just as Darwin’s biological evolution eventually became Social evolution in the hands of Herbert Spencer so the denial of Christ’s human physicality by the Gnostic showed up at other intellectual zip codes.

We see this Gnosticism rise up in the Church today where we see a tendency to  deprecate the corporeal world through a pitting of spiritual reality against physical reality. We hear Gnosticism when Christians emphasize Christians being separate from the world in the sense of having nothing to do with it because, as I’ve heard some say, “It’s all going to burn anyway.” Material world bad. Living apart from material world good.

This is Gnosticism because it is implicitly saying the world is bad or is not our concern. It springs from the same origin as those who denied the resurrection of Christ. This Gnosticism pushes Christians to focus on the inward and personal to the neglect of the world around us or to public responsibilities. Reading our bibles, prayer, attending Church … GOOD. Seeking to take every thought captive to Christ in that real world out there … BAD.

D. L. Moody, famous evangelist at the turn of the 20th century capture this mindset when he said, “Don’t spend too much time polishing the brass rails on a sinking ship.” The point, of course, is that the physical world is a sinking ship, and rather than polishing its brass rails, it’s better to reach souls for Christ and prepare them to get off the ship. The concern is about souls and not about souls as they live in this  world.

The examples of Gnosticism in the Church today are abundant. Here are just a few.

1.) Traction is being gained in the Church today for a doctrine called Full Preterism which teaches that all the prophecy in Scripture without exception has been fulfilled. Christ has returned. The resurrection has occurred. The final judgment past. The Gnosticism is found in this doctrine when it insists that our physical bodies are not resurrected. Consistent Preterism teaches that our persons are resurrected but not our bodies. There are many problems with Full Preterism but the one we are considering today is this form of Gnosticism with its denial of the resurrection of the physical body. Quite to the contrary we see the full orbed commitment  to a bodily resurrection in one of the oldest books of the Bible,

Job 19:26Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God. 27 I will see Him for myself; my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger. How my heart yearns within me!

2.) Another example of Gnosticism in the Church today is found in the canker that is eating the Reformed Church whole .. a cancer that is seemingly predominant in Reformed Seminaries across the country and that cancer is the cancer that is Radical Two Kingdom theology. R2K is Gnostic inasmuch as in R2K God is only really concerned with the realm of grace. R2K fanboy Darryl Gnostic Hart reveals his Gnosticism when he writes,

“After examining myself and studying historical subjects I am not so convinced that religion is so basic to a person’s identity….

In other words, life as a Christian is complicated. The best word to describe that is one that the intellectual historian, David Hollinger, coined in his book Postethnic America — hyphenation. To recognize that people (even Christians) are a mix of different responsibilities and loyalties is to admit that “most individuals live in many circles simultaneously and that the actual living of any individual life entails a shifting division of labor between the several ‘we’s’ of which the individual is part….

 It strikes me that admitting this complicated outlook is basic to being human as opposed to living up to some sort of super-spiritual ideal of a life dedicated and consecrated to Christ 24/7. “

What Dr. Hart is calling a “hyphenated-life” is just a clever replacement for the word that has always followed Gnosticism and that is the word “Dualism.” Hart is advocating for a Dualism in Christian living and dualism has always been part of what Gnosticism means with its “spirit good, matter bad” insistence. Instead what we are getting with the R2K crowd is spiritual really important, the material world … not so much.

This Gnostic dualism is seen again by Dr. David Van Drunen when he says;

“Traditional marriage is part of the created order that God sustains through his common grace, not a uniquely Christian institution, and society as a whole suffers when it is not honored. Christians are responsible to commend the goodness and benefits of marriage in the public square…. To call attention to that evidence in the public square is a way of communicating that marriage is not a uniquely Christian thing, but a human thing, and that all people have an interest in getting marriage policy correct.”

The Gnostic dualism is easy to see here. Marriage exists in the common realm and not in the realm of grace. Because of that there can be no such thing as Christian marriage vis-a-vis a non-Christian marriage.

This is all Gnosticism. Perhaps one could say it is not 100 proof belly up to the bar Gnosticism but it remains Gnosticism all the same. And the reality here is, is if you pull the string of all this back to its origin you’ll find that it stems from a problem with the resurrection. Ideas have consequences.

Dorthy Sayers, living a few decades after some of the gnostic chaps we’ve quoted understood that Christianity does not equal Gnosticism. Sayers was a Christian and associated with Inklings was an informal literary discussion group associated with the University of Oxford. Other members included C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield.

Sayers did battle with Gnosticism during her time and once wrote,

“Notice how entirely different [Christianity] is from the Gnostic and Neoplatonic thought which characterises the great Oriental religions and so often tried to infiltrate into Christianity. For the Gnostics, creation is evil, and the outflowing of the One into the Many is a disaster: the true end of the Many is to lose the derived self and be reabsorbed into the One. But for the Christian, it is not so. The derived self is the glory of the creature and the multiplicity and otherness of the universe is its joy. The true end of the creature is that it should reflect, each in its own way and to its capacity great or small, some tiny facet of the infinite variety comprised within the unity of the One.

The characteristic belief of Christendom is in the Resurrection of the Body and the life everlasting of the complete body-soul complex. Excessive spirituality is the mark, not of the Christian, but of the Gnostic.

The visible universe is not an illusion, nor a mere aspect of Divinity, nor identical with god (as in Pantheism), still less a ‘fall into matter’ and an evil delusion (as in the various Gnostic or Manichee cults). The Universe is made by God, as an artist makes a work of art, and given a genuine, though contingent, real existence of its own, so that it can stand over against Him and know Him as its real Other.

This Gnosticism that the inspired authors of Scripture fought, that the Church has fought throughout History, that Sayers inveighed against is ubiquitous and unrelenting in the Church today.

Gnosticism shows itself in the Church when you

*  run into the pietistic idea that the Biblical worldview is primarily about what happens in our heart, rather than something that applies to all of culture and the world. Churches around the world sing this every year, “You ask me how I know he lives … he lives within my heart.”

* hear someone say that Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship, where the person who says this is wishing to de-emphasizes the authoritative revelation of God’s word in favor of one on one alone time with Jesus. Again… the emphasis is on the personal and individual and invisible relationship.

* hear anybody suggest that doctrine and theology is stuffy whereas what is really important is “spirituality.” We even hire people in our Seminaries to do and teach “spiritual formation” when all that is really needed is repeated dosages of good systematic theology well understood. This would itself do the trick of “spiritual formation.”

* come across the idea that there is a complete discontinuity between what happens in this world and what will happen in the age to come so that this world is sinful while the heavenly world is where we should be focusing upon.

*  come across the notion that institutional religion and/or religious rituals are at odds with genuine heart-felt faith, and that whatever we give to the former is less we have left over for the latter. The result of this is that the importance of the visible Church and of Word and Sacrament are severely diminished in favor of one on one time with Jesus.

The teaching of the gnostics emphasize Christians being separate from the world, and would have Christians focused on the inward and personal to the neglect of the outward world and the public.

This gnostic tendency can be found everywhere,

We see it in changing Protestant funeral liturgies. In his book Accompany Them With Singing: The Christian Funeral, Thomas Long shows that a ‘disembodied, quasi-gnostic cluster of customs and ceremonies’ now surround the Christian funeral. (p. 72).  Wheras we once spoke of the saint as with God awaiting the resurrection and the glorified renewal of heaven and earth, we now more commonly hear about how the disembodied deceased is in heaven looking down on us as a Spirit and giving us strength. Funerals are no longer about not the deceased who is completing his Baptismal journey by travelling to Christ, but about the mourners, on an intrapsychic journey from sorrow to stability. (p. 96-97)

And that’s just in the Church. Outside the Church Gnosticism, with its belittling and even denial of the material, corporeal, physical world is what is driving us to suggest that our lineage and / or gender is just a social construct that we have to escape. Our physical bodies will not stand in the way of who we say we are. Our creaturliness and the givenness of who God has made us to be, as evidenced by our bodies, is something that can be denied or changed out. We must be free of the testimonies of our bodily existence. This is 21st century gnosticism.

And so the Gnostic impulse accounts a great deal for the desire to ink ourselves, pierce ourselves, and transgender ourselves. It cuts us off from our lineage and our past as well as our progeny and our future since grandfathers and grandchildren are yucky corporeal stuff. Gnosticism is the root idea that has strange consequences. We will not accept our creaturliness … our givenness and so we will seek to escape it to get in tune with our spiritual self … our inner self … our gnostic selves.

All this hubbub this past week in Indiana is really just Gnosticism on display. Christianity insists that the gender that God has created us with is static and cannot be changed or altered and that such a view that allows for this cannot be countenanced in the public square. To act as if gender isn’t important is to insist that the body parts are meaningless. In the end Indiana legislated in favor of Gnosticism.

And how does Christianity fight all this?

With a Resurrected savior eating fish and drinking wine in communion with His disciples. Christianity fights this ubiquitous Gnosticism with the continued invitation to examine the scars and to come and see and touch. It fights this with Catechisms that teach that Christ as very man has ascended and is at the right hand of the Father. It fights this by the constant reminder that this world, despite the fall, has been Redeemed and a Kingdom has come that pronounces this World, as Redeemed in Christ, very good.

The bodily Resurrection of the Lord Christ is the only truth that will set us free of the self destructiveness of Gnosticism all about us. God grant us Reformation in this physical world.

Christ is risen.

 

 

 

 

Apologetics At The Midland Daily News

From a online op-ed piece in the Midland Daily News

“After months of work, a report was issued that can be viewed at the Midland Area Community Foundation website. Among the nine Key Performance Areas was this statement on Diversity. “Midland County is committed to equality and inclusion and welcomes, embraces and accepts all people.”

All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Bret observes,

This statement is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture that is opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise by this Midland Michigan group to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians since Christians come from a culture and heritage that oppose perverted sexual orientation and disordered gender identity.

This press release is an example of typical Cultural Marxist agenda masking. In the name of tolerance Christian ethics and mores will be discriminated against.

After posting this on the Midland page a sortie of wingnuts came flying at me,

  • Lawrence Perry · 

    Your Christian heritage is not very old. It’s only about 2,000 years old. It’s not even a blink of an eye, as far as human history is concerned. Christianity is based on belief and not evidence. In other words, your Christian heritage and culture doesn’t pass the smell test.
  • Bret L. McAtee 

    That statement is ignorance on stilts Mr. Perry.Christianity has been around since God’s creation. That the Jews abandoned the flowering of their faith when Christ arrived means that Judaism as distinct from Christianity is only 2000 years old. Christianity was the expression of the OT faith come into its own.

    Secondly, you are operating with a definition of faith that is existential and not Biblical. The evidence for Christianity is everywhere and the Christian faith is based upon evidence that is far more securely present then exists in scientism or any other religious worldview. In point of fact Christianity is the ONLY religion that has evidence since even the very word “evidence” itself only finds true meaning as existing in a Christian worldview.

    Of course I would not expect a pagan Cultural Marxist to say that Christianity does not pass the smell test. What will you tell me next? That nothing supernatural is true?

    I’m shocked … shocked I tell you that a Christ hater would say such a thing. LOL.

    Next, how old does a belief have to be before it’s credible? Following your “thinking,” the neo-notions of “sodomite rights” and “sodomite marriage” don’t merit even the slightest consideration since they are completely novel ideas in the history of the West. But since you’ve made age the determining factor, then you are obliged to tell us the magic number at which an idea becomes legitimate.

    And as for your cherished “smell test,” I should think sodomites should be slow about complaining about smell tests give their predilection of playing in the sewer.

    Christianity’s age has nothing to do with whether Christians should be able to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed protections of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom if association.

    Lori Marshall Franson ·

    Mr. McAtee

     

    Cultural Marxism is bantied around a lot on White Nationalist blogs/publications i.e. Alternative Right, etc. It’s code word for cultural commie-one who opposes discrimination of a targeted population like gays.
  • Bret L. McAtee

     

    Lori Marshall FransonMore nonsense. Whole books have been written on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfort School from across the ideological spectrum. This is just more special pleading by a Cultural Marxist to dismiss the very weighty criticisms against the school promulgating perversion.

    Lori Marshall Franson

  • Better luck next time, Rev. Reframing the enemy: “Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of “cultural Marxism” are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of “Marxism” that took aim at American society’s culture, rather than its economic system.

    The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called “Frankfurt School” of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, “family values,” and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.”

    The SPLC supports my position.

  • Bret L. McAtee

     

    Miss LoriThe SPLC is the largest officially sanctioned hate group in America.

    A few books that I’ve read that clearly spell out the origins and return to ancient paganism that Cultural Marxism represents,

    http://www.amazon.com/Menace-Multiculturalism-Trojan-America-Literature/dp/0275955982/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724111&sr=1-4&keywords=Alvin+J.+Schmidt

    http://www.amazon.com/cry-havoc-ralph-toledano/dp/B000MOMNQ8

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Dialectical-Imagination-Frankfurt-Institute/dp/0520204239/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=108J45THR2H09F6A6QK5

    http://www.amazon.com/Selections-Prison-Notebooks-Antonio-Gramsci/dp/071780397X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724335&sr=1-1&keywords=gramsci+prison+notebooks

    http://www.amazon.com/socialist-phenomenon-I-R-Shafarevich/dp/0060140178/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724371&sr=1-1&keywords=the+socialist+phenomenon

    http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Eschatology-Francis-Nigel-Lee/dp/B000O2RRP0/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724413&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=Francis+Nigel+Lee+eschatology+communism

    Indeed any familiarity at all with the basics of communism and how the Gramsci school altered the classic Communist trajectory slightly will reveal that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than Marxist-Leninist thinking as applied beyond economics to culture.

    You’re simply either wrong or ignorant about the History Mis Lori, or failing that you are merely a cultural Marxist shill. Either way you are certainly gravely mistaken.

     

    • Jeff LiebmannOrdained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

      So to Bret and Rebekah and others, let’s try for moment and stay on topic without bringing in global conspiracies. 100 of the leaders of the County (go to the web site to see the list – this is not in any way a liberal-leaning group – it is mostly business owners) articulated quite clearly the values of our community. Our Representative Gary Glenn seems to disagree and, on top of that, does not care. Marxism and Illuminati aside, the point here is the articulation of our communities’ values and the failure of a politician supposedly committed to them to engage in dialog with his constituents.
    • Bret L. McAtee

       

      So … to Jeff Liebmann and others,Let’s try to keep in mind that it is the truth we are after and not pooled ignorance … no, not even the pooled ignorance of the sodomite or businessman community or Unitarian Universalist clergy community. For one thing, many businessmen only care for the dollar. Any historic or Biblical ethic that threatens the dollar will find the businessman dumping the ethic in favor of the God almighty dollar.

      The fact that they are supporting your anti-Christ agenda “Rev.” Liebman is proof positive that this is a Liberal (Cultural Marxist) group, or at the very least, useful idiots serving the cultural Marxist agenda. (Which, I’m fairly certain describes the Unitarian Universalist clergy community as well since the Leftist Clergy for Decades have been carrying water for the Marxist agenda. See C. Gregg Singers “The Unholy Alliance.”)

      If the Midland community really does value the stripping of Christians of their constitutional standing then that community desperately needs to re-think their “no-value” values.

      Gary Glenn was just recently elected by a majority vote. That reality indicates he is listening just fine to his constituents. You’re just bleating because he convincingly defeated you in the last election cycle.

      I beg of your Mr. Liebmann. Think of your own soul and the coming judgment day. Please repent.

    • I see. So no matter how many community leaders are involved and regardless of who they are, if they disagree with you then they are sodomites and anti-Christ. Perhaps you would like to take that up with Wallace Howard Mayton of Memorial Presbyterian Church who also served on the group. Or Ed Doerr of the Messiah Lutheran Church.
    • Bret L. McAtee · 

      Jeff … one doesn’t come to truth by counting noses. Not even Liberal clergy noses.
      Bret L. McAtee 

      Jeff,Anybody who accepts this idea is, prima facie, LIBERAL. It is a liberal position that is contrary to God’s word which condemns sodomy repeatedly throughout the Scriptures. (Scripture … remember those? God’s authoritative word and all that?)

      Now, all because they are not as far left as you are doesn’t mean they are not left. Come on Jeff … you can not possibly be this dense.

      Lori Marshall Franson

      Rev McAtee: Thanks for the resources. You may want to alert the FBI about the Southern Poverty Law Center, an outreach partner of the FBI on dangerous hate groups.

      Bret L. McAtee

       

      LOL … you find it surprising that our Marxist government is in bed with the Marxist Hate group SPLC? Our Federal Government’s incompetency is so legendary that for them to align themselves with anybody hints at the fact that there is a serious problem with those they are aligned.

      Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland
       

      Contrary to YOUR interpretation of YOUR god’s word. America is not a theocracy, even if you would like it to be so. I shudder to think what denomination you affiliate with if you consider a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister liberal. Perhaps you would care to share.
      America is a Theocracy Jeff. All governments are. Every single one. The name of America’s God is “Demos” and He rules with an iron fist. His law is legal positivism.Do keep up friend Jeff.

      And Liberals exist in every  denomination Jeff. A minister’s position in supporting sodomy is proof the man is Liberal. God condemns sodomy repeatedly.

      The good news is that upon repentance and leaving sodomy God in Christ will forgive and restore them.

    • Bret L. McAtee

       

      Says the man who ignores God’s clear revelation on this matter.

      •  Lori Marshall Franson

        Rev McAtee: You seem awfully focused on sodomy, sir. Do you equally focus on gluttony and the lack of males having beards? In short, I think you cherry pick what you want from the Bible and use it to justify your desires to discriminate against others and weave conspiracies, which is your right to the point where your views adversely affect others in this wonderful melting pot of a country without a National Religion.I cannot help but wonder what branding you would like those who are gay to have to alert others who share your views so they can refuse them service in restaurants, stores, etc.

        I sure don’t see you sharing any of the Good News regarding the gospel on here for anyone nor do I recognize you as a spokesman for all Christians. Things such as arrogance, pride, a haughty spirit, bearing false witness/ lies, and sowing discord amongst brethren escapes your writings and message as a Reverend on here. I like to look at the fruits one bears before following them. On that note, I think I’ll listen to the Austin City Lounge Lizards, “Jesus Loves Me but He can’t Stand You”. Good day, sir.

      • Bret L. McAtee 

        Lori Marshall Franson,Typical Liberal response.

        The article is what focused on sodomy Maam. See this quote here,

        “All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

        Did you somehow miss that detail? As such I’m merely responding to the articles focus by keeping the focus where the article places it.

        And as I said initially, this is really an article dedicated to discriminating Christians. I said that here,

        “This is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture or have a Christian Heritage that are opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians. “

        You folks are the one forcing your paganistic religion on those who disagree with you. Typical Liberal “freedom. Liberals don’t care what you do, so long as they can use to State to make it compulsory.

        In terms of gluttony

        1.) Unlike sodomy Scripture while labeling gluttony as a “sin” nowhere designates it as a crime.

        2.)  You can be sure when organizations arise insisting that I must accept the gluttonous as “normal” and must give them special civil rights I will respond similarly. However, it is simply the case that the sodomy issue is front and center because you Cultural Marxists who love Government power are trying to force Christians to accept your perversion as normal.

        You so foolishly talk about “branding,” and yet what the Cultural Marxists are seeking to do is to jam Christians into the closet that the Liberals have the sodomites coming out of. You pretend you’re so “broad-minded,” but face it … you hate Biblical Christians, want to strip them of their constitutional gurantees and want them to shut up. As we’ve seen here you want to give sodomites Constitutional special consideration while stripping Christians of our Constitutional free speech, freedom of associations, and other Constitutional protections.

        In terms of your final paragraph of pique … Whatever (shrug).

         

        I understand that. My question was whether you equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards (might want to realize that picture of you is posted). Sir, I am not gay. I happened to stumble across your kind and the fruits bared when I was caring for those dying of AIDS at the bedside in the 1980s. I don’t hate you, sir, so you won’t have to play that victim card. I think Christians ought to remember the teachings of Christ, such as loving one’s neighbor. I also think you need to keep talking, it is what demonstrates that fruit I was speaking about earlier and there is some interpretation about what a “biblical” Christian is. I certainly don’t want you or your ilk legally being able to discriminate against others. You know, I don’t recall Christ hanging around with the sanctimonious. Until you are without sin , you can keep those stones for your rock garden.
      • Bret L. McAtee

         

        Lori Marshall FransonHow much more plainly can I put things? I don’t equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards because gluttons or males not having beards are not demanding the special constitutional privileges that sodomites are demanding. Though, you can be sure I have written on assorted sins including gluttony. When gluttons start insisting on special constitutional privileges you can be sure I will zero in on that. You are firing blanks when you keep trying to make this association.

        I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when I am wrong. I do not try to say that my sins are not sins, which is exactly what the sodomite and their “friends” who champion their cause do. When is the last time you called upon someone besides someone you perceive to be a glutton to repent? The fact is that it is not my putative gluttony that makes you so self righteous but rather my pointing out to you over and over again how utterly silly your reasoning is.


        And the point of fact is you are a hater. You hate God by being in favor and trying to normalize what He is opposed to. You are a victimizer in the worst sense. You victimize those you say you love by suggesting that their aberrant behavior is good.
        Thank you for the reminder to love one’s neighbor. You might want to learn that love is not defined however Lori wants it defined. Here you are hating on the perverts by telling them that which terribly shortens their expected life span is acceptable. You call that love? By all that is Holy, please do not ever practice your love on me.

        And remember Lori … you are the one advocating that discrimination against Christians and their heritage and culture should be acceptable. You are the hater here Lori.

        Bret L. McAtee

         

        LOL … see, another example of Lori, the cultural Marxist wanting to use the government to force people to vaccinate their children when tons of evidence exist that vaccines are toxic.And it will do no good for me to work soup kitchens in Haight Ashbury since I’ve already worked them in third world countries on other continents. Have you broken sadza with the poor in the high density suburbs outside of Harare? Have you ministered to the poor and indigent in their cardboard and tin houses? Have you preached Christ crucified in their hut Churches while chicken and other livestock milled about the Church?

        Don’t pretend to preach to me about your nobility while assuming the absolute worse about me. I know that upsets your precious paradigm. Have you sat with the indigent dying in the hospital while they die of cancer? Have you sat with and sought to comfort the teen parents whose babies have died of terrible diseases? You don’t know what you’re talking about (again) when you hint that I’ve been born with some kind of silver spoon in my mouth. I’ve been there and done that and I tell you again that you are a hater of these people by your refusal to champion God’s authoritative word.

        See … you just continue to exhibit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You keep making these huge leaps and they are supported by exactly nothing.

        You complain about rock throwing and yet you and your ilk are the ones who started casting the rocks. You cast rocks at those who upheld a Western Civilization and Biblical ethic. You cast stones at those who took up the cause of the unborn. You are a rock thrower extraordinaire and yet in true terrorist fashion you seek to escape your rock throwing by wheeling upon me and pointing and screaming “ROCK-THROWER,” in order to throw the scent off of your own culpability in casting stones.