Dr. Peter Jones’ Oneism vs. Twoism

“This Utopian vision (of a kind of egalitarian Pantheism) has a long spiritual history. The ideal of the alchemists of the Middle Ages involved ‘the uniting of the opposites …the fusion of male and female, .good and evil, life and death — whose union, they believed, eventually created the perfected and completed, ideal personality called Self. The Utopian cosmology in question understands how deeply the Christian faith has molded Western culture and intends to destroy the ‘bourgeois’ Judaeo-Christian culture as the first step toward a better world. To accomplish this, its advocates must weaken the culture systematically in its economy, its military, its psychology, and its morals.They also know what it will take to establish a revived pagan cosmology and will not tolerate half measures. They want all or nothing. The goal is the complete remaking of human identity.

We cannot see into the future to know if the agenda will succeed, but we need to face squarely the movement that is attempting to wrest our culture from its tenuous grip on Twoist (i.e. — God Transcendent) principles. At this  point, such a powerful cosmology takes on an unmistakably religious character. One is reminded of the goal of the occult Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn…. “The Great Work, is, before all things, the creation of man by himself, that is to say, the full and entire conquest of his faculties, and his future; it is especially the prefect emancipation of his will.”

Sternberg’s analysis of “world purificationists” is right but does not go far enough… It fails to capture the true power of the movement: its possession of a new liberating cosmology, including not just politics and economics but sexuality and spirituality. The sociological analysis, joined to the ideology of revolutionary sexual and spiritual liberation, forms a powerfully influential movement, determined to reinvent the world. Indeed, as politics becomes more all-inclusive, it becomes more religious, claiming to answer all human aspirations, physical and spiritual, and to usher in a better world. ”

Dr. Peter Jones
The Other Worldview; Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat — pg. 98

1.) Jones’ conviction (easily sustained) is that the West is moving from its religious and historic foundation wherein a Transcendent God is presupposed to a religious foundation where a extramundane Transcendent personal God is scrubbed.

2.) This new worldview upon which, and by which, the West will operate is “Egalitarian Pantheism.” This is the idea that all is One (Monism) and that any distinction is Maya (illusion). This monist Egalitarian Pantheism posits an “Outsidelessness” to the Cosmos. It is an extension of the “God is Dead” movement started by Old Scratch in Eden, advocated for by Nietzsche in the 20th century, and proclaimed as arrived in the 60’s by process theologians.

This new worldview accounts for much of the degradation of the West since it provides the justification for the whole “social construct” theorizing that we are pummeled with today. Since there is no extramundane transcendent God by which to give meaning and definition to anything, therefore anything that previously had a stable meaning and definition is now open for change since without the Christian God all that is left is social construct. So, if man was really the one that constructed the idea of  gender (as one example) then man can be the one who deconstructs gender. As such, since there is no “Outsidedness” to our Cosmos individual men can construct for themselves all and any meaning they might desire. So, men with penises can still be female in gender due to this Egalitarian Pantheism. In Canada a married man with 7 children decided that he was really a six year old little girl.  In a Egalitarian Pantheistic worldview, where God is dead, who is to say that Stefonknee Wolschtt isn’t a six year old little girl?

3.) This is Existenialism come into its own. Given the philosophical arc that the West has been on for the last 200 years we have arrived at the point that was inevitable from the moment philosophy anchored itself in Descartes “Cogito ergo sum.”

4.) This Pantheistic Egalitarianism insists that it provides a moral construct that is “beyond good and evil.” As such any notion of moral policing is pass’e. However, we must keep in mind that this “beyond good and evil” is a contradiction since what is being advocated is that the morality that is “beyond good and evil” is good, while the morality that is not “beyond good and evil,” is evil.

“Do I contradict myself
Very well, then I contradict myself,
I am large
I contain multitudes.”

Walt Whitman 
Song of Myself

5.) In this Pantheistic Egalitarianism, with its putative “beyond good and evil” morality there is the attempt to fuse the opposites. This is a new age version of the Hegelian dialectic wherein the thesis and antithesis are fused into a synthesis. Because of this attempt at fusion there is the conviction that in order for one to be “self-actualized” one must have within themselves both the virtues of a Chairman Mao and the virtues of a Mother Theresa at the same time.

This idea of “fusion of the opposites,” also underlies much of the perversity in our current sexuality. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, bisexuality, etc. are all, at some level, being driven by Egalitarian Pantheism and the desire to fuse the opposites. To fuse the opposites is the sacrament of Egalitarian Pantheism.

6.) Dr. Jones talks about the necessity to weaken the Christian worldview which supports the current culture that yet retains vestiges of Biblical Christianity. Militarily this was pursued, first, with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and now with the full blown reception of the perverted into the ranks of the US Military. In the economy it has been pursued by the mega corporations marketing to the perverted clientele. In psychology it has been pursued by the mainstreaming of sodomy back in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association’s removing “homosexuality” as a mental illness from its DSM. Of course the most recent weakening came in the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision in the Summer of 2015. Hollywood pursues this worldview relentlessly. Movies such as “The Matrix,” “Interstellar,” “Star Wars,” and “Noah,” all send out the message of Egalitarian Pantheism. The “anti-bullying” laws in Government schools is another means by which Egalitarian Pantheism is pursued. Anti-bullying laws are sold as egalitarian but their real purpose is to protect and mainstream sexual perversion in the schools belonging to the State.

7.) Note Jones’ comment about the desire of Pantheistic Egalitarianism to completely remake human identity. The champions of this new worldview will eventually push for the criminalizing of all those who retain a Transcendent God in their thinking and who insist that the reality of God impact the public square.  All will be forced to support this Egalitarian Pantheism. Any churches that remain will be churches that have reinterpreted Biblical Christianity through a Egalitarian Pantheistic grid. It is already the case that the majority of churches in the West already do so, to one degree or another. Like the Hebrews in the Old Testament who dragged in their idols into God’s Temple to worship those idols so the Church in the West today has dragged in the idol of Egalitarian Pantheism into the sanctuary.

8.) Since there is no extramundane God in Egalitarian Pantheism the sovereign Self is absolutized and in essence becomes the god of the system. All is done for the glory of the sovereign self. Any whim is to be embraced, any idea of “self-control,” or any notion of boundaries or limitations is to be eschewed. All is the self and the self is all. This is the sodomite poet Walt Whitman redux,

I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form’d from this soil,
this air,

Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and
their parents the same,

I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.

Creeds and schools in abeyance,

Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never

I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,
Nature without check with original energy.

“Song of Myself”

9.) Note the religious character of all this. As we have already noted the fusing of the opposites is the Egalitarian Pantheism’s sacrament. The Shaman-Priest is found in every man. All is god and god is all. The catechism of Egalitarian Pantheism is provided by Hollywood films. Worship occurs wherever and whenever orgasm takes place. There are Saints such as St. Alfred Kinsey, St. Hugh Hefner, St. Ron Jermy, St. Larry Flynt, St. Traci Lords, St. Janine Lindemulder, St. Jenna Haze and St. Tori Black. Egalitarian Pantheism could have a Saint for every day of the year. Of course, this proves again, that religion is an inescapable concept. Religion never goes away. The renown poet William Blake understood this well,

“Man must & will have Some Religion; if he has not the Religion of Jesus, he will have the Religion of Satan, & will erect the Synagogue of Satan, calling the Prince of this World, God; and destroying all who do not worship Satan under the Name of God.”
10.)  Note the role of politics. Via Political diktat and legislative tyranny men and women will be forced into Egalitarian Pantheism. This was apparent in 2015 as seen in the attempt by the Lesbian Mayor of Houston, Anise Parker, to force public bathrooms to be co-ed.  This is apparent in the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision. You will submit to Egalitarian Pantheism or you will be a non-person.

Dr. Piper and His Insistence that Christians Should Lie Down and Die

In the next few entries I hope to provide rebuttal to the link below as written by Baptist, Dr. John Piper,


In his introduction Dr. Piper writes,

“My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.

The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.”

Dr. John Piper


Bret responds,

First, in terms of the quote above, we should note that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that the type of pacifism that Dr. Piper is advocating  is forbidden by the 6th commandment. We will see WCF Larger Catechism, Questions 135-136 again as I pick apart Dr. Piper’s Anabaptist convictions.

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]

Also we note the Heidleberg catechism

105. Q.

What does God require
in the sixth commandment?


I am not to dishonour, hate, injure,
or kill my neighbour
by thoughts, words, or gestures,
and much less by deeds,
whether personally or through another; 1
rather, I am to put away
all desire of revenge. 2
Moreover, I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. 3
Therefore, also, the government bears the sword
to prevent murder. 4

The great Puritan commentator on the Bible, Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734), in his commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism quotes the Catechism itself as I have above and then in his commentary on Sixth Commandment duties, Ridgeley says,

“We should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others [because]…. man is the subject of the divine image…. We are also to defend those who are in imminent danger of death…. Moreover, in some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this commandment….”

Ridgeley goes on to comment that if we cannot disarm an enemy threatening our life, or flee from him, “we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices.”

The Heidelberg Catechism insists that the keeping of the Sixth commandment means that I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. It doesn’t take much to argue that we are living in times when not carrying a weapon on us for self defense and the protection of the judicially innocent most definitely constitutes a reckless endangering of ourselves and others.

Dr. Piper is just flat out in error when he offers that the New Testament (and why are we restricting ourselves to only the New Testament Dr. Piper?) does not encourage an attitude that says that, “I will honor God by esteeming the Sixth commandment and so protect my life and the life of the judicially innocent against harmful intent of people who intend to kill and maim with abandon.”

And, to be perfectly honest, we are doing future would be assassins a kindness by teaching present would be assassins a lesson when their intent is to go on Allah exalting killing sprees. Perhaps, it was the case that Dr. Falwell’s phraseology was a bit John Wayne but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it is a loving thing unto future would be assassins for present would be assassins to have Sixth commandment duties enforced against them by private individuals in harm’s way. There is no sin in using lethal force as a private citizen in defense of life. In point of fact, God is magnificently glorified by ordinary Christians using lethal force as consistent with the Sixth commandment and to the contrary when Dr. Piper’s, non Sixth commandment esteeming position is maintained, the reputation of God is sullied and His Glory is tarnished and diminished.


Is David Cameron Blind or Stupid in Not Being Able to See His Own Religion?

First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.

In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together.

We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together.

Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride.

And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam;

David Cameron
Prime Minister — United Kingdom
Extremism Speech — July 2015

Not being up on everything all the time this “extremism speech” back in July slipped my attention. This piece is jaw dropping incredible in terms of what is left unsaid in the text. I just could leave this alone without commenting on the absurdity.

1.) Cameron keeps invoking English “liberal values” and how those liberal values should be trumpeted in order to overturn the worldview of the extremists. Cameron even evokes the idea of a shared creed. In point of fact what Cameron has done here is he has invoked Liberalism as a religion to overturn the religion of the extremists, for it is only religion that can produce values and creed. Cameron has told his listeners that the religion of English Liberalism, with its creed and values, is superior to the religion of the extremists.  Indeed so superior is this religion of English liberalism that all other religions can only operate in England as long as those religions submit themselves to the religion of English liberalism with its values and creed.

But think about that for just a moment. Does one really own their own religion if their own religion has to submit to the creed and values of another religion?

2.) If “Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh …must now all come together and stand up for our values” and for the shared English Liberal creed  then what is the difference between Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or the Sikh religions except a few rituals? You see what is going on here is that the religion of English Liberalism with its values and creed is redefining what it means to be Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Sikh. Are we to really believe that the values and creed of the Muslim faith, Hindu faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith and Sikh faith are so similar that they can perfectly align with the religious values and creed of English liberalism? If Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, all share a common creed and values with the religion of English Liberalism what is the need for these other faiths?

3.) Now, about those shared values.  It is really the case that all these faith have a shared value of abortion which glorifies violence, that the English religion of Liberalism champions? Do all these religion have the shared value of equality for all those of different sexuality?  Inasmuch as Cameron, as a adherent to the religion of English Liberalism, is seeking to make Islam accept these values in England in that much he is most certainly conspiring against Islam.

4.) Cameron, as an adherent to the religion of English Liberalism with its value and creed, insist that this religion of his allows for “freedom of speech.” If that is true then why has the Home Secretary of England, in contradiction of putative English religious values and creed, blocked the entry into England of Robert Spence, Pamela Geller, and Michael Savage because they want to speak out against Islam? Does  English religious values and creed allow for the freedom of speech that speaks against the English religious values and creed?

5.) Apparently English religious values and creed makes for a theocracy which does not allow for any gods that do not agree with their values and creed and for the kind of violence they glorify.

6.) We see here that there is very little difference between the extremists and the liberal. They each desire that all other religions bow to their creed and values. They each desire to scrub England of its uniquely Christian past in favor of their own competing religions. The disagreement between the extremists that Cameron complains about and the English liberals is the difference between a Trotsky and a Stalin. The disagreement is on methodology and not on substance. Both the extremists and the English liberals  favor their religion to be the reigning religion. The English liberals desire to subjugate people every bit as much as the extremists they complain of.

In the words of C. William Knot Yielding,

 “The liberals envision a multicultural state in which everyone subscribes to liberal ideals. The Jihadists envision a utopian Moslem state in which everyone adheres to Islamic law. It is the mythical belief of the liberals that the Jihadists are not the real Moslems. In the liberals’ eyes of unreality the Jihadists are the bad Moslems who won’t settle down and enjoy the fruits of multicultural Liberaldom.”

Any Christianity that shares values and creed with either Cameron’s religious Liberalism or the Jihadists religious Islam is a Christian that fails to understand his or her own faith.

The CRC, the Banner, Rev. Bob DeMoor and Homosexuality

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the July issue of the Banner,


soon to be departing Rev. Bob DeMoor, makes a case for the CRC denomination not fracturing over the potential future doctrinal embrace of practicing homosexuality. DeMoor’s comment are, politically speaking, quite genius. DeMoor will be leaving the Banner soon and so there is little fallout he will have to face over his advocacy of the Denomination accepting practicing homosexuality via the local option. Once Rev. DeMoor is gone, other bureaucrats can respond to complaints by merely offering, “that’s Bob, and Bob’s gone now.” In the way this has been done the next policy step has been pointed to in a very clean and surgical manner.

Rev. DeMoor implores his readers and the denomination to allow each local congregation to choose for themselves whether or not their local congregation will acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin. What Rev. DeMoor doesn’t tell the reader is that if such a decision was arrived at what that would mean is that those who work for the bureaucracy of the denomination (including the Seminary) would at least have to subscribe to the idea that Scripture both teaches and does not teach that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin, or at the very least that Scripture is so ambiguous on the subject that it is a matter of adiaphora. As such, with such an embrace of the “local option” as policy the consequence would be a bureaucracy and Seminary that would, by its required muddledness on the subject, be pro-homosexual practice and lifestyle. How long could local churches hold out in upholding God’s clear word against sodomy when the whole Denominational institutional infrastructure is, at best, unable, due to denominational diktat, to be anti-homosexual lifestyle and practice?

Rev. DeMoor enjoins that the denomination should take upon itself the 1980 example of making remarriage after divorce a local option issue. Rev. DeMoor doesn’t mention that there was a long history, in the Reformed World in general, that allowed divorce after remarriage. For example, John Calvin allowed for remarriage in the context of adultery, believing that the penalty for such adultery should be death. Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, Calvin held, for Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to “unlawful and frivolous divorces.” Although Calvin was very conservative in his theological view of divorce, like Luther his practice was more liberal. His “Ecclesiastical Ordinances,” adopted by the Little and Large Councils of 1561, allowed three grounds for divorce and remarriage other than adultery: impotence, extreme religious incompatibility, and abandonment. Calvin also provided for annulment where a spouse could not, because of some physical infirmity, perform the conjugal act.

Similarly the  Westminster Confession of Faith Article 24 has taught since the 17th century,

“In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

We could just as easily appeal to Tyndale, Bucer, Knox and other Reformed luminaries for the acceptability of remarriage after divorce in some cases.

We conclude thus that the CRC 1980 decision had historical precedents to reverse previous Synods and to allow Churches to employ the local option on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Where are the centuries long historical precedents in the Reformed world for suggesting that homosexual practice and lifestyle is a valid option so that the determining of its acceptability can be decided on a church by church and case by case basis? Rev. DeMoor is comparing apples to bananas by suggesting a parallel can be drawn between the local option as exercised for the allowance of divorce and remarriage and the local option as exercised for the allowance of men sodomizing men and women doing whatever it is that women do to one another when sharing a “conjugal” bed.

Rev. DeMoor then asks the question if such an approach would erode our teaching to biblical commitment and then answers his own question by saying “no” and then citing Scripture that communicates, in Rev. DeMoor’s world, that unity trumps all matters. However, as has been communicated by many a Divine throughout history, Unity is always only a byproduct of shared truth. Where truth is not shared the closest to unity a organization can come to is the empty shell of administrative and bureaucratic unity. This is a unity only for the sake of unity. It is a unity that stands for nothing, that strives for nothing, and that achieves nothing. It is a mirage that progressives are forever seeing.

Rev. DeMoor would have us “have the humility, love, and grace to affirm that we may have to reexamine our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word.” This sounds so high minded and pious but what if, after reexamining our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word, we have to say, “Here I stand against the communal discoveries, I can do no other”? My Mother always had a word for communal discoveries after I would appeal to her on that basis. Mom would simply say, “If everyone decided to jump off a cliff would you jump off with them?” Mom was pretty wise that way.

Rev. DeMoor fears denominational hemorrhaging, and well he should. However, Rev. DeMoor and others should keep in mind that hemorrhaging only happens where a wound has been inflicted on the body. The sanction and embrace of homosexual practice and lifestyle by the denomination would be a case of a self inflicted wound that results in to be expected hemorrhaging.

One thing I do agree with Rev. DeMoor and that is his observation that, “We won’t agree on what’s pastoral until we agree on what’s sinful.” There is a good deal packed into that sentence. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different visions and understandings of the Character of God. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different understandings of just exactly why the Lord Christ was raised upon the Cross and so raised from the grave. Different visions and  understandings of sin give us different understandings of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. In point of fact different visions and understandings of sin give us different Gods, Atonements, and Spirit filled living. Those differences give us different Christianities.

May God be pleased to grant to the Christian Reformed Church the wisdom to embrace the Christianity displayed in Holy Writ.






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,







    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.