Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

A Look at Dr. David Wright’s and IWU’s Surrender to the LGBT Religion — Part II

I conclude my fisking of Indian Wesleyan University’s President’s Dr. David Wright’s Testimony in favor of taking away civil rights from many Christian business owners in exchange for IWU’s being allowed to be a marginally “Christian” University.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

They (the LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.   Our love for them means we cannot affirm a pathway that we sincerely believe is mistaken, but neither do we want them to be denied the basic human rights that are their due as fellow citizens.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) What does Dr. Wright mean when he says that “they (LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?” This is such a circumlocution. This could be said of any criminal class.

a.)  Necrophiliacs are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.

b.)  Pedophiliacs and Pederasts are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

c.) Bestialics  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

d.) Kidnappers  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

e.) Rapists  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

The fact that Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University, can speak like this proves that he has accepted the LGBT lifestyle as normative for the public square. He would never utter the counter examples above as an attempt of rational speech and yet here he is trying to make his listeners have sympathy for those involved in the kind of behavior that the men of Christendom have made illegal as  being vile and criminal for thousands of years.

2.) Wright insists he does not desire the “basic human rights” of perverts, which are their due, to be denied. And yet Dr. David Wright has no problem denying the basic human rights of “Freedom of Association,” to Biblical Christians.  Biblical Christians must forgo the basic human right of expecting their daughters to go into public bathrooms that don’t have perverted men dressed as women in those same bathrooms.  IWU President David Wright’s testimony desires the Biblical Christian’s basic human right of being able to honor God in their business denied so that the LGBT can honor their God by forcing Christians to give legitimacy to the God of self that informs the LGBT movement.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

We believe all of us who live together as law-abiding citizens of this state must enjoy the basic protections of the law.  To deny one person the protections of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all persons the protection of law.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) Here Dr. Wright assumes what he has not, and cannot prove and that is that those involved in the LGBT lifestyle are “law abiding citizens.” For millennial LGBT behavior has been criminalized.  Back in 1977- 1982 when I attended Marion College, if it were found out that a student was a sodomite they would have been tossed out of school. So, what has happened between 1982 and 2016 that has changed wherein this behavior has gone from criminal to “law abiding?What has happened wherein we have gone from throwing students out of Marion college who were LGBT to now having a Indiana Wesleyan President now categorize them as “Law abiding citizens?”

2.) Wright, by favoring special rights in the public square for LGBT people has surrendered the basic protections of the law for those who favor “Freedom of Association,” and for those who desire to honor God in their public square business.  What David Wright is actually saying here is that “to deny one criminal LBGT person the protection of their criminal behavior is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all law abiding persons the protection of law.” Wright fails to realize that those who are criminals do not deserve the protection of the law. What Wright should have said, were he operating as a Biblical Christian, is, “To deny one Christian the protection of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all Christians the protection of law.” This is what Wright is doing. Via Wright’s testimony Wright is denying Biblical Christians the protection of the law in favor of providing the color of law’s protection to the LGBT community. Law here, can either protect the Biblical Christian’s Freedom of Association, or it can protect the LGBT in forcing Christians to affirm the LBGT lifestyle by doing business with them. Shame on Dr. David Wright.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

In summary, then, we believe that our laws must honor the fundamental rights of freedom of religion, of conscience, and of peaceful coexistence granted us in the constitutions of our state and our nation.  If we abandon or curtail the right to sincerely held religious convictions, peaceably pursued among fellow citizens, we will in time deny all other rights as well.

Rev. McAtee responds,

But David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of religion as it pertains to freedom of association. David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of conscience for those Biblical Christian’s in the public square whose consciences are being violated in being forced to do business with the LGBT community. President Wright, there can be no peaceful coexistence between the God of the Christian and the God of the LGBT movement. You are kidding yourself Dr. Wright and dishonoring Christ at the same time.

Dr. Wright, you seem to think that we can arrive at some kind of social order neutrality between Biblical Christians and pagans and their Gods. You seem to think that a peaceful co-existence can be attained whereby those who are lovers of Christ and those who are haters of Christ can both pursue their diametrically opposed religions in the public square.  What’s more you seem to think this while you yourself are testifying so as to curtail the civil rights of Biblical Christians in the public square. That you can not see that this is what you are doing is astounding.

By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that the desire of Biblical Christians to live out their faith in peace and liberty is radical. By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that it is Biblical Christians who are the problem in the public square and that they need to be reigned in.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are countenancing men in public bathrooms that our daughters may be using.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are pushing legislation that is, in essence, bigoted against Biblical Christian in the public square.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned Dr. Wright. What you have done is far worse. You have helped set the fire to Rome.

The Wheaton Imbroglio and “Worshiping the Same God.”

The Protestant way of discussing the issue of God and His nature and worship starts with the Bible as determinative in all matters.  Thus biblical theology always trumps philosophical analysis.  Said succinctly and simply put, God and Allah are not the same.  Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.

Rev. Bassam Madnay 
Pioneer of Arabic radio missions over a period from 1958 to 1994

Developer of a Bible-based ministry, which emphasizes the centrality of the Word of God in missions to Muslims.

Author of several books in Arabic for the follow-up ministry that was used in his work for use among Arabic-speaking people.

Wheaton College continues to struggle with what to do with  professor Larycia Hawkins who said that  Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Of course this is all complicated by the racial dynamics as  professor Larycia Hawkins is one of only a few African American professors at Wheaton. Doubtless, were Wheaton to fire  professor Larycia Hawkins, there would be cries of racism and so it is easy to see how wanting to avoid those potential cries of “racism,” might become part of the decision making matrix in this case. To put it bluntly, Wheaton may well be tempted to not stand by its Christian confession so that it can avoid being seen as intolerant, bigoted, and racist by firing  professor Larycia Hawkins.

This debate is muddled up by imprecise thinking.

First, as there is only one God, religions which assert contradictory truths about that one God, as revealed in the OT and NT alone, are therefore not serving any God at all, but a fiction of their imagination. Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God since the “god” Muslims and Jews worship is a no god. The “god” of Jews and Muslims has no being or existence and so cannot be aligned with the the God who has being and existence.

Second, as the essence of Christianity is to affirm, with the Scriptures, that God is plurality in Monotheism,  we see contradiction to the false religions of Judaism and Islam, who worship a god without being or existence, who, nonetheless affirm that their no gods are unitary monotheistic gods who have no plurality.  How can it be the case that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all worship the same God when the true God of Christianity and the false no gods of Judaism and Islam can’t even agree on the nature of God?

Third, the Christian faith affirms that there is no worship of God apart from the Son; The Lord Christ (John 14:6). In contrast Judaism denigrates Christ as can be seen by the Talmud’s affirmation that Christ is in hell boiling in hot semen. In contrast Islam, while esteeming Christ as a great prophet, still denigrates him by refusing to identify Christ as being very God of very God. The fact that Christianity affirms the centrality of Christ in order for worship of God to be possible as contrasted with Islam and Judaism which denigrate Christ proves again that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not and cannot worship the same God.

Fourth, this muddled headed thinking doesn’t understand that words find their meaning dependent upon the plausibility structure wherein they rest. The word “God,” then, like all words, is filled with meaning only as consistent with the paradigmatic contextual web wherein the word exists. It is true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all use the word “God,” but when that word and concept is conditioned by all the rest of their respective contradictory worldviews the end results is a shared word with meaning and referent that has nothing in common except the lexical form and auditory pronunciation.

As we explore this idea that “Christians and Muslims,” worship the same God we butt up against some other difficulties.

Ask yourself whether or not if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God does that mean they all hate the same devil? It would seem to be the case that if the former holds the latter must hold as well. If we all worship the same God then how could we all not hate the same devil since God and the devil are polar opposites. A commitment to worshiping the same God would commit us to agreeing on hating the same devil.

 

Next we might inquire that if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God and they all hate the same devil would that not mean that they all believe that the same God delivers men from the same devil via the same salvation? Here we get perilously close to what I believe the real project of this linguistic subterfuge is all about and that is the collapsing of these contradictory faith systems into one ecumenical miasma.

There are those who serve on the mission field who will insist that saying that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God makes evangelism easier as a place of commonality can be agreed upon so as to facilitate further conversation on the character of this God. However, if we begin in our discussions presupposing a shared God it is hard to envision that we will not end our conversations Islamifying our Christianity or Judaizing our Christianity to one degree or another when all is said and done.

Honestly, this attempt at insisting that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God is just another example of the postmodernism worm eating away at all meta-narratives in favor of its own meta-narrative which teaches that all is social construct and is in favor of a kind of tortured monism.

In all this we must keep in mind that God is not a generic and abstracted philosophic construct that can be divorced from a concrete context. To suggest that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all serve the same God completely eviscerates the Christian religion as Scripturally revealed and as Historically practiced by those who have taken God’s revelation seriously through the centuries.

That Wheaton might ignore all this in order to align themselves with the demands of multiculturalism and political correctness in its demand to protect an errant minority professor is a sad testimony to where Christianity has descended. That this has even become a question that needs to be discussed and debated demonstrates the heights from which muscular Christianity has fallen.

 

If A Politically Correct Version of the Lord of the Rings Were Written Today

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. With that in mind we are kind of imitating the great J. R. R. Tolkien in this piece imagining what the Middle Earth would have been like if his creativity had fallen into the hands of a Politically author.

1.) First it would be easy to imagine in a 21st century PC version of the “Lord of the Rings,” that Sauron and Saruman would have been much more subtle in their drive for conquest. Instead of invading they would have teamed up as International Financier Elitists and emigrated the Dweefsums into the Shire in order to conquer the Shire. Further, Saruman and Sauron would have appealed to the Hobbits altruism and convinced them that assimilating with the Dweefsums was the compassionate thing to do. Eventually Mayor Whitfoot of Hobbiton as well as the Thain of the Shire became convinced that this was good policy and placed in charge of the Orc Immigration process (OIP) Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins. After some time, with the success of the OIP,  the schools of Hobbiton began to teach the Hobbiton children that mating with Dweefums was a noble thing to do.

Over the passage of time Merry and Pippin and Samwise pushed for the legalization of male mengae-a-trois relationships and they were finally Knighted when their long fought for legislation finally passed.

2.) With the passage of time, Denethor, by using the Palantír  (seeing stone) saw how hopeless his situation was and so convinced his ruling council that accommodation was the best course for Gondor and so embraced a “keep the Great Gate open” policy toward Minias Tirith and so was a open invitation to the citizens of Osgiliath.

3.) Eventually, the Rohirrim gave up their women folk preferring bestiality after a decades long study was published by a Dr. Alfred Kinsomer that confirmed that the Rohirrim were indeed closer to their horses than to their women.  Over the course of time a proper perspective of History was arrived at and so there was outlawed any celebrations of the Rohirrim’s victory at Helm’s Deep. Indeed a generation was raised up that tore down the monuments to Theoden gallantly fighting on Snowmane and of Eomer supporting his Uncle in Battle. What took their place was a monument to the Uruk-Hai instead, who – it turns out – were the real victims of the battle of Helm’s deep.

4.) Aragorn finally divorced Arwen Evenstar and married Farimer. Arwen finally gave into her Transgender Man soul and shacked up with her own Father Elrond. After Aragorn abdicated the throne the “Mouth of Sauron” took over the throne of Gondor and he, in turn, made the Nazgul his privy council.

5.)  Gondor families started adopting lovely little Easterlings and accused everybody else who was not doing the same of sinning. And with each adopted Easterling, Haradrim, and Umbarian the Churches in Gondor rang their bells and celebrated their nobility for being so caring.  Indeed, even when it was clear that the Easterling, Haradrim, and Umbarian adopted children were corrupting their own seed, it didn’t matter since the Easterlings, Haradrim and Umbarians were a missionary projects.

6.) The Gondorian Naval forces were disbanded when it was realized that the Pirates of Umbar were simply “misunderstood.” The leadership of Gondor came to realize that the Pirates of Umbar would instantly drop down their weapons once they would see the tolerant shores of Anfalas.

7.) Equality was finally arrived at in the West when the Pukel men were invited to intermarry with the women of Dale. Also, Elves and Dwarves began to have marital concourse so that a new race of Dwelfs was formed. The Dwelfs though were a insecure people never having a clear identity of who they were.
 8.) The Wizards were found out to be of a long ignoble line made of the limited quantity of something called “White Light.” These Wizards were created by the wicked Valor and so finally understood to be as wicked as Grima Wormtongue had once warned King Theoden about.  Wormtongue knew all of this all along! Oy vey, Wormtongue! You have always been our greatest ally!
 9.) Galadriel was the great great great Grandmother of Angela Merkle and like her illustrious great great great Granddaughter was a key link in finally inviting the natural enemies of the Elves to integrate into Lothlorien.

10.) Gollum was declared to be a great civil rights leader and a Middle Earth holiday was established in his honor, during which the utes of Gondor would celebrate his contributions to cultural diversity by pillaging and ransacking various Merchants of Gondor while playing a game called Out-Knock. Raw Fish was considered a delicacy among the Utes during this celebration.  Indeed, eventually a Statue was raised of Gollum in the Hobbiton city square. (The statue though was made by a woodelf and as such Gollum, in his statue, looked suspiciously like a wood elf.) Further, every city in the West, large or small, had a street named ‘Gollum Smeagol –The King,’ Street.

Later it would be discovered that “Doctor” Gollum Smeagol — The King,  had plagiarized large portions of his Ph.D. dissertation, as well as his iconic “I Have a Precious” speech, from the writings of several Elven academics and at least one River-folk preacher.  Also, later it was celebrated that Dr. Gollum Smeagol — The King, had also plagiarized large portions of his “Letter from a Wood-Elf jail” correspondence.

11.) Black Hearted Huorn Ents tried to fit into the ruling councils of men but, always needing a filibuster just to introduce themselves, they had long since gone, once again, looking for Entwives.

Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath, Durand Gregory, Dunns Thomas,  Cherry Nathanson.


I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends … Mickey Henry; A Christian Apologetic For Open Carry During Church Worship Services

Mickey Henry is a non de plume of a personal friend of mine who was recently rebuffed by his Church “leadership” for daring to open carry in Church in a state where to do so is legal. This is a letter he wrote to his leadership after being told he may not open carry in his “conservative” Church. Try to keep in mind that there was a time in the history of our country when it was not uncommon for men to carry their weapons to Church. I think that Mickey’s letter is convincing.

——————

Dear Elder Donnie

Since concealed carry is encouraged, we share a lot of common ground concerning self-defense and the errors of pacifism. Suffice to say, armed defense of innocents is simply the application of the positive requirements of the Sixth Commandment. The crux of disagreement, then, is open vs. concealed. Here, in brief, are my arguments for open carry:

1. I am of the strong opinion that open carry acts as a deterrent to violence. Open carry is essentially a clear statement that acts of aggression will be met with strong resistance.

2. To Christ is given all authority; all earthly authority is thus derivative. Because we Christians confess Christ as Lord, submitting to His Law-Word, Christians have a unique responsibility to rule under Christ as His earthly vicegerents. We are, in fact, commanded to do so by the Dominion Mandate. Weapons and related imagery, such as swords, spears, maces, the fasces, halberds, etc., are the customary tokens by which power and authority are symbolized and commonly recognized (the instruments of the death penalty are identified with the authority to execute the death penalty). I open carry as a visible symbol of my submission to Christ’s Law-Word, and my willingness to use the authority He has given me to defend my family and other innocent life.

3. Just as the Gospel is made clear in the symbols and liturgy of the Church, there is a certain visible representation of the Law-Grace dynamic in the open carry of weapons by confessing Christians: grace and mercy to the innocent, justice for those who would transgress His Law.

4. The degenerate culture around us tolerates Christians only if we are weak and impotent. But we are to be standard bearers, a city on a hill, no matter the spirit of the age. I am glad that a number of the men at Redeemer do carry weapons, but open carry makes manifest that ours is a vital faith, and we will not cower or lower ourselves to the popular image of the ineffectual Christian man engendered by the enemies of God.

5. As to scaring away visitors, I humbly submit that this is an expression of the “attractive Gospel” theories of the Kellerite/New Calvinist movement, and is at odds with the historical understanding of Calvinism. A work of God’s grace on His elect is to overcome their sinful aversion to the practical outworking of His Law. Large families, homeschooling, modest dress, infant baptism, all male leadership, advocacy for traditional marriage – these things and others in open view at Redeemer are offensive to the broader culture and even to some of our brethren in other denominations, but we practice them as the people of our Lord and Savior, and depend on the sufficiency of His grace to reach those who visit us. Additionally, this being Texas, I have little doubt that at least some visitors would be attracted by a sign of such vitality.

One of Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Whoppers

“We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that ‘to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.’ When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.”

Barack Hussein Obama
State of the Union — 2016

1.) This is just another way of saying we need to reject profiling. It continues with the fantasy that communicates that looking at the law of averages is a sin and so makes one a not nice person. As an example, where is the error in thinking that if bald people commit a disproportionate amount of crime as compared to their demographic presence then bald people should be targeted and the fact that there are bald people who are nice doesn’t change the necessity to target bald people one iota. If it is a known fact that bald people, when taken as a whole, tend to strap on explosive vests and blow people up then bald people need to be targeted. If it is known that bald people, taken as a whole, don’t understand that rape is not perfectly acceptable than bald people need to be targeted even if there were some bald people who would strenuously object to fellow baldies strapping on explosive vests and going on rape binges.

When the President says these kinds of things we need to just say that ‘we have a fool for a President.’ It wouldn’t be the first time that a fool has been President. Honestly, one can’t help but wonder if the reason he says these kind of things is because he belongs to a demographic that, when taken as a whole, does need to be targeted.

 2.) We do not respect every faith. There is absolutely zero respect for any faith that says that we should not respect every faith. There is zero respect for any faith that says that it alone is the only true faith and that all other men need to repent. There is zero respect for any faith that insists that it alone should be the foundation upon which all social orders should be based.  There is zero respect for Christianity because Christianity makes all those truth claims.

3.) Diversity is most definitely not a strength. How can the fact that different faith systems that contradict one another as present in the same nation be considered a strength? Diversity is only a strength when all the diverse elements — all the diverse talents and abilities — share a common faith, a common theology, and a common culture. Any other diversity is a recipe for disaster. It is homogeneity in faith, theology, culture and ethnicity that makes for strength. Obama is selling the lie here of multiculturalism.

4.) Obama is embracing here the politics that target people because of their religion that disagrees with him. He is insulting those who disagree with him by suggesting that unless they do as he says and so follow his religion of multiculturalism they are imitating the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers. Et tu Obama?

While one might argue that Mosques should not be vandalized one can still insists that Mosques do not belong in lands that were settled by Christians and that Mosques should be swept off American soil.

5.) In this post I am merely channeling an older understanding of America.

“The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahommetanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

~ Joseph Story,
Associate Justice —  Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845

The only diversity that was ever envisioned for America was the diversity of different denominational expressions of Christianity as those denominations resided in States that could decide for themselves on what denominational expression of Christianity might or might not be the established religion for that State.