Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
“The two monsters of the Enlightenment, now immortalized on cereal boxes, also portray two phases of the Enlightenment as it actually got implemented, as opposed to what it proposed. Frankenstein epitomizes phase I of the Enlightenment project — the early, ostensibly altruistic, optimistic phase, when the revolution, no matter how horrific its execution, still seemed plausible as a way of bettering mankind. This is the electricity phase, the phase of youthful energy, captured in Wordsworth phrase, ‘Bliss was it that dawn to be alive. But to be young was a very heaven!’ Dracula was phase II of the Enlightenment — the syphilitic phase, the disillusionment phase, when blood has been not only shed but polluted, generally by venereal disease as the logical consequence of sexual liberation.”
Dr. E. Michael Jones “Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film” – pg. 62
One of my current reads is E. Michael Jones “Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film.”
It is Jones’ premise that the whole Horror Genre (Novel and Films) arises from the failure of the promises of Modernity to give what it held out. Jones contends that the monsters — from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (the first), to today’s slasher movies — are all a consequence of the Monstrosity reality that the Enlightenment has created with revolutionary politics, materialistic scientism, psychological manipulation, and sexual liberation. Jones contends that Monsters and Horror are the outward manifestation of a people’s inward, though verbally un-confessed, realization, that Modernity itself is one giant horror reality show. For Jones then, the Modernity project and the Horror genre are two sides of the same coin. Or perhaps better put, the Horror genre is incarnated expression of a real, though consciously suppressed, understanding that the Modernity project is one long Horror film.
Like Dr. Frankenstein’s promise to create life, so Modernity promised to create Utopia but the consequences of both have instead been a Monster that destroys everything in its wake.
Jones starts by telling the story of Mary Wollenstonecraft and the wreckage of her life as she chased the Enlightenment promise. He then teases that out as applied to Wollenstone’s daughter “Mary Godwin,” as the companion of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Jones contends that Mary Shelley’s creation of “Franknstein” was a reflection of her Bohemian lifestyle with Percy Shelley.
If Jones is correct, then we would have to conclude that the creation of the Brutlyn Jenner Monster is just the latest episode of reality as Horror show. Modernity, like Dr. Victor Frankenstein of old, has created something they would insist is akin to real life. Like the Frankenstein of old, Brutlyn is composed of unreal and dead parts. Frankenstein was put together by old body parts. Brutlyn, as the new Frankenstein, is put together with the unreal parts of photo-shop, make up, lighting, and surgery. If electricity as technology is what brought Frankenstein to life then media coverage as our modern technology has given life to our new Monster, Brutlyn.
That Modernity has been one long episode after another of Horror film incarnation can be seen in a casual look at Paris in the 1790’s, Berlin in the 1920’s, Communist policy following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, or America following its 1960’s sexual revolution. With each incarnation both Frankenstein and Dracula appear and the victims of these blood thirsty Demons are the broken families, the children who now think horror show reality is the norm and so keep the show going when they become adults, the women who are casually used and tossed away, and the men who have become divorce fodder for the liberated woman. Western culture, thy name is Stoker, Shelley, Stevenson, King, and Barker.
“Like Mary Shelley we too are the captive of two contradictory imperatives: We as a culture can’t disavow the Enlightenment, especially its commitment to sexual liberation, and at the same time, we can’t deny that people get hurt when they act on these imperatives. In fact, people die when they act on them, no matter how altruistic their intentions are.”
Out on the West Coast, in Spokane, Washington topless women are serving up Coffee and breasts as the Nightline report above exposes. This reality drove a late night conversation between myself, a friend, and your garden variety Evangelical (minister?) who “leans Calvinist.” I post it here to demonstrate an apologetic encounter and to demonstrate where much of the contemporary Evangelical Church is today. Names have been changed to protect the identity of Zombies.
Dan Brannan
Being paid for sexual acts/displays is not the description of a barista. It is the description of a prostitute.
Christian Toddson
Just curious why you think (at least your comment appears as such) that serving coffee or pretty much doing anything in a bikini is prostitution? Is modeling prostitution? Is going to a pool, ocean, lake, river, etc… in a bikini, prostitution?
Dan Brannan
Yes, if a girl dresses in bikini (essentially underwear) for money, she is engaged in prostitution. A woman selling her body, and performing sexual exhibitionism is a prostitute.
On the other hand, a woman who dons a bikini (underwear) in public without pay, is not a prostitute. She’s merely a harlot.
Christian Toddson
Wow, Dan. Really? This is what you truly believe 100% dogmatically? Clearly your position is rooted in your religious faith. I’m Christian myself, though I don’t ascribe to legalism, but rather lean more heavily on grace and don’t judge by appearances I’d rather face God directly than anyone rooted in legalism on any issue. I would venture to say that at the deepest root of your aversion to bikinis and such, it has more to do with your own personal struggles rather than being substantiated in Christian doctrine.
Really? Prostitute? Wearing a bikini (or anything else, even being nude) selling coffee or anything else for that matter other than sex doesn’t define being a prostitute. Nor does it have anything to do with association to harlotry… other than perhaps within your own mental videos.
Dan Brannan
Christian, your mush-mouthed dissembling embarrasses me. You know that the whole motive of bikini baristas is sexual voyeurism and exhibitionism. And you know that by definition, paying for sex acts is prostitution.
Dan Brannan
Lying to yourself only tarnishes your witness.
Christian Toddson
Dan, though admittedly I say this somewhat with sarcasm, perhaps it would serve your legalistic leaning to relocate to an Islamic country where prescribing what females can wear is a culturally accepted practice?
The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture. Anyone who takes issue with it is expecting that all America (if not the globe) ought to conform with your perspective of Scripture. And that’s very unrealistic. It is fine for you to hold your position (though I would encourage you do some deeper study rooted in grace and choice), but to imagine that it’s acceptable to dictate what may be done by and for others based upon doctrine is highly problematic.
Perhaps you may take it upon yourself to visit these type of bikini coffee stands if you truly believe what you’ve shared here, and pass out Bible tracts and attempt to share the Gospel?
But I wouldn’t suggest you carry signs that say anything such as “God Hates Prostitutes!!”, or “Harlots Are Going To Hell!!.” You won’t make much impact other than defamation to Biblical Christianity, and give justifiable cause to most everyone who already despises institutionalized religion and it’s blind adherents.
Dan Brannan
Your doctrine, Christian, is “Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.” That is the explicit plausibility structure of Satanism. You cannot hold that view and be a Christian. What’s more, I think you know that.
Dan Brannan
Christian, you wrote,
“The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture.”
^This is an admission that you simply don’t care about the reality of the matter. You want your titillation no matter what God’s word and the common definitions of words mean.
Dan Brannan
That ‘common marketing strategy’ you mention is selling sex. Which is to say, PROSTITUTION.
Christian Toddson
We live within a framework of ‘culture’ and within any such framework, the role of a Christian at best is to pray for your concerns, love others (not judge), and graciously, compassionately seek to build a bridge between the perceived “sinners” and the heart of Christ. Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan.
Dan Brannan
You’re peddling Satanism in the name of Christianity, Mr. Toddson.
You apparently don’t know the definition of legalism either. Legalism is defined as,
1) the belief that fallen men can be saved by perfectly keeping the law, or
2) that you are at liberty to add to or change the law.
By the second definition, it is you who are the legalist, not I.
Further Christian, the scripture nowhere instructs Christians not to judge. Matthew 7 instructs us to judge righteously. And St. Paul assures us that we must “judge all things” as we will even judge angels.
Christian Toddson,
Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan. Sorry you see it that way, Dan. Though nothing of the sort. Your highly judgmental. Grace, Dan. Lack of Grace is what comes through loud and clear in what you’ve expressed. It would serve much of modern day Christendom well to devote itself to Grace, as Christ intended, rather than the legalism that He expended such great energy to rebuke.
Dan Brannan — You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, in my legalistic season, I utilized the very scriptures about ‘judging’ as you have demonstrated yourself here.
Dan Brannan
Stop judging me, Christian.
You say Christians aren’t to judge, so, I’m asking you to be true to that Satanic standard and desist judging me.
Christian Toddson,
Ok ok… Dan is right. Christians, Go ahead and smite the coffee stands with fire and brimstone, and stone the bikini donning, satan worshipping, “prostitute” and “harlot” baristas to death.
Dan Brannan
You can’t convince people that they need grace unless they know they are sinners. And we aren’t at liberty to revoke God’s standards.
Christian Toddson,
Teach Grace and the purpose of Grace, and your nets will catch more ‘fish’. Try it.
Dan Brannan — Grace is incommunicable without Law. Please, give coherence a chance.
Bret L. McAtee
Christian is a legalist. He is insisting that his law that insists upon legalized voyeurism be forced upon all those who would rather not their sons and daughters be lured into this lifestyle and Christian does this all in the name of “grace.” Of course this is grace redefined as license.
Then what Christian does is to turn around and label Dan Brannan a “legalist” because Dan has a right understanding of the law that isn’t consistent with Christian’s own legalism.
Fascinating how the Libertarian are confused with Christians.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, Bret – You two ought to know that it ‘s of far greater appeal to share with “sinners” that God is for them and that He loves them, than to judge them harshly, condemn them, and tell them they are going to Hell. You will not scare any one into Heaven. Jesus didn’t approach the unknowing sinful that way, nor make appeal to you to do such a thing; so why are you?
Dan Brannan Just because your false gospel is more appealing to the world than the actual gospel, is no reason to abandon the genuine article, Christian.
Bret L. McAtee
How can I tell sinners (i.e. those in rebellion to Christ) that “God loves them,” when Scripture expressly teaches that “God hates workers of iniquity”? (Psalm 5:5)
Bret L. McAtee — And secondly, how dare you judge me Mr. Toddson. Where is the appeal in that?
Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I suggest you might read Romans 1 to see how God challenges recalcitrant sinners.
Dan Brannan
If you preach a form of grace that knows no law, you aren’t teaching grace at all, but as Bret said, you are teaching license and licentiousness.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, you said that, “Grace is incommunicable without Law.”
That’s a terribly sad way to think.
A very simple and endearing book about Grace is Chuck Smith’s 1994 book, “Why Grace Changes Everything”
You need to share an appealing message with those you feel are “sinners.” Not express condemnation. Introduce the sinner to Jesus… how about that?
Bret L. McAtee — Chuck Smith was a Heretic
Dan Brannan
When Paul asks rhetorically, “shall we sin the more that grace may abound?” he answers, “may it never be.” But you say of Paul’s argument that “that’s a terribly sad way to think.”
If you are introducing sinners to an antinomian Jesus, you are introducing them to a false Christ. Jesus kept the law perfectly and commanded men to repent.
Bret L. McAtee
And our Lord Christ said that he had not come to condemn the law but to fulfill it. Further, the Lord Christ told the Pharisees that they should have kept the slightest of the law found in tithing mint, dill, and cummin.
Dan Brannan
Right. Christ condemned the pharisees for neglecting God’s law and making up new laws in its place — just what Christian is doing.
Bret L. McAtee — Hence, proving, as I said, that Christian is the legalist here.
Christian Toddson
Do you guys wear Tefillins on your heads?
Carry a Torah attached to the end of a battle club, and mock Jesus with things like “He saved others, but He can’t save himself!” ?
Dan Brannan — No, we say that YOU should stop doing those sort of things.
Bret L. McAtee
Ephesians 4:17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
Christian Toddson
Bret, when the individuals you and Dan are judging are the bikini baristas, are you assuming they’re Christians or unsaved sinners?
If unsaved and ignorant of God’s grace, ‘sinners’ – are you at all concerned with making a compassionate, loving appeal to them as befits Christ? Or condemnation?
To the Christian we can speak in different terms than the unsaved.
You two come across as highly judgmental, un-compassionate, lacking love, very unappealing fundamentalists.
John Kevan,
Bottom line, if you think girls selling coffee in bikinis is wrong, then don’t go to that coffee stand — there are plenty of places to get coffee that don’t feature bikini clad baristas – – but there is most certainly no legitimate justification for government restrictions on such business.
Bret L. McAtee,
Mr. Toddson, the best thing I can do for the bikini baristas and all those who are in rebellion to God is to inform them that if they do not repent God may well turn them over to their rebellion. I also tell them that God has provided mercy in Christ upon repentance.
It would be sheer hatred for me to do anything else.
I find your judgmentalism against me very disconcerting. You are demonstrating a lack of love for me and are obviously unconcerned with the prospects of hurting my feelings. This makes me cry.
Bret L. McAtee
John, God’s law strikes me as a legitimate foundation for government restriction.
Libertarians … what a confused bunch.
Christian Toddson,
I see a clear, near identical likeness between the Statist and Institutionalized Christian. Statism is a religion, and Institutionalized Christianity is a law imposing, judgmental, condemnatory, punishment driven system of intimidation.
Dan Brannan … quoth Lucifer.
Bret L. McAtee
You’re the one doing all the condemning here partner.
And all States … All States codify their religion into law. Especially Libertarians.
Dan Brannan Yes, Libertarians believe in a Libertarian god, and they institute the law of Liber., and they do so rigidly.
John Kevan,
Bret, the only legitimate reason for government restriction is if I am doing something that harms another; it is legitimate for the government to restrict me from stealing from you or injuring or killing you. A girl selling coffee while wearing a bikini is harming nobody.
Dan Brannan — Wrong. Such prostitutes strike at the whole society.
Bret L. McAtee
John, the Libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP) is a myth.
Only God and His Law Word can provide the standard for what does and does not constitute aggression.
Dan Brannan — Amen.
Bret L. McAtee
NAP = Libertinism.
NAP = drug dealing Crack houses, whore houses, wife swapping, legalized sodomy … all because none of it is putatively “hurting anybody.”
Dan Brannan — NAP = open borders, predatory capitalism, etc., etc., etc.
The NAP is a Trojan horse which allows predatory forces to dismantle every aspect of genuine law and right from within our own gates.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, Bret – Between yourselves and me, who do you suppose could best build a bridge for the bikini baristas (if they don’t already know Him) to Jesus? You guys and your hell fire “repent or die!” approach, or my compassion driven, love based, appeal by Grace?
Of course all of it is the work of God, but what approach did you see Jesus take with the prostitute as opposed to those who were condemning her?
Dan Brannan — The trouble is, Christian, the bridge you’re trying to build leads not to Jesus, but to hell.
Bret L. McAtee
Psst … there is no building bridges to those who are dead dead dead in their sins. You act as if you’re just nice enough a dead person will respond. Dead people don’t respond Christian.
You’re a functional Arminian.
Second, when I see someone convicted of their sin, like “the prostitute” you mention it is obvious at that point that the law has already done its work and needs not to be stated again.
You have no idea what evangelism is Christian. Evangelism requires the soul shattering work of the law’s condemnation.
Christian Toddson
That’s an ignorant comment, Dan. You don’t know me. Nor have I anyplace here in our dialogue given free license to sin. I know that love is of far greater appeal than fear, and wins every time.
Dan Brannan
Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Mr. Toddson. Your spewing B.S. Anti-Christ nonsense, Mr. Toddson.
Bret L. McAtee
Christian, are you actually trying to compare the repentant prostitute who wiped the feet of our Lord Christ with tears with the brazen bikini baristas in the video above? You’re not a wise man in the least.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, you noted that, “Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Christian.”
I say to that Dan that, Jesus commanded that every one must repent.
Dan Brannan — That’s the FIRST correct thing you’ve said so far, Christian.
Christian Toddson — You guys need to abandon your love of law for the love of Christ, and for the sinner.
Bret L. McAtee,
Do you suppose that the brazen bikini baristas will agree that they must repent Christian?
I do agree that I need to repent and that my repentance even needs repenting over, inadequate as it is.
Dan Brannan — and back you go to your anti-Christ schtick Christian
Bret L. McAtee,
You are the one who is hateful of the bikini baristas Mr. Toddson. You are a eminent hater by your theology as seen in your unwillingness to plead God’s Holiness.
Christian Toddson,
Bret – they won’t agree that they need to repent if they hear the message delivered with your tone and swagger.
Dan Brannan LOL.
Bret L. McAtee,
I can’t separate Christ from God’s law since Christ was the very incarnation of God’s law.
And I continue to see your Arminianism Christian. If I speak just the right nice way they will come to Jesus but if I tell them the truth they won’t. Is that it Christian?
Christian Toddson — Christ is the fulfillment of the law, Bret. Not you, not Dan, not me.
Bret L. McAtee,
Right Christian, and we are His champions and so we must set forth His legal character and let the law do its convicting work before we apply the balm of grace. To do what your advocating would damn the souls that, in love and compassion, we are seeking to woo.
Christian Toddson — I lean Calvinist actually, Bret.
Dan Brannan — No you don’t.
Bret L. McAtee — No you don’t. You’re a functional Arminian, and probably a Seminary grad to boot.
Christian Toddson — You are the two who speak in a manner demonstrating a works oriented salvation.
Dan Brannan — Exactly the opposite of the case.
Christian Toddson — It’s true, Bret. I’m dead on, Dan.
Bret L. McAtee
Nuh Uh. Neener neener neeener. I’m rubber. you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks on to you.
Dan Brannan
Mr. Toddson, far from the doctrines of grace, you preach licentiousness based upon Satanist nomology. Further, you preach a works righteousness of “niceness” rather than grace.
Christian Toddson
Bret – how many churches have you left?
How many have you been asked to leave or told to leave?
Bret L. McAtee,
Zero and Zero. How about you?
Besides being asked to leave a Church in this current zeitgeist is, more often then not, a badge of honor, Christian
Christian Toddson — Dan, I see you enjoy the pet usage of satan, and nomology. Neither of which I find value with.
Dan Brannan — And yet, you preach him.
Christian Toddson — Did Jesus condemn? If so, Who?
Bret L. McAtee — Jesus condemned people like you who were exercising their self righteousness.
Christian Toddson — No self righteousness here guys. That would be ignorant.
Dan Brannan,
Christian, the Lord repetitiously condemned those doing as you are, Christian. Because you refuse His Lordship, and prefer to make up your own law to impose upon Him.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, He fulfilled the law for me, for you, for Bret, for all of us. It’s the two of you who are seeking to impose it.
Dan Brannan — We seek to obey Him. But you say obeying Him is the greatest crime.
Bret L. McAtee,
There is no way we can know that Christ fulfilled the law for those who refuse Christ. That is Arminian again.
Christian Toddson,
I would venture to say that Jesus is more concerned with how the two of you are behaving in His name than with the bikini baristas.
Bret L. McAtee — Of course you would say that. So say all Luciferians.
Dan Brannan — Because you hate His law and reject His Lordship.
Christian Toddson — That is a terribly condemnatory thing to say Bret.
Bret L. McAtee — Just how I would expect a Luciferian to respond.
Christian Toddson
No Dan, I abhor Pharisaical self righteousness and law imposing condemnation as Jesus Himself did.
Christian Toddson — That’s quite childish, Bret.
Bret L. McAtee,
And yet here you are condemning us with every post because we are not keeping your law. Talk about childish.
Christian Toddson — Think of it more like a rebuke.
Bret L. McAtee — Psst …. its not working.
Christian Toddson — It will.
Bret L. McAtee — says you.
Dan Brannan — You’re rebuking Christ’s Lordship, Mr. Toddson. Anathema.
Christian Toddson — Geez guys. do you two have any idea, even the least bit, how unappealing you make Christ and His message? What a repellent that you are?
There is no (expressed) love at all in you two and that concerns me both for the salvation of yourselves, and the damage you no doubt cause to the appeal of God for the unbelieving who already have plenty of reasons to despise institutionalized religion.
Dan Brannan,
^And thus they called for Him to be crucified. Jesus was not murdered for being a winsome lounge lizard.
Bret L. McAtee,
Christian, first off, I suspect your definition of love is not my definition of love. If Christ is the incarnation of God’s law then God’s law is also Love.
Second, you appeal to the idea of a Gospel that is appealing to sinners. Would you mind too terribly explaining by what standard you adjudicate a proper appeal?
Third, you’re actually surprised that people who hate Christ find plenty of reasons to despise the institutional religions that bears Christ’s name to the world?
Fourth, it is you who are doing the damage by condemning the use of God’s law that is intended to expose sin.
Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I have to ask. Are you a minister?
Bret L. McAtee
Christian, Is there a reason that Scriptures say that the Message is a stone that makes men stumble and a rock that makes men fall?
For Christian is seems the message is a bikini that makes men horny and a coffee that tastes good.
Dan Brannan — And God’s ethics are such a bummer, man.
Christian Toddson
Sure Bret, because the Jews couldn’t accept justification by faith, but believed it necessary for laboring at the works of the law. Jesus was/is their stumbling block.
A bit like you two… No?
Christian Toddson, Dan – Your equating doing of the law, with ethics, or Godly principals?
Bret L. McAtee So you’re actually telling me that “justification by faith alone” obviates the causal connection with good works in relation to sanctification?
Antinomianism anyone?
Christ has set me free from the condemnation of the Law. I am not free to be disobedient Mr. Toddson.
Christian … are you a minister?
Dan Brannan
Jesus called the Pharisees to repent of their law and return to God’s Law … which presupposed from the beginning the atoning work of Christ and establishes the ethics of His universe.
Christian Toddson
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God”
Dan Brannan — Now just let that sink in, Christian.
Bret L. McAtee — Christian, are you a minister?
Christian Toddson — It’s sunken deep, Dan.
Dan Brannan — A sinister minister.
Bret L. McAtee — Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound Christian? God forbid.
Bret L. McAtee
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled,” without giving them those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe — and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Christian Toddson — Of course, Bret.
Bret L. McAtee — 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, 13 looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Christian Toddson,
As regards the bikini baristas (back on point), What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church (if in fact they are)?
Bret L. McAtee –Christian, are you a minister?
Christian Toddson — Bret, Aren’t we all?
Bret L. McAtee — No, we are not.
Christian Toddson — 1 Cor. 3
Bret L. McAtee — James 3:1
Bret L. McAtee,
Why did Paul judge the Athenians at Mars Hill since they were outside the Church? (Acts 17)
Dan Brannan,
Why does the 10 commandment insist that the covenant people impose God’s law on the stranger within thy gates?
How does the assumption that those outside the church need the gospel not amount to a judgment upon them?
Christian Toddson,
Bret, Why did Paul write the letters/epistles to the Corinthians? 1 Cor. 5:12?
Dan Brannan — To assume unbelievers need saving is to judge them.
Unlike · 2 · 8 hrs
Christian Toddson,
No Dan, we know that everyone needs saving. And that “there is none righteous, no, not one”, is a universal indictment.
Dan Brannan — Then you admit to judging unbelievers.
Christian Toddson,
No Dan. I mostly rest in not judging so that I won’t be judged, as per Matt. 7 Judging is not fun, nor is being judged. We humans are very very poor at it.
Dan Brannan — That’s a lie. You just issued judgement over unbelievers. That they are sinners and need salvation.
Bret L. McAtee — Yet here you are judging us all over the place Christian. Contradictions anyone?
Bret L. McAtee,
Christian,
Paul judged the unbelievers at Athens.
I Cor. 5 is in the context of Church discipline. The Church can’t bring discipline against those who have not closed with Christ. However, the Church must have the law do its work with those who are in rebellion against Christ.
Christian Toddson, Bret – Paul made a bad decision in Athens and because of it, saw little success there.
Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^
Bret L. McAtee — ROFLOL ^
Dan Brannan — WTH?
Bret L. McAtee — ROFLMAO
Dan Brannan — Now you’re judging Paul!
Bret L. McAtee — I’m sitting here falling off my chair cracking up
Dan Brannan — Same here.
Christian Toddson,
Paul gave it up as a bad job with regard to his approach with the Athenians. How is it you don’t know that?
Bret L. McAtee — I guessed I missed that day when they taught that in Sunday School.
Christian Toddson — You must have…. or else went to a poorly teaching church.
Dan Brannan — That must be in the Devil’s Bible I’ve heard so much about.
Bret L. McAtee,
So … Christian … do tell please. What other parts of the Bible are considered failures where not expressly pointed out in the text.
Bret L. McAtee,
Christian,
Seriously. Out of a compassion for you I plead with you to trust Christ and repent of your making a false Christ in your image to worship.
Dan Brannan.
Just to make sure I’m following … are you really judging Paul because he judged the athenians as a proof that we shouldn’t judge?
Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^
Christian Toddson,
Paul avoided mention of the cross in Athens, and the result was a meager harvest. After continuing on to Corinth is when he emphasized that he “resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
Have you never read that, or was it never taught to you?
It’s not a secret that many have considered Paul to have been disappointed with his message in Athens.
After all, how many were saved in Athens?
Dan Brannan — So, your are judging Paul for judging the Athenians. How is this level of hypocrisy possible?
Bret L. McAtee,
Paul preaching at Athens Christian,
Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to to all by raising him from the dead.”
Now, how could have Christ had been resurrected if Christ had not been dead and buried?
Sounds like the Cross is clearly implied in Athens Christian.
Christian Toddson,
Dan, Paul omitted mention of the cross to the Athenians and one woman was saved as a result of his message to the crowd. Then he placed heavy emphasis on the cross in Corinth and many were saved. Paul didn’t use the philosophical approach again after Athens.
Bret L. McAtee,
Are you ever going to quit digging that hole your standing in and let us help you out Christian?
All of this “failure of Paul in Athens” is clear only to you Christian. No orthodox Christian would ever say what your saying about Acts 17. In point of fact, two of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th century (Van Til and Bahnsen) both insisted that Acts 17 was a template for doing Evangelism and Apologetics.
http://www.providenceopc.org/article5.htm — Van Til’s treatment of Acts 17
http://www.anthonyflood.com/bahnsensocratesorchrist05.htm — Partial look at Bahnsen’s work on Acts 17
Christian Toddson,
Folks – Paul left Athens disappointed, that is clear enough. His message to them wasn’t a “success” in terms of his listeners coming to salvation. He lost their ear, he left. He never taught in such a manner again.
Bret L. McAtee Folks,
Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit as He was, did not fail in Athens. The idea that you can measure the success of the message by counting the converts is heretical nonsense and the fact that Christian holds this demonstrates, perhaps better then anything else he has said, that his Gospel is pure existential pragmatism and not the Gospel belonging to Christianity.
Dan Brannan,
Yes. The notion that the divinely-enabled preaching of Paul could be condemned by Christians because it doesn’t fit the “church growth model” of emergent churchianity is a level of pharisaism unknown to me till tonight.
Further, I find the idea that Paul could be judged by modern apostates as a pretext to create a new law against judging people according to law absolutely hysterical.
To judge those who judge (even those divinely guided) according to a law which forbids law. New Age churchianity is like a giant web of zen koans — all self-contradictory.
James 1:14 But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
A social order trajectory that begins with unconstrained libidinous passion will end in social order horror that consumes individuals, families, and nations. For example the French intelligentsia philosophes embarked on the trajectory of emancipating the sexual impulse from the moral order and the end result was the tender strokes of Madame la’ Guillotine. What began as a loosening of sexual mores ended with the loosening of heads off of shoulders. The Marquis de Sade becomes the face of this Mephistophelaic sexuality.
Consider also, as example, the Weimar Republic of the 1920’s. What began as the Sexual cabaret of Europe in the 1920’s where every kind of fetish and deviance possible could be had for the right price ended with unnamed tyranny and rampant death for the “fatherland.” The face favoring this sexual playground of Berlin was Magnus Hirschfield.
Consider also the Bolshevik Revolution. The poster child for this sexual debacle was the femme fatale, Alexandera Kollentai and she led the way in sexual freedom for women. Women, under communist rule, were considered as belonging to no man but as belonging to the state for purchase. Kollontai, with Lenin’s approval, sought to destroy the concept of marriage and families. The results of this sexual freedom was so disastrous that even the Communist realized that they had to reverse course lest they wipe themselves out by sexual freedom.
There is a nexus between the liberation of sex from God ordained expression and the consequent social order blood in the streets that naturally follows. We are witnessing that again in the West as we seek to eliminate any boundaries for sex. One can name any number of people in order to brand the movement here. Alfred Kinsey. and Hugh Hefner, come immediately to mind.
In the end it almost seems that there is a principle at work here… a truism that demonstrates that immoral and unfettered sex guarantees unfettered death.
Of course modernity denies this and introduces, as it can, all kinds of technology or legislation in order to diminish the principle that immoral and unfettered sex guarantees unfettered death. For example modernity insists that the releasing of malignant sexuality can be controlled by chemical birth control or by a cocktails of drugs to put the STD’s into abeyance. Modernity says that the damage of malignant sexuality as it invades family life can be softened by no-fault divorce and the truism that “children are resilient.” Modernity will redefine family in order to make deviant sexuality appear as the “new normal.”
“Wouldn’t it it be great to just be normal, to blend into society?” She wonders aloud. “Put it this way — I’m the new normal.”
Brutlyn Jenner
A member of the perverted 0.4 % of the population which is transgender is telling us that he is the “new normal.” The new normal? How can 0.4% of the population be the new normal? Even if you add the 1.8% of the population that is sodomite or lesbian and the 0.7% who self identify as bi-sexual one is still left with less than 3% of the population insisting that they are the “new normal.” How can 2.9% of the population end up with enough leverage to tell the other 97.1% that they are the “new normal”?
The answer to that is found in the reality that the percentage of those who are driving this agenda are merely using the sexually ill as a conduit to promulgate their anti-Christian agenda. The LGBTQ crowd is merely a weapon being used by the Cultural Marxists in order to over throw the last remaining residual desiderata of Christianity as a social order force. As such, the muscle for the advance of normalcy of the LGBTQ crowd, numerically minuscule as they are, is lodged not in their numbers but in the elite gatekeeper crowd who desire the complete extinguishing of the objective transcendent standards which Christianity brings. However, in the end we do not really give up on objective transcendent standards but rather we merely change out one set of objective transcendent standards for a different set of objective standards. The Marquis de Sade was going after something like this when he posited that the notion of right and wrong was a ignis fatuus. Modern made, entrenched in his Sadeian existence, reasons that the very fact he has a desire is a sign that that said desire exists in nature. Now, the fact that the desire exists means that nature wills the desire and as such it would be wrong (sin) not to act on a desire which nature has implanted within modern man. You pick your god, whether of the supernatural extra mundane variety or of the prometheus ubermensch variety, you dance to His or its tune.
What I really wanted to get to in this post is to tease out a implication in Brutlyn’s statement. This is a point I have been hammering for a very long time. When Brutlyn insists “I am the new normal,” by necessity he is tacitly affirming that people not like herm are now the new “abnormal.” If Brutlyn is the new normal, then everyone not like Brutlyn or who understand the perversion in Brutlyn’s behavior are now the new “abnormal.” This underscores, in a distinct way, the point I’ve insisted upon repeatedly and that is once the pervert is allowed out of the closet this requires the Biblical Christian to be stuffed in the closet in order to replace the pervert. Brutlyn is now the new normal and now people who share Biblical convictions are the new “abnormal” and as the new “abnormal” Christians are at the same time the new perverts.
This “new normalcy” that Brutlyn speaks of is represented as a legislative bill that just passed the New York state legislature which makes discrimination against transsexuals a crime. The results of this “new normalcy” will be the public stopping of the mouths of Christians in the work place. Transexuals out of the closet. Christians into the closet.
Knowing folks in New York, I know Christians already have it bad when they have to turn down invitations at the office for donating to buy surprise gifts to congratulate sodomites on being married and having successful adoptions. (I know personally friends who have had to stay away from signing congratulations cards and showing up at surprise parties. Their absence at the parties are loudly missed as well as their lack of signature on any card).
With the passage of this legislation in New York, the next abomination will be congratulation parties for the successful transitioning of transsexuals in addition to transsexuals being allowed to use diverse restrooms.
Lastly this bill will apply to all Christian establishments with over 10 employees and woe to the Christian who owns a restaurant.
So, we have Vanity Fair seeking to create the impression that Transgenderism (TranJennerism?) is normative. By putting “Brutlyn” Jenner on their cover they are, not so subtly, communicating that being Transgender is as normal as your average bombshell babe gracing the cover of your average run of the mill New York sleaze rag.
Of course the transmogrification of Jenner, former All American Stud and Athlete, into “Brutlyn,” the svelte and hubba hubba cover girl communicates that there is not that much distance between Bronco Nagurski and Marilyn Monroe. All of us, really are the same.And yet, in order to pull this off transmogrification off they have to wrap the 1976 Olympic Decathlon gold medal winner in Christian Euro-centric notions of beauty and femininity that have been with us for a very long time. So, they are desperately trying to change the social order but in order to pervert the social order they have to appeal to standards of the social order in order to pervert it. This is a classic example of Van Til’s “sitting on God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face.”One could easily make the case that the photo-shop, make-up, and lighting, creators of “Brutlyn Jenner” are practitioners of racism, trans-phobia and worst of all are guilty of Euro-centric biases. This is seen by their casting “Brutlyn” with a traditional white feminine mien along with the notion of European beauty. How dare they subtly suggest the WASP standard of beauty is the standard of beauty.
What’s even worse, is the white that “she” is regaled in, on the cover of Vanity Fair. This demonstrates “Vanity Fair’s” racism perhaps as well as any other component of the cover photo. In the European mind the color “white” is associated with purity and virtue and here is “Vanity Fair” having the cheek to reinforce that shibboleth by clothing “Brutlyn” all in white.
And what of the long hair of Brutlyn? This exudes patriarchy since women have, for centuries, been told by the misogynist Bible that “Long hair is a woman’s glory.” And “Vanity Fair” is supporting all this Christian Euro-centric hatred and misogyny that the West has been burdened with for centuries by placing that vile hateful picture of a shapely Euro-centric “Brutlyn” dressed in white on their cover complete with long flowing hair and feminine come hither smile.
What should we expect next from “Vanity Fair?” A photo shoot with “Brutlyn” as a traditional stay at home wife and mother baking cookies for the neighborhood children?
Please do not mistake me here. There is no excuses for the perversion here. There is the point that even when the Cultural despisers go pervert they unconsciously still support Western notions of beauty and femininity. The irony is found in the fact that they cannot destroy Western culture without appealing to Western culture.
Some might insist that “Brutlyn” could have been black or mestizo. I don’t think so. Only in using a European is the first step arrived at in making debauchery palatable to the masses. If you can make Christian Europeans debase themselves, then everyone else will follow. That’s been the modus operandi of the 20th and 21st centuries. Doubtless on subsequent covers you will be sure to see an oriental.
The West is dead and continues to integrate downward into the void but the really funny thing is — the thing that should be screaming at all right thinking people — is that the Christian West, in order to destroy itself and strip itself of every smidgen of Christian residue, must appeal to residual Christian and Western standards in order to do so.