Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 45

Why is it so hard to talk about why it is so hard to talk about Homosexuality — I

In the February edition of the Banner Rev. Ron Nydam wrote an article probing as to why it is so hard to talk about homosexuality. I wanted to spend some time probing Rev. Ron’s probing. It is my conviction that Rev. Nydam’s article is written in order to grease the rails into accepting the idea of the normalcy of relationships that the Scripture characterizes as sinful.We should note at the outset that it is always the goal of those who want to make something formerly taboo to be acceptable to get people talking about the taboo. Conversations about the taboo make the taboo more acceptable and less frightening. As such Nydam and the Banner are advancing the agenda of the LBGT crowd by continuing to insist that this is something that must be spoken about. In a sense, even my writing of this essay serves their agenda because continues the conversation they so desperately desire in order to mainstream aberrant behavior.

Rev. Nydam leads off by mentioning the CRC study committee due to report in 2016 on providing pastoral guidance to churches, pastors, church leaders, and members on appropriate ministry and expectations in a culture where same-sex marriage is increasingly legal and common. Rev. Nydam throws in the bisexual and transgender people into this pool of ministry consideration since their pastoral needs may be quite similar. My question for Rev. Nydam and others is why stop with LGBT folk? Shouldn’t we include in the report the pastoral needs of necrophiliacs and bestiality oriented folks as well? After all, why should we be so narrow as not to include their very real pastoral needs? The answer to the bigotry of the CRC against these folks is that LGBT has become societally acceptable while those who perhaps suffer the most from unmet pastoral needs are left not considered. This is a black mark upon us as a Denomination.

Rev. Nydam speaks of the necessity of shalom that we are to seek in our congregations and is concerned that this issue will divide congregations. He’s afraid that this issue will bring strife and divisions to families, friends congregations, and Denominations. In writing this Nydam has suggested that the acceptance of the LGBT agenda, sure to be at the very least hinted at in the coming report, is not something so serious as to actually divide over. We must be see that our false unity as based on false theology is more important then any unity that can only exist in the context of dividing from people with whom we have no unity.

Rev. Nydam subtly suggests that people who disagree with LGBT-ism struggle do so wisely and biblically. Rev. Nydam insists that what he is writing about is not the ethical issues around sexual behavior but only to examine the high anxiety in the hetero-sexual community. But Rev. Nydam seems not to realize that the very reason there exists high anxiety in the hetero-sexual community is because of the ethical issues around sexual behavior. It really is impossible to tamp down high anxiety on this issue without also engaging in the ethical issues around sexual behavior. For Rev. Nydam to suggest that he is only going to address high anxiety but not ethical issues is like someone saying they are going to address conductivity without mentioning electricity. In point of fact, by inviting the “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members to listen in” he has at that moment touched upon the ethics of all this. Is it ethical for Christians (even celibate ones) to self identify as sinners?

Rev. Nydam then suggests that the real problem here is that Scripture appears to be being interpreted “in new and different ways.” Once again, we are back in the realm of ethics. We have to ask, “Is it ethical to appear to be interpreting Scripture in new and different ways when it comes to the issue of sexual ethics. (?)

Rev. Nydam next suggests that since we are all sexual sinners in one form or another then none of us have the place to speak to the sin of the LGBT community. After all we all have beams in our own eyes therefore we have no business worrying about the beams in other people’s eyes. This is the classic moral equivalency apologetic. If you have one sin in your life you are no longer qualified to hold up God’s standard. In point of fact no one is qualified to hold up God’s standard since no one is without sin. Somehow Rev. Nydam knows that “all of us struggle to some degree with our sexuality.” Really? All of us? Each and every one of us?

Rev. Nydam implicitly complains about the double standard that Christians have regarding sexual sins. He says that on these sins we are “especially punitive.” Maybe though the reason we are especially punitive on these sins is that the Scripture teaches that these sins are especially grievous?

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (I Corinthians 6:18)

In the Ten Commandments God gave us two commandments that protect the family. Maybe we are especially punitive on sexual sins because we know that not only do they destroy the individual but they destroy the family and eventually, if left unchecked, they destroy the community.

(And Rev. Nydam … can you give me the names of folks who say that each and every sin is as bad as any other sin that can be imagined? Is the sin of a 5 year old stealing a cookie as bad as the sins of Stalin?)

Rev. Nydam then notes that we heterosexuals might be committing the sin of “self-righteousness” for being pleased that we are heterosexual. But might not Rev. Nydam be committing the sin of self-righteousness for being pleased that he is not being guilty of the heterosexual pride which leads to self-righteousness? What Rev. Nydam seems to be attempting here is getting everyone in the same sin boat. Once we are all in the same sin boat then none of us can complain about the sin of anybody else since, in Rev. Nydam’s words, “one sin is as bad as another,” and “we are all pretty crooked.” But if Rev. Nydam is pretty crooked also why is he here faulting the crooked heterosexual people who are opposed to mainstreaming the crookedness of LGBT-ism? Who is the crooked Rev. Nydam to correct anybody?

Next Rev. Nydam launches into a soliloquy on homophobia, and patriarchy. In doing so he trots out the Matthew Shepard canard. It seems that Rev. Nydam has not learned yet that Shepard was not killed because of homophobia but rather the murder was due to a Meth deal gone bad.

The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard

Obama And His Idiotic Prayer Breakfast Remarks

At the annual prayer breakfast Wednesday the guy who poses as our President channeled his College Sophomore speech writer saying,

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation….

1.) Obama here employs the classic “postmodern maneuver” by intimating that all religions are the same. It’s as if he says, “Sure, Muslims kill people but Christians have killed people also. This is just the nature of all religions.” Clearly Obama sees all Religions as morally equivalent. It’s just the nature of all religions to be violent at times. One wonders what religion it is that tells Obama that violence is wrong?

2.) The whole “high horse” reinforces #1. Obama’s clear intent there is to remind his audience that Christianity has no reason to think itself morally superior to any other religion. Fascinating that as Obama warns against “High Horse(ism)” he, at that very moment, mounts his high horse.

3.) Obama intones the Crusades as a comparison to Islamic barbarity. But the Crusades were consistent with Christian “Just War” teaching. The Crusades were a Christian counter maneuver to Islamic offensive Jihad that had been going on for centuries. To suggest that wars fought in self defense is morally comparable to putting someone in a cage and dousing them with lighter fluid and making someone a human torch is, at best, rhetorically reckless, and at worst morally reprehensible on Obama’s part.

4.) Obama intones the Inquisition as a comparison to ISIS bringing to us televised live be-headings of Christians. Frankly, I’m amazed Obama didn’t throw in the Salem Witch trials for good measure. Needless to say that if one had a resume that included being responsible for all the deaths of the Inquisition as well ass the Salem Witch trial deaths for bonus bodies one probably couldn’t get a job ISIS or Boko Haram due to inexperience.

5.) It’s interesting that Obama even goes so far as to invoke the name of Christ, and yet does not mention once the name of Muhammad in who’s name all these deaths are being pursued.

6.) Obama ties up slavery and Jim Crow with Christianity but fails to mention the huge slave trade that was pursued by Muslims for centuries in Africa long before the Christian white man came along. Neither does he bother to mention the Muslim blood tax in Christian Europe that found the followers of Muhammad sizing Christian children in order to turn them into special forces troops for Islam — often against their own people in Europe. Neither does Obama mention that it was Western Christian Civilization that ended Slavery. Something that neither Jewish nor Muslim culture has yet done.

Obama’s moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam is just brain dead and it’s a obvious demonstration of how much Obama and his administration hate both Christianity and white people.

7.) Is there any Cultural Marxist History that Obama doesn’t embrace? Gandhi was a monumental hypocrite and here is Obama invoking him. When in South Africa Gandhi had been totally unconcerned with the situation of South African blacks. In point of fact he hardly noticed they were there until they rebelled. Gandhi was as intolerant as Obama is ignorant.

Obama continues,

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends. And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

1.) Obama calls for basic humility as he proudly begins to lecture a room full of Ministers, Priests, and other “Holy men” on the what they need to learn about religion. The minute he calls for basic humility he demonstrates his own lack of the very thing for which he calls. Perhaps Obama should show his humility by suggesting that he has doubt about what he is about to say and about what he believes is needed?

2.) Obama calls for doubt as he, full of confidence and with no doubt whatsoever, gives a spiel that communicates that he alone has truth when it comes to this demand to realize that none of us have all the truth. Note again, that this section of the speech underscores again that Obama (and his College Sophomore speech writer) believes that all religions are equal. All religions speak truth. All religions hear from God, god, or some god concept. Of that we all must not doubt, of that we all must be certain, and with that we alone are in possession of truth.

3.) Again with the postmodern epistemology. Note, in the second paragraph above, where Obama speaks of “our notion of truth,” as if there is nothing but human “notions of truth.” Old Obama had a farm …. EIEO. And on that farm there were some notions of truth … EIEO. With a Islam notion here, and a Christian notion there, here a notion, there a notion, everywhere a truth notion … EIEIO.

4.) Do you suppose that Obama would confess that he is confused in what he is saying here? Notice that in Obama’s world “fierce certainty” is the sin we must fight against. Obama is fiercely certain that we must fight fierce certainty.

5.) Obama says that “No God condones terror.” But the Quran disagrees with him. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Here are just a couple,

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

6.) In terms of the last paragraph above just keep in mind how Christians businesses in this country are being persecuted and discriminated against for their faith. Obama and his administration has done more to squelch freedom of religion then any Presidential administration in the 20th century.

The Rotting Cancer of Equalitarianism

Isn’t your philosophy authoritarian?

Accusations of authoritarianism follows from an equalitarian ideology which assumes the equality of all men so that no man is worth listening to more than another, no idea is more valuable than another, no child wiser than its parents, no code higher or more authoritative than another.

But it happens that in the course of human history much has occurred and much has been learned which constitutes a fund of experience we disregard at our peril. All of us are not as wise as our ancestors. We can become wiser only by listening to their experience before going on to add our own, just as a child must first listen to his parents before he can safely lead a life of his own.

What is more serious, the destruction by the equalitarian virus of this proper and necessary kind of authority also destroys proper and necessary discipline. Lack of it in the home is, in my opinion, far more often the cause of juvenile delinquency among both rich and poor than the so-called exclusion from family or community groups which today obsesses psychiatrists and sociologists.

Perhaps an ideology which offers ice cream to soothe mutinous convicts, and which condones murder and robbery among backward peoples under the guise of “freedom,” should not be expected to create respect for duly constituted authority in the home. Yet all children, and especially delinquents, need to be taught respect for and obedience to parental authority if we are ever to have law and order in the adult world.

Interestingly enough, the delinquent who is capable of being saved wants the voice of authority to rebuke and guide him more than he wants pity and tears. Parents are usually to blame both in failing to set an example that can be respected and in failing to speak with the tone of command. Men or nations that have been told often enough that in spite of all their training, experience and wisdom they are no better than the untrained, inexperienced and ignorant child or race will come in time to believe it, and consequently to lose the force and assurance which generates obedience.

Finally, by a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil. At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth.

I cannot protest too strongly against the tendency of the equalitarian virus to undermine all authority in our society from the home through the school on into our attitude toward international affairs.

Carleton Putnam

Who Knows The Aims of Socialism Better … Vladimir Lenin or Bojidar Marinov?

[F]rom its very beginning, to this very day, mainstream Marxism has been kinist and racist to the core, looking at genetic makeup – together with many other material factors – as determining the cultural level of a group of people. From Marx’s complaints that “Jews undermine the European civilization by mixing European blood with Negro blood,” through Stalin’s purges of whole ethnic groups due to “genetic backwardness,” through the war in Yugoslavia (where the Marxist incentive was the superior genetic makeup of the Serbs), to our modern black racism (on Marxist grounds), Marxism has never been anything else except racist and kinist. There has never been any genetic integrationism in Marxism, but to the contrary, Marxism has always divided peoples by genetic composition, just like the kinists (d)o.

Bojidar Marinov

“The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

Of course the words of Lenin directly contradicts the claims of Bojidar. Who should we believe on this matter? Should we believe Bojidar or Lenin concerning the aim of socialism?

Now we admit that Lenin also advocated national revolution and even encouraged nationalism in the service of overthrowing what he characterized as “colonial” oppression. How can we reconcile that with Lenin’s desire to merge all nations?

Once again, Lenin himself gives the answer:

“… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

National liberation then was a transitory factor. It was a prelude to a working class movement within the nation, and its ultimate aim was socialism and so the amalgamation of all nations into one. Communists would support such movements, but at the same time they would seek to obtain control over them and, where possible, turn them into workers’ and peasants’ revolutions.

When these elements controlled the state apparatus, then the possibility of unifying that nation with the rest of the socialist world could be realized.

So clearly Bojidar Marinov, once again, is demonstrated as not being, in the least, a trustworthy source on this issue. Communists, contrary Marinov, were Internationalists and desired the erasure of all distinct borders and peoples. Communists were never Kinists except as a dialectical tactic to arrive at the higher communist good of total amalgamation.

Don’t take my word … just read Vladimir Lenin. If you don’t like Lenin here consider Richard Wurmbrand’s analysis of the same issue. This analysis also overturns the errors of Mr. Marinov’s understanding,

Wurmbrand on the subject:

“Hess had taught Marx that socialism was inseparable from internationalism. Marx writes in his Communist Manifesto that the proletariat has no fatherland. In his Red Catechism, Hess mocks the fatherland notion of the Germans, and he would have done the same with the fatherland notion of any other European nation. Hess criticized the Erfurt program of the German Social-Democrat Party for its unconditional recognition of the national principle. But Hess is an internationalist with a difference: Jewish patriotism must remain. He writes,

‘Whoever denies Jewish nationalism is not only an apostate, a renegade in the religious sense but a traitor to his people and to his family. Should it prove true that the emancipation of the Jews is incompatible with Jewish nationalism, then the Jew must sacrifice emancipation… The Jew must be, above all, a Jewish patriot.’

I agree with Hess’ patriotic ideas to the extent that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am for every kind of patriotism – that of the Jews, the Arabs, the Germans, the Russians, the Americans. Patriotism is a virtue if it means the endeavor to promote economically, politically, spiritually, and religiously the welfare of one’s own nation, provided that it is done in friendship and cooperation with other nations.”

~Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, pp.54-55

The point that Wurmbrand is making is that Marxism is Internationalist in its flavor. Its aim is for all colors, creeds, and nations to bleed into one, except for the Jew. This of course, is contrary to what Mr. Marinov claims.

As an aside, isn’t it interesting that much of the modern Church has much the same goal, and uses much the same language as Lenin? In much of the modern church in the West today you can hear some preacher somewhere on any given Sunday morning say things like; ‘the aim of socialism Christianity is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them and only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that.’

If you hear that remind yourself that your hearing Lenin and not Christ.

Peter The Anabaptist

“Division rules in the childish world of the old covenant (cf. Galatians 4), the world split in two by the cut of circumcision, a world of tribes and tongues and nations and peoples. To be content with division is to revert to that old world. Division is a form of Judaizing.”

Peter Liethart
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/09/maturing-into-one

1.) What I’m hearing here is that

a.) The Old Testament God wanted distinctions and proper divisions but the New Testament God has changed and He doesn’t want distinctions and divisions of tribes, tongues, nations and peoples. Marcionism anyone?

b.) The death of Jesus was to the end of creating a Monistic God and egalitarian world where, in the words of the famous Band, U2, “all colors bleed into one.”

2.) Is it too terribly haughty of me to prefer the epistemologically self conscious Jacobin theologians over the ones who are merely ignorantly Jacobin?

3.) Is the comment, “Division is a form of Judaizing,” an egghead academic way of translating Rodney King’s, “Can’t we all just get along”?

4.) Wasn’t it the Radical Reformation that insisted that the division between clergy and laity was a sinful division? “Peter the Anabaptist” has a certain ring to it.

5.) If “Peter the Anabaptist” is correct then we must conclude the following,

a.) the Protestant insistence on translation into all the vulgar tongues of the nations was a Judaizing tendency. The Reformation was compromised from the beginning.

b.) If division is Judaizing then the Protestant Reformation was sin as it divided from Rome.

c.) If division is Judaizing, the distinct historic creeds as they have been embraced by distinct Reformed denominations have been sin.

d.) God involved Himself in a Judaizing tendency on the plains of Shinar.

6.) Dr. Leithart is here ruling exactly opposite the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The position there advocated by the Judaizers was an absolute and uncompromising unity that demanded that the Gentiles become cultural Jews in order to be Christian. The apostles repudiated that idea. Which is to say that Dr. Leithart is actually siding with the Judaizers but calling the Jerusalem Divines the Judaizers. This is worst then Jacobinism. This is devilry.

7.) One wonders if this is a kind of Hindu Christianity where all divisions and distinctions are Maya (illusion).

8.) Unity without diversity is Uniformity and Unitarianism. In Unitarianism all must become as one as the one god that is served. This Leithartian Unitarianism seems to be trying to immanentize the eschaton so that the idea of “the other” is lost in a sea of oneness. It is Van Till’s illustration of the man of water, seeking to climb out of a ocean of water, on a ladder of water, into a heavens of water come to life.