Apologetics – Page 4

A Brief Historical & Sociological Look At Trannie-ism

“With their insatiable hunger for loot they ransacked the houses of the wealthy, murdered men and violated women for sport. They guzzled their loot, washed down with blood and from mere satiety they shamefully gave themselves up to effeminate practices, plaiting their hair and putting on women’s clothes, drenching themselves with perfumes and painting their eyelids to make themselves look attractive . They copied not merely the dress but also the passions of women, devising in their excess of licentiousness unlawful pleasures in which they wallowed as in a brothel. Thus they entirely polluted the city with their foul practices, yet, though they wore women’s faces their hands were murderous. They would approach with mincing steps and whipping out their swords from dyed cloaks they would impale passers by.”

Flavius Josephus
“The Jewish War”
Describing trannie-ism taking place in Jerusalem while it is under siege

The phenomena of Trannie-ism is thus seen as ancient. In the context above its presence heralds the end of a social-order. All that Josephus describes here is happening on the cusp of the fall of Jerusalem.

If one considers many third world tribal peoples throughout history one also discovers that there existed among their shamans and witch-doctors this sexuality fluidity that today we call Trannies. The Jewish Talmud likewise has this perversion as part of its history including as many as seven gender designations. This reality helps to make sense of Magnus Hirschfield’s work in Weimar, Germany, (which will be considered below) given that Hirschfield was Jewish.

The Talmud lists the following genders;

Zachar, male.
Nekevah, female.
Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
Aylonit, identified female at birth without developing secondary female sexual characteristics at puberty.
Saris hamah, identified male at birth without developing secondary male sexual characteristics at puberty.
Saris adam, identified male at birth without developing secondary male sexual characteristics because of castration.

As mentioned above this Trannie behavior was also seen in the last century in the Weimar Republic in Germany. In Germany, Magnus Hirschfield, himself a sodomite, organized and built what is thought to be the first transgender clinic. The clinic was opened in 1919 as Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (the Institute for Sexual Research), and at this clinic the genital surgery that included emasculating men while creating false vaginas was first practiced. In addition to psychiatrists for therapy, Hirschfield hired Ludwig Levy-Lenz, a gynecologist. Levy-Lenz along with surgeon Erwin Gohrbandt, performed male-to-female surgery called Genitalumwandlung—literally, “transformation of genitals.” This occurred in stages: castration, penectomy and vaginoplasty to be followed by a regimen of hormone therapy that would allow these castrated men to grow “natural” breasts while giving them a softer female look. Hirschfield and his merry band of perverts had to flee before female to male phalloplasty surgery would be invented.

In all of this what is obvious is the desire to transform into something that one, by God’s sovereign appointment, is not. Interestingly enough, Isaiah 14 records Lucifer’s intent to transition to be something he could never be;

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Lucifer here decides that he is going to transition to be like the most high. He desired to be something that he could never be and in the course of that attempt he destroyed himself being brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Now, given that this desire to be as God failed — this desire to be something quite contrary to his nature — Lucifer takes that same, born of pride trannnie like desire, and uses that desire as the fulcrum for the fall of Adam and Eve. It was the promise of Lucifer that if Eve ate the fruit she would transition to be as God “determining good from evil.” It was Adam and Eve’s desire to ascend to the most high via transitioning that made for their and mankind’s destruction.

We see here then that this insane desire to become something that is contrary to what one was appointed by God to be is closely connected to the original sin. We also see that such aspirations to transform one’s self into what is contrary to nature always leads to destruction. All of this makes perfect sense when one recalls that God’s Word says, “All those who hate me love death.” The desire to transition into something that one is not is testimony of one’s hatred towards God and His authority. This desire to transition from one gender to another gender should also be seen as hatred towards God because it is a full expression of seeking to cast off the image of God in man. Man, being God’s image, has a strong gender component in it and the desire to change that gender component is a testimony of man’s full rage at God for being His image bearer. In brief, the thinking by the Trannie is; “If I can change my gender, I can also be done with being God’s image bearer. I can create myself and name myself and so am no longer obligated to God.”

Of course such action requires a substantial amount of violence to one’s psyche. It is not only physiological changes that are being undergone with transitioning it is also deep and violent psychological, and emotional changes. We should not be surprised then that the violence that is required in order to put one’s self through the steps that the Trannie puts themselves through will, in turn, lead to violence towards others — especially those who the Trannie takes as being in opposition to their transitioning. This explains why the last two trannie mass murders have occurred at Christian schools. You don’t see Trannies shooting up sodomite bars or nightclubs. There is a reason that they are shooting up Churches and murdering Christian children and that reason has to do with the fact that they are in violent war against the God of the Bible.

Throughout history any social-order that allows for and accepts the sexual deviant as normative, including but not limited to the Trannie, ends up being soon eclipsed. Indeed, one might argue that any social order that turns to this and accepts it is a social order that is being fattened up by God for the day of slaughter.

Repentances is always in order for each and everyone of us.

Responding To Mayor Jacob Frey’s Plea That We “Not Villainize Our Trans Community”

“Anybody who is using this as an opportunity to villainize our trans community or any other community out there has lost their sense of common humanity. We should not be operating out of a place of hate for anyone. We should be operating from a place of love for our kids.”

Jacob Frey
Mayor – Minneapolis

Allow me to use this opportunity to villainize “our trans community.” Now my thinking here is not that all trannies are psychopathic mass murderers who have a thing for shooting up children who attend Christian schools. I mean, I’m broad enough in my thinking that just because two of the most recent school mass murdering of children has been accomplished by trannies that doesn’t mean that all trannies are psychopathic mass murderers. I have no doubt that while all trannies are psychopathic that many of them are not mass murderers of children. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in this way. With that stipulation in mind we note;

1.) The Mayor of Minneapolis is asking us not to villainize the trans community. This is a request that is easily yielded to if only because there is no needed effort on anybody’s part to villainize the trannie community given that they have already villainized themselves as being aberrant beyond all naming. Keep in mind these are people, who, at some level really believe that they were born misgendered and who then insist on everybody else they meet take seriously their insistence that while born “Robert” they are indeed really “Robin.” More than that, they are intent on villainizing everyone one else around them who observes that they aren’t right in the head. In point of fact, if one says that such people “are not right in the head,” the trannie community may well be so “hurt” that they decide to take a few weapons to the local Christian school in order to wreak revenge on such a hurtful society that tells people who aren’t right in the head that they are not right in the head.

2.) Mayor Frey says that anybody who villainizes those who have villainized themselves have lost their “common humanity.” Common humanity? What common humanity exists between people who have cut their breasts off followed by taking large amounts of testosterone and people who believe that is a sign of mental illness? What common humanity exists between people who have removed their penis thus remodeling their genitals so that they have a pretend vagina and people who believe that such behavior should mean that said person should not be allowed in the general population? We are asking Mayor Frey here whether common humanity can exist as between the sane and the insane?

3.) Mayor Frey insists that we should not be operating out of a place of hate for anyone but clearly Mayor Frey hates those who are “villainizing” those who suggest that the question of a common humanity between the sane and the insane is a open subject for conversation. Why does Mayor Frey believe that he can operate out of a place of hate as against those who disagree with him and everyone else cannot operate out of a place of hate? The idea that we should not hate anyone is just another sign of insanity. Frey himself, by uttering such nonsense, is demonstrating that he himself may not be all there. Of course we operate out of a place of hate for all kinds of people. I operate out of a place of hate for people who want to destroy Christianity. I operate out of a place of hate for people want to flood the country with the alien and the stranger. I operate out of a place of hate for Mayors who insist that operating out of a place of hate is automatically ignoble. Because I love my faith, I love my people, I love safe communities I operate out of a place of hate against all that opposes what I love. Sane people routinely operate in just such a fashion. Hate is just the opposite movement that flows from a love for something particular. Nobody loves more than the person who hates what opposes what they love. Someone tell Mayor Frey that Scripture even teaches to “hate that which is evil and cling to that which is good.”

4.) The “love for our children” that Mayor Frey enjoins means protecting them from a culture and Mayors who are more concerned for the reputation of a self-villainizing insane community of sexual degenerates than they are for the safety and well being of children, the Christian faith, and schools.

5.) While I know that this shooting did not happen at a public school, allow me to remind people that they can’t shoot your children if they are not at schools (public or private). Especially as it relates to public schools (and that is where most of these mass shootings happen) if you love your child you will do all you can to get them out of these public schools. Even if your child doesn’t find themselves in the middle of the OK Corral shoot em up your child is in danger by being in government schools. The things that your children are being taught in public schools quite possibly may lead them to decide that they were misgendered at birth.

Kevin DeYoung’s Attempt To Institutionalize Polytheism In The Westminster Confession

There has been a debate that has arisen in “conservative” “Presbyterian” circles that finds a certain party in these denominations insisting that their founding revised 1788 American Westminster Confession of faith (WCF) was a repudiation of the 1646 Original WCF on the matter of how the Civil Magistrate is related to the claims of Biblical Christianity. The argument being advanced by Judas Goats like Kevin DeYoung is that in 1788 American Presbyterians had become recalcitrant in extending Establishmentarian religious authority to the state and consequently drafted a “revision” that had “more robust notions of religious liberty,” than what had previously existed in the original WCF. In the mind of the Quislings like DeYoung the American adaptation represent movement of the Reformed from historically Reformed position to a more Anabaptist/Libertarian understanding on the subject of Magistrates. DeYoung’s position putatively allows for more religious toleration. More religious toleration is, by definition, less religious toleration for those whose religion teaches that Christ and His Word is to be King over the civil Magistrate and that the Civil Magistrate is to be a “Nursing father to the Christian Church (Isaiah 49:23).”

We see here then that DeYoung and his pirate crew is not really pursuing a course that leads to an expanding of religious toleration but rather DeYoung and his pirate crew is pursuing a course that diminishes toleration for Biblical Christianity, with its claim that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that all Kings must submit to Him. That DeYoung is on such a course is seen in his own words;

“As new debates about the proper relationship between church and state continue to multiply, it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”

Dr. Kevin DeYoung
Presbyterian “Minister”

In DeYoung’s pursuit of revising the 23:3 WCF revision so that it is interpreted in a more Anabaptist/polytheistic fashion DeYoung is staking out the territory that disallows 23:3 to be read in such a way wherein the civil Magistrate is to be uniquely committed to upholding the first table of the law, while requiring the Magistrate to be more of a Pontifex Maximus putatively representing the interests of all the religions in the Republic. Of course we know that such a Pontifex Maximus doesn’t really represent the interest of all religions in the Republic because such a Magistrate could not represent the religion that said all the religions in the Republic except Christianity must, in light of the 1st commandment, be abominated by the Christian Magistrate.

One humorous aspect of this debate is that the American WCF, even as revised in 23:3 clearly still supports Christian Magistrates as we see in the Westminster Larger Catechism 191 where the Catechism answers “What does thy Kingdom come mean,” answering, in part with the statement that, “the church be … countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” My friends, the Christian church can not be countenanced and maintained by the Christian civil magistrate if he, at the same time, is countenancing and maintaining all other pagan religions, for to countenance and maintain a pagan religion would be at the same time to discountenance and pull down the Christian church. Caesar can not serve two or more masters.

Pertaining to the WLC the above is not all. Previously, in teaching on the 5th commandment the WLC states that our superiors include not only “father and mother” but also those superiors as located in church and commonwealth, and then goes on to teach that all these superiors must provide “all things necessary for body and soul (Q. 124, 129).” This must as a shock to Rev. DeYoung, to think that the Magistrate must, as in their defined role as Magistrate, provide all things necessary for the soul, since for DeYoung the Magistrate is to be the Polytheistic Pontifex Maximus.

If humor is part of the landscape for this discussion nobody did a better stand up routine then when R2K guru, R. Scott Clark — he of “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” fame — recently offered on X that DeYoung is correct about the WCF being a complete revision of the WCF 1646 in an anti-Establishmentarian direction and that the inconsistencies of the WCF with the WLC could be explained by the fact that the Americans in 1788 just forgot to go ahead and change the WLC so as to be consistent with the 1788 WCF change. As we all know … remembering details can be a tricky thing.

Of course all this is being driven by the push in Reformed circles, since the days of Meredith Kline, to turn the Reformed faith into a R2K playground. Increasingly the Seminaries are embracing R2K and this sudden pursuit to officially change the WCF, in a Anabaptist/Libertarian direction, is just one more expression of Radical Two Kingdom “theology.” By insisting that the Magistrate has no obligation to the Christian church to be unto the Christian church a uniquely nursing father, R2K succeeds in their ongoing attempt to make all of life, in the words of D. G. Hart, a hyphenated life. If DeYoung’s effort succeeds to reinterpret 23:3 of the WCF the result will be an even more retreatist Christianity. Reformed Christianity will more and more be a religion that belongs to the catacombs. If DeYoung is successful Christianity will increasingly retreat from the public square.

DeYoung’s Christianity is the Christianity cherished by every polytheist in the public square. If Michael Servetus were alive today he might have taken DeYoung’s methodology to make room for his Socinianism in Geneva. The Mooselimbs, Talmudists, Hindus, etc. in America are all cheering on Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s attempt to officially strip the WCF of any notion that it might support Christian Nationalism. After all, if the 1646 WCF is correct then, by necessity Christian Nationalism is true. If Christian Magistrates are required by the WCF then of course that can not be apart from a Christian nation.

We should end by noting what a nation looks like if Dr. Rev. Kevin DeYoung gets his way. Such a nation would by definition have to be polytheistic. The kind of pluralism that DeYoung envisions cannot exist apart from the religious polytheism that drives political/sociological pluralism. It is an odd position to take when we are increasingly seeing what pluralism looks like in these united States. For example, recently in Minneapolis, a city ordinance was passed that allows for the public Mooslimb call to prayer 5 times a day regardless of the time that the call to prayer is required. Another example is found in Dearborn, Michigan where the Mooselimb Mayor hired a Mooselimb Chief of police who has recently arrested a non-Mooselimb for posting something on social media that was foolishly threatening in a vague manner Mooselimbs who were marching in Dearborn shouting “Death to America.” Another example of the implications of Rev. Dr. DeYoung’s heretical war against the 1st commandment would be the requirement of a state to allow Baphomet statues in state capitals such as was the case in Iowa in 2023. In Rev. Dr. DeYoung’s world such realities would not only have to be tolerated by Christians but they would also have to be applauded as part of the doctrinal foundation upon which Christianity is based.

If Benedict Arnolds like Kevin DeYoung are successful there will be no public roadblock to blasphemies of every shape and size. DeYoung’s views institutionalize Polytheism in the Westminster Confession and institutionalize polytheism in formerly Christian America. It is one more nail in the coffin of any notion of Christendom.

Keep in mind that Kevin DeYoung is the chap who is heading up the committee in the PCA taking up the subject of Christian Nationalism. Given this “man’s” views what do you think that PCA committee is going to produce as it speaks to the issue of Christian Nationalism?

McAtee Contra Justice On His Rant Against Presuppositionalism/Biblicism/Theonomy I

“but to the extent that it (Presuppositionalism/Biblicism) has replaced or removed rational argument and empirical observations, to the extent that it has eviscerated the category and utility of common notions, to the extent that it has functionally displaced or even, for some, denigrated the place of nature and natural law and natural theology, and, to the extent that all of this is embraced by professing Christians as an unassailable bulwark of “biblical” intellectual potency, it is not to be commended but to be condemned as an utter usurper.”

Mr. Cody Justice
American Mantle.

You know I’ve tried to play nice with this Natural Law crowd but they keep digging at Presuppositionalism, Biblicism, and Theonomy and as a result there is nothing left to do but to continue to do what we have done here before and that is to repudiate their accusations. I will have to say though, that it was brave of them some time ago to have Rev. David Reece debate Dr. Stephen Wolfe on the issue of Natural Law vs. Presuppositionalism /Biblicism. I highly recommend this debate because, while collegial and congenial, frankly David Reece bested Dr. Wolfe in this debate. It wasn’t even close. I suspect that Reece or any other Theonomist will not be asked back again to debate Dr. Wolfe on this subject.

As to the above quote;

1.) Presuppositionalism/Biblicism (hereafter P/B) has never sought to replace or remove rational argument and empirical observations. A read of the small book by Thom Notaro, titled, “Van Til’s Use Of Evidence” puts such calumny to death and reveals a profound misunderstanding on Mr. Justice’s part on P/B. This accusation rests on the old canard, long disproven, that P/B = Fideism. The P/B advocate is no more or less Fideistic than Mr. Justice or any other Natural Law warrior. The only difference is that Mr. Justice has a fideistic faith that presupposes man as man’s own beginning point while P/B fideistic faith that presupposes God as man’s beginning point. Both then use rational argument and empirical observation that winds out of those beginning points.

2.) Now, quite to the chagrin of Mr. Justice, we have to ask by what standard do we arrive at his idea of “common notions?” Common notions by what standard? Already here in Michigan I can hear the wailing of Mr. Justice and his gnashing of teeth because in the article that this above snippet is from grinds against the question of “by what standard.” It stands to reason that Mr. Justice would grind over this because that question puts the end to the whole notion of Natural Law. Now, I am not denying that Natural Law exists but, unlike Mr. Justice, I believe that fallen man’s mind is at enmity with God. I also believe in the Reformed doctrine called “Total Depravity.” Finally, I believe because the mind of fallen man is at enmity with God, thus revealing the truth of a total depravity that affected the whole man (including his intellect – sans Aquinas) yielding the truth found in Scripture that fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. In the face of all these long accepted Reformed doctrines (Total Depravity, Noetic effects of the fall, A suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness) Mr. Justice and the Natural Law fanboys continue to thump for Aristotelian Natural Law theories.

In pursuit of clarity, I do not deny that all ground is common ground but I do deny that any ground is neutral ground. All ground is common ground because it is God’s ground and that never changes. However, all ground is not neutral ground because fallen man denies the fact that the ground is common ground because it belongs to God. The fallen man is seeking to usurp God’s claim and so suppresses the truth of what he can’t evade knowing. Hence, the idea of common notions is turkey offal.

3.) In light of all this we must ask Mr. Justice… “Who is the usurper?” It is true that the P/B has long usurped the Aristotle / Aquinas tradition but it is they who usurped Scripture. So, despite Mr. Justice’s cavailing we will continue to be glad to play the usurpers, to his tradition of usurping. I am glad to match Mr. Justice’s condemning of P/B by consigning to the depths of utter hell the whole idea of Natural Law/ Natural theology as it comes to us from the hand of Aquinas and Aristotle. It was one of those areas where the Reformation still had Reforming to do once it picked it up to “advance” the cause of Reformation.

4.) Just to be clear here … I do, as a advocate of P/B denigrate the place of nature and natural law and natural theology. I do so proudly and with all the cheekiness I can generate. It is an abomination. It is a blemish on the Reformed tradition and you can imagine the delight that I find in the fact that both R2k and this Wolfe Natural Law school both appeal to this same Natural Law to come to conclusions that are 180 degrees different. Where now your Natural Law Mr. Justice that is so obvious to be understood that we find Christian Ph.D’s at each other’s throats regarding how it should be interpreted?

5.) Mr. Justice assails P/B but, alas, his assailing is like so many BB’s off a battleship. Both Van Til and Gordon H. Clark refuted over and over again this whole Natural Law stand up comic routine. Their arguments remain as valid and cogent now as they were when they first made them. If people want to read a quick rebuttal I would recommend, Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, “The Bible, Natural Theology, And Natural Law; Conflict or Compromise?”

Are Our Meaning Problems Derivative of Darwin … or Derivative of Franz Boas? Wilson’s Errant Analysis

In a recent clip Doug Wilson effectively demolishes Russell Moore’s belly aching about Wilson. There is plenty to belly ache about Wilson but all of what Moore was belly-aching about is exactly the opposite of what the problems with Wilson are. Moore was critiquing Wilson from the Cultural Marxist non-Christian Left. My problems with Wilson are from the Dissident Christian right. Still, how can I not rejoice whenever the right side of the left (Doug Wilson) demolishes the left side of the left (Russell Moore)?

So, a tip of the cap and three “Huzzahs” for Doug here!

(10:23-10:43)

There was a major insight though from Wilson as he aptly and ablely picked apart Moore. Wilson said, in the course of his righteous screed against Russell Moore, that where we, as a culture, are at is “All downstream of Darwin.”

Now, that is a major analysis error on Wilson’s part. It demonstrates that he doesn’t really know the times. Indeed, because of this analysis we can begin to locate why Wilson is so often wrong the way he is. It is absolutely false that where we are at as a culture is all downstream of Darwin. In point of fact, the person we are all downstream of held the exact opposite views of Darwin. I would insist that where we’re now is “all downstream of Franz Boas.”

Franz Boas was the anti-Darwinists of his age and perhaps is one of the least known persons today whose thinking has had monumental impact on our current zeitgeist. Boas abominated Darwin and it is Boas’ worldview that has gained the ascendency. Boas was a cultural anthropologist who argued against Darwin’s “biological determinism,” opting instead for a cultural relativism that allowed for an egalitarian view of all cultures. Further, Boas argued against Darwin’s “scientific racism” by emphasizing nurture over Darwin’s nature argument.

This inability of Wilson’s to see that the battle we are now fighting in the West is not against Darwinism so much as it is against Boasianism explains a good deal about some of the things that Wilson says about race and culture.

The significance of this error on Wilson’s part is monumental.

Now, certainly there remains a good deal of Darwinism extant. It’s not as if Darwinism has gone away. However, the real fight in the trenches is not with Darwinism but is with the exact opposite mirror error of Boasianism. The lost of meaning that we are suffering from as a culture has more to do with the success of (((Franz Boas))) worldview winning out than it has to do with Darwin’s worldview winning out.