Category: Culture

Catechizing Unruly Children

Fascinating that all these avatar photos of the people bigoted against Christianity are all streamed with the rainbow over their faces. Can you say “group think?”

1.) The idea of “Rights” is not a Christian concept. Christians speak of duties. Still, forcing sodomite definitions on the social order is indeed depriving people of “rights.” It is depriving them of the right to have objective definition of marriage and this “right” was taken away by tyrannical action of a wicked kind.

2.) Separation of Church and State is a myth in the way that your using it. The phrase was in none of the founding documents. Indeed, many of the States had state Churches that were supported by state governments well into the 19th century. In point of fact Church and State while distinct can never be separated and if they are separated the consequence will be the kind of conflict that we are seeing in the broader culture. This is so since both Church and State must be pinned upon the foundation of religion. If Church and State are separated and pinned on different religious foundation the result will be conflict. No two distinct religions can survive together in the same social order for long. However, what does work in order to change the overall religious foundation of a people is to chant “separation of Church and State.” This gives those who want to change the religious foundation of the State time to wreak their havoc without being interfered with by the Church.

3.) You insist that my “Christian definition of marriage doesn’t get to define the legal one.” Never mind that this has been the legal definition in the West for millennium. Still, even if we put that aside why should it be the case that the sodomite definition of marriage gets to be the legal one? Hoisted on your own petard much?
However, you have run into the fact that law is ALWAYS a reflection of some god, God and religion. Stipulating failures along the way, law as been a reflection of the Christian God in the West for centuries. Now the law is fast edging towards being a reflection of the Molech god of sodomy and the Molech god of sodomy is forcing the social order to accept its definition of marriage.

But of course you can’t see that because you have your head up the rectum of your Molech god. If you want to know what the water is like don’t ask a fish.

4.) You speak of Christians “brainwashing toddlers?” How do you think the nation went from appalled by the notion of sodomy 60 years ago to the point where stupid millennials find it perfectly acceptable? Can you say brainwashing and propaganda? Of course you can.

5.) Since Genesis 1 is the beginning of created time I’m confident that the Biblical faith has been around even before faith, despite your insistence to the contrary. (After all Adam believed before he had a wife.)

6.) Yes … Christians do have a monopoly on moral morality. Although I will conceded that pagans have a monopoly on immoral morality.

If you deny God then all that is left is the material. If all there is, is the material then morality is defined as nothing more then three wolves and two sheep voting on what is for dinner. Only Christianity can provide an objective basis for stable morality.

7.) Your spouting of Lev. 19:19 just reveals your ignorance concerning the Christian faith and does nothing to advance your cause though it does wonderfully demonstrate what a fool you are,

I will in a separate comment explain for you your error on this matter. It’s ok that you are just regurgitating something you’ve heard in the broader culture. I will unwind it for you.

8.) You don’t believe in sin and yet here you are, in essence, saying I’m sinning because I don’t believe that sodomy is a legitimate definition.

Sin is an inescapable category. If you will not have the Biblical definition of sin as provided by the Sovereign God you will merely redefine the word in order to fit your sovereign ordaining of the world.

Clearly Jeremy, you likewise are a bigot against Christ, the Christian faith and Christians.I’m all about an exchange of ideas Nik. We have been exchanging all over the place here. What you don’t like is that you’re being told you are wrong and are getting creamed in the process.

You mistake me for someone who is only interested in armchair debate. NO! I’m interested in

1.) Defending the honor of the Lord Christ against all of his enemies.

2.) converting you by dealing honestly and lovingly with your soul

3.) At the very least making the people who only read these threads without commenting think twice before they repeat your inanities.

4.) embarrassing your foolishness and exposing your childish argument.

One See’s the Strangest Things on the way to Vanity Fair

 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.



Trueman vs. Trueman

We might also throw in to the mix that he (Kuyper) did this (His work) at a time when European culture was far more sympathetic to broadly Christian concerns than that of the USA today. And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society.

Karl Trueman
14 August 2013

____________

Our task is to work hard, master the arguments (scientific, ethical, philosophical, social), understand the history of how we arrived here, defy the temptation to give up through boredom, build a coherent movement of defiance, and thereby prepare if not ourselves, then at least the next generation, for the moment when the revolution collapses under the weight of its own delusions and contradictions.

Karl Trueman
11 May 2015

_________

So, Karl would have us involved in a movement of defiance that is guaranteed to fail? After all, if Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society how can we lesser mortals hope for success?

On one hand Karl encourages us to build a coherent movement of defiance today while faulting Christians of yesteryear who themselves built movements of defiance, because in the end those movements of defiance of yesteryear failed.

I can’t keep up with Reformed “thinking” anymore. It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.  As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation  of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.

Religionsgeschichtliche School Non-Christian

http://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/04/07/heres-awesome-map-evolution-religions/

Just a word about the evolution of religion chart linked above. The whole thing presupposes a evolutionary worldview where monotheism is the result of religion evolving from the original and first religion of animism and polytheism, etc. But of course for Biblical Christians monotheism did not evolve from lower religious forms but indeed monotheism, with the God of the Bible worshiped, was the religion before the fall. Biblical Christians then hold that other religious expressions (animism, polytheism, henotheism, etc.) were a consequence of the Fall and not a beginning point from which monotheism eventually “evolved.”

Another problem with the “history of religions” school is that truth becomes relative. Believing that religion evolves means also believing that truth evolves. This introduces the idea of “process theology” where God and truth is constantly becoming, most often in conjunction with man and his interpretations (paging Hegel). The problem with this is that truth becomes relative to God’s most recent point of evolving. This plays havoc with God’s name “I am who I am,” which communicated being over becoming.

A third problem with the history of religions school ( Religionsgeschichtliche) is that it is doing theology in a anthropological fashion. It is “theology” from man to God as opposed to theology by way of God’s revelation to man. Religionsgeschichtliche thus is anthropocentric speculation on, and even creation of the character of God.