Culture – Page 24

Apologetics At The Midland Daily News

From a online op-ed piece in the Midland Daily News

“After months of work, a report was issued that can be viewed at the Midland Area Community Foundation website. Among the nine Key Performance Areas was this statement on Diversity. “Midland County is committed to equality and inclusion and welcomes, embraces and accepts all people.”

All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Bret observes,

This statement is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture that is opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise by this Midland Michigan group to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians since Christians come from a culture and heritage that oppose perverted sexual orientation and disordered gender identity.

This press release is an example of typical Cultural Marxist agenda masking. In the name of tolerance Christian ethics and mores will be discriminated against.

After posting this on the Midland page a sortie of wingnuts came flying at me,

Lawrence Perry ·

Your Christian heritage is not very old. It’s only about 2,000 years old. It’s not even a blink of an eye, as far as human history is concerned. Christianity is based on belief and not evidence. In other words, your Christian heritage and culture doesn’t pass the smell test.
Bret L. McAtee

That statement is ignorance on stilts Mr. Perry.Christianity has been around since God’s creation. That the Jews abandoned the flowering of their faith when Christ arrived means that Judaism as distinct from Christianity is only 2000 years old. Christianity was the expression of the OT faith come into its own.

Secondly, you are operating with a definition of faith that is existential and not Biblical. The evidence for Christianity is everywhere and the Christian faith is based upon evidence that is far more securely present then exists in scientism or any other religious worldview. In point of fact Christianity is the ONLY religion that has evidence since even the very word “evidence” itself only finds true meaning as existing in a Christian worldview.

Of course I would not expect a pagan Cultural Marxist to say that Christianity does not pass the smell test. What will you tell me next? That nothing supernatural is true?

I’m shocked … shocked I tell you that a Christ hater would say such a thing. LOL.

Next, how old does a belief have to be before it’s credible? Following your “thinking,” the neo-notions of “sodomite rights” and “sodomite marriage” don’t merit even the slightest consideration since they are completely novel ideas in the history of the West. But since you’ve made age the determining factor, then you are obliged to tell us the magic number at which an idea becomes legitimate.

And as for your cherished “smell test,” I should think sodomites should be slow about complaining about smell tests give their predilection of playing in the sewer.

Christianity’s age has nothing to do with whether Christians should be able to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed protections of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom if association.

Lori Marshall Franson ·

Mr. McAtee

Cultural Marxism is bantied around a lot on White Nationalist blogs/publications i.e. Alternative Right, etc. It’s code word for cultural commie-one who opposes discrimination of a targeted population like gays.
Bret L. McAtee

Lori Marshall FransonMore nonsense. Whole books have been written on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfort School from across the ideological spectrum. This is just more special pleading by a Cultural Marxist to dismiss the very weighty criticisms against the school promulgating perversion.

Lori Marshall Franson
Better luck next time, Rev. Reframing the enemy: “Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of “cultural Marxism” are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of “Marxism” that took aim at American society’s culture, rather than its economic system.

The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called “Frankfurt School” of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, “family values,” and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.”

The SPLC supports my position.
Bret L. McAtee
Miss LoriThe SPLC is the largest officially sanctioned hate group in America.

A few books that I’ve read that clearly spell out the origins and return to ancient paganism that Cultural Marxism represents,

http://www.amazon.com/Menace-Multiculturalism-Trojan-America-Literature/dp/0275955982/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724111&sr=1-4&keywords=Alvin+J.+Schmidt

http://www.amazon.com/cry-havoc-ralph-toledano/dp/B000MOMNQ8

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dialectical-Imagination-Frankfurt-Institute/dp/0520204239/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=108J45THR2H09F6A6QK5

http://www.amazon.com/Selections-Prison-Notebooks-Antonio-Gramsci/dp/071780397X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724335&sr=1-1&keywords=gramsci+prison+notebooks

http://www.amazon.com/socialist-phenomenon-I-R-Shafarevich/dp/0060140178/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724371&sr=1-1&keywords=the+socialist+phenomenon

http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Eschatology-Francis-Nigel-Lee/dp/B000O2RRP0/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427724413&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=Francis+Nigel+Lee+eschatology+communism

Indeed any familiarity at all with the basics of communism and how the Gramsci school altered the classic Communist trajectory slightly will reveal that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than Marxist-Leninist thinking as applied beyond economics to culture.

You’re simply either wrong or ignorant about the History Mis Lori, or failing that you are merely a cultural Marxist shill. Either way you are certainly gravely mistaken.

Jeff Liebmann Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

So to Bret and Rebekah and others, let’s try for moment and stay on topic without bringing in global conspiracies. 100 of the leaders of the County (go to the web site to see the list – this is not in any way a liberal-leaning group – it is mostly business owners) articulated quite clearly the values of our community. Our Representative Gary Glenn seems to disagree and, on top of that, does not care. Marxism and Illuminati aside, the point here is the articulation of our communities’ values and the failure of a politician supposedly committed to them to engage in dialog with his constituents.

Bret L. McAtee

So … to Jeff Liebmann and others,Let’s try to keep in mind that it is the truth we are after and not pooled ignorance … no, not even the pooled ignorance of the sodomite or businessman community or Unitarian Universalist clergy community. For one thing, many businessmen only care for the dollar. Any historic or Biblical ethic that threatens the dollar will find the businessman dumping the ethic in favor of the God almighty dollar.

The fact that they are supporting your anti-Christ agenda “Rev.” Liebman is proof positive that this is a Liberal (Cultural Marxist) group, or at the very least, useful idiots serving the cultural Marxist agenda. (Which, I’m fairly certain describes the Unitarian Universalist clergy community as well since the Leftist Clergy for Decades have been carrying water for the Marxist agenda. See C. Gregg Singers “The Unholy Alliance.”)

If the Midland community really does value the stripping of Christians of their constitutional standing then that community desperately needs to re-think their “no-value” values.

Gary Glenn was just recently elected by a majority vote. That reality indicates he is listening just fine to his constituents. You’re just bleating because he convincingly defeated you in the last election cycle.

I beg of your Mr. Liebmann. Think of your own soul and the coming judgment day. Please repent.

Jeff Liebmann

Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

I see. So no matter how many community leaders are involved and regardless of who they are, if they disagree with you then they are sodomites and anti-Christ. Perhaps you would like to take that up with Wallace Howard Mayton of Memorial Presbyterian Church who also served on the group. Or Ed Doerr of the Messiah Lutheran Church.

Bret L. McAtee ·

Jeff … one doesn’t come to truth by counting noses. Not even Liberal clergy noses.

Jeff Liebmann

Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

Oh please, please call Messiah Lutheran and tell Ed that he is a liberal clergy. Before you type another word, you really owe it to yourself to learn how absurd that statement is.

Bret L. McAtee

Jeff,Anybody who accepts this idea is, prima facie, LIBERAL. It is a liberal position that is contrary to God’s word which condemns sodomy repeatedly throughout the Scriptures. (Scripture … remember those? God’s authoritative word and all that?)

Now, all because they are not as far left as you are doesn’t mean they are not left. Come on Jeff … you can not possibly be this dense.

Lori Marshall Franson

Rev McAtee: Thanks for the resources. You may want to alert the FBI about the Southern Poverty Law Center, an outreach partner of the FBI on dangerous hate groups.

Bret L. McAtee

LOL … you find it surprising that our Marxist government is in bed with the Marxist Hate group SPLC? Our Federal Government’s incompetency is so legendary that for them to align themselves with anybody hints at the fact that there is a serious problem with those they are aligned.

Jeff Liebmann

Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

Contrary to YOUR interpretation of YOUR god’s word. America is not a theocracy, even if you would like it to be so. I shudder to think what denomination you affiliate with if you consider a Missouri Synod Lutheran minister liberal. Perhaps you would care to share.

Bret L. McAtee

America is a Theocracy Jeff. All governments are. Every single one. The name of America’s God is “Demos” and He rules with an iron fist. His law is legal positivism.Do keep up friend Jeff.

And Liberals exist in every denomination Jeff. A minister’s position in supporting sodomy is proof the man is Liberal. God condemns sodomy repeatedly.

The good news is that upon repentance and leaving sodomy God in Christ will forgive and restore them.

Jeff Liebmann Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

If it helps you sleep at night, good for you. But willful ignorance does not equal truth.

Bret L. McAtee

Says the man who ignores God’s clear revelation on this matter.

Lori Marshall Franson

Rev McAtee: You seem awfully focused on sodomy, sir. Do you equally focus on gluttony and the lack of males having beards? In short, I think you cherry pick what you want from the Bible and use it to justify your desires to discriminate against others and weave conspiracies, which is your right to the point where your views adversely affect others in this wonderful melting pot of a country without a National Religion.I cannot help but wonder what branding you would like those who are gay to have to alert others who share your views so they can refuse them service in restaurants, stores, etc.

I sure don’t see you sharing any of the Good News regarding the gospel on here for anyone nor do I recognize you as a spokesman for all Christians. Things such as arrogance, pride, a haughty spirit, bearing false witness/ lies, and sowing discord amongst brethren escapes your writings and message as a Reverend on here. I like to look at the fruits one bears before following them. On that note, I think I’ll listen to the Austin City Lounge Lizards, “Jesus Loves Me but He can’t Stand You”. Good day, sir.

Bret L. McAtee

Lori Marshall Franson,Typical Liberal response.

The article is what focused on sodomy Maam. See this quote here,

“All people. That includes a commitment to not discriminate against anyone based on their heritage or culture, their physical attributes or their station in society. And in our group discussions, it also specifically included a commitment to welcome, embrace and accept anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Did you somehow miss that detail? As such I’m merely responding to the articles focus by keeping the focus where the article places it.

And as I said initially, this is really an article dedicated to discriminating Christians. I said that here,

“This is ridiculous. In this statement is the promise to discriminate against those who have a Christian heritage and / or come from a Christian culture or have a Christian Heritage that are opposed to sodomy, transgender, lesbianism, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. So the promise to not discriminate against anyone (Necrophiliacs for example) is a promise to discriminate against Christians. “

You folks are the one forcing your paganistic religion on those who disagree with you. Typical Liberal “freedom. Liberals don’t care what you do, so long as they can use to State to make it compulsory.

In terms of gluttony

1.) Unlike sodomy Scripture while labeling gluttony as a “sin” nowhere designates it as a crime.

2.) You can be sure when organizations arise insisting that I must accept the gluttonous as “normal” and must give them special civil rights I will respond similarly. However, it is simply the case that the sodomy issue is front and center because you Cultural Marxists who love Government power are trying to force Christians to accept your perversion as normal.

You so foolishly talk about “branding,” and yet what the Cultural Marxists are seeking to do is to jam Christians into the closet that the Liberals have the sodomites coming out of. You pretend you’re so “broad-minded,” but face it … you hate Biblical Christians, want to strip them of their constitutional gurantees and want them to shut up. As we’ve seen here you want to give sodomites Constitutional special consideration while stripping Christians of our Constitutional free speech, freedom of associations, and other Constitutional protections.

In terms of your final paragraph of pique … Whatever (shrug).

Lori Marshall Franson

I understand that. My question was whether you equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards (might want to realize that picture of you is posted). Sir, I am not gay. I happened to stumble across your kind and the fruits bared when I was caring for those dying of AIDS at the bedside in the 1980s. I don’t hate you, sir, so you won’t have to play that victim card. I think Christians ought to remember the teachings of Christ, such as loving one’s neighbor. I also think you need to keep talking, it is what demonstrates that fruit I was speaking about earlier and there is some interpretation about what a “biblical” Christian is. I certainly don’t want you or your ilk legally being able to discriminate against others. You know, I don’t recall Christ hanging around with the sanctimonious. Until you are without sin , you can keep those stones for your rock garden.

Bret L. McAtee

Lori Marshall FransonHow much more plainly can I put things? I don’t equally focus on gluttony or males not having beards because gluttons or males not having beards are not demanding the special constitutional privileges that sodomites are demanding. Though, you can be sure I have written on assorted sins including gluttony. When gluttons start insisting on special constitutional privileges you can be sure I will zero in on that. You are firing blanks when you keep trying to make this association.

I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when I am wrong. I do not try to say that my sins are not sins, which is exactly what the sodomite and their “friends” who champion their cause do. When is the last time you called upon someone besides someone you perceive to be a glutton to repent? The fact is that it is not my putative gluttony that makes you so self righteous but rather my pointing out to you over and over again how utterly silly your reasoning is.

And the point of fact is you are a hater. You hate God by being in favor and trying to normalize what He is opposed to. You are a victimizer in the worst sense. You victimize those you say you love by suggesting that their aberrant behavior is good.Thank you for the reminder to love one’s neighbor. You might want to learn that love is not defined however Lori wants it defined. Here you are hating on the perverts by telling them that which terribly shortens their expected life span is acceptable. You call that love? By all that is Holy, please do not ever practice your love on me.

And remember Lori … you are the one advocating that discrimination against Christians and their heritage and culture should be acceptable. You are the hater here Lori.

Lori Marshall FransonNo sir, you have that backwards; however, I’m not surprised at the cognitive incongruence and projection. It is you who are demonstrating hatred. Hatred toward your fellow man by wanting gays to be categorized as subhuman and discriminated against under the cloak of religious freedom. I think some in the South used that argument to deny service to those who are African Americans. The lifespans of those who are homosexual are related to a variety of factors such as failure to get screened for illness secondary to stigma, access to healthcare disparities, whether one is monogamous, nutritional status, socioeconomic factors, etc. Quite frankly, I’m more concerned about the number of children unvaccinated in your congregation against vaccine preventable infectious diseases since you are clearly so paranoid and conspiracy driven . Since you’ve been mentioning perverts, I feel it only fair to let you know that I consider those of your yoke to pervert Christianity- If it were up to me, you’d be required to work a soup kitchen in Haight Ashbury to gain some humanity, humility, mercy, and perspective. Might want to eliminate the part about me hating God, sir. You do not have the capacity to define Hate or define anything related to God. In short, I think you’re a charlatan . Again, use those stones for your rock garden, sir.

Bret L. McAtee

LOL … see, another example of Lori, the cultural Marxist wanting to use the government to force people to vaccinate their children when tons of evidence exist that vaccines are toxic.And it will do no good for me to work soup kitchens in Haight Ashbury since I’ve already worked them in third world countries on other continents. Have you broken sadza with the poor in the high density suburbs outside of Harare? Have you ministered to the poor and indigent in their cardboard and tin houses? Have you preached Christ crucified in their hut Churches while chicken and other livestock milled about the Church?

Don’t pretend to preach to me about your nobility while assuming the absolute worse about me. I know that upsets your precious paradigm. Have you sat with the indigent dying in the hospital while they die of cancer? Have you sat with and sought to comfort the teen parents whose babies have died of terrible diseases? You don’t know what you’re talking about (again) when you hint that I’ve been born with some kind of silver spoon in my mouth. I’ve been there and done that and I tell you again that you are a hater of these people by your refusal to champion God’s authoritative word.

See … you just continue to exhibit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You keep making these huge leaps and they are supported by exactly nothing.

You complain about rock throwing and yet you and your ilk are the ones who started casting the rocks. You cast rocks at those who upheld a Western Civilization and Biblical ethic. You cast stones at those who took up the cause of the unborn. You are a rock thrower extraordinaire and yet in true terrorist fashion you seek to escape your rock throwing by wheeling upon me and pointing and screaming “ROCK-THROWER,” in order to throw the scent off of your own culpability in casting stones.

R. J. Rushdoony Contra The Chalcedon & North / McDurmon Makeover — Kinism

Lesser Known and publicized quotes by RJR on the subject of egalitarianism that is now supported by Institutional Reconstructionism.

RJR speaking against proposed reparations in 1967. He is protesting in this statement and is being sarcastic.

“In other words, white America must pay a heavy tax for some time to come because of ITS INITIATIVE AND SUPERIORITY.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 615

“In any case, the goal is, whether directly or slowly, total destruction of Christian civilization. Some have called for … a long period of chaos and revolution, of anarchy, RACIAL AMALGAMATION, and the total destruction of civilization.

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg, 618

“The demand of humanism (and of its child, socialism) is for a universal ethics. In universal ethics we are told that, even as the family gave way to the tribe, and the tribe to the nation, so the nation must give way to a one-world order. All men must treat all other men equally. Partiality to our family, nation, or race, represents a lower morality, we are told, and must be replaced by a ‘higher’ morality of a universal ethics.”

Rousas John Rushdoony
ROOTS OF RECONSTRUCTION — pg. 574

“The only logical conclusion of the present concept of civil rights is communism. It demands ‘full equality.’ And where does equality stop? Economic, political, cultural, racial, personal, and every other kind of equality is demanded….‘Full equality’ means that no differences can be tolerated with respect to race, color, creed, economics and all things else. THIS MEANS THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE VERY ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY WHO HAVE MADE OUR CIVILIZATION.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 581

Audience Member: — Is there a condoning of miscegenation in the bible or a direction against it or any remark about it?

Rushdoony Answers

Yes, the Bible requires us, and the Bible itself pays a great deal of attention to heredity and to genealogy. You have long genealogical tables because family is important. You have strict instructions given to parents, you have the prohibition for example of marriages with unbelievers, so first you have the prohibition of marriage with those who are not of the faith. Second, you have in the Mosaic law the prohibition of marriages with people who may be of the faith but represent and inferior background. There is to be in other words no integration with them even in worship. So that in the Mosaic Law some peoples were not to be included in any common congregation until the 3rd generation, in other cases the 10th generation. The 10th generation would be several centuries. Why? Because these people coming from a much lower, much inferior background genealogically, hereditary wise, it would take centuries of faith and of the standards of faith to produce genetically the same character and caliber and superior strength. So that, some people had to be kept out of the congregation till the 3rd generation, others till the 10th.

So the Bible is not at all equalitarian.Start at 31:00 minute

mark,http://chalcedon.edu/research/audio/prisoners-of-hope-2/

“St Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization… (Deut.22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?’ Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Helpmeet’ means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband.

The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association. … Cross-cultural marriages are thus normally a failure… A man can identify character within his culture, but he cannot do more than identify the general character of another culture.”

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Institutes of Biblical Law:

“Moreover, if she is to be ‘a help as before him,’ a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible.

The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet—bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh—sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.”

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Doctrine of Marriage

“Men remain feeling guilty, for a false sense of guilt has no cure save the truth, and this is not forthcoming. Since the citizens are now guilt-ridden because of their education and political indoctrination, they are more amenable to robbery, and even murder. If the white man feels guilty towards the Negro, he is less capable of defending himself against the Negroes who turn into a revolutionary rabble, bent on theft and murder. The state finds it easier to rob men when men feel guilty for what they are and have, and the state drones on and on about the needs of the poor of the nation and of the world.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Politics of Guilt and Pity – pg 46

“The U.N. position, ostensibly anti-racist, is no less racist than the most fervent champions of race in history. Indeed, the liberal, religion of humanity faith is simply a form of racism. There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself a mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. For both positions, racial membership is the test, the ticket of admission and the guarantee of status. Against this expanded or liberal form of racism, as against all forms of racism, orthodox Christianity enters a dissent. For the Christian, character, born of faith, is the test of man, not a particular race or the human race. Racial differences are recognized as real and as God-given, but the determinative fact concerning man is his relationship to God, not the fact of his humanity. This is the Biblical position; it is also the position which makes for progress by emphasizing quality. Quality is sought out and emulated. A people, discriminated against at one time, by emulation advance themselves, as witness the Irish in America. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the Christian faith and detrimental to man.

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Nature of the American System, p. 142

“Man is now defined as humanity rather than the individual, and this great one, humanity, to be truly a unity, must exist as one state. In this picture, any assertion of individuality, local or national independence, or the reality of races, is viewed with hostility and as a sign of mental sickness; it is an assertion of plurality which challenges the reality and unity of the universal.“

R.J. Rushdoony
The One and the Many, p.17

“That phrase (Judeo-Christian) should be anathema to any conservative Christian, because “Judeo-Christian heritage” involves a contradiction in terms. The Judaic heritage is Phariseeism. And this we have no part of. Nor can we ever subscribe to it. Whenever you have such a phrase, you have Modernism or ignorance. You have social gospel which is a form of Phariseeism. And no Christian should use this phrase.

The phrase “Hebrew-Christian Heritage” is acceptable. But when you say “Christian” you are talking about the Old and New Testament. So you don’t need to have a prefix. But Christian heritage, or the Biblical heritage is sufficient. But “Judeo-Christian” is nonsense. It is comparable to the expression “Christian Atheism” which is beginning to pop up. I was using that term a year ago to express the idea of contradiction, but I find now articles written about “Christian Atheism”. There’s nothing impossible with some people now a days.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Audio

Rushdoony cites,

‘This is George Crocker’s column for May 22, in the Examiner – Sunday Examiner. Once a week his columns appear.”

~ Rushdoony Quoting From and Reading George Crocker’s column,

Prejudice? Not at all. Why some of my best friends are liberals. I mean they talk liberalism. I mean I am invited to dinner parties at which charming people certify their own credentials as liberals. This is done by dropping into the conversations the stock cliches about ghettos and by going on record in favor of forced integration of public schools and residential areas. There was a gentleman sipping at cocktails munching on hors d’oeuvres as he expounded on the need to close the cultural gap. Integrated housing was the answer he thought. If different races live in the same block or apartment house they will observe how others deport themselves and all (indecipherable) will tend to disappear.

“You have a good idea there,” I said. “Think of all the people who could benefit by watching you and your family deport yourself. What a shame that your home is tucked away in Hillsboro. Now, Bill, I nominate you to lead the way.”

He glared at me as if I had struck a low blow.

There was the lady at my right at dinner who spent the entire salad course telling me about an article she had read. The author, a sociologist, had explained why defacto segregation in the schools must cease. In a mixed classroom the less bright children are stimulated by the bright ones but the latter are not slowed down at all. “The culturally deprived ones” (it was her term not mine) “acquire better habits while emulating the ones from better homes but the latter are not led into worse habits by associating every day with the farmer. Psychology has discovered this,” she informed me.

“Yes … yes,” I said. “I am familiar with the theory.”

She was chewing a piece of Belgian endive. My tone seemed to disconcert her.
The tempo of chewing decelerated…. then stopped. “Do you dispute it”, she asked.

“Tell me”, I replied, “don’t you think the theory should be tested by the people who advocate them and not by people who don’t believe in them?”

She put her fork down.

“Now I know what you’re getting at. Yes, we do send our Son to a private school. We can afford it and – well I don’t say it because I am the Mother; the Pediatrician as said it from the first, – our Son has a unusually quick mind and he should have special attention. And, well, we believe in integration and all that but ….”

“No need to explain,” I told her. “The Kennedys never do. Nor the Roosevelts, the Scrantons, the Lindseys , nor a thousand other rich liberal clans I could name.”

I was mistaken. Lindseys has been smoked out of the bushes. Last month, a heckler asked, “Why do you send your four children to private schools instead of New York public schools?” The Chairman quickly adjourned the meeting.

Last Sunday, Lindsey was ready when the question came on TV.

Because he is Mayor, he said, he wants his children to have the highest degree of privacy.

He neglected to mention that his children went to private schools before he was Mayor too.

The sociologists theory is being tested in this country but not on the children on the Lindseys or any of the wealthy liberals I know.”

-End Rushdoony’s reading of Crocker’s article-

Rushdoony comments

“Which I think is well put.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Audio

“No, there is no connection. They don’t pretend to be Biblical, they’ll just read something in order to say they’ve read the Bible. As a matter of fact, the early church was segregated. First of all, in New Testament times it was segregated between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. And there was… a good reason for that. The Jewish believers were so far superior that to integrate the two would have meant more often confusion. And when you realize that in, say the Corinthian church, they didn’t even know that fornication or adultery was a sin because in the Greek world there was nothing wrong with that. After all the chambers of commerce in Greece and Corinth and elsewhere… in Corinth the chambers of commerce maintained regularly around two thousand prostitutes for all visiting businessmen. It was a manufacturing town and so on… and no one thought there was anything immoral about that. Or about men having relations with prostitutes. This was all taken for granted. So in the Gentile churches the moral standard was pretty low. It was a lot of hard work for a couple of generations and more to bring them up to any kind of standard. Well, the Jewish congregations represented a far higher moral standard and Paul saw nothing wrong with that, nor did any other apostle. So the principle of segregation was present there from the beginning.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Audio – On Segregation

Today there are both liberals and conservatives that categorically deny that there is even such a thing as race. Now of course you and I have both encountered that. It is given the scientific respectability and a number of scientists ridicule the idea that there are such things as races. Well, some of the races of the world are championed because they insist on their integrity, and we’re told that we cannot believe in it. So it’s a very very absurd and contradictory situation.

Otto Scott: Well, it’s much like Dr. Johnson’s response to Bishop Berkeley. When Berkeley said that “Nothing material is real”. Johnson kicked a stone and said “I refute him thus”. And those who say there are no races should look around. There are obvious differences in humanity which go far beyond the verbal. It’s bigotry to even mention the existence of the White race. The term arouses suspicion. And of course to say that you’re a Christian … means that many doors automatically close and many minds close as well.”

R. J. Rushdoony & Otto Scott
Audio – On Race

“Thus it would appear from the evidence of the law that, first, a restrictive membership or citizenship was a part of the practice of Israel by law. There is evidence of a like standard in the NT church: instead of being forced into a rigid uniformity, Gentiles and Jews were free to establish their separ…ate congregations and maintain their distinctive character. Moreover, Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, makes clear that the differences in cultural heritage and stages of moral andspiritual growth made possible major conflicts in case of uniform membership. As a result, separate congregations were authorized. On the other hand, Jews were not barred from Gentile congregations, so that, while restrictive groups were valid, integrated groups were not invalid.”

~ Dr. Rushdoony,
Institutes of Biblical Law_, pps.99-100

“Identification [declaring all people identical] is used as a means of negating the particularity of the law, and of reducing it to nonsense by merging all reality into one inseparable unity. Unity, identification, is thus a substitute for law and truth by its erasure of all boundaries…

Justice then ceases to become the function of government, and identification by enforced equalization is the goal. In the Negro problem in the Southern States, the concern of federal action is less and less civil justice and more and more identification. That the Negro should have justice is certain, but compulsive identification is not justice and is actually injustice, and can obscure radically the Negro’s just claims before the law… The “freedom” which Dr. King envisions is not merely freedom from domination or discrimination but a freedom from difference. This is the heart of the matter, and in every stratum of society, there is a lust for “a freedom from difference” and a resentment against any who claim such a right…

As a result, the inevitable outcome of the practice of identification is the growth of moral detachment. Since the concept is basically anti-ethical, it culminates in an unconcern with moral issues. As yet, in the West, the Christian inheritance is responsible for an extensive hangover of moralism, at present used as a facade and justification for identification… It destroys the meaning of both particularity and universality… The particular loses meaning, in that the whole alone is real, and the whole, having no real differentiation, becomes an empty universal, and moral categories disappear in the face of moral relativism. The ultimate outcome, therefore, of identification in Western society will be, if its inherent logic triumphs, the rise of a radical inhumanity and the collapse of all true progress as total relativism takes over…

With most peoples there can and must be a separate but peaceful co-existence…

A nation bent on the world establishment of the concept of identification will operate on the premise that the goal must be unity or union and will work to that end, sacrificing itself constantly in terms of that hoped-for consummation. But a nation aware that some issues are irreconcilable, while avoiding any ungodly plunge into conflict, will recognize that there can be no compromise, and that peaceful co-existence in such instances is an illusion…

The biblical summons to holiness is thus a call to separation.

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Politics of Guilt and Pity, pp.80-86

“Paul…makes clear that mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers are forbidden. It is unequal yoking. For Paul the meaning of mixed marriages is religious. Men have often opposed marriages which bridge class barriers, i.e., the nobility and the commoners, or upper class with lower classes. Again, the mixed marriages problem is viewed racially. Paul concerns himself with neither; these he leaves to the realm of personal or historical considerations. It is religiously mixed marriages of believers with unbelievers which is forbidden as unequal yoking.”

R. J Rushdoony
Systematic Theology Vol. II pg. 971

This quote begins with a quote by historian Kenneth Stammp from his book ‘The Peculiar Institution,’ from there Rushdoony dissects Stammp’s statement.

“Today we are learning much from the natural and social sciences about the Negro’s potentialities and about the basic irrelevance of race, and we are slowly discovering the roots and meaning of human behavior. All this is of immense value to the historian when, or example, he tries to grasp the significance of the Old South’s ‘peculiar institution.’ I have assumed that the slaves were merely human beings, that innately Negroes are, after all, only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less. This gives quite a new and different meaning to the bondage of black men; it give their story a relevance to men of all races which it never seemed to have before.”

Rushdoony next unmasks the universalist abstractions propagated by Stammp that wind up undermining, in fact denying history:

“If Negroes are only ‘white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less,’ then, conversely, white men are only Negroes with white skins, nothing more, nothing less. this means that all cultural differences, hereditary predispositions, and historical traditions are irrelevant and meaningless. It means, in other words, that history is meaningless. And how can one be an historian if it is his purpose to deny history?

The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration. Elizabeth E. Hoyt has cited Dr. Simon Biesheuvel’s comparisons, a deliberately extreme contrast, to pinpoint certain cultural ideas, African and Western. From Tennyson’s Ulysses is cited ‘a typically Western expression of man’s purpose’:

To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bounds of human thought…

To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the Western stars, until I die…

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

By contrast, illustrating what Africans call Negritutde, is “the following cry from Aimee Cesaire of Martinique’:

Hurray for those who have never invented anything.
Hurray for those who have never explored anything.
Hurray for those who have never conquered anything.
But who in awe give themselves up to the essence of things.
Not intent on conquest, but playing the play of the world.

This contrast is an oversimplification, and one designed to be flattering to both races, but it does indicate the reality of racial differences. Men like Stampp would, of course, seek to negate every historical citation of differences as merely ‘cultural differences.’ The men behind the respective cultures are the same men. It is therefore held to be wrong to cite histories against any race.

A more absurd position can scarcely be imagined. If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.”

R. J. Rushdoony
20th Century Reformed Theologian
“The Biblical Philosophy of History” – pg. 88-89

“Ah, yes … uh, true, God has created the diversity of mankind and therefore each of the Christian cultures will begin with the sovereignty of God and the authority of His Word but there are areas where their particular talents and diversities will be expressed, so that, even as I, for example, have aptitudes in certain areas while a very dear friend of mine has aptitude in another area and is every bit as zealous for the Sovereignty of God as I am but when he talks in the area of sciences he loses me in about the second or third sentence. But he is applying the word of God in the context of his situation. Now that’s a little more extreme than cultures or nations, but there is no question that different peoples have different aptitudes and abilities. We tend today, just as I.Q. tests are today artificially constructed so that they will eliminate sexual differences (women will come out ahead in most fields except the two I mentioned) and racial differences because their are variations.People of one ethnic background will have marked abilities in one area and not as marked in other areas, but they don’t want to believe that there are these differences you see, therefore they try to eliminate them. Well, in a Godly culture we will consider those as blessings of God to be developed.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The New Absolutism – 44:00 minute mark.

” [The] Bible makes clear that God does not permit us to despise heredity and background. That God does not permit immediate integration of all peoples. For example, in Deuteronomy 23:2-3 the Amalekites and the Moabites were banned from the congregation to the tenth generation, because of their background and spiritual and moral degeneracy. The Edomites, verses 7-8 of Deuteronomy 23, were barred till the third generation. And yet at the same time the hatred of an Edomite was declared to be a sin in front of God.

Thus these people could not be detested, or despised or hated, but they could not be brought immediately into the congregation, they had to worship separately in some cases to the tenth generation, and others to the third generation. So that they have a background of segregated worship and of character for so many generation before they could be integrated with the Congregation of Israel. And this is a part of Gods law. “

Rousas John Rushdoony, “Tents of Shem”
http://www.pocketcollege.com/…/086%20…/RR115E10.html

Liberalism — An Introduction

Liberalism seldom comes to us in a systematic theology text book. That is likely one of the reasons that Liberalism has advanced so successfully. If Liberalism came to us as Liberalism from a theology textbook one would then be able to point to a Liberal Systematic theology textbook and say, “this is what Liberalism believes.” Instead liberalism advances by being amorphous. It seldom sets out its tenets explicitly, in a Systematic type style, knowing that doing so would mean a wider rejection of it as a belief system. In point of fact, as we shall see, Liberalism, as a belief system, is merely the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition of Porn as compared to the Communism of porn magazine, “Hustler.” Liberalism is Marlene Dietrich singing “Black Market” in a cabaret in 1920’s Berlin as compared to the Communism of Miley Cyrus singing “We Can’t Stop” on a M-TV video. Liberalism is the same thing as Communism only in smaller doses. Liberalism suffocates with a pillow while Communism suffocates with a garrote.

One point of contact between Liberalism and Communism is the insistence that man’s nature is either good or at least malleable. Unlike Christianity, which teaches that man’s nature is fallen and so man is depraved through and through, Liberalism teaches that men are born tabulae rasae, blank slates to be written upon as any narrative that a ruling elite might desire. Per J. Salwyn Shapiro in his book, “Liberalism; Its Meaning and History” Man, according to Liberalism is born ignorant, not wicked.” Liberalism, thus eschews the Christian doctrine of original sin holding instead that only the Christian doctrine of original sin could be construed as original sin. It was this view of man that the French Philosophes championed as the guillotine was employed to help men embrace their perfectibility and discover their unlimited potentiality.

From this doctrine of the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man comes the Liberal doctrine of Social Engineering, Utopia, and the inevitability of progress. If men do not suffer from the tragic consequences of original sin, so that they can only be redeemed by the work of a Transcendent God, then these plastic men with inherently good natures can be shaped and fashioned, via social engineering programs, to create a better, if indeed not perfect world. String together enough good men and eventually one will arrive at Utopia. In point of fact, the denial of Original Sin requires Liberals to believe that men can be made better and better via the work of social engineering. This faith commitment was recently demonstrated by an Obama State Department Spokesman Marie Harf in answering questions on how Muslim Terrorists need to be stopped,
“… We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.”

We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

Note here that the even Terrorists can be socially engineered out of their depraved ways. Terrorists are malleable and only need to have their environments changed in order for them to realize their inherent goodness. Terrorists are perfectible. And if terrorists are perfectible and capable of being redeemed by social engineering how much more so non terrorist Americans? Why, with Social Security, Welfare programs, and Obama-care Americans will be social engineered into a progress that will one day lead to Utopia.

The Liberal conviction of a Social Engineering that can bring us to Utopia leads us to another tenet of Liberalism and that is the conviction that man is what he is because of his environment. Liberalism, refusing to find depravity or original sin in man, instead locates depravity and original sin in man’s conditioning environment. Man, considered singularly is perfectible, inherently good, or at worse ignorant. However, the cultures and institutions that men build are rife with that depravity which explains why men don’t automatically rise to their best selves. Because sin is found in environments that so keeps individual men down, what must happen is the employing of social engineering in order to change men’s environment. The conviction of Liberals is that if the environments of men are changed so that those environments ooze out the juice of Utopia the result will be the sanctified New Liberal Man. It is environment that makes man less then what he might be and it is only a changed environment that will make men all that Liberals are convinced that man inherently is. The Liberal seldom pauses to ask how it is that inherently good men ever built such awful environments.

The Liberal conviction of the absolute necessity to Socially engineer environments that are in their view “wicked” so that the basically good men can discover and embrace their perfectibility unto the building of Utopia explains why Liberalism, when consistently pursued, ends up in the French Revolution Guillotine, The American Civil War Revolution war on civilians, The Russian Revolution Gulag Archipelago, and the American Abortuary. If cultural and institutional environments are the only thing that stands between basically good men and their socially engineered Utopias then breaking a few human eggs to arrive at a Utopian omelette is a small price to pay. So, the Jacobins tortured and killed their Catholic enemies to arrive at Utopia, Northern Transcendentalist Jacobin abolitionists tortured and killed Southerners in order to arrive at Utopia, Jewish Bolsheviks tortured and killed Christian Kulaks and Christian members of the White Army in order to arrive at Utopia and today our Jacobin Government makes provision for Jacobin Mommies to torture and kill their children to the tune of 4000 per day. From the Liberal worldview and belief system all of this is the small price that one pays in order to arrive at Utopia. None of this would have happened or would happen apart from the tenets of Liberalism, (sin in environment as fixed by Social Engineering, allowing man’s basically good nature to shine forth unto the building up of Utopia) being pursued. All of this explains why Liberalism should be thoroughly hated in any man or woman who call themselves “Christian.”

End Part 1

Part II — The Liberal tenets of Rationalism (Self-evident truths), Historical Optimism (Liberal postmillennialism) and Educationalism (Education as malleable man’s Savior).

Why is it so hard to talk about why it is so hard to talk about homosexuality — II

Continuing, in this second entry, to examine this article

seeking to respectfully point out the errant thinking, inconsistencies, contradictions, and misinformation contained therein.

When we left off last time we began to deal with the accusations of “homophobia” which Rev. Nydam said was “so present in our gay-unfriendly culture.” Rev. Nydam in the same context raises an implicit objection to patriarchy. It seems that Rev. Nydam is convinced that as a culture we value the masculine above the feminine. Rev. Nydam offers no facts to support this bald assertion. The good pastor goes on to lament how our culture condemns men with feminine traits. And yet we must keep in mind that the Scripture teaches,

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Now, perhaps the Pastor is correct in saying that we shouldn’t condemn those with feminine traits but surely given the teaching of God’s word we should meet Christian men who are overwhelmed with feminine traits with some disapproval.

We already mentioned, but it bears mentioning again, that Rev. Nydam is not up to date concerning the false narrative of the Matthew Shepherd case. In the last entry we pointed out an investigation which has been done in this case which demonstrates that Shepherd was not murdered because of his homosexuality but rather Shepherd was murdered in the context of a meth drug deal gone bad. In point of fact the man convicted for Shepherd’s murder had previously had sodomite relations with Shepherd. Like the Roe. vs. Wade false narrative from 1973, the Matthew Shepherd narrative was completely contrived in order to gain legislative sympathy for the sodomite agenda. Rev. Nydam completely missed this in his article. With this article by Rev. Nydam I have to conclude that Rev. Nydam may have a severe case of Hetero-phobia as seen by his symptomatically high egalitarian fever.

I agree with Rev. Nydam and that is the necessity to come alongside and support those Christians who are struggling with the temptation of homosexuality. I agree that we have need to confess our sin so that we do not come across as self righteous prigs to those who are genuinely struggling to put off the old man of homosexuality and put on the new man of heterosexuality or who are seeking to be celibate in the context of what they recognize as sinful appetites. At the same time we need to enter careful self-examination to make sure we are not watering down the word of the Lord Christ in order to be able to fit into the zeitgeist. We have need to name the sin of compromise with this present wicked age in order to help those who are struggling. This is a very difficult spiritual challenge.

I also agree with Rev. Nydam that we must be friendly with those who are struggling against the sin of sodomy and lesbianism. We must come alongside them and encourage them to honor our Lord Christ by remaining chaste. We must advocate for before God’s throne in prayer asking that increasingly they will be able to quit finding their identity in their sexuality and instead find their identity in Christ. We must never push away repentant people who were once LGBT but now are in Christ. We must remind them though they were once Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender they have been washed, and sanctified, and justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. By coming alongside them and encouraging them in their new identity in Christ we can together rejoice over the Grace that has delivered each one of us from our sin and misery. In just such a manner the love of God gets to them just as God intended.

So as the CRC continues in the conversation concerning pastoral ministry among those redeemed out of the LGBT lifestyle, those struggling with the sin of LGBT-ism and the sin of continuing to identify as a LGBT person even after they’ve embraced Christ how can we best prepare ourselves for this conversation? Several recommendations come to mind.

1.) As Rev. Nydam said, “we must continue our commitment, once again together, to a careful, thoughtful hearing of the biblical text. Scripture must speak to us.” This means guarding ourselves against novel readings of the Scripture that conclude what nobody in 2000 years of Church history have concluded. It’s possible that for 2000 years the Church has gotten something this significant wrong but extraordinarily unlikely. So, as Rev. Nydam offers, “we must not give in to the temptation, the exegetical error, of reading our wishes or beliefs into the text.”
2,) We must affirm a biblical definition for human sexuality. This means, in terms of marriage, that one boy goes with one girl. It also means understanding that given the way our sexuality is tied up with how we are God’s image bearers that it only makes sense that Lucifer is going to seek to overthrow God’s design at just this point. This also means that we have need to be sensitive to the fact that this kind of sinful behavior could well be a sign of God turning people over to their reprobate desires (Romans 1:18-32). Becoming more comfortable with the way God speaks about sexuality will give biblical wisdom to our responses.

3.) We need to allow the Scriptures to shape our understanding of gender roles. Scripture teaches that men are to love their wives, and wives are to submit to their husbands. Scriptures teaches that men are to lead and women are to be silent in the Church. Scripture teaches that we all have the fruit of the Spirit as that fruit demonstrates itself in the roles God has assigned to men and women.

4.) We must learn more about homosexuality in general. For example, repeated studies demonstrate that in a overwhelming percentage of cases where boys become homosexual it is due to some kind of molestation or Father-Son dysfunction in early development. If this is true then it is likely also true that people do not choose aberrant sexuality the way they might choose what flavor of ice cream to have. This is a fallen world and people can be fallen quite apart from self consciously deciding how their fallen-ness is going to manifest itself. Studies have given us very little evidence that LGBT-ism is a genetic predisposition.

5.) We must be sympathetic and empathetic. This sympathy and empathy must be for both God and His authoritative word and for those struggling with LGBT-ism. We must be tender where there is a spirit of repentance or anguish on their part. We must sincerely care about those who want to give this lifestyle up to follow Christ. Let it never be said of Christians that we added burdens of hatred upon and for those who are already bearing the terrible burden of a self-loathing because of the sin they struggle so mightily against. Let it never be said that we failed to encourage those who have been redeemed from this lifestyle to remember their identity in Christ.

6.) For those of us who have friends who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle we must continue to show ourselves kind and generous. This means having them over for a meal and making them welcome. This means taking their phone calls at midnight in order to help them past temptation.

Lift up your glass and raise up your pitcher to good Judge Roy Moore

At Iron Ink we talk a good deal about the lesser magistrate doctrine as developed by the Reformers and their descendants. This doctrine simply teaches that if Magistrates (Elected officials) at the top of the ladder go off the rails in wickedness then the Christian faith allows people to follow elected officials at a lower lever in overturning the design of wicked higher officials.

Some would contend that Alabama’s State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is just such a lesser Magistrate who is throwing off the wickedness of a lower Federal judge who has ruled that Alabama must allow sodomite and lesbian marriages. I disagree. It is my conviction that Judge Moore in this case is the higher magistrate overturning the ruling of the lesser lower Federal court judge. However, even if Judge Moore is a lesser magistrate he is still doing what is right both Constitutionally (Where does the US Constitution explicitly command that States must embrace sodomite marriage?) and according to Natural Law and according to Biblical Law.

My friends, somewhere a line has to be drawn or else we are going to discover that marriage can be defined as any combination imaginable. In this completely arbitrary definition of “marriage” that we are on the threshold off we will doubtless soon find a man, a woman who used to be a man, a man who used to be a woman, a homosexual transgender and their toaster all joined in holy wedlock.

May the Lord Christ bless Judge Roy Moore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK4PNmtTBg