Category: Culture

Tearing Apart a Public Service Announcement Against Guns

1.) Notice the boy is white. (This will come into play later.)

2.) Notice that there is no Father in the household.

3.) Notice how this opens with the kid sneaking around on his Mother.

4.) The boy sneaks into his parents bedroom and steals from his mother. The video communicates that this is noble behavior.

5.) Every single one of his classmates are minorities.  This subliminally communicates that it is only evil white people who keep guns.

6.) The female teacher freaks out at the sight of the weapon. Gun make everyone scared.

7.) As the boy turns in the weapon he stole from his parents he says, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.” Note that for liberals feeling is always substituted for thinking.

This video is like an instruction manual on how kids can most quickly ruin their own lives and the lives of their entire families. What the video doesn’t show is the aftermath of the boy getting kicked out of school, the parents being arrested, and the boy and all his siblings being taken by Child protective services because the parents were so unsafe.

 

 

 

Celibate “Gay” Christians

Link,

Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows

The LGBT community has arrived at a trick that they’ve used to advance their agenda. It is a old trick by now but still one that is used with great effectiveness. This trick is to create a distinction between sodomite practice and sodomite inclination. The LGBT crowd will argue, for example, that that homosexual activity is sinful but the orientation is not. Typically celibate sodomites will then insist that they remain “gay Christians,” but are celibate gay Christians. For an example of this kind of reasoning, a recent Denominational annual meeting found one such person standing up and speaking to his denominational ruling structure saying, “I stand before you as a 40-year-old, single, celibate and chaste yet openly gay man … no longer willing to be silent.”

Now where the trick comes in is that it will be advanced by someone in a discussion that sodomites should be allowed to be members of the Church. Typically someone will protest the idea pointing out the appropriate scriptures. Much heat will arise and then suddenly the original agitator will trot out that when they said that “gays should be allowed to be members” they really meant that celibate sodomites who still self identify as “gay” should allowed to be members.

My conviction on this is that this taking in of celibate sodomites, as members in a Christian church, who still self identify as being “gay,” is just one more way in which the sodomite agenda is advanced. The fact that people, though celibate, still refer to themselves as “gay” is, in my estimation, an attempt to maintain the myth that people are born gay just like they are born left handed or are born black or white. There is not one whit of empirical evidence of this that is not produced by people with an agenda. If the LGBT crowd can linguistically manipulate Christians into accepting the idea that other Christians should be thought of as “gay but celibate” it will be easier to move to the next stage of having those same Christians accept the idea of “gay and not celibate.”

Secondly, ideally, the Biblical Christian abhors his sins, cares not to identify with his sins, and wants nothing to do with his sins any longer. He would never label himself a pervert (“gay Christian”) unless he was trying to preserve this sin in his heart. Yet, the Christian faith is supposed to be the new birth where old things are passed away, and where all things have become new. When the celibate “gay Christian” self identifies as “gay” they are retaining an identity that is counted dead. Ask yourself how much sense it would make if someone saved out of bestiality still self identified as a “cow loving Christian.” Would it make sense for a someone saved out of Necrophilia to still self identify as a “dead person loving Christian.” Even if someone is saved out of kleptomania you never hear them self identifying as a “Thief Christian.” And yet, the Church is told today, by many, that it is perfectly acceptable for people to continue to identify with either a former sin or a current temptation.

Please don’t misunderstand. I celebrate and applaud the grace of God that has saved His people out of perversion and cheer that they are celibate. I only discountenance the idea that they should keep self identifying with their sin. St. Paul could write with sodomites and other repentant sinners in mind,

11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

I understand that progressive sanctification is incremental and so issues of who we are in Christ Jesus take time to comprehend but at the very least we ought to tell those who have been Redeemed out of sodomy that their identification is no longer in their “gayness.” They are most certainly not “gay Christians.” They are Christians, who, like all Christians, struggle with temptations and even besetting sins. Once this is understood we can pray that from that point their sanctification might well bring them to the point of putting off the old man of perverted desires for the same gender and putting on the new man with its normal desire of heterosexuality.

When Are We Going To Start Refusing to Obey Illegal Laws?

The death of Eric Garner at the hands of Staten Island Cops is a good example of somebody not knowing when it is right to disobey orders. The Cops were ordered by their superiors (who were ordered by their superiors) to do something about Garner and his selling of individual cigarettes. As that order ran downhill people at several levels missed the opportunity to tell their superior giving that ridiculous order that the superior could go “beggar themselves,” because they were not going to obey a illegitimate order to arrest a guy simply because he was horning in on the Mafia State’s piece of the action. The State, via that illegitimate and confiscatory Tax law, was running a protection racket and Eric Garner got in the way of their profits and so like all protection racket “businesses” the Cop thugs, following the orders of the Statist Mafia Dons, took Garner down.

One thing one learns when working for Corporate America is that “you don’t touch the money.” Eric Garner was touching the money of the State by selling individual cigarettes (Loosies) and so the Statist Government Mafia, “made an example of him.” Think about it … how many people do you suppose will be selling Loosies in light of what happened to Garner? Everyone knows now that in NYC you can kill your unborn babies, you can purchase your high brow hookers, you can libel in the News Studios that dot New York, all with relative safety, but don’t you dare get caught selling Loosies or it could be your life.

Every legislator in the State of New York who voted to put an confiscatory sin tax on cigarettes in the State of New York, by all that is just, ought also to be charged with involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner. Why only see the Cops fingerprints on this? Why not hold accountable the Statist Politicians and bureaucrats who pass and enforce the kind of dumb-ass laws that eventually find Cops choking to death people for selling single cigarettes? Eric Garner was murdered by Statists. The Cops were merely the executioners employed to that end.

Somebody along the chain of command should have stood up and said to whatever link in the chain that was passing on the order, “This is a illegitimate order and I’m not enforcing it.”

Disobedience to Tyrants is obedience to God.

Defining Deviance Down

The occurrence of Defining deviancy down as it manifests itself in a social order, happens when the social order standard is violated with such regularity that the inhabitants of the social order are forced to make a decision to either enforce the standard or to change the standard. As enforcing a standard that is routinely violated is almost impossible apart from draconian measures what typically happens is that the standard is changed. Once the standard is changed then a new definition of deviance is embraced, a standard that allows what was previously defined as deviance to be now normalized.

One reason that defining deviancy down works is because eventually there becomes a money interest that supports the new deviancy. The legalization of drugs finds a host of cottage industries that profit by the legalization and soat are willing to contribute money to politicians who will support the new deviancy. In such ways deviancy becomes the new standard.

The consequence of this is that those who refuse to embrace the new definition of deviancy will now be the ones who will be seen as “puritanical,” “mean,” “uncharitable,” and “bigoted.” Once deviancy is defined downward far enough those who refuse to accept the new definitions of deviance will become social outcasts and will suffer economic displacement. Defining deviancy downwards happens because the social order does not have an anchor that will not allow them to drift with the tide. The only place that anchor can be found is in God’s Law word. Disallow God’s Law word as the norm that norms all norms and the consequence will always be a “defining of deviancy down.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who popularized the phrase “Defining Deviancy Down” gives an example

“Consider the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. In 1929 in Chicago during Prohibition, four gangsters killed seven gangsters on February. The nation was shocked. The event became legend. It merits not one but two entries in the World Book Encyclopedia.”

Moynihan goes on to explain that in our current social order we experience a “St Valentine’s Day Massacre,” nearly daily and no one blinks. As a social order we have come to accept a higher level of deviancy.

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp