Hart’s Hysteria

Isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into. I’m sure they will follow heteros in recognizing the weaknesses of fidelity to marital vows.

Darryl Hart
R2K advocate
Adjunct Professor Westminster Seminary California

1.) Ask yourself if in the context of a biblical definition of marriage is it even possible to talk about monogamy as existing between two men or two women? In the context of a biblical definition of marriage only a man and woman as married can be monogamous.

2.) It requires a willful torpidity to think that what sodomites really want (were it even possible) is monogamy and to think that, except in a very small percentile there is any desire for fidelity.

Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.

The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.

Findings were as follows:

  • 100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.
  • Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship
  • More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships.

 

Darryl’s R2K Confusion On Display

“Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage), one step backwards (Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages).,,,

But the weeping and gnashing of teeth about gay marriage has yet to acknowledge that gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians. That’s one way of reading this. Why is that so much of a threat to Christian morality?”

D.G. Hart, — 7/1/15
Westminster Seminary California adjunct professor
Torchbearer for R2K

1.) I’m sure sodomites will be amazed to learn from Darryl that they aspire to “be like Christians.”  The plan to wed homos to each other is all in keeping with their unconscious desire to emulate Christians and through them Christ. Gottcha. By simply going through the ceremony, they will be moving in the right direction towards Christ. Further, we know that sodomites want to be like Christians by embracing marriage because, after all, in sodomite marriage sodomites are loving their husbands as Christ loved the Church.  Er, No. Wait. Rather it is that husbands are submitting to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. Wait … that’s not right either.

Never mind.

2.) According to Darryl’s R2K “theology” there is no such thing as “Christian Marriage,” so I’m not sure why Darryl would say that “gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians.” According to Darryl it is not possible to want to be like Christians when it comes to marriage because there is no such thing as “Christian marriage.” How can one desire to be like someone (a Christian) in something (Christian marriage) that doesn’t exist?

3.) Also Darryl, quite contrary to all his R2K theology, is telling us that there is such a thing as “Christian morality” in the common realm. And yet R2K has relentlessly taught that morality in the common realm is common and not Christian. According to R2K nothing in the common realm counts as particularly “Christian morality.”

4.) Here Darryl speaks of Christian norms in the common realm and yet R2K has relentlessly told us that, when in comes to the common realm, what norms the norms of the common realm is not Christianity. So then how can Darryl speak of “Christian norms” when speaking of matters in the common realm?

It’s not like I need to demonstrate it again but here we have before us the utter confusion that R2K and the hyphenated life offers. There is no rhyme or reason to R2K. It is completely random and chaotic.

McAtee contra Horton on Crying and Laughing Article

At this link,

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/entry/blog/2015/07/03/i-ll-cry-on-saturday-but-i-ll-laugh-on-sunday

We once again see the absolute absurdity that is R2K in action.

“There seemed to be a moment where we could debate the value of marriage from radically different worldviews and yet remain committed to the common good.”

Michael Horton

Bret responds,

Do you really want to send your son to a Seminary where one of the leading professors actually thinks that people with radically different worldviews can agree on the common good?

If they can agree on the common good then they don’t have radically different worldviews. After all, it is one’s worldview that dictates what the common good is defined as and if you have two radically different worldviews you are, ipso facto, going to have two radically different definitions of the common good.

Obviously, one of the two parties with a “radically different worldview” needs to surrender his radically different worldview in order to come to agreement on the common good. Dr. Michael Horton did just that some time ago with his offer of going along with “domestic partnerships for the protection of legal and economic security”.

Horton continues,

“On Saturday, we were lamenting the decision. But then this response came back from one friend, who happens to be a U. S. Senator: “Yes, it’s a big disappointment, but tomorrow’s Sunday, Christ is risen, and ‘trust not in princes.’

I’ll cry on Saturday, but I’ll laugh on Sunday.”

Bret responds,

Trust not in princes? How about we add “Trust not in Seminary Professors or “Christian” Senators”?

So … on Saturday Christ is not risen so we must lament but on Sunday Christ is risen so we can laugh?

Horton is R2K and this is just one more example of the absolutely asinine reasoning that emanates from R2K wisemen. When we live in common time we lament but when we live in sacred time (Sabbath) we laugh. We are living and doing the bifurcated rumba.

In another snippet Horton opines,

“… more tragic is the fact that mainline Protestantism has been at the forefront of the movement for same-sex marriage and, although a majority of evangelicals still disapprove, the tide is turning. “

Bret responds,

Horton styles it “tragic” what mainline Protestantism has done, and yet according to Horton’s own deeply flawed “theology”  R2K churches share in the mainline Protestantisms culpability in all this because R2K Churches, as they have been consistent with their own theology did not, have not, and do not resist as Churches, this wickedness about which Horton laments on Saturdays. How can Horton point a finger at the Mainlines when his own theology has repeatedly insisted that the Mainlines should not be resisted, overturned, or challenged by R2K Churches since the Church as Church has nothing to do with those issues?

Horton continues,

Hearts have changed. Part of that is due to the fact that we all are friends with LBGT neighbors who are decent people.

Bret

I know someone who likes to bed his dairy cows. He is a decent person also.

Has the word “decent” so devolved that we can consider someone decent as long as they bring a meal when someone is ill and they keep their lawn up nicely, even though they are involved in what God calls an abomination? I’ve read that Stalin was a charming and wonderful host for State dinners … really quite a decent chap.

Horton,

In any case, the culture war has been lost. Now what?

Bret,

Thanks, in no small part, to Horton’s own R2K retreat-ism and constant bleating for 20 years about how the culture war was lost.  Horton has been aiding and abetting the loss of the culture war by saying things like,

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

Can anyone tell me the difference between a state-licensed marriage and a civil union?  There is none and these types of “solutions” that Mike offers is one reason why reason why Mike can say the culture war has been lost. Here we see that surrender is easy. Even a prominent R2K professor can do it without much practice.

Horton wants to draw a sharp dichotomy between our culture as battlefield and our culture as mission field. I would insist that is a false dichotomy since every culture that a Christian is engaged with is simultaneously battle field and mission field. Does Horton really believe that mission fields are not battle fields? The Apostle Paul would have found such a notion at best naive and at worst just plain stupid.

Libertarian Tyranny

Does anybody except me see the irony in people calling me “Isis like” when I object to a sodomite marriage ruling that forces the sodomite definition of marriage upon the social order.

I object to their heavy handed Tyranny and I’m the one who is “like Isis.”

Theonomy has forever been accused of wanting to implement a top down law order. People have, over the years, been absolutely apoplectic that Theonomists wanted to be ruled by God’s law in the social order. Yet, having defamed, slandered, and libeled Theonomy for insisting that law is always religiously derived and in turn law always reflects the will of some God, god, or gods (thus always giving Theocracy) what we find happening now is that in a top down fashion the law of the sodomite god “Molech” is now being forced upon us. Many of the movement Libertarians are, in effect, telling us that we have no liberty to have marriage defined, for our social order, in a Christian fashion. Instead, marriage must have a forced Libertarian sodomite definition. Ironically enough many Libertarians are pleased that the State is forcing this on us. The best that the Libertarians can do is howl about how this wasn’t left up to the states to decide. As if states have some kind of inherent right to thumb their nose at God’s law.

You have to hand it to those of the Libertarian and Isis faiths. At least they each believe, unlike R2K and Baptist “Christians,” that the will of their respective gods should be honored in the public square.

Look, in the end law is always going to have a aspect of “top down” about it. We are now learning that you can have your top down law aspect from as from God’s law or your can have your top down aspect as from Molech, Talmud, or humanism.

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.