Trump Regnant Follies

“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.”

Donald Trump
To FOX News Info-babe — Greta Van Sustern

1.) I do believe that Donald Trump is controlled opposition. I believe all 17 candidates are controlled opposition. But with Trump it is a little different. I do believe the purpose of his candidacy is to so damage the Republican brand in the minds of zombie Republican voters (who somehow manage to think that the Republican party stands for anything but for profiting the Money Interest and themselves) and so guarantee a Democrat victory (presumably Hillary).  Failing that it is easy to imagine Trump pulling a Ross Perot and running on a third party ticket, thus again insuring a Democrat victory by splitting the Republican party vote.

2.) It is apparent that Roger Ailes and FOX News know this. It explains why FOX was and is committed to destroying the Trump Candidacy. Clearly, from the first question requiring a show of hands to Meagan Kelly’s questioning of Trump, to top FOX News political analyst, Charles Krauthammer, declaring the Trump candidacy dead, to the FOX push polling of Frank Luntz, there was a concerted and obvious effort by FOX to unravel Trump’s legitimacy.

3.) Now, near as I can see, FOX would only do such a thing for two reasons. Either Trump really is a conservative or Trump is a known tool for Democrat ends. FOX news network is a neo-conservative network and so were a genuine conservative (should such a person exist at this level) actually polling the numbers that Trump is polling FOX would have an interest in bringing such a person down. However, clearly Trump is no Conservative. To suggest Trump is a Conservative would be to insist that Miley Cyrus is chaste. Trump is the incarnation of Corporatism Oligarchy. As such, I must conclude that FOX is seeking to destroy Trump because he is a stalking horse for the Democrat left which the Republican neo-con left find unacceptable.

4.) The fact that it is widely known by the inside players that Trump is not a Republican was seen again this past weekend as Presbyterian Seminarian, Eric Erikson, dis-invited Trump from his (Erikson’s) “Red State” candidate Bonanza. One simply does not lock out the front running Republican candidate from Party forums and retain credibility unless one knows that the front running Republican candidate is a poseur. Now some will counter my observation here by pointing out Erikson’s stated reason for dis-inviting Trump, Erikson offered, “It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him [Trump]. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong. I have invited Megyn Kelly to attend in Donald Trump’s place tomorrow night.”   We need to keep in mind though that what a Politician says (and a Politician is what Erikson is in this context) is the reason for doing something and what the real reason is for doing something seldom match.  The fact that Erikson invites Megan Kelly in Trump’s place only underscores my point about Erikson the Politician. (And let’s not ask how any conservative Presbyterian, Seminarian or otherwise, could ever support neo-con Republicans.)

As an aside here, my take on Trump’s comments on Megyn Kelly’s orifice bleeds is a little different. In my view, if you, as a woman, are going to fight with the boys you shouldn’t complain about getting hit. Women who decide to enter the bloody arena that is politics shouldn’t complain when they receive as good as they give. The time honored principle where men must never hit the girl does not apply when the girl is whaling on the guy with brass knuckles. As metaphor this is exactly what Kelly was doing.

5.) If you are a Republican Trump does offer one advantage over the rest of the field. Whereas with the rest of the Republican field one can never be absolutely sure of who the Marionette Master is that is pulling the strings of any particular Republican one might vote for, however, with Trump you can vote directly for the Marionette string puller himself. No nasty middle man marionette politician. Instead. in voting for Trump, you can directly vote for the string puller himself. You might call Trump’s campaign a “populist Fascist” or “populist Corporatist” campaign.

6.) Look for the establishment neo-con (FOX) media to push Carly Fiorina. I suspect with the recent feminist explosion over Trump’s comments about women generally, and Megyn Kelly particularly that Fiorina will quickly become the anti-Trump card played by the neo-con media outlets. A Fiorina candidacy might provide great cat-fight theater if she were to up against Hillary.

7.) It is good to keep in mind when analyzing all this not to take it any more seriously then one might take World Wide Wrestling Federation seriously. This is all canned and the broad contours of the outcome is known before the players even take the stage.

The Untenableness of Neo-Orthodox Theology Exposed

“The (neo-orthodox) theologians stand before the Bible in the expectation that through preaching the words of the Bible will become the word of God as the Bible’s audience encounters them in the written witness to Jesus Christ. Barth is famous for the syollogism, ‘The Word written: the Word preached: the Word revealed.’ In other words the written words of the Bible become the word of God to the Church through the preaching of Jesus Christ. As the Bible engenders faith in Jesus Christ, it becomes the Word of God. Surely it is important to combine Word and Spirit  to know God in Jesus Christ, but to restrict the revelation  of the word of God to the human encounter with God in that preaching locates the Bible’s authority in the Christian’s experience of revelation, not in the Bible’s  divine inspiration of that revelation. God’s Word is God’s Word whether or not it is recognized as such, just as a father and a mother are a child’s parents whether accepted or rejected by the child.

The neo-orthodox tend to distinguish between Jesus Christ as the Word of God and Scripture as a ‘witness’ to the Word of God. Barth grounded his dogmatic theology on an orthodox understanding of Jesus Christ as the embodiment of God and of God’s purpose for humankind, but regrettably not on the whole Bible, which he did not regard as inerrant. According to neo-orthodox theology, biblical statements that do not contribute to the witness to Jesus Christ are not necessarily true. This position is unstable because it exalts Christ by depreciating the text that bears witness to His exaltation. In other words according to the neo-orthodox, one hears the Word of God in the Bible as one hears music on a scratched record. In this way they tend to set up the canon of the message of Jesus Christ (i.e.– The music) as more valuable then the whole canon of Scripture (i.e. — the record); a canon within the canon. This dichotomy creates an unstable theology — evangelical and unorthodox regarding the authority of all of Scripture. A canon-within-a-canon theology ultimately places authority in the audience.”

Bruce Waltke 
An Old Testament Theology — pg. 75-76

A small beef with Waltke, in this otherwise fine quote, is his giving in to feminist theology as seen in his usage of “humankind,” as opposed to “mankind.”

Waltke’s Woolly Headed Thinking

The following quote is written by a Biblical theologian and it shows. Honestly, I think this is not well thought out.

“Biblical theologians differ from dogmaticians in three ways. First, Biblical theologians primarily think as exegetes. not as logicians.”

(So exegesis is done non logically?)

“Secondly, they derive their organizational principles from the Biblical blocks of writings themselves rather than factors external to the text.”

(This is the old “we just let the text speak for itself saw.”)

“Third, their thinking is diachronic — that is, they track the development of theological themes in various blocks of writings. Systematic theologians think more synchronically — that is, they invest their energies on the church’s doctrines, not on the development of religious ideas within the Bible.”

(“We’re more Biblical than you are .. nah nah nah nah nah.”)

Bruce K. Waltke
An OT Theology — pg. 64

I’m not sure many Biblical theologians realize how dependent they are on systematic categories before they even come to the text.

Biblical theologians would not seem to be able to be presuppositionalists. They seem to contend that they just observe the unfolding facts of redemptive history while then allowing a philosophy of fact to emerge. However, Van til was right when he offered that there is no fact without a philosophy of fact.  We need to reiterate again that “Biblical theology” still uses presuppositions and constructs to order their study just like systematic or dogmatic theologians.

Dr. Rev. Brian Lee on the Abortion Videos

“Paul likewise told Christians living in Rome (under Nero!) that the governing authorities were appointed by God, and they should be subject to them. The only exception is when the state tries to force you to actively violate God’s law (and no, taxpayer funding for abortion doesn’t seem to qualify).”

~ R2k disciple,
WSC grad, Dr. Brian Lee

Biblical Prejuidice

“So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”  

Galatians 6:10

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

I Peter 2:9

Over at this link,

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/22/177455764/What-Does-Modern-Prejudice-Look-Like

we learn that God’s command to be biblically prejudiced and rightly discriminatory is sinful. This is evidenced by a few quotes culled from the article. (There is also a interview that you can listen to linked in the article.)

“I think that kind of act of helping towards people with whom we have some shared group identity is really the modern way in which discrimination likely happens.”

Mahzarin Banaji
Harvard psychologist

“The insidious thing about favoritism is that it doesn’t feel icky in any way. We feel like a great friend when we give a buddy a foot in the door to a job interview at our workplace. We feel like good parents when we arrange a class trip for our daughter’s class to our place of work. We feel like generous people when we give our neighbors extra tickets to a sports game or a show.”

Mahzarin Banaji
Harvard psychologist

The article then provides this synopsis,

In each case, however, Banaji, Greenwald and DiTomaso might argue, we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children’s classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. When we help someone from one of these in-groups, we don’t stop to ask: Whom are we not helping?”

This article then is teaching that prioritized support for fellow believes in Christ or as unto family and friends is a variant and milder form of discrimination that is associated with racism. These, heretofore, natural loyalties, when prioritized, are now seen as to be examples of violation of the unspoken insistence that we must equally favor all men. This is a derivation of the idea of the Brotherhood of all men concept that has done such damage to our social order and culture. It is also a tributary of Egalitarianism. How dare we prioritize our faith, and our people, over others when we know that all relations are equal.

I would also contend that the kind of thinking, as exhibited in the article, is an attempt to undergird the whole specious idea of “white privilege,” that is bandied about so mindlessly. “How dare white people support one another with their subconscious discrimination,” would be one easy conclusion stemming from the article. This is especially so when we read the final two sentences of the article.

After reading Kaplan’s story, Banaji says, the woman decided to keep giving money to her alma mater, but to split the donation in half. She now gives half to her alma mater and half to the United Negro College Fund.

Note that neither prejudice nor discrimination has been eliminated. It has merely changed visages. Now, at the insistence of this kind of thinking, people are discriminating against their own. Favoritism has not gone away. It has merely changed from a favoritism from ones own orbit to favoritism to that which is alien. This article proves my point that familialism is an inescapable category. What is happening in the article is that the stranger and the alien are to be now considered and given the status of “family.” While family are to be treated as alien. Consequently, Familialism has not gone away for these people, it has merely rearranged matters and inverted God’s reality.

Darrell Dow has it right when he notes,

“These secular forms of universal ethics make moral demands that violate the proper boundedness and rootedness of human moral obligation. Part of the aim of Cultural Marxism is to undermine loyalty and attachment. Loyalty to family, church, ethnic group, nation, etc. as well as attachment to place are all undermined as a means of leaving the individual naked and unprotected before the state–and the elite who manipulates it. Ultimately it is a sideways attack on the church, but the church fails to recognize the nature of the threat.”