Kinsey & Hefner’s America

The introduction of sexual license among college-age men as a societal norm began in earnest in American Culture in the 1950’s. This project, introduced by Alfred Kinsey and popularized by Hugh Hefner created a market for immodest and sexually adventurous young women, which in turn helped to legitimize the idea of female promiscuity. In the 1960’s, once immodesty and promiscuity had become acceptable for some women, the pressure increased for all women to adopt these behaviors in competing for the attention of men. This was especially true of the youngest of marriage-age women of that generation, whose personal morals and values had been influenced by a decade of sex-saturated pop culture.

The wholesale entrance of women into the world of sexual ‘freedom’ created a number of societal demands; the “liberation” of women from Christian expectations about marriage and child-rearing through a feminist political movement (enter Better Friedan and “The Feminine Mystique” — 1963, enter NOW formed in 1966), contraception on demand w/ Griswold vs. Connecticut – 1966, abortion on demand w/ Roe vs. Wade -1973, and finally through ‘no-fault’ divorce beginning in the early 1970’s.

All of this in turn has brought us to the “gaying” of America. Once Christian heterosexuality and family life was obliterated it was a small step to normalize Sodomy. If there were no standards that needed to be attended to for sexual norms among heterosexuals or no standards that needed to be attended to for family life then who was to say that Sodomy was an aberration?

As an example, though perhaps on the face of it, it is counter intuitive to assert, Playboy has served as a tool for gay social engineering. One could make the case that all porn is essentially homosexual because it is in fact created by men for the sexual gratification of other men. That is pretty gay if you think about it.
Further, on a more practical level, the existence of a thriving porn industry serves the ‘gay’ cause by morally corrupting the men who use it, making them less likely to oppose the homosexual agenda on moral grounds and makes them more likely to support public policies which legitimize sexual hedonism of all varieties.

The result of all of this sexual hedonism has been the de-Christianizing of America and the advance of the agenda of the pink triangle army. Census data published in 1998 reveals a fourfold increase in divorce from 1970-1996, while the population of cohabiting couples has more than doubled.

The resultant ripples of destabilization from the sexing of America on American culture has been dramatic. Since the advent of sexing of America in the 1960’s we have seen the escalation of crime (Fatherless homes breed criminals), the proliferation of STD’s, and the escalation of mental illness and chronic substance abuse. These are all the consequences that one might expect of a generation raised in unstable families.

The information for this post was taken from Scott Lively’s “Redeeming the Rainbow,” though I have repackaged the language somewhat.

Warfield On Atomistic Hyper-Individualism

“To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism — the church included — is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church — except, of course, the authority of Paul.”

B. B. Warfield

Piggy backing off this Warfield quote it would be easy to suggest that this hyper-individualism that he locates has created more havoc in what was once Christendom then just the problem of Feminism. This hyper-individualism that is part and parcel of our philosophic egalitarianism has broken down all the formerly understood and embraced hierarchical structures of Biblical Christianity. Not only are the Biblically informed hierarchical structures and roles between women and men decimated but also the Biblically informed hierarchical structures between men and men and women and women have been destroyed. This is proven by the embrace of Sodomy and Lesbianism. If men and women are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t men go with men and women with women into the boudoir? Another example of this is the recent push for children’s rights. If humans are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t the differences between children and parents be eliminated?

And though we’ve been propagandized since the 1950’s not to probe this application, wouldn’t Warfield’s complaint against the human race being composed only of individuals be a cautionary word pertaining to the wisdom of not honoring historic distinctions between cultures and ethnicities? Is it really the case, as the Alienists and Cultural Marxists would have us believe, that just as women and men are undifferentiated cogs so it is the case that men of different nationalities are likewise merely undifferentiated cogs that can be swapped in and out of the Statist created cultural machine of the New World Order? If God has created men and women to be distinct is it so hard to think that He likewise hath made of one blood all nations of men (note the unity in diversity idea) and did determine the bounds of their habitation (note the idea that nations, and so nationalities are distinct)?

I am convinced that this idea of the human race as being comprised only of atomistic individuals — an idea that owes its origin more to the French Philosophes and their Revolution then it does to Biblical Christianity — is an idea that has effected us more negatively than we think or realize.

Top 10 Reasons I am not a Baptist

10.) Doesn’t household mean household?

9.) How do children who are disallowed from the covenant make it a new and better covenant?

8.) Let me get this straight. Does the Baptist really expect me to believe that the Jews were absolutely incensed at the idea that Gentiles were now in the covenant without circumcision but accepted that their children were no longer in the covenant even with circumcision — and they accepted the latter without so much as a whimper recorded in the NT? You want me to believe that on one day Jewish children were included in the covenant and on the next day they had to wait until they were old enough to vote for Jesus on the matter. Hello?

7.) I didn’t wait for my children to ask me into their hearts before I named them and made them a part of my family. Why should I expect God to wait for His covenant seed to ask Jesus into their hearts before He names them in Baptism and makes them part of the family of God?

6.) I can’t get my mind around the fact that Pentecost amounted to the excommunication of children.

5.) “Forbid not the children to come unto me,” must mean something.

4.) If I were a Baptist and required explicit instructions from the New Testament before I baptized infants then I could not give communion to women? Imagine how that would go over.

3.) I read the Bible as one book … one story.

2.) I believe the children go with the parents. Call me old fashioned.

And the number one reason I am not a Baptist,

No one can tell me if I’ve reached the age of accountability yet.

More reasons,

11.) Jesus said infants could be members of the Kingdom of God. I think we can take His word for it.

12.) Who says Infants can’t have faith? Faith is God’s gift after all and He will bestow that gift on whomever He so chooses.

13.) Jesus didn’t say, “You must become as an adult to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

14.) We are saved by faith alone, not by the claim of faith alone.

When Baptists say that what is required is faith, what they really mean is what is required is a claim of faith.

Mode of Baptism

St. Paul writes:

1 Cointhians 10:1-2

(1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

(2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

When the Israelites passed through the sea, they were not immersed where they? They were sprinkled, because Paul clarifies that they were baptized by passing through there, yet we know they were not immersed, yet baptism must in any case always have water making contact with the person. To purify people in the Older Covenant, sprinkling was done, not immersion; and we are told by Isaiah in Isaiah 52:15 that Christ would “sprinkle” many “nations” (nations include children).

And also consider what the Spirit says through St. Peter:

Peter writes:

1 Peter 3:20-22

(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(22) Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Peter relates “baptism” to Noah’s flood directly.

Who was fully immersed in the flood? Clearly it was the non-believers; yet Noah and his family were sprinkled by rain, a figure of which is baptism according to Peter.

The Egyptians were the ones immersed. Are you sure you want to be immersed?