Interesting things happening in Russia

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/july/russia-ban-evangelism-effect.html

The reason I find this interesting is because Russia seems to be experiencing a renaissance of sorts. However, the media is demonizing them for many things except this one. Let’s be clear, I am no friend of the former red state or its leader Vladimir Putin yet I find some of his views refreshing and I’ll explain why.

He may be a murderous thug, but at least he is a man about it. The effeminate murderous thugs that populate our government hide behind vacuous slogans and shifty legalese. Our own president is so cowardly I can no longer listen to a single thing he says. In the true form of cowardice, the liberal cannot stand anyone who simply tells them no. The whiny, petulant, fem-bot man-haters in the media hate Putin not because he is a murderous thug, because they actually love those. They hate him because he won’t bow down to the anti-family LGBT sexual deviancy club. He doesn’t even have to use incendiary phrases like “faggot” to tick them off. He just has to stand up and say, this behavior is not in the best interest of Russia and that’s enough to start the foaming of their rabid lips. So I guess I like how Putin ticks off the enemies of my family.

To return to the article I linked, the interesting thing that is a little glossed over is that only churches who are not Russian Orthodox are banned from proselytizing. My first thought is that if the Russian Orthodox church teaches correct doctrine, then what’s the problem? The linked article really cannot take on that question because they assume that religious freedom means that every religion, no matter how stupid, inane, dangerous, or evil is equally protected under American law. This assumption is made by many people who say I have the “right” to do something no matter how stupid, inane, dangerous, or evil. When someone says that, I then ask how do they determine, for themselves and for others, what is the limit. You will get an answer when you ask the question, but the answer is never logically consistent.

You will notice in the article that a Pentecostal, a baptist, and all protestant churches are referred to as “Christian” while then assuming that the Russian Orthodox is not. That’s a little arrogant and slanted. What it ought to say is that the Russian church is playing favorites based on the identity they want their people to embrace. In other words, they want Russians to be part of the Russian church and share Russian values. Does this reduce freedom, absolutely. Will this slow the spread of false teachers and cults that parade as Christians? Yep. Is this restricting the “Christian churches?” Well that depends.

Imagine you are running a city. One weekend you see a tent being erected just inside your city limits so you investigate. Turns out that the man setting up the tent worships Diana and Molech. He wants to coax people into finding salvation through sexual orgies and then sacrifice their children to Molech so the wine will keep flowing. Days, weeks, then months go by and the cult leader has amassed a huge following. Half of the city’s children are dead, leaving a reduced future generation with no workers to support their parents in old age. Therefore you and the city council decide that only the religion that will be allowed is Christianity.

Russia’s circumstance is similar. They wish to eradicate the deleterious effects of Islam, Pseudo-Christianity, and every other anti-Russian marxist leaning church. What the writer at Christianity Today should have done is explain why the Russian Orthodox church leaves its people with a lesser view of salvation, Christ’s atonement, or a watered down gospel. Then the argument would be that the Russians are depriving their people of the gospel. Maybe they are, or maybe they are manning up and telling the other faux-religions to go back home and wreck their own countries.

CT just forgot what it was like to see a little backbone.

A sad death in the family

Strange how a death can affect you. My cousin’s ex-husband passed away last Saturday and the news of his passing made me both sad for him and melancholy for the family.

I haven’t been that close to him in the last ten years or so due to a family and church dispute that left feelings scorched in a hundred different directions. I haven’t been close to much of that side of the family in as many years. We still see each other occasionally and we are all “friends” on Facebook but there are no more dinners together, or evenings of cards and fun.

Here is the sad part. I heard about the death in a Facebook message sent to me by mother. I saw no Facebook posts from his children, none from his ex-wife (not surprising), none from his mother-in-law either. I suppose I will gauge the extent of the emotions at the funeral this coming weekend, but it seems to me that there aren’t many people that are that tore up about this man’s death. That saddens me.

It saddens me because even though the last ten years were bad years, there were thirty or so good years before that. We had our family Thanksgiving at his house. Our family watched big sporting events there. We would stay up late and play hide and seek in their basement. We would go camping and fishing together. There were thirty good years that were spoiled by ten bad ones.

I don’t know what type of man passed away last Saturday. I don’t know if he lay on his bed full of thoughts of hate or delusions of persecution. All I know is that whatever was left of the man I once knew, died for certain last  Saturday. The man who laughed, joked, and shot hoops with us. The man who often sprang for pizza so my poor family could go out to eat. The man who opened his home to us weekend after weekend.

I still remember the hurtful things that happened, but its not fair to only remember that. I remember the good things that happened too, and I lament that we couldn’t have any more of those in the last ten years.

Good Argument versus the Internet

I am sure that most, if not all, of us have seen an argument in the following form:

Person 1: X-person is the worst human being in the history of the universe.

Person 2: X-person is actually pretty decent.

Person 1: You (person 2) are the dumbest person in the history of the universe!

This is an example of bad argumentation. When we say that someone is being irrational or unreasonable, we are referring to how they employ argumentation. If you are not already aware, the rules of argumentation are universal.

By that I mean all communication relies on the foundation of logic. Without it (logic) language and dialogue are vacuous sounds reverberating through the air with no referent or meaning. Nobody truly believes this and that is evident when you speak or write and expect others to understand what you mean.

Without rehashing your logic classes from College, I mean only to point out that it is possible with an absolute degree of certainty to rule out claims in an argument. The Post-Modern embrace of all things vacuous is a lie and always was a lie. They didn’t really believe it enough to live consistently with it and that is shown in that they wrote books and taught classes fully expecting people to understand the jist of what they were communicating.

I recently read some of the ancient Skeptics and their counter-arguments to the Stoic beliefs of their day. I was intrigued by how they responded to the criticism of truth that was leveled at them. They argued that their statements were intended to be self-refuting thereby demolishing even the truth of their own words. At least they understood the criticism which is a far cry above the so called intellectuals of today. The current intellectual elite have all the behaviors of virulent insanity. Any argument that attempts to unseat their held beliefs is shouted down in near panic. This is exactly the irrational behavior outlined at the beginning of my blog post.

For an example of this, one need only visit the Huff-Puff or any other liberal rag and see if they state premises and conclusions or if they consist mainly in insulting their opponents. Better yet, watch the politics in Congress and the faux two-party system. No substantive argument, lots of name-calling. The arguments get muddied in the semantics, which are used to confuse the simple minded. Then, in the end, they do only what is best for themselves. This is liberalism and Post-Modernism at its finest. Hypocritical and self-serving people doing and justifying what is in their own best interest at all times.

Third time’s a charm… or not.

http://www.humblefuture.com/humblefuture/2015/12/9/will-the-church-of-the-nazarene-split

CONSERVATIVE (ANTAGONIST)

 

  1. Progressives are painted with a broad brush [by those awful conservatives] as villains who are (unintentionally) [certainly intentionally] leading the church astray.
  2. People are afraid.  [He means conservatives are cowardly: For bravery you have to look to the liberals] The world is changing, and changing faster than ever before.  Many Christians have retreated to the church as the last bastion to resist change.
  3. if conservatives… push through some of their fundamentalist legislative moves, or if they are able to continue pushing out progressive thinkers and pastors, then the results will be dire [Why exactly will there be dire consequences? Notice he will contradict himself later when he says progressives just leave quietly… but here they are “pushed out”].
  4. We will be an increasingly aged denomination in terms of members, strategies, and thoughts. [Translation: Only old, stupid people are conservatives].
  5. Because discontented people on the right have a high confidence that their view is the only real truth, they tend to be averse to compromise or merger. [Here he could be suggesting one of two things. Either: A) Conservatives are incorrect about their view on truth, or B) There are multiple “truths” all equally valid. If the former, he is merely restating his point that Conservatives are wrong and he is right. If the latter, he is impossibly confused and shouldn’t reasonably expect anyone to care about anything he writes.]
  6. if the conservatives win, we’ll likely get an old and dying church operating with a fortress mentality, actively engaging a losing battle against heathens and liberals alike. [Translation: conservatives are failures, wrong, old, and dying]
  7. Conservatives are likely to feel a moral obligation to protect the essential doctrines and to separate the wheat from the weeds within the church. [While this is true, I am fairly certain that from within the context, it means, not that Conservatives are right, only that they will push out the progressives. Of course, in theory the progressives vote with their feet… but what’s a minor contradiction when you are painting such an honest picture of your opponents?]
  8. Of course this is the more difficult path.  It requires humility, patience, listening, power-sharing, and courage – all in short supply in today’s hyper-politicized landscape. [Now we see how patient and humble our author is in the way he paints his pictures. Who has courage? Only those willing to push past the boundaries and accede to progressive thought. Who has humility? Those who tolerate the progressives. This is a grand gesture to try and push his thought further. This is deceitful and slimy, which is certainly a hallmark of these liberal writers. Their god is their belly and it shows in the loose way they handle truth.]

PROGRESSIVE (PROTAGONIST)

  1. , younger Nazarenes and older progressives find themselves more and more unwelcome in the church that raised them. Many have voted with their feet by migrating to less restrictive denominations or even to no church at all.  [The violins are weeping… how could you darn conservatives? You pushed out these genteel humble souls and hurt their feelings! We are meant here to put sympathy in lieu of our reason. Here we also see here one example that these are voting with their feet, not being pushed out as earlier described.]
  2. The exodus of young, academic, and progressive Nazarenes will increase exponentially. [Because only old, non-academic Nazarenes are conservative. Could this be more insulting?]
  3. Then, the Church of the Nazarene will continue to bleed our youngest and brightest to other denominations who will be happy to take them. [Of course it can be more insulting. Notice who is the best and brightest? Not the conservatives. Here we see the hubris of the author in full bloom. I am smarter than everyone else, he screams. And here! Look at how humble I am!… No. You are not either of these.]
  4. Discontented progressives, on the other hand, tend to leave more quietly and merge with other groups that have space for their views. [I thought they got pushed, forced, coerced, and beaten out of their assemblies by the merciless hatchet-men conservatives?]
  5. many young and forward-thinking leaders want the Church of the Nazarene to catch up with the times. [Another abuse of terms with the goal of saying what conservatives are not by implication. In order to be clear, in order to be forward –thinking, you should be espousing a view that is new. Not a rehashed version of old heresies. If you do that, you are technically backward thinking. Hence progressivism, in its return to ancient idolatry, cannot look forward to God, only back at man.]
  6. ready for swift movement on issues such as alcohol, racial reconciliation, social justice, creation care, revising our doctrine of sanctification, and softening our stance on homosexuality and gay marriage [And there it is. They want to keep in step with the culture and the sin of the day.]
  7. the progressives finally achieve two of their longstanding dreams: (1) Equal representation from all Nazarenes around the globe, and (2) The right for each region to define certain ethical standards. [The progressives just want equality… can’t we all get behind equality? Bear in mind that this idea of equality is more akin to Marxist dogma than Christ’s]
  8. Progressives face a problematic situation of believing strongly in the value of diverse leadership for the Church of the Nazarene [Diverse or Adverse? There is a difference, and it seems the liberals prefer the latter. The Bible does not teach diversity in the sense that is meant here. Remember that “one mind” and “mind of Christ” nonsense?]
  9. This requires all of us – including this somewhat prophetic instigator – to tone down our rhetoric, to tune in for deep listening, and to value the perspective and presence of those with whom we have profound disagreements.  Difficult, yes.  Impossible, no. [Not sure what is prophetic about these words. Let’s truly be clear, he doesn’t mean that he has any plans of valuing the perspective of the horrible conservative people he wrote about earlier. This is really a plea for those people to give in, or else feel really bad about how unloving they must be]
  10. We have tolerance written into at least two of our articles of faith.  [Tolerance of pedophilia? Let’s be clear, If homosexuality is cool and it IS mentioned in the Bible, then something not mentioned in the Bible like Pedophilia certainly ought to be applauded. It has it all, bravery, sexual dysfunction, sad memes, you name it! Liberals for Inter-generational Love!]
  11. We are an extremely diverse global denomination
  12. We are essentially moderates.  From the beginning, we have been neither fundamentalists nor liberals, neither traditionalists nor radicals.
  13. Embracing diversity is part of our Nazarene DNA. 
  14. We’ll learn to listen.  We’ll learn to share power.  We’ll learn to value the other.
  15. We’ll learn to be the Church. [At this point it is basically clear that this individual is not interested in anything but using sweet sounding words to convince easily duped people to follow him into error. This is not the brand of dialogue one would expect from a Christian. Indeed, it is clearly not from a Christian. This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing]

 

Just a final word on this article. This article is quite similar to some of the ones I have reviewed lately. I am definitely seeing some form of correlation between parties. I don’t know if there is a club these cats belong to, or they are reading from the same Matthew Vines nonsense. But the pattern is the same. It employs a deceitful pattern to try and argue for a view of sin that is incompatible with Grace or the Gospel. I do not believe that anyone so cleverly attempting to write like this is unaware of what they are doing, hence I have no problem saying that this person has never met God. He may have heard about him in a class at school, but he has never submitted himself to that absolute authority, instead holding back some autonomy for himself.

Also, I am not a Nazarene. I find their teachings on Election to be heretical along with all other Wesleyan tradition churches. I personally believe this view is at the heart of their problem although I doubt you could ever convince one of them of this. Someday I’ll tackle that issue but not today.

The Sheep are Bleating!

http://zackhunt.net/2015/12/07/are-we-finally-witnessing-the-death-of-christianity-in-america/

To a certain extent I did and still do agree with those who cautioned that the death of the Church is not quite as near as the Pew Study might lead us to believe. Although I think some of the deflection amounted to No True Scotsman arguments, declining numbers don’t necessarily equate to death. Though, they should certainly cause the Church to pause and ask some serious questions about itself and its future.

Why? That must be because our future isn’t in God’s hands. Our fate isn’t determined by the Almighty. Rather we are the masters of our own destiny right?

After the initial shock wore off, I couldn’t help but think back on that debate when I heard about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s words to the students of Liberty University at the close of a recent chapel service. After revealing he was carrying a gun in his back pocket, Falwell declared, “I’ve always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.”

Falwell then encouraged his students to get their own concealed carry permit (via a free school sponsored course) so that together they could “teach [those Muslims] a lesson if they ever show up here.” His words were met with rapturous support by the student body. As I sat in stunned silence, my inner Star Wars nerd couldn’t help but channel the words of Padmé Amidala. So this is how Christianity dies…with thunderous applause.

So Christianity will die because Jerry Falwell suggests that people protect themselves from insane Muslims? That is quite the non-sequitur. First of all nobody honestly believes that Falwell meant to imply that Christians should kill every Muslim everywhere, Secondly, Falwell is not representative of all Christianity and it is quite self-contradictory to be upset at Falwell for painting with a large brush and then turn and do the same. Let’s not let paltry things like being intellectually honest get in the way though…This is about saving Christianity from itself, and that ought to involve some dishonesty!

For a while now, declining Church attendance, the rise of the nones, and an increasingly secular society have all seemed like the biggest threats to the future of Christianity in America.

But that is not where the existential danger comes from.

The future of Christianity in this country isn’t threatened by shifting demographics.

The Christian faith in America is on life support because far too many of us have simply stopped living like Jesus.

The Biblical Jesus or the one you’ve made up that you want us to follow? I agree that you have likely stopped living like Jesus. He was honest and an intellectual. You are neither.

Christianity is facing an existential crisis in America not because our pews aren’t quite as packed as they used to be, but because – through an embrace of violence, hatred towards Muslims, callous rejection of refugees, demonization of the LGBT community, and a whole host of starkly anti-Christian actions – we’ve allowed the gospel of Jesus to be supplanted with sanctified and extreme right wing politics.

Oh Right. Jesus didn’t teach about sin or hell or any of that demonizing stuff… gotcha. It is thoroughly disingenuous to suggest that the Gospel can save people who are not sinners. God loved the Pharisees… that’s why he characterized them in such glowing terms. What were those tender phrases again? White-washed tombs? Vipers? Sons of the devil? Those are terms of endearment right?

It’s no secret that American Christianity has been hijacked by the political right since at least the days of the Moral Majority. But in recent months and years we’ve witnessed a full-frontal assault on the particular and peculiar values that define the Christian life.

For example, the way of Jesus is a way of peace and a sometimes unfathomable commitment to nonviolence, but American preachers can now carry an instrument of death into a space dedicated to the proclamation of life and be met with boisterous applause.

I always wait for people to back this up with scripture references. It never seems to happen for some reason. The Bible does not commit its followers to always being peaceful. There is a time for war. There is a proper attitude of hate towards evil. We all know this, but Zack has decided to ignore that. Probably because he is a second or third generation Arminian who has drank from the poisoned waters of that theology for so long wrong just feels right and we can never question our feelings.

The way of Jesus is one of radical inclusion where new paths are blazed to welcome in those shunned by dogma and religious authority, but the identity of Christianity in America has become all but synonymous with the list of those who aren’t truly welcomed within our doors.

What the Bible means and what Zack means are two different things. The Bible includes sinners who are CHANGED by Christ. Zack thinks telling sinners that they are actually sinners and are actually condemned is too hurtful and will dim the chances of them getting saved. That the opposite is true is well established in anyone whose heart has actually been regenerated.

The way of Jesus demands we care for the sick as if we were caring for Christ himself, but we’ve gone out of our way to try to deny healthcare to anyone we’ve decided hasn’t earned it.

The Bible was even stricter. If you do not work, you do not eat. Of course you might know this if you cracked it open farther than your favorite devotionals.

The way of Jesus finds good even in those of other faiths, but we’ve made hating and ostracizing Muslims one of our top priorities.

Melodramatic much? Depends on what you define as hateful Zack. Of course you define everything that disagrees with you intellectually as hateful because you cannot think of an honest way to deal with it from scripture. That is because you know you are a liar. Hating Muslims is not my top priority, nor is it anywhere I have ever been (and I’ve been in a lot of churches Zack).

The way of Jesus places caring for the stranger at the center of salvation itself, but in our fear we’ve closed our hearts and our borders to immigrants and refugees in need, leaving them to drown in the open sea, wither in the desert, and fall victim to unspeakable evil in their homeland.

Nope. Not even close. The Bible places submitting to an almighty God through Jesus Christ as the center of salvation. The Cross is what Paul chose to know, not the stranger.

There are manifold explanations for how we got here, but at its root, authentic Christianity is being eradicated in America because the way of Jesus has been replaced by a list of ideas which, once agreed to, apparently liberate us from actually living like Jesus.

We say we believe in the Bible and God and that Jesus rose from the dead, but once we claim our certificate of orthodoxy we seem to think we’ve been freed from the obligations of grace, from the cost of discipleship, from the way of Jesus that is defined not simply by the ideas in our head but the actions of our lives.

Ugh. Zack all you have done up til now is give us the ideas in your head and links to scriptures you think are supposed to show you to be right. When you do finally quote scripture you still don’t explain how it actually means what you think it means. Context defines usage.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

I underlined an important contextual clue for you.

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

So in order to be clear, the first passage was meant to back up the claim that we ought to be more concerned about clothing strangers than the Gospel. Even though the context clearly provides a recipient for the service provided. There are other Biblical references dealing with brothers and sisters who refuse to work but that doesn’t fit the narrative.

The second passage cited concerns the theological idea of how faith without works is dead. Understand that not all works are by faith, that implied by the above as well. So what works can be by faith? Only those rightly divined from the Word of God.

Notice what is not included: The “way of peace” justification, the “inclusion” justification, nor the “way of Jesus finds the goods in other faiths” justification. I am truly curious to see Zack try to make those work. That actually might have been a profitable read instead of this confused incoherent psycho-babble.

The way of Jesus is not simply a sales pitch meant to convince us to agree to a list of doctrines in order to avoid hell.

It’s a call to a particular and peculiar way of life.

We can believe all the “right” things, but orthodoxy does not emancipate us from orthopraxy. Rather, it demands we live out the radical, revolutionary, and world changing faith we’ve embraced.

No doubt. You just cannot fathom that real Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are also defined by the whole of Scripture itself and not the select passages that don’t really support your neo-liberal views.

Sadly, we live in a strange place and time where it seems that publicly assenting to the right dogma is some sort of sanctified Get Out Of Living Like Jesus Card.™ This is why Jerry Falwell Jr. can carry a gun into sacred space and call for the death of his enemies even though Jesus unequivocally declared “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also,” and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Context. Within the community versus outside the community. Loving your enemies does not mean bringing them into your home and making them family. This is where we request that you stop imposing foreign categories into the text. Nor does loving your enemies mean you gloss over the very thing that you are at emnity with.

Despite the glaring incongruity, Falwell’s students can applaud and his admirers defend his pseudo-righteous call to “self-defense” because because he’s already confessed his assent to the core list of right ideas. Anything he says or does beyond that is of marginal consequence – even if it directly contracts the life and teaching of Jesus.

This is the sad, cheap state of Christianity in America.

It’s Christianity without discipleship, Christianity without the cross, Christianity without Jesus Christ living and incarnate.

It no longer matters if we actually live like Jesus, so long as we agree that Christian dogma is true.

Thankfully, Christianity will almost certainly never completely die off in America (and is no doubt thriving in unexpected and isolated pockets of our country), but Christianity as a particular and peculiar way of life directly reflective of Jesus of Nazareth sure seems to be on life support.

And unless more Christians are willing to speak out and denounce the demonic theology being proclaimed in the name of Jesus, we might as well go ahead and pull the plug.

Because regardless of shifting demographics, without authentic discipleship, the future of Christianity in America looks hopeless.

  • You are not Orthodox. You would not assent to any of the propositions that define Orthodox Christianity.
  • You cannot have Orthopraxy without Orthodoxy. Meaning: You are not a Christian.

When you stop serving your real master and repent of your wicked views, perhaps you will understand why I, as an Orthodox Christian, do not begrudge Mr. Falwell or his students the ability to defend themselves from an outside invader who means them harm.

Falwell is by no means Orthodox or representative of Orthodoxy either. But he is not wrong to want to protect the innocent from the barbarians and the effeminate so-called Christians.

Also one should note that I reviewed a very similar argument in “Hate the Bride? You Probably Don’t Know the Groom.” In which, I covered an argument with a very similar conclusion. That is, that people are leaving the church because it isn’t inclusive enough.

Jesus was not inclusive, his views were decidedly exclusive. “No man comes to the Father but by me.” Many were discouraged by this hard teaching and left. According to you Zack, Jesus was sinning by excluding these people. Which is, of course, absurd.

The push for inclusiveness is yet another demonstration of the integration of Marxism and Christianity. Sorry Zack, we see through you and the terribly confused theological horse you rode in on.

 

The Huffington Puffington and blow your church down!

Is it just me or is the idea that anyone would go to the Huffington Post for religious ideas so repugnant that it should be laughable? It is pathetic that a rag, and yes Huff Puff is nothing more than a rag, is pretending to dole out religious advice. What is even more pathetic is that it is showing up in my Fascist-book news feed from alleged Christians who seem to think that this is a legit source for news and commentary.

In a post entitled “Why I am renouncing my 2nd Amendment rights (and asking my fellow Christians to do the same,” Kutter Callaway suggests that we Christians give up our guns. The link is below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kutter-callaway/i-am-renouncing-my-2nd-amendment-rights_b_8710880.html

Kutter, who somehow considers himself a theologian and allegedly has the trappings of that role, uses the following argument to send home his message:

  1. The frequency of “mass shootings” now reflect a well worn “pattern.

In order to justify this, he compares the two most recent journalist fodder, the crazy guy who killed some other serial killers at an abortion clinic, and the servants of the Prophet who again showed what happens when you become “more devout” to that faith. Other than these two mass killings, he doesn’t establish any other patterned events. And I doubt anyone could argue that these two are related.

I abhor liars and those who play fast and loose with the facts. Here we have an alleged Christian theologian doing just that.

Then he goes down this path of arguments that he “won’t” make while conveniently posting statistics that say the US is overridden with gun violence. Perhaps captain Christian would care to explain that the lion’s share of those statistics are inner city gun violence. That doesn’t fit the narrative though and so it is left out. Never let the truth mess with the story… that was Jesus’ way wasn’t it?

Then of course the old “the Second Amendment didn’t mean what everyone up til now thought it meant” argument pops up in the arguments he’s “not making.”

Sorry had to pause and wipe off the slime. After that revolting dishonesty we reach the meat and potatoes of the claim:

Rather, I’m simply saying that, as a Christian, my primary obligation is to stand in radical opposition to the forces of death and destruction that threaten to undo the very fabric of God’s good creation, regardless of what the Constitution says I can or cannot do as an American citizen.

Well here is at least one kernel of truth. Now we ask the question: What are the forces of death and destruction that threaten? Where are these foes and how best can they be fought? Is it materialist philosophy rotting away at the core of education? Is it the Sophist professors in education that are characteristic of the decay of spirituality and intellectual honesty? Is it humanist dogma that makes men more selfish and animal-like the more consistent they are with it? Perhaps it is the defunct black inner city bully, anti-family, and tribal culture that wears violence like a wedding dress? Nope. It is those darned Christians who are holding on to their guns. I assume that is who is in the “gun culture” he identifies. Since he doesn’t actually pretend to define what he means by his usage of this term, and the context of the blog post certainly seems to suggest that.

Of course, the truth of the matters is that this (possibly ridiculous) renunciation of mine is not going to magically undo the gun culture in America.

Certainly not if you do not address the actual problem. The fact that you identify something as generic as “gun culture” as the responsible agent, shows you really are not interested in root cause. Christians giving up their guns in order to spark a culture change is as foolhardy and reckless as it is misguided. I’ll explain that later.

It isn’t going to fix a profoundly broken system that has not only failed those suffering from mental illnesses but has also created the very conditions for violent extremism to flourish.

Yes it will not fix the Federal government’s failure to protect its citizens from illegal immigration and third world terrorists. Nor will it fix the liberal desire to redistrict the US into socialism. Nor will it fix the entitlement mentality being fostered on University campuses, the long dark Nihilism that materialism fosters. In fact it won’t do anything except give you some sort of pietistic notion that your action is superior to others.

I’ll tell you what it will fix. It will fix the nagging problem the fascists have with enforcing their wickedness on Christian men and women. It will finally remove the only weapon that good men have against their increasingly hostile and anti-god government. Fear. Most Fascists and liberals are cowards. They fear Islam so they kowtow to every demand of the Jihadis. They fear guns so everyone needs to get rid of them… well not everyone as we shall see.

Also note that it is assumed that the gun culture [whatever that means] is not assumed to be one among many necessary conditions for violent extremism, it is the only condition. I would have been more respectful of an argument that addressed this, not just assumed it without prior argument.

And it certainly isn’t going to prevent violent people from acting violently in the future, whether with guns or any other kind of weaponry real or imagined.

Then what’s the point?

By completely opting out of our Second Amendment entitlements–by not only rejecting the rules of the game but also refusing to play the game at all–I think it might very well be possible, at least within the Christian community, to shift the conversation from our inalienable “rights” as citizens to what is ultimately “right” for our fellow human beings.

 

Ok so here’s the deal. Now we have identified the problems:

  1. Christians have guns and guns lead to violence.
  2. Christians aren’t willing to sacrifice their guns, because if they did, Jesus’ light would shine and the criminals would all give up their guns too.

Imagine it with me, if only for a moment. Imagine a different way of being an American Christian. What if we were known not so much for our doctrinal orthodoxy, but for our political heterodoxy? That is, what might happen if we were daring enough to embrace, embody, and enact a way of life that was truly blasphemous to American sensibilities? What if, in a land where worship of the twin gods of weaponry and violence prevailed, we chose instead to serve a dis-arming God–a God who calls us daily to confront violence by laying down our lives (and our guns) for the sake of others?

Let’s use his argument with police officers:

  1. Police officers have guns and guns lead to violence
  2. Cops aren’t willing to sacrifice their guns, because if they did…

…they’d get shot by a thug (criminal, brown shirt, or government) who has no concern for them, their family, or their God. Sorry Kutter… you’ve mis-identified the problem.

Of course, one only has to look at where your blog was posted to know where you were going. Does anyone seriously believe the Huff Puff would post something that didn’t align with their socialist/fascist agenda?

Plato and the Forms

This week I begin work on my fourth philosophy paper this semester for my junior level courses. This one will be on good old Plato and his view of the Forms. The Forms continue to be one of the most interesting philosophical ideas in the history of Philosophy. That is because they present immense difficulties both in thought and in theory. In fact the whole world of abstract concepts is a mystifying paradox for materialism. How can someone recognize a circle when every circle they have encountered, no matter how similar, is in actuality different. The same with trees, and grass. The particular and the many, or rather unity and diversity, is a fantastic opportunity to hone one’s thinking skills.

Wish me luck!

Supreme Court versus the Constitution

Yesterday the top court handed down yet another in a long line of immoral and unlawful verdicts. It seems to me that this particular verdict will go down in history along with abortion, as two great hallmarks of the end of civility in the West.

What more needs to be said? The barbarians are at the gate and they will not stop demanding more and more, and violence will be the tool to achieve their goal.

Goodbye sweet Rome, your light is extinguished.

It don’t matter if you’re black or white… oh wait! Yes, yes it does!

The song by Michael Jackson, a young black pop music superstar who was often criticized for trying to appear white, comes to mind as we are treated to yet another trumped up “controversy” involving color specific race.

This woman has come under scrutiny in recent days for pretending to be a black woman. While I found the situation somewhat humorous, it is being taken seriously by the confused progressive media. Underlying the scrutiny is whether or not Rachel Dolezal, who was clearly born white, is acting unscrupulously by self-identifying as black. Here are my thoughts:

1) Any time someone is dishonest, they are to be considered unscrupulous. Her motivation is moot. The outworking of her philosophy of self is clear in both her dishonesty and her chosen profession.

2) I think that underlying the issue is the simple fact that lying about her race may have given her special advantage over other white women and afforded her a high ranking (and high paying) position with the champions of liberal-dom, the NAACP.

Progressives can hardly complain about such privileges because they allegedly do not exist. In fact if institutionalized racism really is a thing then Ms. Dolezal would have suffered for being identified as black, not profited from it. This is why reporting is somewhat confused on the issue. Some people may feel indignant that a white woman hijacked special minority privileges in order to advance herself. Why? Why shouldn’t she have the same opportunity as a black woman, or a man? That’s the real problem with affirmative action and this gal has highlighted the reason special privilege ought not be accorded any group of people.

Now I am hearing phrases like trans-racial which are comical because they so neatly summarize the blatant stupidity of the progressive movement and the ignorant zombies who follow it.

Well here’s the deal, I am now declaring that I am a black female. I am trans-opposite! Maybe I can get that promotion at work and some scholarships. Even though I was born in the white majority, I wish to self-identify with the black minority and the gender minority so that even if I am only mildly competent, I can get a better job with better pay. That’s because institutionalized racism does exist, and it is now reared its ugly head against white males.