.JPG)
HT to Lew Rockwell By Massad Ayoub
GUN LOCKS, GUN LAWS, AND THE PASSING OF TED KENNEDY
...As you remember the last of the Generation of Princes in America’s Royal Family, remember him whole. His commitment to civil rights seemed to be limited to the ones he approved of. I recall Ted Kennedy’s private bodyguard being arrested for attempting to carry a fully automatic Beretta machine pistol into a Government building. Apparently, the guns he didn’t want the peasants to have were OK for protecting the Royal Family, whose immense wealth allowed them to hire high-priced private Praetorian Guards...
Showing posts with label The New Fundementalists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The New Fundementalists. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
...the pressing political need to browbeat people into denying the obvious...
My muddled brain cannot always see the stiches on the fastball so I do enjoy sitting next to those who can see it, and tell me what I was just hit with. Because his archives are so big, i might not ever find something that i thought was so juicy, so i put parts of it where i will find it. On my blog. Some tidbits...
He Who Says A, Must Say B, by Doulgas Wilson
Bear with me a moment. I would like to sketch the outlines of an argument showing how a denial of Calvinism will lead (over time) to the canons of political correctness. But before doing that, allow me to define both terms. By Calvinism I mean the doctrine of God's exhaustive sovereignty. By political correctness, I mean the pressing political need to browbeat people into denying the obvious.
As soon as Calvinism is denied, divine predestination is denied. And when predestination is denied, it soon occurs to the ranking civil authorities that the role of "predestinator" is vacant. The job of running everyone's life (as God had previously been thought to do) is now vacant. And so the State applies for the job (and not surprisingly, hires itself). The choice is simple -- either God is acknowledged as the one who predestines, or man will attempt to become the one who predestines....
Now we are not yet at this stage, although we are rapidly getting there. The rot of intellectual dishonesty that produces this is very much at the center of our current cultural consciousness. This is the mindset of the intolerista, and this is where political correctness comes in. PC thot is the attempt (frequently successful) to make people deny the Screamingly Obvious through sheer, brute intimidation. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't refute him. Don't engage him in debate. That would be too much like civilized discourse. What intoleristas do is shout people down, file bogus complaints, and tell the authorities that those people over there are "not zoned for disagreeing with me." Coercion is the standard method employed by the failed god. It is the signature of the failed god. And the more clear this becomes, the more necessary it is to resort to continued attempts at coercion.
Examples abound, but I will just use one. When did we have the national debate, after which debate we decided through our elected officials to put women in combat? Some people started to have that debate, but the next thing we knew, the armed services were running down the sidelines waving the egalitarian football over their heads. And then we were suddenly into this war, see, and now every politician alive -- left, right, and center, the ones with the flag lapel pins and the ones without them -- is on television extolling our brave men and women in uniform. You're not against that, are you? Go ahead, say something. I dare you....
The reason certain people get pounded is that they dare to raise "the problem of evil" in the presence of the reigning deity. They dare to point out what must be diligently ignored if the pretension of deity is to be maintained. And their problem is not that they are technically correct while the reigning authorities are technically incorrect. It is nothing so subtle. The problem is that the State is claiming to be able to make water flow uphill, and someone is brave enough (not smart enough, brave enough) to point out that it is doing no such thing.
He Who Says A, Must Say B, by Doulgas Wilson
Bear with me a moment. I would like to sketch the outlines of an argument showing how a denial of Calvinism will lead (over time) to the canons of political correctness. But before doing that, allow me to define both terms. By Calvinism I mean the doctrine of God's exhaustive sovereignty. By political correctness, I mean the pressing political need to browbeat people into denying the obvious.
As soon as Calvinism is denied, divine predestination is denied. And when predestination is denied, it soon occurs to the ranking civil authorities that the role of "predestinator" is vacant. The job of running everyone's life (as God had previously been thought to do) is now vacant. And so the State applies for the job (and not surprisingly, hires itself). The choice is simple -- either God is acknowledged as the one who predestines, or man will attempt to become the one who predestines....
Now we are not yet at this stage, although we are rapidly getting there. The rot of intellectual dishonesty that produces this is very much at the center of our current cultural consciousness. This is the mindset of the intolerista, and this is where political correctness comes in. PC thot is the attempt (frequently successful) to make people deny the Screamingly Obvious through sheer, brute intimidation. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't refute him. Don't engage him in debate. That would be too much like civilized discourse. What intoleristas do is shout people down, file bogus complaints, and tell the authorities that those people over there are "not zoned for disagreeing with me." Coercion is the standard method employed by the failed god. It is the signature of the failed god. And the more clear this becomes, the more necessary it is to resort to continued attempts at coercion.
Examples abound, but I will just use one. When did we have the national debate, after which debate we decided through our elected officials to put women in combat? Some people started to have that debate, but the next thing we knew, the armed services were running down the sidelines waving the egalitarian football over their heads. And then we were suddenly into this war, see, and now every politician alive -- left, right, and center, the ones with the flag lapel pins and the ones without them -- is on television extolling our brave men and women in uniform. You're not against that, are you? Go ahead, say something. I dare you....
The reason certain people get pounded is that they dare to raise "the problem of evil" in the presence of the reigning deity. They dare to point out what must be diligently ignored if the pretension of deity is to be maintained. And their problem is not that they are technically correct while the reigning authorities are technically incorrect. It is nothing so subtle. The problem is that the State is claiming to be able to make water flow uphill, and someone is brave enough (not smart enough, brave enough) to point out that it is doing no such thing.
"Secularism can only fake tolerance, diversity and inclusion'
Rushdoony used to point out that the cry for tolerance is used by outsiders, to gain positions on the inside, and then tolerance is forgotten about. It is a weapon when one wants to get rid of an old orthodoxy and bring in a new one. Here Wilson says it so well, its from 2005...
But Secularism Really Is Ugly, by Douglas Wilson
In the world of postmodern politics, truth does not matter -- and pressure does. One of the reasons postmodern theorists say that all truth constructions are really just disguised power grabs is to disable any who oppose them. Once the decks are cleared for action, up they jump with their own construction which (mysteriously) is not a power grab, in order to proceed with their power grab.
Another way of putting this is that Intoleristas are one-way relativists. They use relativistic "who's to say" arguments to deal with any and all rival truth claims, but when the smoke clears from those battles, they advance their own claims, against which they will brook no dissent whatever. This is why they have richly earned their name -- Intolerista. They will not allow any of their assumptions to be questioned or challenged, and if you try, they will brand you as someone peddling "hate." Hatred, of course, is defined as differing with them....
But Secularism Really Is Ugly, by Douglas Wilson
In the world of postmodern politics, truth does not matter -- and pressure does. One of the reasons postmodern theorists say that all truth constructions are really just disguised power grabs is to disable any who oppose them. Once the decks are cleared for action, up they jump with their own construction which (mysteriously) is not a power grab, in order to proceed with their power grab.
Another way of putting this is that Intoleristas are one-way relativists. They use relativistic "who's to say" arguments to deal with any and all rival truth claims, but when the smoke clears from those battles, they advance their own claims, against which they will brook no dissent whatever. This is why they have richly earned their name -- Intolerista. They will not allow any of their assumptions to be questioned or challenged, and if you try, they will brand you as someone peddling "hate." Hatred, of course, is defined as differing with them....
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Learning to fight like Paul
How should a church or pastor respond to smears and lies about its activities and beliefs? We should first throw out the window what would be our knee jerk responce to act in some way that our culture thinks is christian. Just nail ourselves to a cross and apologize all over the place because someone was disturbed by what we believe or think. Especialy if it is as a result of speaking or acting on biblical truth.
The apostle Paul showed the way with this. He never hesitated to use all legal means to frustrate those who opposed him and the gospel. The fact that most christians would be troubled with the idea of frustrating the enemies of christ is a sign of how much our thinking is captive to the culture and not Gods word.
Doug Wilson and Christs church in Idaho know what its like to live your faith, to take the gospel to all areas of life and so has drawn the wrath of those who hate our Lord. We are not attacked because we are just learning how to apply our fatih consistantly. But We will be attacked as our consistancy grows.
So as show prep it would be good to see what has happened to others and to observe how you can use the internet and current laws to defend and even advance the gospel in the face of resistance.
Wilson has a long string of archived blogs called Moscow Diversity Cleansing that can be read, laughed at and learned from. It will be good mental prep for what will surely come, if not to us , maybe to a ministry known to us. Start at the bottom of the page and work up. Its a lot of postings so consider it a semester course in wisdom application.
An example would be the christian counselors here in AZ that are being attacked by the state board.
The apostle Paul showed the way with this. He never hesitated to use all legal means to frustrate those who opposed him and the gospel. The fact that most christians would be troubled with the idea of frustrating the enemies of christ is a sign of how much our thinking is captive to the culture and not Gods word.
Doug Wilson and Christs church in Idaho know what its like to live your faith, to take the gospel to all areas of life and so has drawn the wrath of those who hate our Lord. We are not attacked because we are just learning how to apply our fatih consistantly. But We will be attacked as our consistancy grows.
So as show prep it would be good to see what has happened to others and to observe how you can use the internet and current laws to defend and even advance the gospel in the face of resistance.
Wilson has a long string of archived blogs called Moscow Diversity Cleansing that can be read, laughed at and learned from. It will be good mental prep for what will surely come, if not to us , maybe to a ministry known to us. Start at the bottom of the page and work up. Its a lot of postings so consider it a semester course in wisdom application.
An example would be the christian counselors here in AZ that are being attacked by the state board.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
To set one part of Scripture against another part of Scripture is to think like a pagan.
At Legacy Baptist we have been working through how to apply a lot of scripture, that we are not used to seeing acknowledged, let alone seeing it applied. Here Wilson adresses this in a manner that allows me to grasp it so much better. From 2005
Cookie Cutter Diversity By douglas Wilson
Radical application of the Scriptures does not consist of taking one set of verses and applying them like crazy, while leaving another set of verses entirely neglected . It can look radical, but that is because we tend to associate the words extreme and radical. Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin, chop it off. For some the key word here is chop, when actually it is if. Those who absolutize one set of verses over the rest of Scripture may certainly look dedicated, but they are actually dedicated to their own ideas, with the illusion of biblicity provided by a Bible, scissors, and library paste.
One man is a pacifist and absolutizes "Thou shalt not kill." Another wants to smite the Amalekite hip and thigh, and he can find his verses. But the right kind of biblical absolutist knows that he must deal with it all. Tota et sola Scriptura. Only Scripture, but also all of Scripture.
So what does this have to do with our response to the local attempts at diversity cleansing? As Christians we need to think through this business carefully. Some Christians think that we are not to resist evil, period. Go the second mile. Turn the other cheek. Overcome evil with good. As we respond to this, we cannot simply appeal to other verses that, for all intents and purposes, negate the practical application of these verses -- because these verses are in the Bible for a reason, and as Christians we ought to be pursuing opportunities to apply them genuinely, which is quite different from explaining them away. But we also hold them in balance with what the Bible teaches elsewhere. To set one part of Scripture against another part of Scripture is to think like a pagan...
Take the link,Read it all
Cookie Cutter Diversity By douglas Wilson
Radical application of the Scriptures does not consist of taking one set of verses and applying them like crazy, while leaving another set of verses entirely neglected . It can look radical, but that is because we tend to associate the words extreme and radical. Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin, chop it off. For some the key word here is chop, when actually it is if. Those who absolutize one set of verses over the rest of Scripture may certainly look dedicated, but they are actually dedicated to their own ideas, with the illusion of biblicity provided by a Bible, scissors, and library paste.
One man is a pacifist and absolutizes "Thou shalt not kill." Another wants to smite the Amalekite hip and thigh, and he can find his verses. But the right kind of biblical absolutist knows that he must deal with it all. Tota et sola Scriptura. Only Scripture, but also all of Scripture.
So what does this have to do with our response to the local attempts at diversity cleansing? As Christians we need to think through this business carefully. Some Christians think that we are not to resist evil, period. Go the second mile. Turn the other cheek. Overcome evil with good. As we respond to this, we cannot simply appeal to other verses that, for all intents and purposes, negate the practical application of these verses -- because these verses are in the Bible for a reason, and as Christians we ought to be pursuing opportunities to apply them genuinely, which is quite different from explaining them away. But we also hold them in balance with what the Bible teaches elsewhere. To set one part of Scripture against another part of Scripture is to think like a pagan...
Take the link,Read it all
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Britian Goes Into the Void, Funny,Sad,Pathetic
This a just a great exersize to see where modern humanist thinking leads to. Also a a nice contrast showing what our founding fathers set up as compared to how Britian's government is organized. From Chalcedon.
Is Britain Finished?
by Lee Duigon
...The church had centuries in which to teach morality to the peoples of Britain. Although there were always individuals who broke the law, everybody knew what basic Christian morality entailed and most people voluntarily abided by the laws derived from it.
But with Christian morality cast aside, people don’t know what the new morality requires of them! Because it would be impossible to police the daily lives of millions of people—never mind the government’s action of setting up 10,000 closed circuit television surveillance cameras in London alone, an action that has nevertheless left 80 percent of London’s crimes unsolved—the humanist state must “teach” the new morality by making dramatic examples of what happens to transgressors. This is why the state sends four police officers after a little boy who spoke the word “gay” on the playground: it gets everyone’s attention. This is intended as a form of teaching, but it’s mere intimidation.
Why don’t the people understand what humanist morality requires of them? Rushdoony answers: “But if the ultimate source of law resides in humanity, and humanity is seen as divine, then man cannot be placed under law, because he himself is beyond law as the source of law.”[16]
In a nation whose people and leaders are consciously Christian, laws enacted by the legislature, man’s laws, must conform to God’s laws. If they conflict with God’s laws, the citizens will view them as invalid. Meanwhile, God’s laws are all written in the Bible, are accessible to everyone, and cannot be hanged by any future Parliament. Citizens will obey them voluntarily, without being cowed by lurid stories in the newspapers....Read the whole article
Is Britain Finished?
by Lee Duigon
...The church had centuries in which to teach morality to the peoples of Britain. Although there were always individuals who broke the law, everybody knew what basic Christian morality entailed and most people voluntarily abided by the laws derived from it.
But with Christian morality cast aside, people don’t know what the new morality requires of them! Because it would be impossible to police the daily lives of millions of people—never mind the government’s action of setting up 10,000 closed circuit television surveillance cameras in London alone, an action that has nevertheless left 80 percent of London’s crimes unsolved—the humanist state must “teach” the new morality by making dramatic examples of what happens to transgressors. This is why the state sends four police officers after a little boy who spoke the word “gay” on the playground: it gets everyone’s attention. This is intended as a form of teaching, but it’s mere intimidation.
Why don’t the people understand what humanist morality requires of them? Rushdoony answers: “But if the ultimate source of law resides in humanity, and humanity is seen as divine, then man cannot be placed under law, because he himself is beyond law as the source of law.”[16]
In a nation whose people and leaders are consciously Christian, laws enacted by the legislature, man’s laws, must conform to God’s laws. If they conflict with God’s laws, the citizens will view them as invalid. Meanwhile, God’s laws are all written in the Bible, are accessible to everyone, and cannot be hanged by any future Parliament. Citizens will obey them voluntarily, without being cowed by lurid stories in the newspapers....Read the whole article
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
American Taliban on the Move
Douglas Wilson is correct when he points out that these are a new form of blasphemy Law.
This is what we should label and call this new censorship thats appearing. When you hear people advocate or sound like they agree with this, call them "American taliban". To their face. You can do it nicely. Smile. They will recoil away and deny it. We must ask them "why are they so judgemental?" This will confuse them but it will take away what they thought was,logical,wise and a good position. They want to call it protecting against hate speach but it is only another form of Blasphemy Law and must be called as such. They are protecting and honoring their god. It would be good for them to realize it.
A jail cell with your name on it
This is what we should label and call this new censorship thats appearing. When you hear people advocate or sound like they agree with this, call them "American taliban". To their face. You can do it nicely. Smile. They will recoil away and deny it. We must ask them "why are they so judgemental?" This will confuse them but it will take away what they thought was,logical,wise and a good position. They want to call it protecting against hate speach but it is only another form of Blasphemy Law and must be called as such. They are protecting and honoring their god. It would be good for them to realize it.
A jail cell with your name on it
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thanksgiving, Amen
From Wilson's blog:
Thanksgiving 2007 and the New Atheism
Topic: Church Year
If it were not so clunky, Thanksgiving should actually be subtitled National Apologetics Day. The apostle Paul tells us that there are two things that the unbeliever wants to suppress, and those two things are the Godness of God, and our consequent responsibility to render thanks to Him. Thanksgiving is really the central epistemological duty of man. Without it, we stagger right into every form of zeitgeistian idolatry.
A corollary of this is that the Church must recover a robust sense of these two realities, experiencing them in her own life, both in our worship services and out in the parish. If the unbelievers are laboring mightily to repress their sense of the Godness of God, and their responsibility to offer up to Him a life of gratitude, then the central thing we must do is live in such a way that keeps bringing the issue back up. They, in their unbelief, are trying to hold an over-inflated beach ball under water. And when we live rejoicing in the presence of the triune God who is God, and we live in a way that overflows with thanksgiving for all things, we are gently poking their quivering arms....
Read more>>
Thanksgiving 2007 and the New Atheism
Topic: Church Year
If it were not so clunky, Thanksgiving should actually be subtitled National Apologetics Day. The apostle Paul tells us that there are two things that the unbeliever wants to suppress, and those two things are the Godness of God, and our consequent responsibility to render thanks to Him. Thanksgiving is really the central epistemological duty of man. Without it, we stagger right into every form of zeitgeistian idolatry.
A corollary of this is that the Church must recover a robust sense of these two realities, experiencing them in her own life, both in our worship services and out in the parish. If the unbelievers are laboring mightily to repress their sense of the Godness of God, and their responsibility to offer up to Him a life of gratitude, then the central thing we must do is live in such a way that keeps bringing the issue back up. They, in their unbelief, are trying to hold an over-inflated beach ball under water. And when we live rejoicing in the presence of the triune God who is God, and we live in a way that overflows with thanksgiving for all things, we are gently poking their quivering arms....
Read more>>
Sunday, July 29, 2007
HR 1592 You Will Be Assimilated
This has passed the house and is in the Senate. The State (Big government, federal, State or even city) is populated by those who think they are wiser than others and see salvation as coming through big gov't. Thanks to FrontPage Magazine via Pearcy Report,whole column
Think No Evil
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2007
...Further, under this type of legislation, the OSU librarian could be prosecuted for offering books that opposed a homosexual lifestyle, but conversely, Christian students, a non-protected group, would have not be able to similarly claim sexual harassment if they objected to a showing of “Brokeback Mountain.”
Under H.R. 1592, it is also unclear which protected groups have precedence over other protected groups. Is the stoning of homosexuals justified under the sharia or Islamic law? Could harassment of gays be the privileged domain of a protected religion? Under H.R. 1592, how would this be decided and by whom? Which prejudices will qualify for special consideration under federal hate crimes legislation and how will this be decided?
In addition, hate crime legislation abridges the right to free speech and religious expression protected by the First Amendment and could lead to censorship. Statements by individuals regarding their beliefs and values are currently protected, but hate crime laws could end critical discussions and examination of religions and religious practices. It is conceivable that with the adoption of federal hate crimes legislation, the expression of religious values that uphold the protection of life and traditional family values could be judged as discriminatory and evidence of harassment of homosexuals. Meanwhile, the promotion of homosexuality to children and the glorification of the homosexual lifestyle could be legally sanctioned as a necessary policy for a protected group....
In the words of Canadian columnist Lorne Gunter, “Hate-crimes laws are based on the fallacious premise that we may be punished for our thoughts and feelings, not just our actions. And insisting the state has the ability to look into our hearts and minds and adjust the contents is a very dangerous line to cross. It gives legislators, the courts, and human-rights tribunals far too much power to decide what emotions and beliefs are acceptable and, more ominously, which are not.
Think No Evil
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2007
...Further, under this type of legislation, the OSU librarian could be prosecuted for offering books that opposed a homosexual lifestyle, but conversely, Christian students, a non-protected group, would have not be able to similarly claim sexual harassment if they objected to a showing of “Brokeback Mountain.”
Under H.R. 1592, it is also unclear which protected groups have precedence over other protected groups. Is the stoning of homosexuals justified under the sharia or Islamic law? Could harassment of gays be the privileged domain of a protected religion? Under H.R. 1592, how would this be decided and by whom? Which prejudices will qualify for special consideration under federal hate crimes legislation and how will this be decided?
In addition, hate crime legislation abridges the right to free speech and religious expression protected by the First Amendment and could lead to censorship. Statements by individuals regarding their beliefs and values are currently protected, but hate crime laws could end critical discussions and examination of religions and religious practices. It is conceivable that with the adoption of federal hate crimes legislation, the expression of religious values that uphold the protection of life and traditional family values could be judged as discriminatory and evidence of harassment of homosexuals. Meanwhile, the promotion of homosexuality to children and the glorification of the homosexual lifestyle could be legally sanctioned as a necessary policy for a protected group....
In the words of Canadian columnist Lorne Gunter, “Hate-crimes laws are based on the fallacious premise that we may be punished for our thoughts and feelings, not just our actions. And insisting the state has the ability to look into our hearts and minds and adjust the contents is a very dangerous line to cross. It gives legislators, the courts, and human-rights tribunals far too much power to decide what emotions and beliefs are acceptable and, more ominously, which are not.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
More On The Angry Atheism With Hitchens
From Wilsons Blog and Mablog...
Weird GuyTopic:
"God Is Not Great"
Christopher Hitchens is interviewed in the latest Atlantic Monthly about all the debates he was in promoting his book on atheism. That would include, of course, the CT debate he had with me.....And the interviewer -- a very sharp someone named Jennie Rothenberg Gritz -- brings up the CT debate:
"What about the question of morality without God?......
The interviewer then summarized my argument, showing that she understood it completely.
"Wilson insisted that if you took Jesus out of the equation, the words 'right' or 'wrong' would have no meaning. Thoughts in the brain would just be a series of chemical reactions, like bubbles in a soft drink. As he put it, 'If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is ‘winning the debate.’ They aren't debating; they are just fizzing.'"
Read it all http://www.dougwils.com/Print.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4153
Weird GuyTopic:
"God Is Not Great"
Christopher Hitchens is interviewed in the latest Atlantic Monthly about all the debates he was in promoting his book on atheism. That would include, of course, the CT debate he had with me.....And the interviewer -- a very sharp someone named Jennie Rothenberg Gritz -- brings up the CT debate:
"What about the question of morality without God?......
The interviewer then summarized my argument, showing that she understood it completely.
"Wilson insisted that if you took Jesus out of the equation, the words 'right' or 'wrong' would have no meaning. Thoughts in the brain would just be a series of chemical reactions, like bubbles in a soft drink. As he put it, 'If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is ‘winning the debate.’ They aren't debating; they are just fizzing.'"
Read it all http://www.dougwils.com/Print.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4153
More Naked People, Hitchens
People who are naked but think they are clothed need to be snapped with the wet towel. Hitchens proudly stands in the puddle of shallow water that is modern relativistic thinking...
FAITH FOR ALL OF LIFE Featured Articles
A Review of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everythingby Christopher Hitchens (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2007)
Reviewed by Stephen Hays
Christopher Hitchens has just come out with a broadside against Christianity.1 Hitchens is a fine stylist. Indeed, style carries the burden of the argument, for there is no sustained argume...Read more>>
Read more>>
FAITH FOR ALL OF LIFE Featured Articles
A Review of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everythingby Christopher Hitchens (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2007)
Reviewed by Stephen Hays
Christopher Hitchens has just come out with a broadside against Christianity.1 Hitchens is a fine stylist. Indeed, style carries the burden of the argument, for there is no sustained argume...Read more>>
Read more>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)