Tag: Christianity

Christians: No to Noah

We have this on the authority of no less than Mr. John C. Wright:

I saw the movie NOAH just now. What a load of horse manure. In days to come, time permitting, I will pen a more thorough review, but for now, let me just say: Christian men, save your money. Go see GOD’S NOT DEAD. Tell Hollywood we don’t like movies about Biblical figures that mock the source material.

I have to admit that it never even occurred to me to go see it, but it’s always nice to receive confirmation that one’s assumptions were correct. Wright adds in the comments:

This movie particularly offends me, because back when I was an atheist, I could and did, write stories so convincingly Christian that I fooled at least one editor and two reviewers into thinking I was one. It is a talent all artists have. It is called make believe. No director of this stature lacks this talent. The atheist flavor in the film was not inserted by accident nor oversight, it was deliberate.

The Churchian elevation of sin

Leave it to the Female Imperative-worshipping feminists to not only turn Biblical doctrine on its head, but actually find a sacred and holy purpose to female sin:

  1. A poor excuse for a man and husband does something (often something mysterious) to make his wife unhaaappy.
  2. As a result, the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
  3. Her sinful actions, while of course not sanctioned, turn out to be just the ticket required to shake her complacent husband into attention and get him to seek out God.
  4. His seeking out God, (triggered by her lack of submission), fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.

I’m pretty relaxed about women who are unwilling to submit to their husbands, for much the same reason I’m relaxed about atheists who are unwilling to submit to God. First, because they will inevitably reap the consequences of their foolishness. Second, because they don’t have to answer to me concerning their stubbornness, they have to answer to God.

That being said, actively teaching women that being rebellious in marriage is a good and divinely sanctioned act is downright evil. Stay well away from any church or wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing who perverts the Bible in this manner.

The answer to the purported dilemma often raised is absolutely simple. Christian women not infrequently to ask: “Do I have to submit to a husband who [insert various moral failing or perceived flaw here].” Yes. Next question.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
– 1 Peter 3: 1-2 

I understand many, perhaps most, women don’t like that. I don’t like the fact that I can’t split the skull of everyone who annoys me either. But I don’t make the rules. If you don’t like them, then follow the example of Lucifer and take it up with the Rulegiver.

Backfire

In which John C. Wright explains how reading an slanderous anti-Christian short story helped him move on from atheism and embrace Christianity:

Mr. Chiang’s short story, as far as I was concerned, not merely failed of its object, but was counter-productive. One of the things that made me suffer no regret when I was called away from the cramped intellectual jail of atheism into a wider and more wonderful world, was my growing conviction that my fellow atheists were shallow, men without insight into real human nature. I read Chiang’s story and I thought: is this the best my side can do? Is this cheap slander the best argument we can muster against our hated enemies, the Christians? In those days I kept wondering why, since my side had the Sixteen-Inch Guns of Truth and Logic, our gunners kept shooting blanks. Why were we sneering all the time, instead of setting out the evidence?

To get a notion of the depth of the contrast I saw, find a comfy chair by the fire, read HELL IS THE ABSENCE OF GOD by Ted Chiang, and then, without rising from the chair except perhaps to toss another log on the fire, pick up and read SMITH OF WOOTTON MAJOR by J.R.R. Tolkien, or perhaps LEAF BY NIGGLE. It does not matter whether you are an Atheist or a Christian or are another faith or uncommitted: anyone reading those two author’s work in contrast will see that one has an insight into human joys and human woes, a compassion toward even human folly or pride or sloth. And the other one shows nothing, no humanity, no understanding. The heart of Chiang’s work is not in the right place. Even though I thought Chiang’ world view was true and Tolkien’s was false, I concluded Tolkien’s insight into real life was keen-eyed, and Chiang’s was superficial.

He cites an earlier review of Chiang’s short story, written when he was, as he described at the time, “an unrepentant atheist”:

“The satire “Hell is the Absence of God” reads like it was written by someone who never met a Christian, or read anything written by a Christian. In this tale, those who see the light of heaven are grotesquely disfigured (their eyes and eye sockets are removed) and loose free will, and become perfect in faith, so that they are automatically assured of entrance into paradise. The main character, mourning after the death of his wife, seeks to find a spot where an angel is leaving or entering the world, so that he can, if only for a moment, glimpse the light of heaven, so that he can loose his eyes and his free will, but be assured of meeting his wife again in heaven. All goes as planned, but God capriciously sends the man to Hell in any case. Hell is not a place of torment, but a bland area much like earth, merely separate from God, peopled by Fallen Angels who sin was not rebellion, but free-thinking. Hence, out of all created beings, only the main character is actually suffering in Hell, since he is the only one who longs not to be there, and, thanks to his free will being destroyed, is the only one who loves God wholeheartedly. Again, all efforts of the main character to rejoin his wife are futile. There are secondary characters whose lives are also ruined and for no particular reason.

“I myself am an unrepentant atheist, but I would never pen such trite antichristian propaganda. If an author is going to set a story in an alternate universe where the Christian myths happen to be true, the author should become familiar with (or, at least, hide his contempt for) the source material. Read Thomas Aquinas or John Milton. Christians may be wrong, but they are not stupid.

“Over all, Mr. Chiang is an excellent writer, who writes wonderfully about big ideas, but weds them to a theme of dispirited nihilism. He is capable of subtle and penetrating characterization, except when he trots out a tired leftwing cliché, whereupon suddenly everything becomes flat and predictable (see, for example, his treatment of the CIA, Big Business, the Military, and the Victorian Age).”

And so we see that even shadow testifies to the existence of the Light. I thought Wright’s take on Chiang was spot-on. I have the collection of short stories to which he refers, and while I found them intriguing, and even bordering on brilliant, I also thought it was remarkable how every single one of them felt essentially flat. I didn’t know why at the time, but now I do. Put simply, Chiang is a tremendous talent crippled by postmodern secularism.

He is, as I once explained to R. Scott Bakker, a color-blind painter. It makes no difference how flawless his technique and his skill are, because when the sun is green and the grass is purple, there is a certain disconnect from the human experience that cannot be avoided.

As I said to Tom Kratman yesterday, in the end, WHAT you write is considerably more important than HOW you write. An accurate truth, even clumsily described, is more significant than a pretty lie, no matter how eloquently the lie is told.

Mailvox: Answers for MJ 1

This was a long letter from MJ, so I’ll have to address it in parts:

I am 21 years old and a student at a small Jesuit college in Ohio. I just recently came across your blog. To be precise it was introduced to me last spring–March, I believe. I wasn’t part of your regular traffic until October or so. Now I think hardly a day goes by that I don’t read what is stirring in your head. First, thank you both for your insights and your (at least I consider it) courage (maybe you consider it normalcy). To be brief, I grew up in a relatively conservative Roman Catholic household. However, as one who prefers to avoid confrontation, I rarely engage in debates about politics or religion. I’ll speak vehemently about such subjects with people with whom I agree. When it comes to others, I prefer to keep quiet or, if necessary, appease. I say this so that my thanks might be better placed. You have no desire to avoid or appease those whom you consider wrong. Your example is a great help.

Perhaps it was divinely ordained, but I had been reading through a handful of literature on science, atheism, and religion at around the same time that I grew fond of your blog (I didn’t read any Dawkins; I skimmed the first five chapters of Hitchens’s memoir; I gravitated toward Stenger’s God the Failed Hypothesis and Cunningham’s Decoding the Language of God)…. At the time I started this endeavor and even during the initial stages, I probably would have classified myself as an agnostic….

Now, I am not contacting you solely for the sake of encomium; I have a few things that I wish to ask. First, I remember reading some comments you had about the omnipotence, omniscience, etc. of God. You suggested replacing such attributes with ideas about tantipotence, tantiscience, etc. I prefer to think of my theology almost in terms of mathematics (just to note, my theology is incredibly uninformed. A current goal of mine is to become both more biblically literate and theologically literate. The downside of a Catholic upbringing!). I have never been a fan of the arguments of god’s nonexistence by means of syllogism (that is, God is A, but A leads to B, and B is inconsistent with well known fact C, so God is not A or something like that) since syllogisms of this sort seem to be equivalent to abusing and mutilating the dictionary. However, since these arguments are out there, I began to consider the following. I don’t wish to jeopardize God’s infinite nature.

However, pure omnipotence can cause logical problems (if we wish to impose some logical structure on God’s nature, something that I think objectionable). In your suggestion of tantipotence, you (I think) mentioned that to the human mind tantipotence would virtually appear to be omnipotence. To the human mind, there is no significant difference between a God who can do all and a God who can do nearly all things. My only qualm is that to the believer this might be an acceptable concession; but I would imagine that the non-believer would love to poke fun at the not-fully-all powerful God. I was wondering what you might think of this idea. In mathematics there are different gradations of infinity (I am sure you are aware). The set of integers has a cardinality of infinity, but this infinity is less than the infinity that is the cardinality of the set of real numbers. That is, there are more real numbers than integers even though both are technically infinite in extent. If we take omnipotence as the cardinality of the real numbers and tantipotence as the cardinality of the integers, then God still remains infinite even if “less so.”

My point is to ask your opinion about thinking about theology in terms of mathematics. To some degree I think that mathematics presents the universe (or multiverse, hyperverse, or whatever they are calling it now) with its own mind-body problem of dualism. How is it that mathematics, something so abstract, can interact with the physical world? (I suppose something similar could be said about language; how does an abstract concept such as language reflect, relate, and influence the material world?) I read your post today from Spengler’s Decline of the West. I am definitely going to look into that book. As a final point, I am awestruck at one of the most basic ideas in mathematics, continuity, and how continuity affects infinity. For example, I am still puzzled by how an infinitely long number line can be looped up into a circle of radius 1 through a simple compactification method….virtually allowing me to hold infinity in my hand! I am also intrigued that through a few simple lines a mathematician can prove a statement that can solve an infinite number of problems. I suppose it’s akin to what you write in The Irrational Atheist that a few lines of programming can generate the infinitely complex Serpinski Triangle.

In relation to the above, I encountered on Richard Dawkins’s website the classic argument that atheists make: if god is all-powerful and all-loving, then he should wish to stop and be able to stop evil. You know the rest. Just out of curiosity, does this argument presuppose that God operates on a kind of utilitarian moral code? After all, the alleviation of suffering is precisely Sam-Harrisian…er…I mean utilitarian. Not for a second do I imagine a utilitarian God! If, indeed, this argument presupposes such a God, it seems to me all the more reason to throw it out immediately! 

I’m glad that some people are finding my anti-anti-apologetics to be useful. I’m not going to pretend I don’t enjoy beating up on the intellectual cripples of evangelical atheism, as one agnostic described them, but there is a more serious aspect to the activity than my own personal amusement.

First, I think it is important to always keep in mind that whether it is theology, psychology, philosophy, or even history that we are contemplating, we see as though through a glass, darkly. Nothing we do, think, or say can jeopardize God’s nature, whatever it actually happens to be, from nonexistence to omnipotent omnipresence. We are not debating the truth, we are not even capable of perceiving the truth, we are merely debating our superficial observations and our momentary perceptions of the truth. The truth is out there, but it is grander and more complicated than we can possibly hope to comprehend.

In other words, don’t flatter yourself, sport. Neither God nor nature depend upon MJ’s opinion of them. Or mine.

So, the idea of shying away from an idea due to its potential effect on us or anyone else is fundamentally misguided. Anyone who attempts to make hay with regards to the imagined limits of a tantiscient and tantipotent God is doing nothing more than demonstrating himself to be a midwit and a fool. The analogy of the limits of the two infinite sets MJ mentions is a very good one; regardless of whether one is considering integers or real numbers, it is objectively stupid to claim that the number 100 is bigger than the upper limit of either set.

As for the idea that an all-powerful and all-loving God should wish to stop and be able to stop evil, to say nothing of the idea that the existence of evil therefore disproves the existence of such a god, well, that doesn’t even rise to the level of midwittery. One has to have a truly average mind and remain ignorant of basic Biblical knowledge to find either of those concepts even remotely convincing.

Imagine the Sisyphean hell that is the existence of a video game character, literally created to die over and over and over again. Does the misery of his existence prove that the video game developer does not exist? Of course not. Does it prove that the developer has any limits upon him that the video game character can observe? Of course not. Does it prove that the developer has any particular enmity for the character? Not at all.

Now, it does prove that the developer is not all-loving. But then, the Christian God is not all-loving. He plays favorites. He loves some and He is very specific about others for whom He harbors not only antipathy, but outright hatred. It is fine to attack the idea of an all-loving god, but it is a mistake to assume any such attack is even remotely relevant to the Christian religion.

The argument is stupid, ignorant, and while it can theoretically rest on a presumption of utilitarianism, more often it rests upon the clueless moral parasitism of the atheist who subscribes to it. It is ironic that the more foolish sort of atheist often attempts to disprove Christianity by an appeal to Christian morality, but then, as MJ has already discovered, we’re not dealing with intellectual giants here.

Ban government marriage

The State’s push to force homogamy on the Church has finally resulted in the realization that the Church should never have accepted the State’s encroachment in its affairs in the 19th century:

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it’s what Oklahomans want.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner said. Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

Banning state interference with marriage is the conservative position. Since most people are historical ignoramuses, it will likely surprise many that marriage licenses didn’t even exist until 1631. And as I noted in my 2004 WND column entitled Divorcing the State, some State governments didn’t interfere with the sacrament until 1958.

All the misguided attempts to accommodate the State have failed. It is time for the American Church to accept the fact that it must now go into the implacable resistance mode that has characterized Christianity for a good part of its historical existence. This may mean persecutions and the falling away of those of weaker faith in time, but then, that is nothing that the Church has not seen or survived before.

Rep. Turner’s action is well-advised. Oklahoma would do well to cease recognizing all marriages as would the other States. If they don’t, they will find that people will simply cease to bother obtaining marriage licenses as is the case in the majority of the black community and an increasing percentage of the white community as well.

Banning government marriage is the right thing to do on libertarian grounds, on religious grounds, on practical grounds, and on the grounds of sexual fairness. I am pro-marriage but I would not recommend obtaining a marriage license to any unmarried young man or woman these days. And if a woman isn’t willing to marry a man without a marriage license, that will serve as sufficient notice that she is already married to the State.

Dark Enlightenment: the second stage

We appear to have passed the “Ridicule” stage of the counterreaction to what some are calling “The Dark Enlightenment”. This is apparent because now, it’s not only our direct enemies on the godless equalitarian Left that are attacking us, but mealy-mouthed equalitarian Christian quislings are attempting to establish their credibility as Left-friendly moderates by joining in on the fun:

What’s the Dark Enlightenment? Basically, it’s a de-Christianized form of right wingery that is drinking deep of white supremacy and racialism. Sometimes, it appeals to something called “Western” Christianity, but this is basically a fig leaf for getting discernment-free conservatives to jettison actual Christian teaching in favor of nutty white supremacy by rhetoric about how Euro-superiority makes it plain that the whole “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” race indifference is a huge mistake.

Other times, it daubs on a layer of pseudo-science by tossing around the phrase “human biodiversity” (by which they mean “some races are inferior to others”).

And not infrequently, some of its adherents ditch so much as the figleaf of Christianity (since Christianity really is irreconcilable with racism) and openly promotes bullshit “northern” neo-paganism as they get in touch with their inner Himmlers. Because everybody knows that the people who erected standing stones as their highest achievement were just about to usher in a golden age when they were rudely interrupted by brown ruffians named Augustine and St. Paul and Plato who tamed their manly Nordic creativity with their ethnically impure southern barbarism.

 Let’s count the errors:

  1. There is nothing de-Christianized about it. Several of the so-called “Sith Lords” of the movement, such as it is, are outspoken and uncompromising Christians.
  2. It has nothing to do with white supremacy and everything to do with white survival. In fact, most of the HBDers would be better categorized as Asian supremacists.
  3. There is no call to jettison any genuinely Christian teaching, but rather, the many anti-Biblical Churchian teachings that presently infect the Church.
  4. It is true that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek”. The key words there are “in Christ”. The Church is not the State. In the civil government of every political entity where non-Christians are permitted to reside, there most certainly are national, religious, and ethnic distinctions to be made.
  5. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about human biodiversity. The only pseudo-science is on the part of the equalitarians and anti-racists, whose argument that human beings are all essentially the same has been conclusively destroyed by genetic science.
  6. Christianity clearly encompasses the acknowledgement of differences between races and nations. See Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:21

Shea wrongly sees the Dark Enlightenment as a threat to Christianity, failing to understand that it is the corrective for the disease of left-wing Churchianism.

At least one of my readers has a young, formerly Catholic, relative who is going for this vile crap in a big way (he now practices bullshit white supremacist paganism because Christianity adulterated European racial stock with its acceptance of all races as children of God) and it is apparently going viral in some College Republican circles (according to people who are writing me about it).

The fact that young men are leaving the Church is not an indictment of the Dark Enlightenment. Indeed, we Christians who acknowledge its truths are the only ones who will be able to reach this young ex-Catholic and other young men who have left the Church because we are the only ones they will trust. We are the only ones who have not lied to them. Their leaving is an indictment of the deceitful Churchianism that has betrayed the young sheep who were in the fold, and who have fled it in reaction due to the non-stop lies they have observed, deceit of the sort that Shea is still perpetrating.

Jesus Christ is the Truth. And one cannot defend the truth with lies. John 15:4 states: “No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” It is not hard to observe that every church, including the Roman Catholic Church, that has embraced equalitarianism, feminism, and anti-racism has almost immediately begun to die. But it appears the idea that anti-racism and desegregation is unbiblical and consequentially antithetical to Christianity may be as hard for some to bear as the idea that homosexuality and usury and fornication are for others.

And yet, fifty years of experience have rendered this conclusion all but inescapable. Show me a church that prides itself on its opposition to racism and I’ll show you a church that will soon embrace female pastors, unrepentant sinners, and declining attendance. That doesn’t mean that racism is a Christian virtue, it merely means that opposing racism is as legitimate a Christian policy as opposing chocolate or the Denver Broncos.

UPDATE: It looks like Irenist has a little confessing to do this weekend:

“Mr. Beale’s piece complains that the Church
embraces “anti-racism,” implying that he thinks the Church should be
pro-racist. As you might say: pretty lame.” 

He can lie and whine about the truths he finds uncomfortable all he likes. In the meantime, his Churchian organization will continue to die. Stick to the truth and you will never have to lie. Embrace a lie and you will soon find it difficult to speak the truth.

The Patriarch teaches

Phil Robertson is now America’s Patriarch:

[H]e stood in front of the small class, at White’s Ferry Road Church wearing his full camouflage suit and addressed the group for around 45 minutes.

He said: ‘I have been immoral, drunk, high. I ran with the wicked people for 28 years and I have run with the Jesus people since and the contrast is astounding.

‘I tell people, “You are a sinner, we all are. Do you want to hear my story before I give you the bottom line on your story?”

‘We murder each other and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic. All the diseases that just so happen to follow sexual mischief… boy there are some microbes running around now.

‘Sexual sins are numerous and many, I have a few myself. So what is your safest course of action? If you’re a man, find yourself a woman, marry them and keep your sex right there.

‘You can have fun, but one thing is for sure, as long as you are both healthy in the first place, you are not going to catch some debilitating illness, there is safety there.

‘Commonsense says we are not going to procreate the human race unless we have a man and a woman. From the beginning Jesus said, “It is a man and a woman.” Adam was made and Eve was made for this reason. They left their fathers and mothers and be united to become one flesh, that’s what marriage is all about.

‘But we looked at it and said it was an outdated stereotype. When you look back at the human race, the sins have always been the same: We get high, we get drunk, we get laid, we steal and kill.

‘Has this changed at all from the time God burnt up whole cities because their every thought was evil?’

Then reading from the Bible he said, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it.

‘I am just reading what was written over 2000 years ago. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom. All I did was quote from the scriptures, but they just didn’t know it. Whether I said it, or they read it, what’s the difference? The sins are the same, humans haven’t changed.

‘If you give them the bad news, they’ll start kicking and screaming. But you love them more than you fear them, so you tell them.

‘A lot of times they don’t even wait for you to finish and say, ‘But there’s a way out, do you want to hear the rest of the story or what?

‘Jesus will take sins away, if you’re a homosexual he’ll take it away, if you’re an adulterer, if you’re a liar, what’s the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all.

‘If we lose our morality, we will lose our country. It will happen. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all walk around without stealing from each other and killing each other?

‘Why don’t we just love each other enough that we wouldn’t want to do these things to each other?’

Robertson – who made his fortune from inventing and manufacturing hunting equipment before finding TV stardom – went on: ‘We are a bunch of rednecks from Louisiana, but I am not uneducated, I have a degree from Louisiana Tech.

‘But this week I have been called an ignoramus. This week I have been asked, “Is this the first time you have brought up sin?” I said, “Are you kidding? I have been traveling to and fro spreading this message.”

‘Then he said, “Well do you invite yourself to go and get your Bible and tell people what you are now sharing with us?” I said, “No they are inviting me.”

‘I have made hundreds and hundreds of speeches and you can pick them apart and the center has always been Jesus Christ.

‘Do many people get up and walk out? Yeah, all the time, do I hold it against them? No. Anybody can get up and stop listening. We are all just humans on this planet.’

He added: ‘Jesus Christ was the most perfect being to ever walk this planet and he was persecuted and nailed to the cross, so please don’t be surprised when we get a little static.’

The best part, however, was how he closed in prayer: “I will not give or back off from my path because you conquered death, Father, so we are not worried about all the repercussions.”

May God grant us all similar fearlessness in Jesus Christ. That spirit of fear you sometimes feel didn’t come from Him. We can always find a reason to back down, an excuse to worry about the repercussions. Phil Robertson reminds us that as Christians, we are always going to get a little static, so we may as well grow up spiritually and accept it.

The World War on Christianity

Never forget that the spirit of the world hates Jesus Christ and hates the Christian for refusing to submit to it, for refusing to be a part of it.

Across the world this week, hundreds of millions of us will be singing of that
“silent night, holy night” in the town of Bethlehem. But as Christmas approaches, with its beguiling promise of “peace on earth and
mercy mild”, how many of us will reflect on the words of our great Christmas
carols and be reminded that Christianity was a faith born in the East? How
many of us are aware that, while the first Christmas took place in the
Middle East, there today that same faith is under threat?
Last week, the leader of the Catholic Church, His Holiness Pope Francis, chose
to cast light on this dark story of persecution by taking to Twitter to warn
that we “cannot resign ourselves to think of a Middle East without
Christians”. Later in the week, Prince Charles warned that “Christians in the Middle East
are, increasingly, being deliberately attacked by fundamentalist Islamist
militants. Christianity was, literally, born in the Middle East and we must
not forget our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ”.

Don’t forget your brothers and sisters in Christ in the Middle East, in North Korea, in China, and in Africa. Pray for them. Pray that their persecutors will be won over by their faith, even as the Apostle Paul was won over by Stephen the martyr.

As the A&E affair demonstrates, one day you may need them to pray for you.

Media bias: the conclusive proof

Many people have argued over the years, in the face of the obvious evidence, that the media cannot be systematically biased to the Left because it would not make business sense to spurn more than half the population as customers. However, the recent decision by A&E to fire its biggest and most lucrative TV star because it is more concerned about catering to homosexuals than making money vividly demonstrates that politics and propaganda are more important to the media companies than making a profit:

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ. “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

These are companies that never fire anyone for anti-Christian or anti-Republican remarks, but they’ll act with alacrity against anyone who says anything critical of the sexually abnormal. Notice that Alec Baldwin didn’t get fired for his many and various rants until he offended homosexuals one too many times.

And if you watch A+E, why are you supporting “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community”?

As for the statement by the spokesman of GLAAD, I shall await with interest his next statement on Muslim theology. “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said.

The fact is that a queer propagandist like Wilson Cruz obviously no more knows what “true Christians believe” than he knows what “true Martians believe”. The true and Biblically-based Christian belief is that self-identified homosexuals are unrepentant sinners whom God regards as abomination because they identify themselves with their sin. It is absolutely impossible to be a Christian and an unrepentant homosexual for the obvious reason that Christianity requires repentance for one’s sins.

Everyone on the planet is fallen. And no one chooses their particular flavor of temptation. But we are all responsible for our own actions, we all choose whether to give into our temptations or not, and we all choose whether to repent of those moral failures, those sins, or not.

The tolerance charade

As expected, the non-Christian groups who begged and pleaded for tolerance show none the moment they feel they are in power:

A girl guide group faces being thrown out of the national association after refusing to force members to drop God from the oath…. The Guiding Promise was altered earlier this year so that members now swear ‘to be true to myself and develop my beliefs’ rather than the original ‘to love my God’.

This is why it is always a massive mistake for Christians to give into the demands for tolerance from non-believers and other faiths in the first place. They inevitably refuse to grant the very same tolerance they demanded. If you don’t keep out the infiltrators, they will eventually take over your organization and pervert it. Tolerance is not a virtue, it is nothing more than weakness and self-inflicted vulnerability.

The secularists have made it abundantly clear that there is no room for Christianity in their godless society.

After 24 years of litigation, a federal court revealed in an emotional hearing that it has ordered the famous Mount Soledad Cross removed from a veterans memorial, holding it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Since 1913, a cross has stood as the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, surrounded by nearly 3,000 granite plaques, individually honoring war heroes from every American war, from the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan.

So be it. It is time for Christians to again begin constructing Christian civilization without the godless and the pagans as their society collapses into moral degradation and economic stagnation. We did it before. We can do it again.