This morning a woman most Americans have never heard of checked herself into prison to begin serving a sentence she should not have been given.
Her name is Victoria Charity White, and what happened to her on January 6th showed that terrible crimes were committed that day against the American people.
This is another “connective reading” post. These come about when I am on a trip with time to think through well what is in front of me. The last time was a 10-hour layover coming back from Michigan — a series of cancelled flights. Southwest. In that post I was connecting a book I read many years ago on the effects of marijuana with a totally unrelated book on apologetics.Marijuana | Doing Some Connective Reading In An Airport
This connective reading lies less far apart timespan wise. Before heading to Utah for a family hike through Zion, I came across this FEDERALIST article about Russell Kirk and the foundation for conservatism. Here is the excerpt:
… Michael Federici gives a brief but insightful introduction to the newly rereleased version of The Politics of Prudence, Kirk’s collection of essays first published in 1993 after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The work attempted to present conservatism anew in an age now free from the ideological struggle of the Cold War.
Conservative Character
Federici notes that Kirk understood conservatism to be “a disposition of character rather than a collection of reified, abstract political doctrines. It is the rejection of ideology rather than the exercise of it.” This, too, is the understanding of conservatism laid out by the champion of conservatism in the 21st century, my former teacher Sir Roger Scruton.
This understanding may help one realize why conservatism fails as an ideology — because it is not an ideology. As Kirk humorously notes early on in one of the early chapters of this book, conservatives who attempt to ideologize conservatism make the first and most egregious error in understanding conservatism.
If, though, conservatives are united in “a disposition of character” and “rejection of ideology,” what is that “disposition” and what does the “rejection of ideology” entail?
[….]
Second, the conservative accepts that the cosmos is governed by a transcendent moral order. This transcendent moral order serves as the basis of the mystery and wonder of existence, which makes possible the life of love. This disposition of love that guides conservatives is opposed to the modernist view of existence, “an arid and loveless realm” that “is a stage for the ego, with its appetites and self-assertive passions.”
Against Ideology and Centralized Power
Next, the rejection of ideology is principally opposed to the double threat of “an earthly paradise” and “centralized power,” which motivate totalitarian impulses.
Three of the chapters, originally lectures given by Kirk, illustrate these ideas. First, “The Errors of Ideology” explores the ideologue’s outlook and disastrous policies. The ideologue, Kirk explains, “thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature.” This outlook and ideological construction of politics is what the conservative rejects.
Second, Kirk’s brief but illuminating reflection on “The Politics of T.S. Eliot” helps the reader understand more fully the conservative disposition. The life and writings of Eliot reveal the conservative’s distrust of “centralized power” in any form, be it under “capitalism” or “socialism” or any other ism. The destruction of ethics and theology by practical utilitarianism has caused the despotism of merciless and heartless politics.
We are told, repeatedly, to keep God and morality out of politics. Yet, as Eliot insisted, society is bound together by common religion and a common ethical outlook. Without the recovery of the ethics of kindness and compassion, rooted in the Christian God, Western society runs to its own destruction under “the cult of the colossal.”
Hang with me here, there is going to be some biographical info coming up.
My professor of missions was Ray D. Arnold… he was one of the 1,000 missionaries that General MacArthur called to go to Japan at the conclusion of WWII. One blog notes this about the endeavor:
Here is more via TIM SHORROCK:
In November 1945, two months after he accepted the surrender of Japan on the deck of the USS Missouri, General Douglas MacArthur sat down with a delegation of American clergy at his headquarters in the Dai-Ichi Insurance Building in downtown Tokyo. The four churchmen had come to Japan to rekindle a dialogue with Japanese Christians cut short by World War II and were the first Americans in civilian dress to enter postwar Japan. MacArthur, a lifelong Episcopalian, asked them to send 1,000 missionaries to Japan as soon as possible. “Japan is a spiritual vacuum,” he said. “If you do not fill it with Christianity, it will be filled with communism.”
So began one of the strangest episodes of the Cold War: MacArthur’s attempt to harness Christianity in his mission to transform Japan into an American-style democracy. Over the next five years, over 1,500 American missionaries arrived in Japan in answer to the call from MacArthur and a recruitment drive launched by the mainline American churches. Most of them were young people who came to Japan fresh from college, bible school or the military, filled with visions of remaking Japan and providing spiritual guidance and sustenance to a defeated nation.
[….]
Going by the numbers, MacArthur’s crusade was a miserable failure. In the political turbulence after World War II, millions of Japanese joined the reborn Japanese Communist Party and cooperated with communists and leftists to organize labor unions and demonstrate against the spread and testing nuclear weapons. Fifty years after the war, the number of Japanese who call themselves Christians remains a little over one-half of one percent of the population, the same level it was before Pearl Harbor.
But judged on human terms, the American missionary influx after 1945 helped heal the wounds of war and exposed the defeated Japanese to a new kind of American, neither businessman or soldier, willing to forgo the comforts of home to share in the uncertainties and poverty of postwar Japan. “They were young and idealistic, and identified with Japan,” recalls Kiyoko Takeda Cho, a prominent Christian intellectual who lives in Tokyo. “They represented not the ruling country, but came for reconciliation. That attitude was very much appreciated, not only by Christians but also non-Christians.”….
Of course, in today’s ever more politically correct world, would you ever fathom a well-known general today calling for missionaries to, say, Iraq? However, the main point here is that both Russell Kirk and General MacArthur had a keen sense of the extent of Communism and that void it fills.
As does the author of the book I brought. The author was introduced to me through a class I took on missions with Dr. Arnold as the professor. Dr. Arnold used a smaller quote from Lit-Sen Chang’s booklet, but you can see the keen awareness of the extent of this “do-goodism,” Communism and Socialism give people:
As Dr. Carl F. H. Henry pointed out: “The Chicago evangelicals, while seeking to overcome the polarization of concern in terms of personal evangelism or social ethics, also transcended the neo Protestant nullification of the Great Commission.” “The Chicago Declaration did not leap from a vision of social utopia to legislation specifics, but concentrated first on biblical priorities for social change.” “The Chicago evangelicals did not ignore transcendent aspects of God’s Kingdom, nor did they turn the recognition of these elements into a rationalization of a theology of revolutionary violence or of pacifistic neutrality in the face of blatant militarist aggression.” (Cf. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, “Evangelical Social Concern” Christianity Today, March 1, 1974.) The evangelical social concern is transcendental not merely horizontal.
We must make it clear that the true revolutionaries are different from the frauds who “deal only with surface phenomena. They seek to remove a deep-seated tumor from society by applying a plaster to the surface. The world’s deepest need today is not something that merely dulls the pain, but something that goes deep in order to change the basic unity of society, man himself. Only when men individually have experienced a change and reorientation, can society be redirected in the way it should go. This we cannot accomplish by either violence or legislation” (cf. Reid: op. cit.). Social actions, without a vertical and transcendental relation with God only create horizontal anxieties and perplexities!
Furthermore, the social activists are in fact ignorant of the social issues, they are not experts in the social sciences. They simply demand an immediate change or destruction of the social structures, but provide no blueprint of the new society whatsoever! They can be likened to the fool, as a Chinese story tells, who tried to help the plant grow faster by pulling it higher. Of course, such “action” only caused the plant to wither and die. This is exactly what the social radicals are doing now! And the W.C.C. is supporting such a tragic course!
We must challenge them [secular social activists] to discern the difference between the true repentance and “social repentance.” The Bible says: “For the godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret; but worldly grief produces death” (II Cor. 7:10). This was the bitter experiences of many former Russian Marxists, who, after their conversion to Christ came to understand that they had only a sort of “social repentance”—a sense of guilt before the peasant and the proletariat, but not before God. They admitted that “A Russian (Marxist) intellectual as an individual is often a mild and loving creature, but his creed (Marxism) constrains him to hate” (cf. Nicolas Zernov: The Russian Religious Renaissance). “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10,23). A complete change of a society must come from man himself, for basically man is at enmity with God. All humanistic social, economic and political systems are but “cut flowers,” as Dr. Trueblood put it, even the best are only dim reflections of the Glory of the Kingdom of God. As Benjamin Franklin in his famous address to the Constitutional Convention, said, “Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” Without reconciliation with God, there is no reconciliation with man. Social action is not evangelism; political liberation is not salvation. While we shall by all means have deep concern on social issues; nevertheless, social activism shall never be a substitution for the Gospel.
Lit-Sen Chang, The True Gospel vs. Social Activism, (booklet. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co: 1976), 9.
Now, for some more biographical background to Lit-sen Chang, it fits well with the drive of this post.
Again, hang in there:
What is Apologetics? is the English translation of a portion of the late Dr. Lit-Sen Chang’s four-volume work, Comprehensive Christian Apologetics. I have taken the first six chapters of Volume 1 (originally published by Tien Dao Publishing House, Hong Kong, in 1982), and rendered them in a style which is compatible with his original Chinese. The result is a piece of theology-as-proclamation, a sermon-in-print.
Dr. Chang (1904-1996) is probably the most prolific Chinese Protestant theologian during the second half of the twentieth century. He had been a zealous promoter of Confucianism and Buddhism, a brilliant university professor and author, and a confidante of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-45), before he met Jesus Christ in the 1950s. Thereafter he devoted himself to theological study and the defense of the Christian faith. He had several memorable encounters with God during his Christian career, including healing from sickness. For decades he was professor of missions at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts; but his passion was apologetics, defending Christianity and proclaiming it to the Chinese people. To make the best use of his time, Dr. Chang would often only sleep for two hours a night. A meticulous manager of his time, he took his supper as a “second breakfast,” as it were, and pursued his writing, editing and correspondence into the night. He was the author of over eighty books and booklets (these do not include significant works penned before his conversion).
Lit-sen Chang, What Is Apologetics (translated by Samuel Ling, Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), xiii.
[….]
Dr. Lit-Sen Chang, Chinese Christian apologist and theologian, tireless author and distinguished scholar in Far Eastern philosophy and religion, gave his life to the exposition and defense of the historic Christian faith in obedience to his Lord and Master. He was born on May 9, 1904 in Wu Hsi, Kiangsu province, China. From a young age he received a thorough education in the Confucian classics, and imbibed the traditional Confucian scholar’s passionate concern to rescue China from her national plight. As he witnessed his country on the verge of extinction, he cried out for national salvation through individual endeavor. He became a prolific author.
Dr. Chang graduated from Fu Tan University, Shanghai, intent on serving and saving his country through a career in law and government. At age twenty-one he became a university professor in Peking, thus becoming the youngest professor of his time. He studied law at the Sorbonne, Paris, and traveled to the universities of London, Cambridge, Oxford and to Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland in search of China’s national salvation. He returned to China at twenty-six, and was appointed professor at several leading universities, as well as dean of the College of Social Sciences, Labor University.
When Japan invaded mainland China in 1937, Dr. Chang was recruited by the central government to important positions in the Nationalist Party, the National Government and the Ministry of Defense, turning his attention from law to political strategy. After China’s victory over Japan in 1945, he won a seat to the Parliament of the Republic of China, and was later appointed Deputy Commissioner for Overseas Chinese Affairs.
Confronted by multiple and complex social ills in China, Dr. Chang realized that the way to peace and national strength lay beyond law and government, in the human heart. He immersed himself in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, including the mystical Ch’ien school of Buddhism. He felt called to regenerate Chinese culture and the religions of the East. He founded Chiang Nan University, and recruited noted contemporary Confucian philosophers such as Ch’ien Mu, T’ang Chun-I and Mou Tsung-san as professors. He planned to visit India and strategize with scholars there to revive the traditional religions of Asia.
As the political situation in China deteriorated, Chang became exiled in Indonesia. There he heard the gospel by the grace of God, repented of his sin and committed his life to Jesus Christ. He gave up all his plans and ambitions, and came to Boston to study theology at Gordon Divinity School. He was fifty-three by that time. He graduated from Gordon summa cum laude, and served as professor of missions for many years. He was honored with the Doctor of Literature degree from Wheaton College, and when he retired from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, he was named “Distinguished Professor Emeritus.”
Dr. Chang knew God’s vocation to devote his later life to the propagation of the Christian faith through literature. He wrote day and night in order to “give the reason for the hope” within (I Peter 3:15), and to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Departing from popular trends of the twentieth century, Dr. Chang boldly proclaimed the infinite absolute God of the Bible, and critiqued humanistic thinking East and West without compromise. He lived a simple, frugal and diligent life, tirelessly writing and publishing his works with no regard for return or reward. His writings in Chinese and English totaled over eighty volumes. His mature thought is seen in the four-volume work on apologetics and eight-volume opus on systematic theology. These are not only valued for their scholarship, but comprise a unique treasure for the Body of Christ, as they both edify the reader’s heart, and inform the reader’s mind through a passionate and reasoned defense of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture.
Dr. Chang died on January 19,1996 in Boston at the ripe old age of ninety-two. He was survived by five children and seven grandchildren. May the glorious Triune God who called him home continue to give fruit to his voice in the twenty-first century, that “by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead” (Heb. 11:4).
Lit-sen Chang, What Is Apologetics (translated by Samuel Ling, Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), xvii-xix.
So, Dr. Chang was very familiar with Maoist Communism.
Okay, what is the foundation then for a Christian life in response to all the “isms” offered to man?
Character. Virtues.
Roger Scruton Quickly Defines American Culture
Here is the short excerpt followed by a scan of the page it came from:
CHRISTIAN virtues [character, really of Christ]. Not our virtues.
Of course, this reminds me of John Adams quote:
John Adams, first (1789–1797) Vice President of the United States, and the second (1797–1801) President of the United States. Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6.
Our form of government is set up to incorporate this character and virtues assuming the Judeo-Christian ethic. Without those we are a ship without a sail.
This quote from an article my Pastor posted on his FB notes (more currently) the issue:
Yep. Apologist! preach the totality of our view, and how our virtues differ in their foundation from other views.
Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 19.
More Russell Kirk:
Russell Kirk’s Ten Principles of Conservatism
Might take a second to load, but well worth the watch!
Hat-tip to NOT THE BEE
[WARNING: He drops a couple of F-bombs]
Dave Chappelle’s new Netflix special is out, and he’s telling the truth about trans. pic.twitter.com/WdndzE3ZHN
— Billboard Chris ???? (@BillboardChris) January 1, 2024
UPDATED GREATLY
Famous actress and model, Moran Atias, with a clear message to all hypocritical women’s organizations.
It is interesting that in todays political world the most radical and vocal activists in politics are Leftist women. The graph is of Jonestown with this demographic:
 |
 |
Similarly, as THE AMERICAN MIND asks, “Why is extreme anti-Israel activism dominated by wild-eyed young women?”
Especially after the violent sexual rapes and murder of women by Hamas?
The pic to the right is from the NYT article. Click to enlarge.
Other examples can be seen in the female heads of Harvard and MIT saying the violence against Jews can be “contextual”
ACE OF SPADES notes this in their excellent post notes this with the map of Korea:
This is why Dennis Prager can write an article titled, “Women Are Disproportionately Hurting Our Country”
And the WASHINGTON POST notes “this new liberal movement has emerged largely outside the traditional party structure. It is led by hundreds of thousands of mostly white, college-educated, middle-aged women …“.
THE HILL puts it more bluntly:
Which is why “white Lefty women” are more prone to their brand of activism… they are lashing out in a mentally “skewed” way (Pew Poll Graph included to bolster the FREE BEACON excerpt):
….Nearly half of young white liberals (46 percent) reported being diagnosed with a mental health condition. That was significantly higher than the percentage of young white moderates (26 percent) and young white conservatives (21 percent) who reported a mental health diagnosis. Young white people who identified as “very liberal” were considerably more likely to report mental health problems, even compared with their peers who identified as liberal.
Across all demographics, young white females who identified as liberal or very liberal were by far the most likely to report a mental health diagnosis. In fact, a majority of young white liberal women (56 percent) said they had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared with 28 percent of young moderate women and 27 percent of young conservative women.
The ideological disparity was also present, albeit less pronounced, among young white men. Within this demographic, 34 percent of liberals reported having mental health problems, compared with 22 percent of moderates and 16 percent of conservatives.
Zach Goldberg, the doctoral candidate who dissected the Pew data on Twitter, suggested the disparity could be a result of white liberals being “more likely to seek mental health evaluations.” It could also indicate a “genuine” difference in personalities, he argued, given that white liberals are more likely to exhibit neuroticism, according to the data.
“I didn’t write this thread to mock white liberals or their apparently disproportionate rates of mental illness (and you shouldn’t either),” Goldberg wrote. “Rather, this is a question that’s underexplored and which may shed light on attitudinal differences towards various social policies.”
The article in Evie Magazine made some compelling points in response to Goldberg’s thread, noting that liberal ideology often “forces its followers to wallow in feelings of helplessness and victimhood,” as opposed to “building resiliency against hardship,” which can be a crucial tool for combating anxiety and depression.
White liberals in particular, who are often at the forefront of social justice movements that don’t necessarily affect them directly, may be susceptible to “white guilt and savior narratives,” which are “pretty much as bad as any genuinely racist agenda because it robs the very group they’re trying to help of their own voice.”…..
It has been said before that “liberalism is a mental disorder”, but there is research that shows that phrase may be more than just a right wing hashtag, especially among white women.
Comedian Norm Macdonald waged an epic nine-year battle with cancer and fought cancer to a draw. When he occasionally got serious during interviews, he would share his ideas about God, Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, evil, and the soul. In this video, David Wood examines Norm’s thoughts on people being created in the image of God, and shows how Norm was actually fumbling his way to the Gospel.
(Hat-Tip to BREITBART) Here’s an example of a REAL bishop who shows concern for his flock. Bishop Martin Anwel Mtumbuka, Bishop of the diocese of Karonga, Malawi, delivered this powerful homily during the Christmas Vigil liturgy on December 24, 2023at St Anne’s Parish (Chiluma). Bishop Mtumbuka responds to the Declaration on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (Fiducia Supplicans). The Bishop has since asked the faithful in the Diocese to ignore the document in its entirety.
Bishop Mtumbuka also called the document “heresy.” Woah.
This video was pretty jaw-dropping. But thinking through it I started to note that this “GNOSTIC THINKING” is an aspect of our rebellious, fallen nature.
Thus, it shouldn’t make our jaw drop, as believers we should be saddened for her but thankful that God saved us from the same thinking via our depraved minds.
Our default before Christ. Thus, this shouldn’t surprise us… let me explain.
What IS this “THINKING”?
I believe it to be a lie from the Garden of Eden when the serpent said this:
(Genesis 3) 1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard.
As I have grown to see this verse in encountering our current culture, it is a replacing of God’s edicts/will, what he wishes us to do for the ultimate good which flows from His being with our own. This replaces God’s will for an ultimate good with our own, effectively making us gods. (In our own mind with a capital “G”.)
Before I get into my breakdown, I wish to share an excerpt from a couple commentaries. This first excerpt is the intro to this which I essentially do not need to insert into the post — but — this was my very first commentary I ever owned and is still one of my favorites. Here is the intro to Genesis 3:
3:1–6 The serpent that appeared to Eve is later revealed to be none other than Satan himself (see Rev. 12:9). Those who seek to “demythologize” the Bible believe that this account of the fall is allegorical and not literal. They cite the talking serpent as proof. Can the story of the serpent’s deceiving Eve be accepted as factual? The Apostle Paul thought so (2 Cor. 11:3). So did the Apostle John (Rev. 12:9; 20:2). Nor is this the only instance of a talking animal in Scripture. God gave a voice to Balaam’s donkey to restrain the madness of the prophet (Num. 22), and the Apostle Peter accepted this as literal (2 Pet. 2:16). These three apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write as they did. Thus to reject the account of the fall as literal is to reject the inspiration of Holy Scripture. There are allegories in the Bible, but this is not one of them.
Notice the steps that plunged the human race into sin. First Satan insinuated doubt about the Word of God: “Has God indeed said?” He misrepresented God as forbidding Adam and Eve to eat of every tree. Next, Eve said that they were not to eat or “touch the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.” But God had said nothing about touching the tree. Then Satan flatly contradicted God about the inevitability of judgment on those who disobeyed, just as his followers still deny the facts of hell and eternal punishment. Satan misrepresented God as seeking to withhold from Adam and Eve something that would have been beneficial to them. Eve yielded to the threefold temptation: the lust of the flesh (good for food), the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes), and the pride of life (a tree desirable to make one wise). In doing so, she acted independently of Adam, her head. She should have consulted him instead of usurping his authority. In the words “she took of its fruit and ate” lie the explanation of all the sickness, sorrow, suffering, fear, guilt, and death that have plagued the human race ever since that time. Someone has said, “The wreckage of earth and a million billion graves attest that God is true and Satan is the liar.” Eve was deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), but Adam acted willfully and in deliberate rebellion against God.
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 35–36.
Okay, some comments on the weightier issue are in order:
MORE:
I was going to put a few commentaries below, but, Matthew Henry is enough to make the point:
Observe the steps of the transgression: not steps upward, but downward toward the pit. 1. She saw. A great deal of sin comes in at the eye. Let us not look on that which we are in danger of lusting after, Mt 5:28. 2. She took. It was her own act and deed. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force; may persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down, Mt 4:6. 3. She did eat. When she looked perhaps she did not intend to take; or when she took, not to eat: but it ended in that. It is wisdom to stop the first motions of sin, and to leave it off before it be meddled with. 4. She gave it also to her husband with her. Those that have done ill, are willing to draw in others to do the same. 5. He did eat. In neglecting the tree of life, of which he was allowed to eat, and eating of the tree of knowledge, which was forbidden, Adam plainly showed a contempt of what God had bestowed on him, and a desire for what God did not see fit to give him. He would have what he pleased, and do what he pleased. His sin was, in one word, disobedience, Ro 5:19; disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command. He had no corrupt nature within, to betray him; but had a freedom of will, in full strength, not weakened or impaired. He turned aside quickly. He drew all his posterity into sin and ruin. Who then can say that Adam’s sin had but little harm in it? When too late, Adam and Eve saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they fell from, and the misery they were fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favour forfeited. See her what dishonour and trouble sin is; it makes mischief wherever it gets in, and destroys all comfort. Sooner or later it will bring shame; either the shame of true repentance, which ends in glory, or that shame and everlasting contempt, to which the wicked shall rise at the great day. See here what is commonly the folly of those that have sinned. They have more care to save their credit before men, than to obtain their pardon from God. The excuses men make to cover and lessen their sins, are vain and frivolous; like the aprons of fig-leaves, they make the matter never the better: yet we are all apt to cover our transgressions as Adam. Before they sinned, they would have welcomed God’s gracious visits with humble joy; but now he was become a terror to them. No marvel that they became a terror to themselves, and full of confusion. This shows the falsehood of the tempter, and the frauds of his temptations. Satan promised they should be safe, but they cannot so much as think themselves so! Adam and Eve were now miserable comforters to each other!
Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ge 3:6.
This shame drives the redefining of what is allowed and what is not. We have an infinite capacity to define what will cover our shame. But the main one is being to define what is good and what is evil… (Isaiah 5:20)
Beware, those who call evil good and good evil,
who turn darkness into light and light into darkness,
who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter.
William MacDonald notes this of Isaiah 5:20: “Those who obliterate moral distinctions, denying the difference between good and evil” (Ibid., page 944). This switching of categories is done to avoid shame is mankind’s “fig leaf,” so-to-speak:
This anti-Christ type exchange (ours is found in the beauty of Christ’s sacrifice for us on Calvary) is preceded with pride… pride in thinking one is “god” by nature: “your eyes will open and you will be like God, [defining] good and evil” (3:5).
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
This is the entirety of the Gnostic challenge to the early church and our relativistic culture from Genesis to this day.
By way of an old example of mine used with Michael Berryman at Starbucks in a chance meeting. I drew him this picture yellow lined picture below) when he was discussing Freemasonry and I wished to explain how it was just a form of ancient Gnosticism:
VIA: Occult, Anti-Christian Roots of Freemasonry
WHAT “IS” FREEMASONRY?
Below/right is a scan from page 567 of my copy of Morals and Dogma. What you have here is an example of Gnostic thinking on spirit-material dualism; Freemasons are merely modern day Gnostics. Roles are reversed in comparison to how historic Christianity has viewed them since its inception. I will explain, but first look at page 567 (click on it to enlarge):
So let’s get into the meat of the matter. Gnostic thinking is a combination of Judaism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. (By-the-by, the below is much to do with a professor’s input I had, Dr. Wayne House.)
Judaism – early Gnostics followed the thinking of Marcian, and Marcian taught that the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge. A demiurge would be what we would typically call the “devil.” Since anything 100% spirit is “good,” anything material is “bad.” So the God of the Old Testament created the world, which is material, and so this God is the Gnostic’s mortal enemy (pun intended). So Judaic thought and Judaism’s God is what Gnostics are “fighting” against. This is Judaism’s contribution.
Platonism – plutonic thought is basically the codifying of Hindu thinking into Grecian thought. He taught that innate ideas (that is: existing in one from birth; inborn; native) were the ideas the mind beheld in the world of pure Forms before birth. This world, then, is but a shadow of reality… pure spirit. This is Platonic contribution to Gnostic thinking.
An aside here for clarity of thought. Platonic thinking shares a point in common with Gnostic thinking, so you could be a Platonist and not a Gnostic. You couldn’t be, however, a Gnostic without being a Platonist. This is important because many “scholars” get this concept mixed up when describing the points of contact between Gnostic thinking and Christianity. Okay, on we go.
Zoroastrianism – Zoroastic thought has contributed what is called ethical dualism. It has said that there is a battle between good and evil, light and dark. Its addition to this is that anything material in nature is evil, and anything spiritual is good.
Christianity – Christian theology provided a “vehicle” in which to express the above. It is then, the “vehicle of expression” for Gnostics. Jesus becomes the way in which they Gnostics explain the working of impersonal deity in human existence and the offering of salvation through secret knowledge, or, Gnosis. Gnosis means knowledge of spiritual matters; mystical knowledge.
Gnostic’s, then, only have a complete “system of thought” when they combine all four of these major aspects into their thinking. If their thinking were to lack any one of these, they would cease to be Gnostic. The combining of the major aspects of these four lines thought, then, make up the Gnostic “worldview.” What do Gnostics believe then? I will explain a bit more in this crude drawing taken during notes from a class at seminary. one should note as well that “Eon” should be spelled “Aeon.”:
Much like Eastern philosophy, there is an impersonal spirit which is 100% spirit. Brahma as it is referred to in Hindu thought. Out of this impersonal force emanated “Eons.” These Eons were 99.9% spirit and .01% material, to put it layman terms. (Also, the percentages are not to explain exactly what Gnostic’s believe, I am just using these numbers as examples to get the analogy across.) These less impersonal, or more corrupted Eons, created other Eons who themselves were more deficient in their spirit/matter balance. Until finally you have very “diluted” beings. One diluted being — referred to as a “Demiurge,” what we would sometimes call the “Devil” — created our world. He also created smaller more diluted beings called “Archons.” These archons would be what we view as demons; Gnostics would say Paul referred to them in Ephesians 6:12 when he said:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Jesus comes into the picture as an Aeon who has a higher percentage of spirit left and sneaks past the demiurge and the archons and enters our world. He is “born,” not physically, but is an ethereal image of mankind (hard to explain) to point the way to a saving knowledge that is secret or hidden.
Freemasons are the most modern day representation of Gnostics; they have symbols that as you climb to higher degrees become clearer in their real meaning and are explained more-so as you climb this “knowledge ladder.” Secret handshakes, elaborate rituals and secrecy until finally at the 33rd-degree you are presented with a true understanding (a Gnostic one) of reality and “God.”
From three separate Mason’s saying each part of the name of God, “Ja-bul-on,” to the meaning of the dot or “G” in the square and compass symbol. All these serve as layers for the initiates to come to realize that this material world is evil.
The Gnostics and hence, Masons, believe that there is a war going on with the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. As this thinking has progressed throughout history it has adopted other philosophies and has become more and more convoluted in its history and thinking. The New Age, much of your occultism, cults, and even Christianity (Trinity Broadcasting Network for instance) has been influenced by this thinking in one way or another. From Madam Blavatsky and her influence on Germany’s occultism that led to the Aryan philosophy of Hitler to Benny Hinn’s healing crusades.
All sorts of writers, especially conspiratorial writers, have had a plethora of facts to misuse and misrepresent and to twist to their own agendas. Their agenda have resulted in many people believing that “secret societies” control both parties and were behind the Twin Towers so they could implement a world government. This view that combines, “sun” worship from the ancient Egyptians to the Illuminate, from the Knights Templars and Rosicrucians, to today’s Skull and Bones and Council on Foreign Relations ~ is defunct mainly due to the lack of understanding gnosis and the philosophy that has driven it.
What is my point? This young girl did not know about the philosophy of history of Gnostic thought, nor did she know hell-or-high-water about the fall in Genesis nor Romans 1 warning of this fall and eternal damnation:
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.
[….]
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.
[….]
32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
This “Gnostic” [simply our fallen nature distorting God’s TWO BOOKS [the book of Revelation and the Book of Nature] twisting of what God wants for His creation is replete in people wanting power to decide what is evil and what is not. Another “for instance” is Fascism. Here we see Mussolini doing the same as above, making mankind gods and defining what is ethical:
Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
And while this girl has the ultimate right to define what is “real” in her life, either through ignorance or through vain philosophies, her Creator has the right to grant her wish and deliver her over to her desires, which in the end attracts God’s wrath (verse 18) and she will be without excuse (verse 20) before her Maker and righteously judged to hell (Matthew 25:46).
This distortion of God’s will for us was our default before we were saved, and it is hers.
(Originally Posted Aug 6, 2014 – Media Updated)
(Above video description) A women in Union Square, NYC, calls for God To Bless The Terrorist Group Hamas Who Has In Their Charter, the Purprose To Destroy All Of Israel And It’s People – and after the Jews the USA is next! But Hollywood celebrities join this understanding that Israel commits genocide.
Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem, who were two of many Spanish film industry bigwigs who signed an open letter published in El Diario last week attacking Israel for committing “genocide,” claiming that Israel “humiliates, detains, and tramples on the rights of the Palestinian population in all of the West Bank every day” while the “international community does nothing.”
Jackie Mason, Jon Voight rip Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem for anti-Israel letter:
(A quick note: Notice CNN didn’t call Cruz or Bardem progressive activists, but they did Voight.)
This is whom Hollywood stars and other media acolytes like to say are victims. Below we see an example human shields:
Here are three media outlets (not American… we don’t do true media here) pointing out evidences of human/civilian shields:
Neighborhoods
Hospitals
Hotels
But when people fall for fuaxtography (old blog faux) over the many years of many scenes believed by Western media outlets and the general public to be real… all it shows is that people are VERY gullible to believe anything (note NEWSBUSTERS old post about CNN removing a video found to be faked) — including that Israel is committing genocide.
In the below example, a scene from Final Destination was used and put forward by some as an example of a teen killed by an Israeli airstrike:
The most recent example (video as well at Israel Matzav’s site), one that Geraldo Rivera ate up is this one:
Two things, people didn’t seem like they wanted to perform CPR or rush the girl to the hospital — maybe because they are firing rockets next to it and it may also be hit) The other thing is she is just a casualty of being a human shield, placed on a fence or barred window… still being used as a shield in the media. Or the most recent news item, a Hamas tactic manual was found, via THE ALGEMEINER:
The Israel Defense Forces on Monday revealed their discovery of a Hamas manual on ‘Urban Warfare’ that showed how its Al-Qassam Brigades understood Israel’s military ethics, and sought to subvert them.
The IDF said the pamphlet was produced by the Shuja’iya Brigade, from the city of the same name in northern Gaza, where the bloodiest fighting in Israel’s Operation Protective Edge occurred, because the entire city was being used to hide arms and rockets and it was a site fought over by Hamas and rival Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
“The discovery of this manual suggests that the destruction in Shuja’iya was always part of Hamas’s plan,” the IDF said.
“Throughout Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has continuously used the civilian population of Gaza as human shields,” the IDF said. “The discovery of a Hamas ‘urban warfare’ manual by IDF forces reveals that Hamas’s callous use of the Gazan population was intentional and pre-planned.”
“This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.”
(I am uploading this 12-29-23 because the old YouTube embed forces you to go to YouTube. I will not change the posts date) This is an old-old video from the Pallywood days of the Intifada from years back (Aug 6, 2014). The original file can be found here. Roger Waters is an anti-Semite who was [and does] promote terror against Israel. There is a documentary on Roger Waters “anti-Jewishness” – here is a short review of it:
This (the above and below) is with thanks to Moonbattery!
John Quincy Adams is worth reading at greater length on the topic, as he provides some insight into what has been going on in Iraq now that Obama has prematurely removed our troops:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST. – TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
Winston Churchill deserves a longer hearing too:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
Islam has not changed over the centuries. All that has changed is that never before have we been ruled by people who take Islam’s side against us.
Kayleigh McEnany, a former White House press secretary in the Trump administration, tore into the Colorado Supreme Court over its recent decision. [….] McEnany, who was guest hosting “The Ingraham Angle,” spoke with former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg about the left’s shameless attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
Mr. Wisenberg is no fan of “The Don,” however, his analysis is a recent addition to the Colorado Upper Court’s ruling. This is from CONSERVATIVE BRIEF and the transcript can be found on their site.
A bit of a bio on Solomon Wisenberg via WIKI:
(UPDATED BELOW)
NATIONAL REVIEW discusses the options in front of the courts… but remember, another way (split the horns Plato) is available. One site says “CHECKMATE” regarding this option. More below.
Chris Christie is no fan of Trump, yet, he can see the main issue at hand:
Christie
Jonathan Turley notes the following on TWITTER:
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from [voting] for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
[….]
The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: “The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified.” …
…This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…
…It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots….
…The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle. I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.
[….]
James Freeman Clarke once said “a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.” It is time for President Joe Biden to show that he can think of the next generation and oppose this insidious ruling.
[….]
Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. The four Colorado justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation on every key element. The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment.
In a very truncated clip from a longer video via Bannon’s War Room, Alan Dershowitz says the following:
Dershowitz
TRANSCRIPT:
Even people like me, who would welcome the loss – on political grounds, wouldn’t accept it on Constitutional grounds, because this is about the most dangerous, worst, and…
um, unconstitutional decision I’ve read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing criminal law.
This is a power grab.
In violation of the specific words of the 14th amendment, you couldn’t be clearer when the 14th amendment allocates the power to enforce this provision.
Having the States do this? On an individual basis is (a) absurd under contemporary law. And as well, the idea that the framers of the 14th amendment, radical Reconstructionists, would allocate to Mississippi and Alabama… ahh… the right to decide who’s on the ballot, ah, just defies any kind of historical understanding.
POWERLINE has a decent update to their article expanding where the case may weave it way to:
UPDATE: A number of readers have wondered why I said the Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. On reflection, that was an offhand comment that was not thoroughly thought through. There were two reasons for it:
First, the Republican majority on the Court is highly reluctant to wade into waters that are seen as political. Ruling in Trump’s favor would use up a large share of the Court’s diminished political capital, and Trump is hardly the person on whom the justices want to expend that precious commodity. On the other hand, the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal question that is squarely presented by this case and may not be easy to duck.
Second, the Court would need to act fast, as the primary season is nearly upon us. Normally, litigating any case in the Supreme Court takes time. I assume the Court would want to hear from a number of parties and would want extensive briefing. On a normal calendar, I don’t think there is enough time for that to happen. On the other hand, the Court can act more quickly if it wants to, and if it is willing to expend, in this case, the necessary political capital. So it could be possible.
A friend who is a very good lawyer writes:
I suspect that in fact the Supreme Court will immediately grant an emergency appeal and will rule 9-0, or 8-1 if Justice Jackson wants to be her usual moronic self, to overturn the Colorado decision. I imagine that every justice on the Supreme Court understands the implications of the decision, which would mean that any partisan state court could take the other party’s candidate off the ballot. So I will be shocked if they don’t feel the urgency to settle this once and for all. In fact, there has to be a lot of concern about the partisan turn of the courts in general.
I hope my friend is correct. I would only note that in the minds of many voters, the “partisan turn” of the courts is in our direction under the current Court–something to which the justices are acutely sensitive. And for the Democratic justices to renounce partisanship by voting in a way that is good for America but bad for the Democrats, in a high-profile, politically-charged case, is theoretically possible, but I am not sure there is any precedent for it.
FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE UPDATE!
The “Insurrection Clause” Doesn’t Apply Without a Declaration of Insurrection:
Colorado judges don’t get to declare that there was a federal insurrection.
[….]
For the “insurrection clause” to apply, there has to be an insurrection. That means there has to be a declaration of insurrection.
Congress and the Lincoln administration both defined and declared an insurrection. There’s been no declaration now which means, legally speaking, there’s no insurrection and therefore no insurrection clause applies.
The 14th is still a legal minefield in this regard and the ability of a president to claim insurrection is in theory an open-ended nightmare. Biden could, for example, hypothetically declare that an insurrection is underway, but he hasn’t so the point is null.
Colorado judges, random uninvolved state legislatures and Uncle Bob do not get to define an insurrection against federal authority. Only federal authorities get to declare an insurrection. Neither Trump nor Biden declared one of those.
New York, for example, could not unilaterally decide that Confederate states were in a state of insurrection. But that is what Colorado is trying to do here. States ought to usurp federal authority more often, but this is a blatantly illegal usurpation.
And the factual forest should not be lost for the legalistic trees.
Other States To Use Colorado Ruling
Of course, as other states try ta do this using the Colorado “ruling,” …. which RED STATE notes:
California’s Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis, has sent a memo to the California Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, seeking to have Donald Trump removed from California’s primary ballot.
[….]
The memo states in part:
Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Griswold (2023 CO 63) that Trump’s insurrection disqualifies him under section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to stand for presidential re-election. Because the candidate is ineligible, the court ruled, it would be a “wrongful act” for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on that state’s presidential primary ballot.
That’s wrong. It’s so wrong it’s not even in the same time zone as right. The entire argument here is based on nothing more than raw assertion: “Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection because of course he is.”….
routing the courts by caucusing trump
Of course, if this ruling is allowed to stand and the real SUPES don’t fix it, there are other ways to vote for voters to express their God-Given ability for freedom (RED STATE):
…As I predicted to my oldest son when the decision dropped Tuesday night, there’s one remedy the Republican Party can use to avoid all of this expensive and time-consuming lawfare completely. To its credit, the Colorado Republican Party almost immediately said that they would invoke it.
That remedy: Switch to a caucus to determine the party’s nominee….
CHECKMATE!
I start this excerpt of Tim Pools fuller “Tim Cast” (RUMBLE) with Victor Davis Hanson noting the “Revolutionary Acts” by the Democrats as of a year ago on FOX NEWS. – I have an updated audio as well (RUMBLE) . Enjoy… I found a new resource which I am excited about: LARRY DORS, who pieces together the same line being said from different movies. Check out his YouTube Channel.
REASON ARTICLE[s]:
Islam: Muhammad & Aisha [ The Controversial Child Marriage ]
If one wishes to see the Hadith’s involved in this topic, see Answering Islam’s posts on the topic:
Before linking some of the debates and sources used in the opening video I have to repost this video debate between GODLOGIC and a Muslim:
Muslim Goes Silent When He Has To Admit Allah’s a Pedophile
I say Allah is a pedophile IF the Qur’an is the word of Allah, sent word for word and preserved perfectly by the perfect man [obviously a false god].
I found this video pretty amazing. Firstly, I dig the patience GodLogic has. But the main thing about this video is that when the Muslim goes silent he is testifying to the conscience the Real God has placed in us — and by doing so, he is showing that “Allah” is not God, but an evil creation of the groupthink of Islam inspired by demons. When the truth comes in, the cover up begins. The long silence proves this:
Thirdly, the funny line in the video is this: “No Hitta – No Iddah” You will see what I mean. This seems long and drawn out, but it is not if you understand what is going on.
Okay, here are some resources (mainly video debates or discussion about Islam’s position of Allah blessing pedophiles).
DEBATE: Is Child Marriage Acceptable? Islam vs Christianity (YOUTUBE) – 2-hours long
FIERY DEBATE Was Muhammad’s Marriage to Aisha Ethical? | David Wood Acts17Apologetics Vs Kenny Bomer (YOUTUBE) – 2 1/2 hours
HEATED DEBATE Was Muhammad’s Marriage to Aisha Immoral? Acts17Apologetics David Wood Vs Kenny Bomer (YOUTUBE) – 2 hours
Too Young to Wed: The Secret World of Child Brides (YOUTUBE) – 11-minutes
Act17Apologetics 2-page PDF tract (tri-fold)