Patriarchy and Sodomy

From Marinov’s post at the Reconstructionist Radio Discussion Group

OK, folks, don’t fall prey to ignorant teachers. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with sodomy. To the contrary, sodomy only flourishes in stratified, patriarchal, hierarchical societies. Like Greece and Rome. Like feudal Europe in the 14th century. Like Victorian England. Like the Ottoman Empire. Like Prussian Germany. Etc.

Contrary to what some may try to tell you, patriarchy is not the antidote to either feminism or sodomy. It is their sister-doctrine. Patriarchy creates an unhealthy view of the female sex and of the relationships between the sexes, which leads to a twisted view of the relationship between men. Study how sodomy became prevalent among the aristocratic boys in the strongly patriarchal Victorian England.

And study modern sodomite communities. They are very far from egalitarian. They are, in fact, strongly hierarchical. And their “families” are strongly “patriarchal,” with one of the partners having superior “authority” as a “father” or a “husband.”

Don’t fall prey to false teachers. Patriarchy, when developed to its logical end, always results in the rise of sodomy.

On reflection, I agree. The facts speak for themselves (see: Islamic & Hindu cultures), and patriarchy does not work with the concept of the equality of all before the Law.

If it doesn’t work with the Commandments, it doesn’t work with me.

Advertisements

Presbyterians celebrating Dred Scott

A disgraceful display, as noted in American Vision:

Gracing the forefront place in the first Issue of the 26th Volume of the Southern Presbyterian Review (SPR), 1875, appeared a seemingly out-of-place contribution: a book review of a memoir of the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney (1777–1864). What this article says about the moral compass of the southern Presbyterian church at the time is not only instructive as history, but stands as a warning to check our own moral compass, as well as our courage to correct it.

It looks like the American Calvinist Christian leadership of old was about as worthless as a guide to righteousness as the august U.S. Supreme Court of the era.

Is it any different today?

Side Hustle

The five-day, 40-hour workweek is the creation of a bunch of slacker socialists in the late 19th century. God’s people are expected to work: and you have to put in more hours if you want a stronger financial foundation.

This does not mean that you should offer free hours to your employer: “the labourer deserves his wages.” Instead, work your 40 hours… and no more, except when you start out in a job, to create a good impression for a year or so.

But if you are meant to work for six days a week (and not five!), for 12 hours a day (and not eight!), then what do you do with the extra 32 hours of labour you should be putting in?

That’s where the side hustle comes in. Spend the time to get a separate stream of income coming in: this will probably take a year, but much more if the business is viable. (Having a blog that ties into the side hustle can help out.)

This turns your spare time to money: and if your main source of income fails, you have a backup cash flow to help tied you over. But I suggest that you make it your goal to build up the side business until it can be your main source of income, and you can drop having to work for someone else.

Stand up on your own two feet, like a Man of God should.

There is no shame, working well for an employer: but there is a higher goal we should be striving for.

 

Recent and Interesting UD posts

I love the work going on at Uncommon Descent!

Event though they are focused on Intelligent Design — and so, tolerate the billions and billions of years evolutionists demand —  they do more work and better work than many Creationists to. An example to follow!

A listing for your perusal:

• Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?
• Materialists Descend Further into Incoherence
• The New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards
• Was Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) right to object to the Kalam cosmological argument?
• Scientists who laboured in comparative obscurity who made a big difference
• Should we be celebrating Tau Day instead of Pi Day?
• The Universe Hawking Created from Nothing
• Michael Egnor on why evil shows that there IS a God
• Becky’s Lesson, a Viginette
• Private delusion: Steven Pinker insists that scientific racism was, conveniently, mere “pseudoscience”
• Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: But it’s too late for enlightenment now
• C. S. Lewis and J. R.R. Tolkien on science and authoritarianism
• The problem of using “methodological” naturalism to define science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“And They Call This Science”

From the very first post on American Vision:

AS A YOUNG BOY, I loved science. On standardized tests, I always scored highest in the science category….

To this day, science remains a fascinating area of study for me, if it’s science and not metaphysics. The scientific world is all atwitter over the discovery “of a rocky ‘super Earth-like object’ orbiting a nearby star much like our own sun.”[1] Reading this opening paragraph, one gets the distinct impression that these astronomers have found an “Earth-like object” orbiting a sun much like our own….

And what about this “super Earth-like object”? I know what the Earth looks like, and I have a pretty good idea what “Earth-like” should mean. This newly discovered planet has a surface temperature that exceeds 1,000 degrees. We are finally told ten paragraphs into the article and hundreds of words later that the planet “isn’t the Earth-like ‘blue marble’ and potential oasis for life that astronomers hope future telescopes will one day enable them to see.” So it’s not really “Earth-like” after all….

Endnote:[1] Mike Toner, “New world, more on horizon,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (August 27, 2004), A4.

When we have more scientists who are  interested in the evidence per se, rather than if the evidence can be jammed into the Official Narrative, we will waste less time and money, spend less time with transparent falsehoods, and get more useful knowledge.

Deep Time

[The following is a snippet of a post I made at my sci-fi blog.]

Extra info:

Age = a time period of millions of years

Epoch = tens of millions of years

Period = about a hundred millions of years

Era = hundreds of millions of years

Eon = half a billion years or more.

Planning

[Snipped off a Satanic bureaucratic dream of bringing total, unchanging stability to the galaxy, and their use of long time scales to plan out such a future.

That is what the Lake of Fire is all about…  the world of the dead, not the world of the living.]

Deep time

Deep time, in modern scientific parlance, refers to the millions of years that have passed since the Big Bang.

Deep time is a minimal necessity for large-scale, microbe to man unguided evolution. As I have no intellectual need to evade the implications of an intelligently designed universe, I don’t need deep time to be set in our past.

But, as a Christian, I am confident that there is deep time is be set in our future. “Whenever we like it, or not.”

I intend to welcome it with open arms.

But the definition of “I” is going to shift somewhat. My life and thoughts as a three-inch-long child in my mother’s womb is radically different than my life as a 5-year old boy, which is different than how I am today.

Assuming great advances in cybernetics and biotech, there is a very-thin-but-real possibility that I can live to 5,000 years of age before I die. It’s much more likely that I’ll perish at around 80, though… and I will be different at that time, than I am today.

And life in the New Heavens and the New Earth will be different, yet again. But at that time, those measurements of Deep Time – ‘ages’ and ‘periods’ and ‘eons’ are actually going to mean something, and be put to work just as we use minutes and days and years… and sometimes decades.

I’d like to take a look at the tools that will be used by Christ & Company to work with, for those time scales, in that Far Future. And the goals those tools will be used to reach.

And, assuming my salvation, I wonder what “I” will be three million years from now. Someone very interesting and very noble, I pray!

But for now, “one day at a time”, as the grand old hymn goes.

 

Salvation, The Resurrection, and Fairytales

Once Saved, Always Saved

Minton over at Cerebral Faith has an interesting viewpoint on the permanence of salvation:

I’m glad you found my Can/Won’t model helpful. By the way, to readers who don’t know what Jordan is talking about, he’s referring to my half-way house between the Arminian view of apostasy and that Calvinist view of “Once Saved Always Saved”, which I defend in a 3 part blog post series, here, here, and here. This proposal asserts that while Christians can lose their salvation, they won’t lose their salvation. They are able to exercise their libertarian free will and turn their backs on Christ, but this is a decision they won’t ever choose to make. In other words, apostasy is a possibility, but it’s a possibility that won’t ever be actualized. God utilizes His middle knowledge to keep the elect freely persevering. For some, the means are the various warning passages not to apostatize (e.g Hebrews 6), for others, God keeps them through Christian Apologetics, for others, he uses still other means. This view, I think, takes seriously the warnings in scripture about turning away from Christ while at the same time not shoehorning security passages like John 10 and Romans 8:38-39. We can take both the warnings and security passages at their straightforward reading.

I like this viewpoint, mainly because of the outworking of this position, as summarized in that last sentence.

The Resurrection and Fairytales

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. — Aldous Huxley, as quoted in Uncommon Descent.

Incidentally, he has just finished a series of evidences of Jesus’ resurrection in the flesh. This is not a problem for me for a range of reasons, but it could be beneficial to some of my readers… or even friends of those readers.

Now, there may well be people who just don’t know the historical evidence, and will be easily persuaded once they get all the facts. That alone makes the series worthwhile!

But I have a suspicion, though, that people – especially in the West – already know that Christ is King… but they just don’t want to kneel, worship, and obey. And they use stale, century-old, long-refuted objections to justify their refusal. Call it the difference between the official reasons, and the real reasons.

As the author writes:

Be Willing To Follow The Evidence Wherever It Leads 

If you understand the importance of knowing whether or not Christianity is true, then you’ll take the time to either read this blog post series or read the book adaption of it. If you do take the time to listen to my arguments, please follow them to their logical conclusions. My friend Neil Mammen has a saying “Don’t let the consequences of your logic cause you to abandon that logic.” 6 Not everyone who denies the resurrection of Jesus does so purely on intellectual grounds or on the grounds that the evidence isn’t sufficient. Some people deny that the resurrection occurred simply because they want it not to have occurred. Some people aren’t Christians because there isn’t enough evidence to establish that it’s true, but because they don’t want it to be true.

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, then several implications follow. It means that if you’re living in sin, you’ll have to repent. Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14). If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you’ll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10). But porn watchers don’t want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It’s exciting! Porn watchers don’t want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much. Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman as Charlie Harper did on the hit sitcom Two and A Half Men. According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn’t repent, they’ll be facing judgment. Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don’t want Christianity to be true because it means they’ll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner. 2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians or else they face Hell, and if they’re Christians themselves, they’ll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.

For many people, it’s a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence in this blog series will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they’re resistant to following the evidence where it leads because they’re in love with their sin, and don’t like the idea of having to exchange their pet sin for a relationship with Jesus. Jesus talked about this when he said “This is the verdict: that light has come into the world. Yet men loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20). Echoing Jesus’ words, the mathematician and Christian Apologist John Lennox said: “If religion is a fairytale for those afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairytale for those afraid of the light.” 7

So again, “Don’t let the consequences of your logic force you to abandon that logic.” Don’t let the consequences of Christianity being true to force you to swim against the current of evidence pointing against it. The Christian Apologist Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org often exposes someone as resisting Jesus on emotional or moral grounds by asking them one simple question: “If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” That’s the question I’m posing to you, dear reader.

This is a dark era, where the historical facts points to the light of life… but people prefer to back fairytales that point to the dark of the grave (“So long as we escape hell.”)

But this is God’s universe, and as the Kingdom of God expands, the darkness has no choice but to retreat.

Again, the initial post of the series is here.