RSS

Category Archives: Theology

Video: Muslim in Canada defends pedophilia

So Muslims in the West are still defending their founder’s marriage of a six-year-old girl, and consummation when she was age nine…

Their worldview is not compatible with ours.

It’s as simple as that.

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

They’re getting so bold, aren’t they?

I think the only sensible reply to this is Deus Vult.

“Silence is consent.”

The feminists say nothing.

This completely contradicts the notion of consent, which is a positive construct that must be actively given, in all law, so I would question the translation of that word. It must mean something else, Islam knows no such thing as consent. There is only its meaning, ‘submission’. Submission is never consensual, it is coerced. Coercion is like blackmail in another signed (non-marital) contract, it vitiates consent, it becomes invalid. One must be free to consent.

Lying about the conjoined medical phenomena of menstruation and puberty is another strike against reason.

This entire sham of a religion is merely an excuse for war. No other religion is warmongering. It is totally incompatible with the West and its culture and people.

View original post

 

More reasons to disagree with chaplaincies

From here:

Peter Berger notices a sector of American religiosity where true inclusion and diversity reigns — the military chaplaincy:

One particularly interesting development is that the military chaplaincy, in its Protestant group, is increasingly filled with Evangelicals, who feel more at home in the military than among largely liberal mainline clergy, whose concerns over gender and multiculturalism Evangelicals don’t resonate with. Some years ago I presided over a seminar dealing with whatever issues members of the seminar were concerned about. One of the seminar students was an Evangelical Air Force chaplain. This was the issue she wanted to think through: She served on a small base in the Arctic where she was the only Protestant chaplain. Of course she was not expected to perform religious services that did not agree with her own beliefs. But she was expected to facilitate services for any group of Air Force personnel. A group of Air Force women wanted to perform the rituals of Wicca, which defines itself as a modernized version of the old witches’ Sabbath. How, she asked, could she help organize a worship service of the devil without betraying the core of her Christian faith? I tried to convince her that the devil part was not to be taken seriously, that Wicca was a rather harmless form of nature worship—dancing naked in the moonlight and showing respect for menstrual blood. She said that the way I spoke about this showed I did not take the religious beliefs of this group seriously. I’m afraid she was quite right. In the end she had no choice unless she wanted to resign from the chaplaincy—so the would-be witches did their thing as facilitated by a nonsectarian Evangelical minister. (Religious freedom bears strange fruit, including the struggle of conscience of an Evangelical pastor ordered to go against her conscience by her commanding officer.)

Just more of the crap that happens with chaplaincies in the U.S. military these days (see previous examples here, here, here, and here), which, along with the aspect of in effect blessing the State’s wars, have made me wonder why churches bother sending chaplains to the military. (I’ve also wondered why should the State bother having chaplaincies, but I get why they do; to invoke God’s blessing upon their enterprise, though whether to use such to garner support for imperialism or to convince themselves they’re doing right, I don’t know nor care.)

 

Should traditionalist congregations rent space from organizations we otherwise find problematic?

In the Reformed tradition of which I am a part, many if not most of our churches have their own buildings, but some rent space for worship and/or midweek church activities in other spaces, of various kinds; sometimes in school gymnasiums (sometimes from Christian schools but other times from secular, public schools); other times in ethnic community halls, or service club / fraternal organization halls (e.g. Lions or Rotary; or Shriners / Masons, Orange Order, etc.). And other times, congregations rent church buildings belonging to other denominations, sometimes evangelical churches but more often than not old mainline Protestant churches; sometimes these are hardly used at all any more by the denominations to which they belong; other times they are still used regularly, and so our service times have to be planned to be sufficiently separated from their own, if possible, so you don’t have overlap of cars in the parking lot (space limitation issues), etc.

And I know this is not only true for my tradition, but for other Reformed denominations / federations, and not only, but there are many other cases of various denominations renting space in other churches. (For that matter, a Reformed church I previously belonged to had an Asian evangelical congregation renting space in it. And that scenario, of newer ethnic congregations renting older churches’ buildings, is fairly common.)

Returning to the specific subject of conservative, traditionalist churches renting space in church buildings belonging to often heretical, if not outright apostate, mainline Protestant denominations, or to secular public schools (which already get government money, and which all too often attack the beliefs we hold, and those students in them that are faithful believers), fraternal organizations we may find problematic (whether Freemasons or Orangemen or other lodges), part of me wonders: should we be giving them regular financial support this way, week by week? I mean, I understand the way elders in our churches must be looking at it: simply as an economic transaction. They have a space they’re not using or not using all the time at least; we need a space, therefore let’s rent from them. I get that, but OTOH, when I’ve been part of a congregation meeting in, say, a mainline Protestant church building, and I see their sign out front reading ‘Minister: Rev. Jane Smith’; their ‘inclusive’ songbooks or worse, ‘inclusive’ ‘Bibles’ in the pews (even though we’re not using them), their stupid multiculturalism-and-‘diversity’-promoting banners on the walls, and I think, many of these congregations are or would likely be struggling but get regular life-saving injections of money from us traditionalist conservative confessional orthodox Protestants, I wonder why the hell we are subsidizing our enemies. Same with when we meet in a secular, public school gymnasium; we’re giving more money to a beast that already has its own means of financing, including against our will, in the form of our tax dollars, and is often teaching godless, atheistic secular humanist anti-Christian worldview prog agitprop, against everything we believe; why should we give them one red cent more than is extorted from us by the State through our taxes?

If we can’t afford our own buildings at a particular time, shouldn’t we at least find a space to rent space from that either supports something we believe in (e.g. a Christian school gymnasium) or at least something we’re neutral towards (e.g. a Lions Club International or Rotary International hall)? Wouldn’t that be the most godly use of our money, even if it isn’t necessarily the cheapest place to rent? Would not God be more honoured by such a decision, rather than giving money to our enemies?

I mean, surely it’s one thing to buy an old building outright from an apostate / heretical mainline Protestant denomination that isn’t using it, giving them a one-time injection of wealth, then owning the building for ourselves thereafter; it’s another to regularly financially support those who oppose the true Triune God and His ways and His people and what we believe in, stand for, and practice, in our day to day lives, voting, etc.

Of course, until we have our own buildings, we could alternately meet in each others’ homes – like the early church did (see here, here, here, and here). (I’ve myself belonged to churches that have done this, and have found it a blessing.) I don’t know why that alternative isn’t more popular, given that it is directly Biblical…

 
21 Comments

Posted by on April 23, 2017 in religion, spirituality, The Kulturkampf, Theology

 
Image

Aphorism for the day

 
5 Comments

Posted by on April 3, 2017 in Theology

 

Pope and Change

Dreher reports and reacts:

A Catholic priest sent in this shocking, outrageous AP story from Rome. Excerpts:

Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope’s own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.

The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope’s own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

“With all this emphasis on mercy … he is creating the environment for such initiatives,” the church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and defrocked some 800 priests who raped and molested children. [Emphasis mine — RD]

Note well:

Francis scrapped the commission’s proposed tribunal for bishops who botch abuse cases following legal objections from the congregation. The commission’s other major initiative — a guideline template to help dioceses develop policies to fight abuse and safeguard children — is gathering dust. The Vatican never sent the template to bishops’ conferences, as the commission had sought, or even linked it to its main abuse-resource website.

And so, the precious concept of mercy becomes a byword for perpetuating clericalism and injustice, swaddling it in a slanket of sentimentality.

I’ve noticed, at The American Conservative in the past, and again in a comment on this piece, some people comparing Pope Francis to Trump; seeing him as a maverick, coming in, breaking rules, changing things, etc.

I contend the comparison is invalid; that Pope Benedict was more like what Trump is: someone who tried to drain the swamp, and truly go against the grain of what had been (and unfortunately is, again). In the comments, Leon Podles (yes, that onenoted:

Ratzinger’s hard line against abuse (which was ignored by John Paul II) is being undone by Francis, all in the name of “mercy.”

So, Benedict was the maverick, the radical reactionary who came in and tried to fix things, only to find himself blocked, and his efforts undone by his successor.

The better comparison, IMO, for Pope Francis, is in fact to Obama; he is changing some things, in a negative direction, while trying to undo the good that Benedict wrought.

As Podles went on to further observe:

Francis supporters want him to legitimize divorce and remarriage and silence his critics; if it also means tolerating pedophiles, well, what’s a few kids as long as Francis goes long with the Sexual Revolution in the Church.

Just as, in politics, progs loved Obama for radically pushing their agenda, and didn’t care about any other considerations, like increased Islamic immigration and resultant terrorism, the alienation of poor and working-class heartland whites, increased black militancy and racial strife actually resulting rather than improved racial harmony, etc.

Of course, the difference is, the order is exactly backwards between the Roman Catholic Church’s Trump and Obama pope analogues, in terms of the prog following the maverick conservative trying to actually fix things. I can relate, as a Canadian, because, for all the issues I had with our last Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, he actually tried to and did accomplish some good, much of which is being undone by Justin Trudeau, prog Canadians’ ‘hopey-changey’-wet-dream, selfie-mad leader. (Though I’m happy with the Brexit and Trump votes, and the trends we are appearing to see in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, and for that matter Kellie Leitch’s theme in her campaign to be the next Tory leader, I’m frustrated that my fellow Canadians chose to embrace our own Obamesque, hopey-changey figure at precisely the time when the rest of the west is turning in a nationalist and populist direction. {Sigh}…)

 

Polygamy will be legalized; traditionalist Christians will likely be the only religious group to oppose it

Remember the Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.


From the comments, we can see one group who won’t join with traditionalist Christians in opposing it:

And no doubt members of any faith which still accepts polygamy won’t oppose its legalization.

(As for other non-Western religionists: did they vocally join in opposing SSM? No. ‘Nuff said.)

Will trad members of The Tribe stick their neck out and join us in opposing it? As with the aforementioned commenter (and as he pointed out), their ancestors used to practice it; I doubt they care that much. And with their more liberal brethren like the author above making the case for it, they’re even less likely to get involved.

Other than some individual allies here and there, we’ll likely be largely alone in our opposition.

Same as we have been, mostly, in all the other culture war battles. (And Democrat-/Liberal-voting racial and ethnic minority Christians are useless, because notwithstanding their personal opinions, they never let such affect their continued solidarity voting for parties which most ardently fight on the other side in the culture war. So it’ll mostly be white Christians fighting the good fight, without even Моrmons on our side in this case.)

 

Pope Francis sez: ‘All Religions Want Peace’

Idiot.

Rod Dreher:

Pope Francis gotta Pope-Francis:

Pope Francis said Wednesday the world was at war but argued that religion was not the cause, as he arrived in Poland a day after jihadists murdered a priest in France.

“We must not be afraid to say the truth, the world is at war because it has lost peace,” the pontiff told journalists aboard a flight from the Rome to Krakow.

“When I speak of war I speak of wars over interests, money, resources, not religion. All religions want peace, it’s the others who want war.”

This is absurd. No, it’s not absurd: this is a lie.

Indeed.