Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Who Are the Most Loving People You Know?

"Love" is one of the most misused and corrupted words in the English vocabulary.  Very often when I am evangelizing, I have to give the correct definitions to whole host of words, including the word, gospel.  The word "love" in English vocabulary originates from the Bible.  It is used now in the English language, but it is pulled directly from God's Word.  Changing the meaning of words is a way to corrupt the teaching of scripture, but it is also a main strategy of postmodernism and critical theory, that says there is power in vocabulary.

The Bible itself talks about changing the meaning of words, done to fool people.  It is evil, done by evil people.  Many words are being changed today that buttress faith in scripture and obedience to the Word of God.  "Changed" is actually a soft word to describe what people do.  They are despicably corrupt, twisting, and perverting scripture through the changing of the meaning of words.  Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In the Garden of Eden, God said one thing, and Satan immediately said something different that made Eve feel like Satan loved her more than God did.  God said, Thou shalt surely die. Satan said, Ye shall not surely die.  They couldn't both be right.  Which do you think is more popular?

Satan then ripped on God to talk about how unloving He was:  "God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  God is just ripping you off, trying to bring you down, Eve.  Doesn't Satan sound loving to Eve?  Why don't you all send a comment to Eve on her instagram feed.  She's been attacked by God so why not join Satan and let her know how much you love her at this time of personal attack.  Today she would get hundreds of likes and dozens of supportive comments.  It's no wonder that Noah and his family got only eight people to be together on the ark, even after over a hundred years of preaching.

Scripture says, God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).  Love is an attribute of God, so love is who God is.  That also means God defines love.  When Romans 3:23 says "all. . . . fall short of the glory of God," it means that all fall short of the perfections of God's attributes, which is what His glory is.  People fall short of love.

Love is obviously important in scripture, because it is the first and second great commandments of God, (1) love God, and (2) love your neighbor.  The entire law of God, we know, is wrapped up or summarized in those two commandments of God.

Before I go further on what love is, so that I can answer the question in the title of this post, let me explore that briefly.  I've heard people through the years say that such and such a person is the most loving person they know.  How would someone know that?  What would characterize the most loving person someone knows?  He would go to scripture to make that assessment, because God is love.  God defines love.  If someone uses his own definition, like Satan did with Eve, then he's just a deceiver, using the term for his own purposes.

Today, words that define the way the world uses love, that conflicts with what scripture says, are toleration, feelings, niceness, fun, and lust.  These words all easily conform to the world system.  Two weeks or so ago, I wrote about the values sign, you'll see that comes from the hard left in this country, and one of its epithets is, "love is love."  Love does not define love, so what's happening with that?  This is a removal of God out of the definition and changing the definition based on the perspective of the subject, or in other words, a subjective definition.  This is just rebellious, calling good evil and evil good, but it is postmodern too.  That "love is love" bromide justifies sodomy.  Love is love, even if it is two men loving each other, is the lie.

The corruption of love relates to a perversion of values that ignores the true God of scripture.  New values, contradicting scripture, are wellness, self-love, or self-care.  Someone is doing wrong, violating scripture, sinning, rebelling against God, or transgressing God's law, let's say with transgenderism, and someone disapproves.  He or she states the disapproval.  Loving people come to the rescue of the transgender.  Disapproval brings self-loathing, depression, and suicidal thoughts.  It causes a loss of endorphins, which brings severe headaches.  This person is now in pain and in need of healing.  Loving people come to the rescue from the community to lift this person up.  He can now happily go his/her/its merry way in his sin with the full support of others.

Actually the grief the "transgender" feels from disapproval is the right feeling.  He needs to abhor his sin. This is what David felt when he committed adultery.  The pangs of conscience are good.  It's like the pain someone feels when he touches a hot stove, telling him not to do that.  The conscience is an internal warning device.  "Coming to the aid" of someone who is hurting over disapproval of a righteous confrontation just shuts down the properly working conscience.  This person is learning not to listen.  He or she is not swift to hear.  In other word, the person is being truly hurt, hurt in an actual way, harmed eternally, and this is not love.  This is not love.  It is hatred.  The people being given credit for love are hateful people.  What I'm writing here is very important.  This is some of the worst kind of deceit that there is in the world.

Children disobedient to their parents, not honoring their parents, need to feel very, very bad about that.  If a young lady is dressed like a prostitute, or as the King James says, the attire of a harlot, she should be discouraged in that.  That is the strange woman in Proverbs 6-8.  The fellow millennials or highly deceived middle aged and older people, who tell them that self-care is more important, and they need to feel liberation instead, are Satanic liars.  They are bringing destruction on this person and disintegrating his or her biblical discernment or wisdom.  The wisdom of this world, that does not descend from above, is earthly, sensual, and devilish (James 3:16).

Alright, so let me come back to the definition of love.  I said God defines it and what do we see again and again in scripture.  Consider these verses, read them all:

1 John 5:1-3, "1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:: and his commandments are not grievous."

John 14:15, 21, "If ye love me, keep my commandments. . . . He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

I'm guessing that some of you reading this don't like what God says about love.  You don't like His definition.  You would rather stick with yours.  In the end though, you don't love God or others when you are sinning without repentance.  Someone may say that you are, but don't listen to that person.  He is lying to you, like Satan lied to Eve.

God is love.  Whatever contradicts God's Word is not love.  It will bring the worst possible circumstances to your life, even if you think that things are better for you in the short term, just like Eve did.  Just because you feel something that you think is love, that isn't love.

To answer the question, the most loving people are the ones who keep God's commandments.  Of course, someone can't do that without faith in Christ.  Love is fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22).  It is produced by God internally in a person, but it still always looks the same.  It does not accept sin. Like Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13, it rejoices not in iniquity.

Someone may feed you a bromide, platitude, and epithet, that will get approval from the world, and especially unsaved people, but do not believe the lies.  Turn to God.  God is love.  Someone is not the most loving person in the world, who is in a constant state of sinning against God and is not keeping what He said.  The loving person is the person who does the will of God and tells you what you need to hear.  Listen to that.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

The New Lie of "Authenticity" and the Excuse It Gives Its Adherents to Live Ungodly

Something being authentic sounds great.  Authentic leather, not naugahyde.  You go to the National Archives in Washington, DC to see the authentic Declaration of Independence, not a cheap copy.  That was the meaning of authentic for the early years of my life, what I would have thought the word, authentic, meant.  If you buy an authentic Babe Ruth bat, you don't want it to have been mass produced in China.  Some external, verifiable means must be made to show the Babe had his fat fingers around that bat handle.  I took a mission trip to Mexico in high school and in the market, a man selling watches would pull one out to sell, declaring, "Only one of its kind!"  He sold it for a low price and then immediately pulled out an identical watch, saying again, "Only one of its kind!"  He sold watches that were not authentic.

The word "authentic" is now being used in an inauthentic way.   Now it is a commonly used word to justify bad beliefs and behavior from adherents.  They call what they're doing authentic, but it is now a postmodern technical term.  Don't think they mean "authentic" when they say it.  Now, however, young people especially like "authentic" better than authentic.  They aren't authentic Christians.  They are "authentic" Christians.  They get more approval for being "authentic," than authentic, but when they stand before God, He will inform them that they are naugahyde.  They are not the real thing.  They will be judged, not upon their own feelings or impressions, what they like, but based upon what God says.

Before I dig into the lie of "authenticity," you should consider too that the word "alternative" today relates to authentic.  When I was in my teens and twenties, we started hearing about someone with an "alternative lifestyle."  It seemed like a joke at the time.  A sad one.   Alternative is a big tent word to describe something "authentic to the subject" or "authentic to the person."  It has mainly related to arts, but this is also where postmodernism got its beachhead.  Art was the first casualty of postmodernism, but it also, like a virus, started superspreading to other realms of reality.  It still uses art to spread, like the coronavirus attacks the respiratory system, postmodernism latches hold of art easier and then spreads from there.

If you see a weird avant-garde photograph or painting, maybe a toilet seat hanging from the wall with graffiti on it, you might think, ugly.  Others call it alternative and then authentic.  Someone is an authentic person if he does what you tell a toddler is scribble-scrabble.  Apparently it takes more ability to do it as an adult.  I was going to say, skill, but I couldn't write that word for what they do.  Actual art takes skill.

Some "authentics" or "alternatives" do have some ability, but they make their niche, find their audience by pushing something new or different, that rings true and good and beautiful to themselves.  Their audience feels smart accepting their edgy, gritty alternative production, because it is authentic.  They acknowledge that they "get it."  There is nothing to get.  There was nothing to get when Andy Warhol reproduced his Campbell's Soup can, except to be authentic to himself, embrace his inner Warhol.

To give the impression that they are playing three dimensional chess, "authentic" is too called "next level."  Someone has reached another level, like he's taken the elevator up to a floor not yet built.  Why be held back by an actual building?  Let your mind go somewhere different. This is in the "next level" like Steve Jobs talked about when he said he used LSD in the days just before starting Apple in order to "think different."  It is having a personal experience, going somewhere in one's own imagination, that pushes into something no one has done before.  Sometimes, even often, there are good reasons why someone has never done something.  A person's strange thoughts or impulses, arising from a heart deceitful and desperately wicked, do not correlate to objective beauty, lacking in the symmetry, order, and proportion of God's creation.

I recently saw someone pushing the photography of an "artist," who looked like a recent or present meth addict, taking photos of young alternative musicians in variations of neon light, leaving the appearance of diverse states of darkness and odd colors.  Some of his photos, like some of my bad ones through the years, were blurry, except on purpose.  They were not real.  They were not what a person really looks like.  And that's why they are "authentic."  They take the point of view, even if demented, of the subject, and by approving of it, you are accepting this different point of view, the alternative point of view, like the acceptance of an alternative lifestyle.

Here's a man with a wife and children.  They look normal.  Here's a man with another man.  One of the two appears a little different, more like a woman.  This is an alternative lifestyle.  In reality, it is a perversion of what is good.  On the leftist value list, it is, "love is love."  It's love to him.  It's authentic to him.  Authentic never had this meaning before.  This is good evil and evil good.  This is beauty in the eye of the beholder.  They want to make the alternative normal and authentic by changing the word.  Language is power in postmodern philosophy.  They change the perspective.  This is again part of critical theory.

Let me clue you in.  What I'm describing in truth is just rebellion.  They are people who want to do what they want to do and be accepted for it.  They don't want to be judged by objective standards.   There's something very interesting to this, because these same proponents don't live in that world.  It is not a world that really exists.  It is made up by them.  For example, they don't want an avante-garde maid with an authentic view of "clean."  Clean is still clean, just like the coronavirus is indifferent to authenticity.  They don't want to fly in an "authentic" airplane, work in an "authentic" skyscraper, or cross an "authentic" bridge.  They don't want planes built with arbitrary standards, beautiful to the beholder, but instead still according to musty old laws and standards.  They don't, however, want that reality in their judgment of themselves, because then they can get away with what they want.  When you approve of them or just play along with them, this is not three dimensional chess, but a fool or a group of fools or at least scorners.

The English word "genuine" comes from genu, the Latin for knee, and it originated with reference to a custom of a father acknowledging paternity of a newborn child by placing it on his knee.  It really was his child.  His feelings didn't matter.  There really was a reproductive act followed by conception and birth of a child.  Now someone is "genuine" if he acts however he wants.  His natural hair color is brown, but he's not being true to himself if he doesn't dye it light blue.

When Jesus said the truth would set you free, He wasn't talking about being true to yourself.  People are judging you, you know, and instead of just caving to those around you, like parents, go off and do what you want, chase your dream, and be true to yourself.  That is now being genuine, the real mccoy.  No, truth was actual truth, the Word of God, and paying attention to and following what God said would set you free, free from sin (John 8:32-36).  There is an actual objective standard, one that doesn't relate to your feelings or what you want, but to what God says, that is true.

In the spirit of language being power within postmodern philosophy and the more narrow critical theory, changing the meaning of the word authentic brings so-called "power" to the proponent of such progressivism.  God's Word says, don't do what you want to do, but do what God wants you to do -- "he that doeth the will of God abideth forever" (1 John 2:17).  The new authenticity exalts the legitimacy of one's own desires and then acts on them.  For a young person, he might add, I'm going to stop trying to please my parents and do whatever I want to do.  I'll set up "boundaries," again not with the normal meaning of the word, but with a meaning that I get zero counsel, intervention, or actual truth from my parents.  If the parents cross those arbitrary boundaries, they violate personal space like a trespasser, like a breaking and entering crime.

The power of changing the definition of authenticity brings faux liberation to the one using the term.  It isn't really liberation, because it is bondage to sin and depraved self and the world system.  It makes a virtue out of the quixotic pursuit of being true to yourself.  If you are not "true to yourself," then you are a fake.  Where does this stop?  You want to fornicate with multiple women, and if you don't, then you are just being a fake.  Someone tells you this is wrong, but that's just wrong to the speaker.  Even by listening to this person, you are just pandering to them.  That's not authentic, it's fake, not real.

The "authenticity," which isn't authentic, that I'm describing in this piece, has come into the worship of a church.  Professing Christians want to give something real to God, something they really feel, and that is whatever they feel.  What they feel is gritty and urban and sensual.  The judgment on this comes from the view of the subject.  Worship, however, is based on the view of the one worshiped.  What does God want?  Looking at reality only or primarily from the perspective of the subject, especially on worship, misrepresents reality.  God is not pleased.  Very God is not really pleased.  You may comprehend in this lifetime how much He dislikes it, but you will in eternity.  It really is not worth the risk of waiting to find out.

Part of "authenticity" revolves around being free to be who you are.  It isn't "who you are."  It's just what you want.  God defines who we are, not ourselves.  He is the Creator, the Designer.  Another aspect of this is that for someone to be free to make the choice, he must be able to make the choice he wants, which means not condemning that choice.  Whoever condemns the choice is taking away freedom, because he brings "psychological damages."  The guilt-riddenness might result in suicide, because of the rejection of the choice.  The accusation here is the power of language to murder the one, who committed suicide.  Especially young people are buying into this to bring liberation. 

At one time, what is now called "authenticity" would have been recognized as hedonism.  Leaders reward the impulsiveness that Paul called on Timothy to flee.  Holiness and piety are labeled prudery and transparently fake.  Those supporting objective truth or transcendent goodness and beauty are mere whitened sepulchers, painting on their religion from the outside with their externals.  What is missed, however, is that they purvey their own left-wing legalism, a new standard mandated around personal freedom.  Without allowing for authenticity of spontaneity and originality, the freedom constantly invent, and opportunity to dress and perform as one wants, they won't stay.  They'll cancel.  This threat weighs heavy on decision making, providing a totalitarian loss of freedom to anyone who sees it differently.

If people will not feel guilty or regret in this lifetime, except for not "chasing their dreams," they will face God, nevertheless.  This effects their entire eternity.  At the root of human flourishing is the eternal kind.  This sacrifices the permanent on the altar of the immediate.  I hope they fail at doing what they want to do.  Failure in the short term has a better opportunity for long term success.

Churches don't want to lose their young people.  A majority of evangelical churches and to varying degrees even fundamentalist churches pander to authenticity themselves.  They justify the changes by marginalizing them as cultural issues.  They are doctrinal conservatives and cultural relativists.  They haven't given up on justification by faith, they would say, but they want to keep the next generation, so they accommodate this lie.

Friday, October 23, 2020

Mandatory Vaccination: Stop it Only One Way

 Mandatory / Compulsory Vaccination?

With COVID-19, there is a renewed call for compulsory or mandatory vaccination. Should vaccines be compelled?

I do not believe that the government should force parents to vaccinate their children against their will.  In the Bible, parental authority over children is so vast that parents could even bring rebellious children to trial and, if found guilty of consistent, persistent, and willful rebellion and wickedness, have their children executed (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; note that there is no record of parents actually following through on this with their children, as very, very few parents would want to do it, but it still shows the Biblical position on parental authority in relationship to the State). Similarly, children who cursed their parents or hit their parents would "surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:15-17) if there were multiple witnesses who were willing to testify to the fact (no Biblical indication specifies that the parents were required to testify against their children or, for that matter, that anyone at any time was compelled to testify against anyone else).

When Romans 13 outlines the role of the government, Biblically speaking, it is a "night watchman" sort of system with very limited authority.  The government is to punish evil but is not even supposed to actively do good--that is the realm of individuals and groups in society such as churches--but only to "praise" the good without financial support (Romans 13:3-4).  Biblical government is, in many ways, very libertarian on the spectrum of political ideology (learn more about the role of the government according to God's Word here).  Therefore, based on God's revelation, a strong support for parental authority and a strong view on a very limited role for government leads me to oppose mandatory / compulsory vaccination.  Furthermore, requiring parents who have religious objections to vaccinate is a very dangerous restriction of religious freedom.

Furthermore, in American history compulsory vaccination has led to many other restrictions on civil liberties.  A 1902 mandatory vaccination law passed in Massachusetts in response to a smallpox epidemic was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which concluded that compulsory vaccination was constitutional in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) by a 7 to 2 margin. For the benefit of the collective or group, individual liberty could be repressed.  The precedent set by this decision allowed for the promotion of eugenics; for example, in 1927 the case Buck v. Bell upheld the mandatory sterilization of a person considered "feeble-minded," arguing that “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”  The only precedent cited in case law was Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  The (alleged) collective good from forcibly sterilizing undesirable people overrode the individual liberty not to be--to describe it Biblically--eunuchized.  The expanded state powers that justified compulsory vaccination were used to uphold eugenic sterilization (learn more in the article here).  The power given to the State over parents that is involved in allowing compulsory vaccination also justifies the elimination of many other civil liberties.

Thus, I am against compulsory vaccination, and I believe you should be against it as well.

What is not a reason I oppose compulsory vaccination

I am against mandatory vaccination because of parental rights.  I am not against mandatory vaccination because vaccines do not work, are dangerous, or are ineffective.  Vaccines are safe, are effective, and are a great blessing to mankind in this fallen world that God has allowed scientists to discover utilizing the Biblically-based scientific method. Thanks to vaccines, diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, yellow fever, and rabies no longer kill, cripple, and cause terrible suffering to millions and millions of people.  Anti-vax propaganda simply does not reflect scientific reality in the world God has made. Common ideas, such as the lie that vaccines cause autism, was spread in order to make its author a lot of money.  If you do not vaccinate your children, you are increasing the likelihood that they will die or suffer because you believed scientifically inaccurate propaganda.  You are also not loving your neighbor as yourself, for you are increasing the likelihood that other children or adults will get sick or die.  Furthermore, you endanger the children of responsible parents who vaccinate their children, as their children, when too young to get vaccinated, may still be infected and get sick or die because you have refused to protect your own children from disease.  (Learn more about vaccine safety here.)  You may say that you don't need to vaccinate because others do, and so there is herd immunity--but you had better keep your kids away from the airport, then, and had better not teach them to evangelize in an area that has a lot of immigrants.  You definitely would want to keep them away from the mission field.

In other words, I believe that the government should allow parents to make foolish decisions, because allowing them to make foolish decisions--like not getting vaccinated themselves or having their children vaccinated, which is very foolish--is not as bad as the consequences are of the increased governmental power involved in compulsory vaccination.  In Israel drunkenness was a sin, but it was not illegal.  Failing to help the poor was wicked, but it was not illegal.  God hated divorce, but it was legal.  Failure to love one's neighbor as oneself was a horrible crime, but it was legal.  It should be legal for people to make all kinds of bad, foolish decisions, because increased government power is even worse than the bad, foolish decisions.

The only way to stop mandatory vaccination

While I believe that the position above is Biblically and practically correct, it is also one that is a loser politically.  If enough people believe anti-vax propaganda and stop vaccinating, it is certain that there will be more outbreaks in the United States of easily preventable diseases, and children will die for no good reason.  Enough angry parents showing pictures of happy babies and healthy children that are now dead or handicapped from diseases because of anti-vaccination lies will create an unstoppable wave of public support for mandatory vaccination.

Without mandatory vaccination, more children will get sick, suffer life-long hurt, and die.  I believe that the less-easy-to-see consequences of mandatory vaccination are worse than this awful and very visible consequence of not mandating vaccines. But is that going to win in a room full of angry parents holding pictures of their now dead children and demanding their congressman support mandatory vaccination?  Nope.  Not a chance.  Vaccines will become compulsory if enough people stop vaccinating.

So how can mandatory vaccination be stopped?  The only way to stop it is by vaccinating voluntarily.  If only a small enough percentage of the population doesn't vaccinate, the people who are putting their children's lives and the lives of other children at risk can fly under the radar, believe their misinformation, and not cause too much damage.  But as their number grows big enough to compromise or eliminate herd immunity, public pressure from the death, disease, and carnage caused by their irresponsible actions will lead to mandatory vaccination.

So do you want to stop mandatory vaccination?  Have your children vaccinated, encourage others to vaccinate, and fight inaccurate and unscientific anti-vaccination propaganda.

There is no other long-term way to stop mandatory vaccination.

-TDR

Monday, October 19, 2020

Disinformation Is the Present Norm In American Culture: Hunter Biden Laptop as a Case Study

The Hunter Biden laptop story from the New York Post manifests the mainstream reality of misinformation and disinformation.  I would call it micro-disinformation within the greater macro-disinformation.  We live in a world of lies, represented by 2 Corinthians 4:4, "the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."  Satan is the "prince of this world" (John 12:31) and in that role "there is no truth in him, . . . he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44).  The lies are foisted upon easily deceived minds in many various ways.

Macro-disinformation underlies the true view of the world, what the world really is.  I call these the "big lies," and these are the more important lies, like the naturalism lie, that everything got here by accident and not by design.  The big lies allow someone to go through his entire life and not deal with God.  They mask the immense and deep trouble for every person because of sin.  They send people in the direction of false solutions to the problems of the world, giving men the lie that they are solved through assorted human means:  education, philosophy, psychology, government, or economics.  Another big lie is the goodness of men, convincing them that they are good, that they are or will be fine like they are.

The Biden laptop story is simple.  For whatever reason, Hunter Biden left his laptop at a Delaware computer repair shop, which had an abundance of incriminating evidence on it against his dad, who's running for president of the United States.  In a way, I hate writing this, because it so patently obvious. No one should have to write on it, but numerous counter stories have been written with masses of lies and deceptions to cloak or deflect from the truth. There have been many of these types of true revelations in the last four years, or even many more years, blockbuster types, that are lost in the fog of macro-disinformation.  They are micro-disinformation.

Within the universe of macro-disinformation falls postmodern thought that so blurs both the foreground and the background to leave people, especially younger ones completely befuddled.  They don't believe they can judge the nose on their face.  Even the truth cannot be judged to be the truth, because what appears to be the truth is an operation of power and oppression.  A party leader could come out and say, it's Russian disinformation, and people will now believe it.  A news source can show the very emails and the chain of evidence for the laptop, and a majority will doubt the story.  There is no proof of Russian involvement.  It's very straightforward.

The laptop undoes the Trump impeachment, giving credibility to the question Trump asked the Ukrainian president.  He should have asked the question of him, but the email evidence says that Trump was right.  The laptop says that the Biden family enriched itself through the influence of Joe Biden's office.  It was quid pro quo upon quid pro quo.  Many countries, including China, got access to the executive branch of the United States by giving Joe Biden and his family money.  That's what it shows.  It is easy to see.  Will it matter in the race?  It might not, because the truth really isn't the truth.  No truth is the truth, because the truth isn't determined by the plain means.  Every person can take the regular means, the right means of discerning truth, and be justified in ignoring it with the new paradigm, related even to critical theory.

Everyone looks out at the world and knows it's not an accident.  An accident though is till a feasible explanation.  It counts.  It's demonstrably false, but it still counts as truth.  It is what is taught in the public school.  Out of that macro-distinformation proceeds micro-distinformation.  This is the world of lies over which Satan rules and deceives.

I often say that the world isn't credible, but it is alluring.  This is what Jonah called, "lying vanities."  Someone isn't an American Indian, but she is to get a scholarship or a tenured professor position.  The truth then is whatever furthers one's lust (cf. 2 Peter 2).  The conscience may still warn against the lie according to a true standard that remains in the heart, but personal desire extinguishes or deadens the warning.  The truth becomes the most convenient story, the most useful one.  In that sense, some might call it "authentic," which has also changed in meaning.

The laptop of Biden was authentic.  It could be traced to Biden.  It had Biden's material on it.  It came with Biden's signature.  Biden tried to retrieve it later.  That's the real or true meaning of authentic, but now authentic is whatever is most authentic to the subject.  What's authentic is that it isn't his laptop, because that doesn't fit what I want to happen.  What is authentic is that a Russian dropped it off and forged the name of Biden.  This sounds like tradecraft out of spy fiction.  Why not have that be your truth?

Someone may have zero skill at drawing or painting, but he is authentic.  What went on to the canvas was true to him.  Someone's music is true to him.  It might be alternative.  It isn't Southern.  It isn't gospel.  It is something original, something that no one has heard before, but it is authentic to a particular person.  Maybe others will like it too.  You see this today with fashion, art, and music.  Anyone can say it's true, because it's true to the subject, which is the meaning of subjective.

You know this.  There might be a truth.  Trump calls Fauci an idiot.  That's true.  He actually said:

People are saying whatever. Just leave us alone. They're tired of it. People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots.

It's not exactly, "Fauci is an idiot."  No, but by making it the headline and misquoting it, it is a kind of disinformation.  The disinformation comes also with an unappealing picture of the president, mouth wide open and veins protruding from his neck.  Someone can turn a story with how he portrays it, turning it into a bit of micro-disinformation in a world of lies.  So a lyric of Hillsong and Bethel is the truth, but does that make it true if the music is worldly and fleshly?  It's like an angry photo next to even an innocent statement.  It changes the meaning.

The ultimate macro-disinformation is the elimination of God and His Word in whatever fashion necessary.  There is no standard.  Jesus said, Thy Word is truth.  Jesus said, the greatest in His kingdom will keep the least of His commandments.  When that doesn't fit the will of the hearer, he shapes that into something that accommodates what he does want.  The Bible is still there, like Hunter Biden's laptop, but it means whatever you want it to mean, so it means nothing.  This is the present norm in American culture.

I know some people are suspect of disinformation and would say they want the truth.  I know of very little of it.  Even for those who accept truth, it's a percentage.  They aren't taking it all. They are negotiating a percentage. This itself is an adjustment to the present norm in American culture.

Sunday, October 18, 2020

"Proselytizing Should Be Illegal!"

This week going door to door evangelizing, I was talking to an about thirty year old young man, and he wasn't interested, he said, because of "science," something I've written about here a few times.  I wanted him to understand the Bible was science, history, and a true story.  I related fulfilled prophecy and mathematical probability, because God does that in Isaiah 40-48, and that no other book does that, containing thirty percent prophecy, because the Bible is the Word of God.  He needed the gospel and he was in trouble if he didn't receive it.  While I had that brief conversation, someone behind me was shouting at me, another about thirty year old young man with what are called "stretched earlobes."

The man yelled, "Proselytizing should be illegal!  You should be arrested for proselytizing!"  I felt right at home.  This might be something I got in the San Francisco Bay Area, although it was also something new to hear.  He kept coming at me, and the first man ended that talk, so I stepped back and asked the second man, the one yelling, if he was against the first amendment, that he didn't think I should have freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

The man went off on a long jeremiad of how that Christians were coming with certainty when there was no proof and then taking advantage of people, especially mentioning that Billy Graham -- he said his name -- was stealing money from suffering elderly women.  He also said that Christianity had been disproved numerous times, vociferating that there were numerous claims of virgin births in Egypt and many other places.  He was most troubled, he said, by the certainty of proselytizing Christians.  Then he finally let me talk.  The man stood there about thirty feet away, stopping on his way to his car.

I knew that I didn't have much time to defend all of Christianity with the man, but I thought the best approach was to ask him, "Are you sure, are you certain, that I'm wrong?  Do you know that I'm wrong?"  He wouldn't say.  He looked confused.  I said, "You have a problem with certainty, you're extolling doubt, so do you know that you're right and that I'm wrong?  Aren't you being certain yourself?"  He still couldn't answer.  "So," I asked, "why not just say that you don't like what I'm doing?  Or, it's just your opinion?  Then it wouldn't be illegal, since it's just an opinion."

I was working from presuppositionalism with the man. He wasn't neutral.  He was presupposing his own knowledge, his own certainty.  He just didn't like what I was saying.  I said, "You should admit that you're wrong too, because even though you speak like you have certainty about how wrong I am, you don't know that Billy Graham has already been dead for a few years."  He also was confusing Billy Graham with Charismatic televangelists.  Billy Graham may have had his problems, but his work didn't take advantage of elderly women to get into their savings accounts.  Billy Graham didn't promote prosperity theology.

The young man told me he had to go to give a ride to his girlfriend, but he liked the way that I had come back at him.  He stated that he liked that I didn't attempt to run away from him.  He began to tell me his story, how that his life was messed up, that he grew up Roman Catholic, but he had to go.  He wanted me to leave a paper on his door.  I left my email address.  He hasn't written me, but I also didn't get to his door, so I'm probably going back anyway.

I can't speak with authority if I'm not telling the truth.  There is no authority if there is no truth.  I am not out in the world to bring uncertainty or doubt.  I am there to tell people what I know is the truth.  Biblical Christianity is the truth.  God's Word is Truth.

The young man didn't want elderly women to be taken advantage of.  I told him I didn't want to see that happen either, that I was right with him on that.  He was confused, perhaps because no one has ever given him the gospel.  I think it is likely that he has never heard a true gospel presentation.  Even though this area where we live has a lot of Calvary Chapel style evangelicals, a large majority do not know or understand the gospel.

Let's get out there.

Friday, October 16, 2020

"Come as you are" or "sanctify yourselves"?

Today we hear a great deal about how we should come to church just as we are.  I recall a life-size ad that was posted for many weeks at a local mall in Wisconsin.  It had a picture of a guy in a T-shirt holding a Bible, a big tattoo visible on his arm, wearing jeans.  The ad asked, "Would Jesus wear jeans to church?" There was no gospel on the ad anywhere, although the religious organization claims to be evangelical.  Even if someone were to (wrongly) think that the answer to that question is, "Yes," unless wearing the jeans and the tattoo were an idol, one could answer "Yes, but who cares? Why aren't you giving these lost people the gospel instead of asking them a silly question about clothing?" On the other hand, if the casual clothes are an idol that one is not willing to forsake to take up the cross and follow Christ, then the ad makes sense; we can "put down the cross and serve ourselves," can keep everything in the world that the jeans and tattoo represent, instead of taking up the cross and following Christ.  

But is the answer really "yes"?  Are we supposed to come to church as we are?

Scripture regularly contains the following phrase when people were entering the presence of the infinitely holy Jehovah (in each case the Hithpael of the verb qds, "holy"):

Ex. 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

Lev. 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Lev. 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

Num. 11:18 And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.

Josh. 3:5 And Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves: for to morrow the LORD will do wonders among you.

Josh. 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you.

1Sam. 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.

1Chr. 15:12 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

1Chr. 15:14 So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.

2Chr. 29:5 And said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.

2Chr. 29:15 And they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came, according to the commandment of the king, by the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 29:34 But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests.

2Chr. 30:3 For they could not keep it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem.

2Chr. 30:15 Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD.

2Chr. 30:24 For Hezekiah king of Judah did give to the congregation a thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep; and the princes gave to the congregation a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests sanctified themselves.

2Chr. 31:18 And to the genealogy of all their little ones, their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, through all the congregation: for in their set office they sanctified themselves in holiness:

2Chr. 35:6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses.

So the world, and most of evangelicalism, says to come to church just as you are, the same way you come to any worldly event.  Indeed, making no difference between the common or profane and the holy temple of God in this age is important enough to many evangelicals that they will refrain from giving people the gospel to instead focus upon the importance of coming to church in your T-shirt and jeans sporting your tattoo with your modern Bible version.  Come as you are, sing to God the tunes of the world, and add a little religion to your life--your life which is all about you.  By contrast, Scripture affirms, over and over again, that one is to sanctify himself before coming into the presence of the holy, holy, holy God.

So, in a true church, where the special presence of God is found in a manner comparable to the holy of holies in the Old Testament tabernacle (Gk. naos), you should not come just as you are.  You should sanctify yourself--you should come in a way that is distinctly different, that is not common, not profane, but set apart to the righteous Lord and God who dwells in a special way in His true church.  Jesus Christ walks in the midst of His churches, and He still hates any profanation of God's worship the way He did when he took a whip and drove out the moneychangers and merchants from the Temple (John 2) and when He sent fire from heaven to burn up those who failed to sanctify Him in their worship (Leviticus 10).

Nor should true churches set up special meetings where the people of God specifically fail to sanctify themselves in their appearance and come into the presence of God in an informal, casual, common way so that lost people who visit feel more comfortable.  There is no model for this in Scripture, and when in the New Testament a lost person comes under conviction after visiting church, it is because of the truth of the Word he has heard from the godly example and speech of the church members, not because they decided not to sanctify themselves. That is not the way to get the lost to confess "God is in you of a truth" (1 Corinthians 14:25), but to get them to confess:  "There is nothing special here."  Much less should church services be turned into carnivals with give-aways to attract children who would not come for Christ but will come for candy.

On the other hand, if you are going to a religious organization that does not fit the Biblical criteria for one of Christ's true churches, you might as well come as you are and make no difference between the holy and the common, since Christ is not there anyway.  Go for it!  But don't deceive yourself and think that you are doing anything that is for the glory and honor of God when you are there.  It's about you.  Be honest.

So, considered Biblically, a religious organization with a "seeker-sensitive, come as you are" philosophy of ministry is saying "God is not here.  This is about us and what we want. No to Immanuel, yes to ourselves.  The Bible says 'sanctify yourselves' before coming into God's presence--but we say exactly the opposite."

On a side note, the Keswick / Higher Life idea that "You cannot sanctify yourself" is the opposite of what the passages of Scripture above teach.  The sons of God, enabled by grace, do indeed sanctify themselves; that is one of the ways that God sanctifies them.

Please do not draw the conclusion from this article that the lost need to make themselves worthy before they can come to Christ. This post is about God's people and how they should come into the presence of God in His church, not about how the lost should come to Christ as empty-handed sinners with nothing but their sin.  Please also do not conclude that we should discourage lost people who know nothing about God's Word from hearing preaching or attending services if they do not dress nicely enough.  That is not what the post is about either.  Nor did the post say anything to the effect that the outside is more important than the inside; that is not the case. God does care about sanctifying all of who we are, inside and outside.  Do not take the post for what it does not say, but what it does say.

Let's just be honest with these passages of Scripture and recognize that the saints should sanctify themselves in their hearts, minds, and appearance before they come into the special presence of the God who commanded, "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 11:44).  Not soli mihi gloria, but soli Deo gloria.

-TDR

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Is "If Something Is True" the Only Criteria for Using Hillsong and Bethel Music? Critique of a John MacArthur Answer

Like many others, I have a cell phone and when I pull up youtube, it feeds me what I might want to see and it showed me the above video, so I watched (by the way, three days after I published this, the original video was taken down, so I put this up in its place, because it is still at youtube).  I must comment.  To deal with it in a proper manner, here is a transcript, so you can look at it for reference.  I shared the video so you'll see that it happened and can also hear the intonation in the question and answer.
DARRIUS:  Hello, my name is Darrius, and my question is, “Should we listen to songs that have like good Christian lyrics but are ran by false Christians, maybe such as Hillsong or Bethel or those kinds of stuff?”

JOHN: I mean, the bottom line would be that if something is true, then it’s true. You can appreciate the truth of a song if it’s true. There are a lot of songs written by real Christians that are bad theology, really bad theology. There are some songs written by non-Christians that are good theology. But I do think it’s important not to get sucked into those movements. Hillsong is an aberrant movement with really aberrant theology. Bethel is the same, or worse. But it doesn’t mean that there isn’t now and then something they produce that is true and you can sing it as true. So just be discerning. But they are powerful movements, both of them – Bethel because of the Jesus culture music group, Hillsong because of Hillsong music. If they didn’t have that music, they wouldn’t have a movement, either of them probably. But the theology of both, particularly Bethel, is taking the Holy Spirit’s name in vain constantly, constantly. So you don’t want to be a part of that movement. But again, a clock that doesn’t run is right twice a day. So every once in a while people will come across the truth. Okay?
John MacArthur most often gives good answers to questions.  I remember in recent days in answer to a question MacArthur criticized Drew Brees, the quarterback of the New Orleans Saints, because he didn't have a spine or wouldn't "man-up" in apologizing for his national anthem stand.  MacArthur himself is weak in answer to these types of questions.  I wish he would "man-up" and give a strong answer to this question.  He equivocates and vacillates on something that is very important, related to the worship of God.

The right answer would be this:
No, Darrius, Hillsong and Bethel are false worship, and no one should listen to what they produce.  They not only do not please God, but they offend God.  It's not right to offend God.  No one should listen to what offends God or give any support to it.  He should separate from it.  Even if you were to find a few true statements in their songs, they are a counterfeit, attempting to look like the real thing, when they are false.  They are strange fire and we should separate from strange fire.  God isn't pleased.  They require separation not only to please God, but also for the sake of others.  The association, like associating with the idol worship in Corinth, has much more severe ramifications for yourself, but also for others.  We need to take a public stand against them, but we also can easily be deceived ourselves.

Furthermore, Darrius, we don't just judge the music by the words or the lyrics.  The medium itself is corrupt.  It's like worshiping the true God in the high places.  The form is wrong.  It changes the meaning.  It corrupts the meaning.  We understand God not just by what is true, but also what is good and beautiful.  We worship God in the beauty of his holiness.  Their music is sensual, fleshly, carnal, and worldly.  Paul commanded in Romans 13 not to make provision for the flesh.  Their music attracts or allures so many because of its fleshliness.  God isn't worshiped by fleshliness.  1 Peter 2 commands, abstain from fleshly lust.  Titus 2 says deny worldly lust.  You can't obey those verses, obey God, and listen to Hillsong and Bethel.

I've said before Darrius, that the Hillsong and Bethel movements wouldn't have anyone without the music.  What do you think that means?  It's not because they have true lyrics, but because the music itself is deceiving.  It is like the allure of the apostate teachers of 2 Peter 2.  They use the music to lure you in and it makes merchandise of its hearers.  The music is the vomit that the dog returns to.  God does not receive worship that accords with the spirit of this age.  That is not acceptable unto Him, and it also gives people a false imagination about God, an idol in the mind.  There may be true words, but the meaning of those words is shaped according to the lust.  This is how apostasy takes places and scripture says, come out from among them and be separate.  That's what we need to do Darrius.
If the Hillsong and Bethel music is strange fire, which is what MacArthur has said, why doesn't he say something like what I wrote?  Why?  MacArthur is wrong in his answer.  It is a dangerous answer, much like when MacArthur answered on another occasion that it was fine for a saved person to date an unsaved person, not marry, but to date that person.  He is compromising.  He is being pragmatic.  He doesn't want to offend those young people, lose them.  As a result of what he said, they'll still be listening to Hillsong and Bethel.  These young people will not have the same God in their imagination as the God of the Bible, even if they listen to only the "true" lyrics of the songs.

The bottom line really isn't, are the lyrics true?  The bottom line is, is the apparent worship pleasing to God?  Is God pleased by the music, both lyrics and music?  The music is not meaningless.  The music is not amoral.  MacArthur knows this, but he has not stood on this through the years, because he takes a reckless position in his application of scripture.  He will comment on cultural issues, even though they are not given clear or plain statements in scripture.  We must acknowledge that we can understand truth in the real world.  We know what a corrupt word is.  We know what the attire of a harlot is.  We know that it is wrong to gamble, to smoke crack pipes, to hip thrust in our worship, and to abort babies in the womb, because we apply a second term, a minor premise, in our application.  God expects this.  This comes out of the truth of natural law or self-evident truth.  We know if our children are giving us a rebellious look.  It doesn't have to be defined by a verse.  We know when a woman is flirting with a man, even if the Bible doesn't explain this.

MacArthur says things that are true, but he does not explain them, perhaps to try to scare the young man away from Bethel and Hillsong without giving a real answer.  He says, these movements are "powerful."  Really?  How?  What is the power?  It's not the power of the lyrics, except that they are so simple and so emotional that they are attractive to non-thinking people.  The power is in the music, the meewwwzic, Dr. MacArthur.  The music sucks people in because it is addictive, it is drug-like, it titillates the flesh.  Say that.  But no, can't say that because it would empty out a big chunk of the group.  What about the casual, ratty clothes, the stage, the lights, the dancing, the waving arms?  Can we not judge this?  Nope, not in MacArthur's world.

He also says that Hillsong and Bethel "blaspheme the Holy Spirit."  That's a strong statement.  How do they blaspheme the Holy Spirit?  How?  Isn't it because the Holy Spirit is Holy?  The music isn't Holy.  It brings down the Holy Spirit to something common and profane.  It isn't sacred.  Is anything sacred anymore?  Almost nothing is to evangelicals.  They have scorched the earth so that nothing is holy.  We as leaders are required to differentiate between the holy and profane.  Do that.  Please.  I beg you.

MacArthur's vacillation on these sorts of issues will result in the apostasy of his church and others very quickly after he is gone.  He has left his people with nothing to equip them to deal with what Satan and the world system are doing in the world.  He talks about being discerning.  In other words, sort through Bethel and Hillsong and pull out what is good.  Nothing is good there.  He's not being discerning himself.  He's not applying scripture himself.

Grace Community supporters should take seriously what I'm writing.  Don't set up straw man arguments, like you often do to these types of criticisms.  Don't approach this issue with, Brandenburg is a flame thrower, he's not with the doctrines of grace, or he is KJV only.  Those are red herrings.  They are also not giving an accurate representation of me.  Doing that will not stop the slide that will occur with you and your people in the future, because you will not stand for pure worship of God and give biblical instruction on these cultural issues.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Analyzing the Values Yard or Window Sign


I don't know if you see this above sign in your area, but it's everywhere in coastal cities of the Western United States.  In Berkeley and adjacent cities, it's been at about every house or yard for a few years.  Here in Oregon, I saw one on our street in our neighborhood too.  I picked this version as an example, because the one I saw started with "Science Is Real."  They're called "Values Signs," to promote so-called leftist "values."

The list is a mixed bag of bromides that read like a religious creed, starting with "we believe."  Leftists treat it like a creed, including a punishment or shunning of those who violate the precepts.   An irony of "we believe science is real" is how science has anything to do with belief.  If it is real, you know it, not believe it, don't you?  So, in essence the values sign is a doctrinal statement like a church would produce.

The consequences for breaking these decrees are severe in present society.  They say,  to them kindness is everything.  No way.   These are some of the most bitter, angry, unkind people I've ever met, and it's been very consistent.  I've never met people who are so unfriendly, distant, and irritated.  Rarely do people with this sign in their yard show kindness.  They are plain mean in almost every instance.  They are "kind" only if you accept all their list with their definitions with exuberance. What I'm saying is that these are ultimate hypocrites with their standards like the Pharisees of Jesus' day.  

Through the sign, its proponents proclaim their own kindness, their own righteousness in essence, that they "believe" all these things, and I've never seen the righteousness lived or the beliefs followed.  The sign acts as "virtue signaling," a modern way to stand on the street corner and beat on their chest to be seen of others.  It also functions at accosting the people reading it, their chosen targets of these epithets.  It warns away those who disagree that they are not welcome.  Stay away.  Don't talk to me.

I can't cover every point in one post, but they say, science is real.  The postmodernism that buttresses the left doesn't rely on science.  According to postmodernism, which includes critical theory, science arrives at its conclusions through the social forces of power and oppression.  The left doesn't care about science.  It disregards biological sex, except when it's convenient.  It ignores the evidence of life in the mother's womb, seen through the ultrasound and surgery on the unborn baby in the uterus.  It avoids the fossil record with its evidence of kinds and no transitional forms.  It promotes psychological theories like they are science, which are overturned multiple times in a matter of years.  If the scientific definition of a pandemic is 1-3 percent deaths in the country, Covid-19 isn't a pandemic with its .06% deaths, even counting every death with the virus, not because of the virus alone.  According to the CDC, only 6% of Covid-19 deaths don't involve comorbidities, that is, other causes besides Covid-19.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to an atheist at his stamp shop, who said he was scientific, so he couldn't believe the Bible.  Among other points in that conversation, I advocated Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations as science, and he scoffed that economics wasn't a science, even though economics uses the scientific method to explain economic behavior.  The Bible makes economic statements as fact, such as "the borrower is servant to the lender" (Proverbs 22:7).  This is economic and this is science.  Sure, science is real, but not the so-called science of the virtue signaler.  When he says "science is real," he means that God and the Bible are not.

Do black lives matter?  Yes.  I haven't heard of a poll that asked Americans if black lives mattered to them, but I'm guessing that if that poll were done, it would be something close to 99% plus of white Americans would say, "Yes, black lives matter."  All black lives matter, not just the ones killed by white police officers.  Don't be fooled into thinking that the three words, black lives matter, mean that black lives matter.  BLM is just a political tool.  It's not saving black lives.  It's killing black lives faster than if it did not exist.  And that is scientific, if science were real.  But again, they're not interested in actual science.

They say, no human is illegal, because that is their stand in support of illegal aliens, the legal terminology to refer to a person in the United States who is breaking federal immigration laws.  "Illegal" means "unlawful" or "criminal."  The non-United States citizen is a criminal or an illegal.  The leftist platitude advocates open borders, the elimination of nations, and general lawlessness.  It stands for the destruction of the United States.

Do women possess human rights?  Yes.  Rights apply to every human being.  They come from God.  A purpose of government is to protect the rights of human beings.  Rights are liberties.  Every human being is born with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property.  The point of saying that women's rights are human rights is to eliminate distinctions between men and women. Rather than giving women equal opportunity, the goal of this feminist ideal is equal outcome.  It promotes women in positions of authority against natural law.  If rights come from God and God requires men in authority, then it isn't a right for women to be in authority.  The leftist adage especially emphasizes a woman's "reproductive rights," where she is given the choice to end an unwanted pregnancy with abortion.  The man has no say in the life or death of his child.

If sex is a social construct, then isn't a woman's right also a violation of human rights?  This was the point that J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter author, was attempting to make according to classic feminism, when she was canceled for her insensitivity to transgenders.  She made the controversial following statement earlier this year:  "If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased."  I'm just saying that women's rights can't be human rights if there is no way to distinguish between men and women.

"Love is love" relates obviously to same-sex marriage.  However, again how can there be same sex if sex is a social construct?  Love can't even be love, because love must mean whatever someone wants it to mean.  This is the latest iteration of the world for the left's value sign owner.  Can he/she/it even claim the sign as his/her/its property?  Sign person didn't build it.  Sign person doesn't own it.  And if it causes me psychological harm, then I'm entitled to destroy it, or at least sue for psychological damages, as a means of saving my life.

A world so lacking in certainty is left to proclaim inane statements like "love is love," defining a word with the same word.  Jerry Seinfeld makes light of this inanity in a comedic bit, when he says:

People like to say those things. “It is what it is.” You see, if you repeat a word twice in a sentence, you can say that with a lot of confidence. “Business is business.” “Rules are rules.” “Deal’s a deal.” “When we go in there, as long as we know what’s what and who’s who, whatever happens, happens, and it is what it is.”

People laugh, but they're now laughing at themselves.  If it's funny though, then it's funny, even if it's you that's you who's a joke.

"Kindness is everything" comes from the most intolerant generation in the history of human kind.  They invented ghosting their parents.  They don't want to be challenged for anything they say or do.  They want total tolerance.  This is the "kindness" of which they speak.  They don't mean, be kind to you.  They mean being kind to them, tolerating them, is everything.

The Apostle Paul writes that love "is kind," but he also writes that love "rejoiceth not in iniquity."  John writes in 2 John 1:6, "This is love, that we walk after his commandments."  When 1 Corinthians 13 says, "love is kind," the Greek word for "kind" is chretos, which occurs seven times in the New Testament.  The word pertains to moral goodness and in Romans 2:4, it is translated "goodness," as in "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."  True kindness is doing what is absolute best for another person, like God does for us.  That would mean rejecting the values of the leftist value sign, which contradicts the goodness of God, the holy, moral nature of the Good God.