When the Church Platforms Evil

 

I remember years ago hearing about Francis Collins and how he was one of the world’s most respected scientists and was a strong and faithful evangelical Christian. So I picked up his book, The Language of God, and read through it. It was just another one of those books that argues that evolution must be true, but God did, so be happy that God used that slow, death filled process to bring about incredible design, step by step, by red in tooth and claw step. I remember not being very impressed with the book, but it was some time ago that I read it.

Well, since then more of Francis Collins career has come to light, and it is not good. As the Clear Truth Media writes,

“On August 17, 2009, Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Lauded as a hero of the faith because he professed belief in God while leading the Human Genome Project some years prior, Collins became a link between Christian institutions and the scientific establishment. As association with Collins meant a pastor couldn’t be accused of being some backward-thinking fundamentalist, Collins’s image became synonymous with a more nuanced, reasonable faith – perhaps even a faith that was academically robust.

A year after taking the helm of NIH, Collins reportedly believed that “it is not possible scientifically to settle precisely when life begins.” In fact, before taking over NIH, Collins had already praised eugenic abortions ( when one prenatally tests the baby to see if they’re “fit” or “unfit” and disposes of them if they aren’t up to scruff) as something people “in our current society… are in a circumstance of being able to take advantage of” and something “we have decided as a society… needs to be defended.” And shortly after his confirmation at NIH, Collins said that establishing a new human embryonic stem cell registry was one of his high priorities. If Collins was indeed Mephistopheles’ vessel, the demon wasted no time in devouring his favorite kind of child: very small ones. After all, there are no embryonic stem cells without dead babies.

In 2006, three years before his appointment at NIH, Collins published his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, in which he explains how he found harmony between scientific and spiritual worldviews. However, what many Christians drooling over such a “respectable” and “nuanced” Christianity missed is that he defended research on preborn children, so long as they hadn’t been created expressly for such “research.” However his position on this also made space for pursuing scientific discoveries using “the sacrifice and destruction of ‘leftover’ human embryos from fertility clinics.”

Let’s start with something so disgusting and immoral that it defies explanation. In fact, if it weren’t so well documented it might have fallen into the murky abyss of urban legend. But it’s absolutely true.

In the fall of 2020, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh published a study titled, “Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full-thickness human skin and autologous immune cells.” In studying how organs reacted to pathogens or infections on human skin, researchers grafted “full-thickness human skin” as well as thymuses, livers, and spleens from fetuses onto rodent bodies, creating what they call “humanized rat models.”

Humanized rats.  Remains of unborn babies, purchased from Planned Parenthood and the like, had their scalps removed and subsequently attached to the heads of lab rats. As head of the NIH, not only did Collins approve this study and thus validate its objectives, but he also provided taxpayer funds to pay for it.

One year later, thanks to the work of pro-life undercover journalists, the University of Pittsburgh admitted to removing the kidneys from born-alive babies while their hearts were still beating. David Daleiden, who helped expose the University of Pittsburgh discovered that “Pitt and the Planned Parenthood abortion providers responsible for its ‘research’ abortions are allowing babies, some at the age of viability, to be delivered alive, and then killing them by cutting their kidneys out” for NIH grant money.”[1]

One thing you learn from reading history is that whenever the Church aligns itself with the spirit of its day, in this case evolution, what always happens is the general scientific, or elite body of knowledge, changes and then future generations of that scientific, or cultural elite community, will turn around and mock the Church for having advanced ridiculous ideas. The melding of the Church to the theory of evolution was always going to go bad for the Church, because it it an inherently anti-God philosophy that makes a mockery of scriptural teaching and reason. This alliance with worldly evolution promoting scientists could only embarrass the Church especially considering that many of today's so-called Christian scientists are engaged in incredibly immoral and deplorable science. Future generations of society will turn this around on the Church and mock it for doing for very evil things, when it should have been preaching against them and calling them out. 

But when you think about it, if your God is the kind of God that would use death, destruction and mutilation to evolve sentient beings, then engaging in the kind of evil practices Collins NIH permitted is just a rational (if deplorable) logical step. You become like the God you worship, after all. 

The alliance of the Church with men like Collins has been a disaster. Significant and prominent Christians have platformed someone whose organization have been engaged in real and genuine evil,

“By the start of 2022, many believers had come to realize that Francis Collins either presided over, ordered, funded, or indirectly participated in the following while leading NIH:

·      Record-level spending on scientific experimentation performed on fetuses obtained from abortions.

·      Endorsement of unrestricted funding of embryonic stem cell research.

·      Millions of dollars in taxpayer grants spent on transgender research on minors.

·      Opposite-sex hormone treatments given to children as young as eight years old.

·      Mastectomies performed on girls as young as thirteen years old.

·      Millions of dollars in grants to an app program that tracked teenage boys’ homosexual activities including anal sex, all without parental knowledge.”[2]

In the pursuit of respectability and prominence the devil will offer Church leaders opportunities to overlook evil, first at small levels than at larger levels, till eventually they will support those who are engaged in activities that Elijah would have called out Ahab for allowing in Israel in his day.

The Church has platformed too much evil in our generation. Too much. In the pursuit of seeking respectability from man the Church has platformed those who do things which are an abomination in the sight of God. It's an ancient story, being retold again in our day. 

Those pesky creationists called it again, didn't they: the belief in evolution undermines a biblical view of God and opens up the Church to evil. Who would have thought they'd be THIS right? 

List of References

---

[1] Clear Truth Media, 2020, https://cleartruthmedia.com/s/162/the-most-evil-man-in-evangelicalism-and-those-who-platformed-him?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1sp7GDeC7MDdQzcq6Wj9tY5N6pPGo5pjPu0ag-5299WUXcQ_hg2kNlOh0_aem_9Kqe85S8pZF6SFvR0it6cQ

[2] Ibid.

Not a Science, Not Even Close

 

One of the peculiar things about psychology and how highly it is respected in the modern world, is that it does not even rise to level of science, but it is treated as a science.

“There is something insidious about the spectacular growth of psychology and the recent rise of its power over mankind, both in the secular world and in the church. Psychology has changed the world’s thinking and standards through what Gross points out is a “new truth … fed to us continuously from birth to the grave”—a “truth” composed of unproven and contradictory theories. In The Myth of Neurosis, British psychiatrist Garth Wood bluntly charges that

… what has become big business is in fact fraud. The evidence does not support the claims of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. … The situation is mind-boggling … psychoanalysis has never been validated by the scientific method. …Of course, many of us have known all along that psychoanalysis was scientifically bankrupt. …

Why should the doctors who dispense this “therapy” be immune from the attentions of the government watchdogs who protect us from other scientifically disreputable “cures” …? Untested and unproved [this “pill”] is dispensed by the unscientific for the consumption of the unhappy.

Analyzing a cross section of ideas presented at the Twenty-third International Psychoanalytic Congress in Stockholm, Nobel laureate in medicine-physiology Sir Peter Medawar found “the self-satisfied self-confidence in the importance of their insights [to be] sinister.” After presenting examples of the unsupportable and wildly imaginative “interpretations” of dreams and behavior that rivaled their patients’ most bizarre fantasies, Sir Peter asked the embarrassing question: “Where shall we find [in this congress] the evidence of hesitancy … that is commonplace in an international congress of, say, physiologists or biochemists? A lava-flow of ad hoc explanation pours over and around all difficulties. …”[1]

Psychology does not, and really cannot, rise to the level of science. There are some benefits that can be made from observing human behaviour and understanding general principles about how humanity works. But Psychology goes far beyond that and seeks to put forward explanations for who people are and why they do what they do deep inside the unsearchable depths of the conscious and so-called subconscious. 

A Christian worldview speaks to this directly and reminds us that only God knows the heart of man, “..for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind…” (1 Kings 8:39). There is something about the mind of man that is inscrutable to the human investigator, and because of the divine source of the soul, there is something unquantifiable about how humans think and act. There are generalities and commonalities, and patterns, but to go beyond this will make someone a fool, especially of they delve into the why. Sometimes people do not even understand the why of why they just did something themselves.

So psychology is both a pseudo-science and a profession that is doomed to never reach the level of science. So, why is it pushed so ardently by our modern and secular culture? Because there is only one real competition for it, and that is the godly counsel of a minister, or trusted biblical counsellor and our secular and godless culture cannot allow the church to have that kind of influence over the way people think in our society. Psychology was designed to replace the Church, and therefore, despite all of the evidence of it not being scientific, it must be granted that vaunted status so people will turn to it instead of their priest or minister.

Even modern psychologists note this anti-Christian aspect of the profession,  

…Research psychiatrist Thomas Szasz…called Freudianism “the clever and cynical destruction of the spirituality of man, and its replacement by a positivistic ‘science of mind … ’ not merely a religion that pretends to be a science [but] a fake religion that seeks to destroy true religion.”12 Another psychologist has written, “It appears that certain of the most influential pioneers in American psychology found in it an ideal vehicle for renouncing their own Christian upbringing in the name of science.”13 Yet at the same time, Christian psychologists claim that it is the ideal vehicle for enhancing God’s Word. Something has gone badly amiss![2]

If you were to go to a handful of different psychologists you would find that you were given an equal amount of different insights and solutions, because each psychologist is responsible for determining which school of psychology they want to follow and this will guide how they understand your “mental illness” or neurosis and how you should be treated for it. There is no actual scientific method involved, only guesses based on training the therapist has done in dubious theories of how the human mind works.

Consider the case of a young woman who is living with a roommate who is a close friend that she cherishes, but cannot stand to be around in the same house for long periods. She has been in this situation for some time, but is under considerable stress because of the situation, and is showing real signs of depression. One psychologist might say she needs to speak to a psychiatrist about medication. Another might refer her to a doctor for the same thing. Another might say that this is going to take several years of therapy and guidance to work through these issues. These sessions will cost $250 an hour, but there is a government rebate plan that she can apply for, so that she only needs to pay $50 of each session. But a good friend might tell her for free, “It is time to get a new roommate or move out.” Of course, a psychologist might have told her the same thing, but not until after a session or two where they spend the time getting to know the context and evaluating how to answer the question. But they have not applied a scientific method to this situation, they have simply used their judgement and there is no reason why the judgement of a good and godly friend could not be as good or even often far superior.

How many millions are spent in our country by people both privately and with public tax dollars on this pseudoscientific profession?

In a secular culture people still need spiritual guidance and psychology fills that void for people. As long as the culture remains secular and as long as the Church does not seek to challenge its replacement, this miscarriage of knowledge and faux-science will continue, and people will continue to be fleeced in its name. 

List of References

---

[1] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (p. 79). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

[2][2] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (p. 80). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

Don’t Blindly Trust Your Psychologist

 

Psychologists and the derivatives thereof (pyscholanalysts, psychiatrists etc) hold far too high a level of respect in our society today, that is not warranted and is actually incredibly concerning. But it is especially concerning how much this profession has come to be accepted in the Church, when this is a profession that was developed to compete with and actually replace biblical counselling and wisdom. David Hunt has some good insights for us in his book Psychology and the Church, here are a few.

Psychology was brought into the Church by heretics:

So how did secular, anti-Christian psychology metamorphose into Christian psychology? It is not a recognized branch of psychology that was founded by a Christian. It isn’t listed in the index of psychology textbooks. It doesn’t come from the Bible and was unknown in the church until Peale brought it in. As reported on Peale’s home page, here is how “Operation Trojan Horse in the Church” began:

In 1937, Peale established a clinic with Freudian psychiatrist Dr. Smiley Blanton in the basement of the Marble Collegiate Church. (Blanton brought with him the “extensive experience” of having undergone psychoanalysis by Freud himself in Vienna in 1929, 1935, 1936, and 1937.) The clinic was described as having “a theoretical base that was Jungian, with a strong evidence of neo- and post-Freudianism.”

It subsequently grew to an operation with more than 20 psychiatric doctors and psychologically-trained “ministers,” and in 1951 became known as the American Foundation for Religion and Psychiatry. In 1972, it merged with the Academy of Religion and Mental Health to form the Institutes of Religion and Health (IRH). To his death [December 24, 1993], Peale remained affiliated with the IRH as president of the board and chief fund raiser.

Indeed, Peale pioneered the merger of theology and psychology which became known as Christian Psychology. [Emphasis added]

Peale applied Christianity to everyday problems and is the person who is most responsible for bringing psychology into the professing Church, blending its principles into a message of “positive thinking.” Peale said, “through prayer you …make use of the great factor within yourself, the deep subconscious mind … [which Jesus called] the kingdom of God within you. …Positive thinking is just another term for faith.”

He also wrote, “Your unconscious mind …[has a] power that turns wishes into realities when the wishes are strong enough.”

According to J. Harold Ellens, author of a section on Peale in the Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, “Peale’s work was initially scorned by ministers and therapists alike.… Dr. Peale was three-quarters of a century ahead of the times with his emphasis on the relationship between psychology and Christian experience. He saw psychology and Christian experience as very compatible… he had the courage to stand pat on this position in spite of the opposition of the entire Christian church for nearly half a century. His genius was that he …translated psycho-theology into the language of the people.”

So the “entire Christian church” opposed “Christian psychology” for decades. Eventually, not only liberals but evangelicals succumbed to this appealing delusion that theology could be made “scientific” by merging it with psychology—though the latter is not a science.[1]

Psychology was developed by maniacs:

“If the medium of psychotherapy—talking and listening—doesn’t depend upon advanced classes in conversation in order to be effective, what does one study to earn a Ph.D. in clinical psychology? Theories about human behavior, mostly: what Sigmund Freud gleaned from Greek dramas, his speculations about infantile sex, psychic determinism, and the unconscious; Carl Jung’s beliefs about archetypal images, the occult, and the collective unconscious; Alfred Adler’s “masculine protest” and “inferiority complex” concepts; Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology, “hierarchy of needs” theory, and New Age obscenities; B. F. Skinner’s stimulus-response behavioral dogmas; Erich Fromm’s godless view of love; Arthur Janov’s primal scream; Carl Rogers’ client-centered therapy; Fritz Perls’ Gestalt, and a legion of other speculative ideas.

What then of these theories? Have they, over the years, formed an historic body of knowledge from which developed true and helpful insights regarding mankind’s nature or provided remedies for the problems of life? To the contrary, the field of psychotherapy is its own lunatic asylum! If you think that’s a little harsh, check out the lives of any of those mentioned above. Freud was a cocaine addict who lusted for his own mother. Jung was suicidal and communed with a demon. Rogers abandoned his cancer-stricken, dying wife for another woman but relieved his guilt by allegedly contacting his deceased wife’s spirit through a Ouija board. Rogers later ended his own life through assisted suicide. And the list goes on. (“Physician, heal thyself” comes to mind.) In addition, there are more than four hundred fifty different (often contradictory and utterly bizarre) psychotherapeutic systems and thousands of methods and techniques.

Karl Popper, regarded as the preeminent scholar in the area of philosophy of science, concluded, after a lengthy study of psychotherapy, that its theories, “though posing as science, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science,” and that “these theories describe some facts but in the manner of myths. They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in testable form.”1 Eighty leading educators, writing in Psychology: A Study of a Science, edited by Sigmund Koch, concurred: “The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science.”2 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, prolific authors and critics of psychotherapy, summarize the scene today: “The entire field is amassed in confusion and crowded with pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-theories resulting in pseudo-science.”3”[2]

Psychology is no better, and in fact inferior to just speaking to a friend,

“I assume that most evangelicals, whether in the pulpit or pew, can certainly handle the medium of counseling—which is simply talking and listening! But, few of us are trained professionals. We don’t have an advanced degree in talking and listening, nor have we studied theories about human behavior, which are nothing more than the opinions and speculations of godless men. Furthermore, there are more than five hundred different (often contradictory and sometimes utterly bizarre) psychotherapeutic systems and thousands of methods and techniques.

So, as nonprofessionals, we missed out on all of that knowledge-so-called. But still, aren’t professionals more effective than nonprofessionals in helping people with their problems? No!

After reviewing the research comparing trained and untrained psychological counselors, researchers Truax and Mitchell report: “There is no evidence that the usual traditional graduate training program has any positive value in producing therapists who are more helpful than nonprofessionals.”

Consider the conclusion of a lengthy research project conducted by Dr. Joseph Durlak:

Overall, outcome results in comparative studies have favored nonprofessionals.… There were no significant differences among helpers in 28 investigations, but nonprofessionals were significantly more effective than professionals in 12 studies. The provocative conclusion from these comparative investigations is that professionals do not possess demonstrably superior therapeutic skills, compared with nonprofessionals. Moreover, professional mental health education, training, and experience are not necessary prerequisites for an effective helping person.

Best-selling author, psychologist Dr. Bernie Zilbergeld, writes in his book, The Shrinking of America: Myths of Psychological Change: “… most problems faced by people would be better solved by talking to friends, spouses, relatives or anyone else who appears to be doing well what you believe you’re doing poorly. … If I personally had a relationship problem and I couldn’t work it out with my partner, I wouldn’t go and see a shrink. I would look around me for the kind of relationship I admire. … That’s who I would go to. I want somebody who’s showing by his life that he can do it.”[3]

And these points are just scratching the surface of why this profession should be avoided in almost all situations (for instance where it overlaps with neuroscience). If you are planning to see a therapist, I would strongly recommend you seek some counsel from some good friends or family first. Save your money, save your time, and save yourself from some terrible influences. 

If you do not have friends or close family, then your problems are not solvable by a therapist. You need to join a local church and build friendships with good people in the Church. You will findthat if you do this that over time you can build good confidants that can help you. 

But psychology is neither necessary, nor to be recommended, for a host of reasons. I will come back to this in some later posts and expand on some of these points. For now knowing that it was a profession that was introduced into the Church by heretics, developed by maniacs and is scientifically observed to be equal to or of less value than just talking to a friend, should be enough to get you to question whether or not you should blindly trust your psychologist.

List of References

---

[1] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 13-14). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

[2] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 21-22). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

[3] Hunt, Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial Answers (pp. 45-46). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.

Empire Equals Slavery For The Conqueror

 

I highly recommend this video by John Mearsheimer because it illustrates something I've long written about: the foolishness of empire.

There is a fascinating dynamic with all empires: the host nation, in this case the US, comes to dominate other lesser (in power) nations. For instance, Australia is bound up in US policy, as is most of Europe, including Britain, parts of Asia, South America, and the Middle East. We all understand that empire means that one nation rises up to be dominant over many other nations.

But the dynamic does not stop there because in the process of dominating lesser nations, some of those lesser nations then come to dominate the host nation. This has happed to the US. American foreign policy is driven in large part by nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and perhaps a few others to a lesser degree. The Israel lobby is particularly strong. As John Mearsheimer, an American Jewish Political Scientist notes in this video: no US president will contradict the Israel lobby, this is why Netanyahu treats the US politicians with such contempt, and this offends him as an American.

But this dynamic is observed in all historical empires. Rome became dominated by many other peoples, and its capital was eventually moved to Greece, and the official language of the empire became Greek. But the rule by lesser nations did not end there, they were dominated by Macedonian elites, Isaurian elites, Gothic elites, and more. The more nations Rome overcame the less Roman she became. Egypt famously was taken over by the Hyksos in its ancient era, and in the days of Caesar was ruled by Greek rulers, who titled themselves Pharoah’s of Egypt. China at many times in the past was taken over by various other peoples, the Mongols, the Manchu and others. The city of Babylon, the great seat of power of the Amorites and Chaldeans and their empire, passed through the hands of many other peoples before it was eventually destroyed. The examples could go on and on, because when nations seek to rule over other nations, they then tend to be enslaved by the very nations they enslave.  

I've long written about the various curses of empire. But they can be summed up in Biblical rephrase: you reap what you sow. The slaver becomes the enslaved. The one who seeks to dominate the other nations becomes dominated by them.

Before an empire collapses, God always teaches the host nation: you do not rule the world, you cannot even rule yourselves. See, see how these other nations have come to dominate you!

The American nation decided to go against the advice of their founders to stay out of the affairs of Europe, they decided to proclaim manifest destiny and take over the rule of the whole of what is now called the United States but was once the domain of many Native American nations and peoples. And it decided to use force to make the south remain part of the Union, making it an empire in fact. All of this set  it up to become a powerful empire. But all empires are overcome by some of those they seek to rule.

America is finding out how humiliating it is to not even rule yourself. God humbles the proud. I hope our leaders are looking at this and paying attention.

Boomers Are Gonna Keep Booming

 

This boomer has identified, all on her special own, where true happiness lies, in pursuing the self,

“Adelle wasn't familiar with the term weaponised incompetence before reading our recently published story, but she knew the behaviour intimately.

"I found the difference in effort and care levels beyond annoying," says the 63-year-old from Adelaide, who asked we don't use her real name.

As Adelle watched her children leave home and enter adult life, she feared the same responsibilities of caring while her husband sat on the sidelines awaited her again.

"Developed, capable women with good enough employment and super do not need to stay around to endure burden and the cycle again with grandchildren," she says.

So, after more than three decades of marriage, Adelle "walked out like Shirley Valentine", cycled around Europe, and returned home to live in a caravan.

These are her words…

…'Marriage felt repressive'

Throughout my pregnancies my husband never attended any of my ante- or postnatal visits.

It never occurred to me to ask him, and he certainly never offered.

Throughout having my three children, I was adamant about hanging on to my own income and staying employed…

…I told him I was unhappy about that, and desperately unhappy in general.

So I booked a ticket to Madrid with a friend and that was it. I biked around Europe with a tent and had a wonderful time.”[1]

Isn’t it remarkable how so many in this generation just come to the exact same "independent" conclusion that focusing on themselves, and their pursuits, their career, their happiness, their desires, is the key to true and lasting joy. So many of them just independently come to the exact same narcissistic conclusions: I need to focus on myself more, bye bye marriage, bye bye family, bye bye responsibilities, I am off to discover everything my own way, or fund a new husband or new wife, or new adventure. 

This story is so common and so often told, that it has become incredibly ridiculous, but there are countless boomers who still want to tell you that they have made this journey of discovery for themselves. Like it is some fresh revelation and they are just unique, when in reality they are just rehashing the same old tired tropes that were taught to their generation in the media, music and radio they listened to as kids. They are simply rehashing their own version of the original 1975 Stepford Wives movie, based on a book of the same name, or some other cultural messaging story that was drilled into them in their youth.

It's not like this was the first generation to discover selfishness of course, selfishness has always existed, and was even considered a virtue in many ways in the ancient pagan societies in some contexts. But it does appear that this was the first generation in over a millennia to make selfishness a virtue on the road to self-discovery and self-love. Something changed with the boomer generation, and many of them are stuck in the mindset of the ideologies of their youth, and still pursue them to this day. 

Paul told us there would be a change coming to how people acted in the last days, “1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,…” (1 Tim. 3:1-2). Of course, he intended this to apply to the end of days. But I think it applies to some lesser degree also to the declining stages of civilisations in history. These lesser, but still cataclysmic, falls of civilisation point to the final collapse of civilisation in the last days, so of course there will be similarities.

For the younger people reading this, be wary where you see this completely self-focused perspective from the older generations, or really anyone. We are all prone to selfishness, and we all need this sin slain by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, but there are many out there that see selfishness as a virtue, and not just among the boomer generation. The younger MGTOW’s in the manosphere are another example of this phenomenon. They make a real effort to create a virtue out of teaching men to love themselves in selfish ways. There are other examples too.

This kind of selfishness is poison, run from it like Joseph ran from Potiphar’s wife. It will plague you your whole life if you don’t, it will drive you to end up alone, with your cats, or your dog when you reach your twilight years, when cycling around Europe is no longer an option, and you just wished you had someone else in your life you could share those final moments with. Reject the way of the boomer, for it is the way of the end of civilisation.

List of References

---

[1] Kellie Scott, 2024, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/after-decades-of-experiencing-weaponised-incompetence-i-walked-out-of-my-marriage/ar-BB1pnrCo?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=7668f26d61ed432d8ff3d81f5b0a3468&ei=21

Adam Had The Authority, Not Eve

 

 

All the arguments that Adam and Eve were created equal in authority, and that male headship only came to exist after the fall, collapse down on one point, a point that is central to the gospels, central to the state of humanity and that if one denies they unravel all of Paul's theology of sin.

That point: Eve sinned first, but it was through the disobedience of the man that sin entered into the world, not the sin of the woman. Adam had the authority and responsibility to stop sin in its place, but he failed.

Eve sinned first, but Adam was responsible.

Hierarchy was built into the created order as Paul says explicitly in 1 Corinthians, “3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Not just hierarchy either, more specifically patriarchy: that is leadership and therefore the responsibility of the man. Nowhere in scripture, not on any page, is this order rescinded. It is in fact reiterated again and again in both covenants and is central to our understanding of sin: The first Adam let sin into the world, the second Adam, Christ, defeated it.

It's no wonder people cannot submit or handle this order in large measure, the first man and woman inverted it. But it is there none the less.

It's not an accident that our egalitarian world is less Christian, egalitarianism strikes at all the most fundamental hierarchies of the Scriptures. Including the initial ones that give us our understanding of how the world fell. Egalitarianism is to the family, what evolution is to concept of creation: a destabilising force, that undermines how God wants us to think about ourselves. Evolution says we are not special, we are products of random chance being modified by natural law (it can't even begin to say how natural law exists). Egalitarianism say that no one should submit unto anyone else, especially not a wife to her husband. It undermines the entire family structure.

To put it more bluntly egalitarianism and the gospel are mutually exclusive concepts. If egalitarianism is right, then the gospel cannot be correct to say that Adam was responsible, and that a man was necessary to reverse Adam's sin. If the gospel is correct, which is the correct position, then egalitarianism cannot be correct because the man was responsible for his charge, the woman.

This is why our egalitarian age is so anti-Chrisitan, the logical impulse of egalitarianism is to reject Christianity which is not egalitarian. The secular egalitarian is just being more consistent and logical than the Christian one, who is building a house of cards under their Christian faith. Not only should you not be surprised that an egalitarian culture is less Christian, you should expect it. As the falsehoods of egalitarianism becomes more and more apparent, you should expect to also see the reverse happen and more and more people be attracted to traditional Christianity, that is if Islam doesn’t get a leg up first.

God Help America

 

God has truly revealed that he has not blessed America, but given it over to judgement with this election. Again there is a choice between two pro-Abortion candidates. One can argue that Trump is better on abortion, and without him Roe vs Wade never would have been overturned, but being more moderate on Child sacrifice is still being pro-child sacrifice, and it's disgusting,

“During the presidential debate Thursday night, former president Donald Trump clarified for the first time his position on abortion pills, saying that he supports a recent Supreme Court decision preserving access to the widely used drug.

Asked whether his position on abortion had changed in the wake of the Dobbs decision, Trump weighed in for the first time on the hot-button issue of abortion pills, endorsing the Court’s ruling that pro-life doctors lacked standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

“The Supreme court just approved the abortion pill, and I agree with their decision to have done that,” Trump said. He went on to defend the overturning of Roe and argued that each state should be left to draw its own line on abortion access.”[1]

I don't care about Trump's tone. He's actually funny, genuinely funny a lot of the time, a true entertainer, that can even make a hostile crowd laugh with him, that’s a rare skill. I don't care that he's rough around the edges, I'm from a working class background, I find that refreshing most of the time, not like the upper middle class people who are offended by that. I've learnt over the years that smooth speech from powerful people often covers over wicked intent, and many smooth talking politicians have done great evil and this should offend us more than mean tweets every day of the week. I don't care that he's made a lot of personal mistakes, he's owned them and stated that he made such mistakes, everyone has and you can be forgiven that.

But I do care that Trump has announced that he's OK with the abortion pill and believes it should be a state's right issue. This is his current position, so it matters more than the rest. Murder is not a state's right issue, nor was slavery. The states have no right to murder the innocent, they may have the power, but they do not have the right.

This statement by Trump is him signalling that he's not willing to go further on abortion. Why? Because he knows he needs to attract the so-called moderate abortion voter. This shows that God has given over the US to entrenched evil and corruption. I have consistently supported Trump a lot in the past, and often enjoyed how he has pilloried the establishment, but operation Warp-speed and empower Fauci were pretty bad and led the world down a disastrous route. All leaders make mistakes of course, however that was a legacy destroying mistake. But as Calvin said, When God wants to judge a nation he gives them bad leadership. A choice between full on for abortion and half on for abortion is a bad choice.

America is not voting itself out of judgement. Trump’s previous Presidency did more to combat abortion than any previous one. I won't deny that and he probably will achieve some good, much better than the shadowy figures behind Biden. But he's stating plainly that he is still OK with abortion, with the after-conception pill. The majority of the electorate is too, which is why many politicians seek to be “moderate” on abortion, as if you can be moderate on murdering innocent children. America is not a blessed nation, but a cursed one for that reason, and though Trump’s leadership might slow the decline, unless he and his nation repent of this position its decline is ensured.

And yes, the same is true for our nation too, our governments here in Australia are even worse on this, it would be wrong of me to not mention this. I don’t want to see America fall, or my own country either, but this is what happens to nations throughout history that legislate and encourage child sacrifice. So, if we want to see these nations revitalized, they need to reject this evil from their midst, and quickly. Pray that Trump changes his mind on this, and that Americans do as well.

List of References

---

[1] James Lynch, 2024, https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-endorses-supreme-court-decision-preserving-access-to-abortion-pill/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0l0xyyPjhNcXopGUurRg01HUTcRHvRVtyOmvSf1FTqR3MKmmaeGlqBjXQ_aem_6V9RgxhLLDm_CqaXDI3fUA