Lightning Round – 2014/11/05

I don’t care.

Kill Mr. Maybe.

Be uncomfortable.

#NoNothingNovember has started if you’re interested.

The lazy man’s guide to wealth.

Why you should join muay thai (or another martial art).

On anonymity.
Related: People oppose anonymity because they don’t want to think and want power. Related.

Why WRE?
Related: A nation of bastards.
Related: Mencken describes hypergamy.

Rules for reactionaries.
Related: Distributed organizations of men.
Related: Response to NRx needs capital.

The rise of the grey tribe.
Related: The three modern grassroots rebellions.

A primer on who/whom morality.

Why we’re pessimistic.

Some bog-standard Canadian socialist commenting on NRx.

On nationalism.
Related: Evolutionary models: ethnocentrism wins.
Related: NRX, techno-commerce, and society.

Is dysgenics ending? Related.

Wright put this up, so just a reminder, Handle is maintaining a list of political purges.

Don’t vote, you will be punished.
Related: Just say no to voting.
Related: Don’t vote.
Related: Voting is kabuki theatre.
Related: Vote out of spite.
Related: 100 reasons to vote.
Related: Democracy is rigged.
Related: The margin of fraud is 1.2%.
Related: Abandon electioneering.
Related: The key to the Republicans taking the senate.

SJW’s and the mask of sanity.
Related: Vox demonstrates a few SJW ‘debate’ tactics.
Related: Disqualify with lies.
Related: On rabbits, the group, and fear.
Related: Words like misogynist and sexist are simply weapons to the pinkshirts.
Related: The SJW identity police.

The difference between liberals and leftists.

How to make your princess-loving toddler the Right Stuff.

The Howard-Pliven children’s crusade may have killed 9 children.

Gamergate and the culture war.
Related: Gamergate and corruption.
Related: Ezra Klein, Vox, Gamergate, and the politicization of everything.
Related: Chris Kluwe and the lies of the anti-gamergaters.
Related: Gamers are almost all male.

The progressive machine is turning against Bill Maher.

Detroit blamed on white racism.

The Kitty Genovese murder after 50 years.

The American decline: Transportation edition.

On Obamacare.

The web of dependency. Related.

Lawns are signalling.

Spandrell on the anti-Christian ratchet.

 Kicking the secularist habit.

How to destroy a church. Part 2.

Where evangelicals diverge from orthodoxy.

Church broken into and pastor harassed after he endorses Republican.

Ballista and DS’ discussion of marital authority continues. Related.

Now is the time to start a family.
Related: Ballista responds to Matt.

A reminder not to marry a woman over 30.
Related: Women, age, and beauty, both inner and outer.

The etymology of man.

MGTOW is not binary.

Men experience more online harassment than women.

Men take more risks, women play it safe.

Sophia Katz and what ‘teach men not to rape’ means.

The death of the girl scouts.

Internal inconsistencies: Women prefer male bosses.

The friendzone from the women’s part. Also, don’t be Terence, except that bit where he cut it off.

Scott Adams with feedback for feminists on the 10-hour video.
Related: Heartiste on the 10 hours video.
Related: TRS comments on the video.
Related: Who is microaggressing whom?
Related: Attention-whoring and the oppression Olympics.
Related: Cat-calling, race, and rape stats.
Related: Wright comments.
Related: The fundamental problem with man-hating feminists.
Related: 10 hours walking as a racist white woman.
Related: Should Congress Pass the Dig Up Emmett Till and Lynch Him Again Act of 2014?

Personality and why women don’t program.

Single motherhood: hard on women, easy on kids.
Related: Birmingham honours single moms over Tolkien.

When ideology meets reality: a feminist’s struggle.

UK women cashiers demand ‘equal pay’ to male warehouse workers.

A vivisection of Lena Dunham’s new book

GF gets her underage boyfriend drunk, they have sex, he accuses her of rape. Guess the response.

Beware your sins will find you out.

An amusing story of a hamstering gold-digger.

The ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ sweatshop.

Too poor to afford abortion. Vile people.

More on the motte and bailey.

Meet the world’s worst economist: Paul Krugman.

IRS arbitrarily seizes bank accounts.

Liberals: Too stupid to understand threatening things and too filthy to be disgusted by dirty things.

Obama: pro-economy, anti-family.

Student suspended for slicing an apple during healthy eating presentation.

Norwegians angry because female soldier told to do her job.

Sweden: a failing state.

The Red Cross suffers under the iron law of bureaucracy.

Two “Stop the Violence” activists beat down a third.

Wright has a well-written parody of dinosaur revenge fiction.

Toronto’s “conservative” paper: ‘Police shouldn’t wait for formal complaints to investigate.’

An ebola update.

What not to do.

H/T: SDA, RPR, CC, Pollack, SCC, Isegoria, Land

To Be A Christian: Conclusion

***This is the conclusion of my To Be a Christian debate with Trevor Blake.The terms can be found here, Blake’s opening here, my opening here, Blake’s response here, my response here, and finally Blake’s conclusion here. If you enjoyed the debate, please consider donating to Samaritan Purse.***

****

Final Arguments

To be a Christian is to love Christ, to repent your sins, and to obey him by loving others. That is all that is needed to be Christian.

Throughout the debate Trevor has argued that Christians must understand and explain every detail of theology or the entirety of Christianity can be ignored. Christianity does not work like that.

Christianity is Christ, everything else is details. It is true faith in Christ that saves, nothing else.

Belief is necessary, understanding is not. The only theology one has to accept to be a Christian is the Nicene Creed, a rather simple document containing rather simple statements. Other more complex theology may be helpful (or it may be hindering), but it is not necessary for a Christian to know or to understand. Christianity is neither a complex nor elite religion, it is the good news of salvation for the masses.

As for the No True Scotsman in the Sky, God defines good. God is good. To talk about good apart from God is non-nonsensical babbling.

Trevor brags how his knowledge of the scriptures is greater than mine, and it might be so, but it is irrelevant. What use is knowledge without understanding?

This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Matthew 13:13-15 ESV)

What use is understanding without wisdom?

Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
If you turn at my reproof,
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” (Proverbs 1:20-33 ESV)

What use is wisdom without practice? He that hears the Word but does not put it into practice is no better off than he who does not hear the Word.

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (James 1:22-25 ESV)

Trevor struggles with finding the median point between specificity and generality, thinking this is a fault of mine or of Christians in general. Instead, he must realize there he is looking for a median that doesn’t exist. One must see both the forest and the trees at once to build a house: seeing only the former one knows only a green sea of leaves from which no house can be built and seeing only the latter one wonders how it can possibly be enough wood to build a house.

He claims I contradict myself “from one sentence to the next“, showing only that he sees not the forest. One cannot declare a house impossible after viewing only two trees, while blinding oneself to the trees behind them.

But Trevor is correct in that if he understood the scriptures he would believe. Trevor believes “men do what they do, then use rationality to rationalize what they did,” yet he does not apply that to himself here. In pride he thinks himself wiser than men and so blinds himself.

Wisdom cries out, but he refuses to hear; he closes his eyes and in the darkness sees only foolishness. To become wise, he must first become a fool. He boasts of winning, yet the only prize worth having he does not humble himself to pursue.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ESV)

As for natural rights, they do not exist; there is only justice and mercy. Man is a sinner deserving naught the just damnation he so desperately pursues, his only hope is the mercy of Christ.

So, humble yourself, open your eyes and see, repent your sins, and beg Christ for His mercy for the Kingdom of Heaven draws near.

****

Self-Review

I think I held up well in the debate. I can not think of any arguments that I would have liked to have made differently. Whether I won or not is up to the audience, but I have a feeling it will probably line up along religious lines, as ‘who won?’ questions in debates usually do. Personally, I will have considered it a win if even one person is drawn closer to Christ.

I did try to work on my rhetoric, while trying to avoid personal attacks or insults, I think I succeeded. There were some writing errors and dropped sentences that usually plague my work, but there were less than usual as I did because I did do more self-editing than usual.

****

Thoughts on the Debate Format

I think a bit more time between each response would have been helpful, especially given that I stick to a posting schedule. I found myself barely squeaking by within the 5 days; a full week would have been better.

One more opportunity for response (so: Opening, Response, Response, Conclusion) might have allowed for a more thorough flushing out of ideas.

I think simultaneous posting would have been better, so we were each responding to one post. For my opening I was unsure if I should respond to Trevor’s opening or not and for my response I was unsure if I should just respond to his opening, or to both his opening and response. So either simultaneous posting, or defininf exactly what to respond to before hand. Another problem, was that by going second I got a significant advantage, especially in such a short debate, in by being able to reply to more of Trevor’s side, while Trevor is not even going to be able to respond to my conclusion within the confines of the debate.

‘To Be a Christian’ was a rather broad topic; a more focused topic may have allowed for a more focused debate.

*****

On the Comments

I thought there would be more comments on the debate then there actually were. I guess I overestimated the . One thing I did note for future debates is that the comments can potentially impact the debates, especially if the debate goes longer than ours did. I think in future debates, the debaters should discuss whether comments should be opened or closed.

Here’s a few responses to the comments:

I am not a Catholic. Even if I was, I was specifically trying to avoid a sectarian view of Christianity, and I was avoiding taking a stance on controversial theological topics. I was trying to display what Lewis referred to as Mere Christianity.

I forgot to tell Blake to to edit his misspelling as Exfernal asked.

In response to Exfernal’s question I did not address the issue of the paternal grandfather of Jesus. I will briefly do so now.

The most common belief is that the two different genealogies are due to one being Joesph’s and the other Mary’s (even though it is claimed as Joseph’s due to cultural factors) . Another belief is that one was Joseph’s direct line, while the other was the royal line. Another thing to consider is that Jewish genealogy is not always direct, generations are sometimes skipped depending on the purpose of the genealogy.

Whatever the exact reason for the discrepancy, the more important thing to note is that many early Christians were Jews and would have been knowledgeable of Jewish genealogical traditions, yet they did not reject the Gospels due to the discrepancies between the two genealogies, so the differences were something that would have made sense to and been accepted by Jews of that time.

Are Slate and Amanda Hess Arguing for Lynching?

Feminists complain about street harassment all the time. I’ve never actually seen someone harass a woman on the street, I’ve never done it, and none of my friends have done it.  So, I’ve always been a bit skeptical, because if something is so common, why haven’t I ever even seen it occur before. A few women have told me a story or two of a random crazy person on the bus doing something harassing (ie. one man on a bus just sat himself in the lap of a girl I dated), so I knew harassment did occur, but were usually isolated events done by crazy people. I never believed it happened as omnipresently as feminists claim.

Slate has tried to prove that harassment exists omnipresently by a woman filming herself walking for 10 hours. Here’s a two-minute highlight video of the harassment. Watch it.

First, that’s 2 minutes from 10 hours, so unless a lot of harassment was cut out, that’s not as much as feminists complain about. The video claims 100+ incidents, so that’s about one incident per every six minutes, that’s more, but still not much.

Second, if we assume the video included the worst of the harassment, a safe assumption give the point of the video, the “harassment” seem rather insignificant. this “harassment” included people doing nothing but saying “Have a nice evening”, “God bless”, and “how are you this morning?”. So in other words, to acknowledge a woman’s existence is harassment. What did the 80 incidences not bad enough to appear in the video include, people saying ‘hello’?

If this is the best evidence of harassment feminists can dredge up, I still do not buy the feminist argument. In fact, this video is a strike against it.

****

The more interesting part of this video though is race. I counted the incidences in the video, and by my count there were 21 harassers (two incidences had two perpetrators). Of those, 10 of the harassers looked black, 5 looked white, 2 looked Hispanic, and in 4 incidences I could not identify the race (although, two sounded stereotypically black to me).

So, of the incidences where the race was known, black committed 10 of the 17 of the cases of harassment, about 60%. Also, the the most egregious harassments (she was followed twice and some yelled passed a first comment) were by blacks.

From this, it seems the major problem is not harassment from men in general, but harassment from urban black men in particular. This would explain why I’ve never witnessed it; there are very few urban blacks where I live. That the harassers are largely black is reinforced by the stereotypical ebonics name of the campaign the video is in support of, “Hollaback!”.

Also of interest is that only a couple harassers looked even remotely middle-class, the rest looked either working-class or welfare-class.

The target audience of Slate is middle-class white liberals with humanities degrees. These are not the type of people harassing the woman in the video. There is no point lecturing Slate readers on stopping harassment because Slate readers are not the ones harassing.

So, there seems to be no point to this article. Slate readers aren’t the ones doing the harassing and it’s not likely lower-class blacks will care about the moral protestations of middle-class white feminists.

The only reason I can think of to write this is to encourage white males to forcibly stop black men from harassing them. something which reminds me of the days when looking wrongly at a white woman was a lynching offence. It seems to me that Amanda Hess and Slate just inadvertently argued for society to resume lynching uppity blacks, or at least segregation to keep them off the streets white women might use. I think everybody involved needs to check their privilege.

Anyway, if you wish to donate to a campaign to stop uppity blacks from talking to white women, you can donate to Hollaback here.

****

It looks like between writing this and posting it, the implications of this video have become clear and Slate is doing damage control.

Lightning Round – 2014/10/28

Disobey fear.

Advice from Vic Pride.

Why men should avoid college.

20 things 20-year-olds don’t get. Not perfect, but some decent advice for younger readers.

Ballista and DS go back and forth and back again on authority in marriage.
Related: Replacing marriage with holy matrimony.

Why women need to be subordinated for successful reproduction.

Anarcho-tyranny and social technology.

Feminists, Gamergate, and the curse of Eve. Related.
Related: Matt Forney’s stance on gamergate.
Related: How Mike played pathetic bully Sam Biddle.
Related: Mike puts up some dirt on Gawker.
Related: Vox attacks a gaming parasite writing for the NYT.
Related: More on Gamergate from Wright.
Related: Why feminists want to destroy gaming.
Related: Gamergate and 4GW.
Related: Saluting gamergate.
Related: Gamergate vs. Morlocks.
Related: Gamergate is winning.
Related: Gamergate is America.
Related: Gamergate, harassment, and incentives.
Related: A little suspicious.
Related: An open letter to Gawker Media.

The sweet, sweet taste of media tears.
Related: The boringness of NYT Twitter.

Moving from objectivism to neoreaction.

Neoreaction is not traditionalism.

Whig history and collapse.

Leftism is perpetual warfare.

The not-so-secret secret government.

On cultural Marxism.

On thedes.
Related: Nydwracu responds defining thedes.

21-year-old in Britain thrown in jail for tweet, but nobody yet punished for Rotherham.

Canada on its knees.
Related: There is no link between the Parliament Hill gunman and the guy who ran down two Canadian soldiers.
Related: Canada will not be intimidated in their quest for self-immolation.

The threat of entryism.

Out-group altruism.

Riding while white.

A Jew finds he is not hurt by epithets for whites. Surprising.

Robert Caruso revels in the death of others.

Obamacare passed because non-citizens voted for comedian.

The collapse of the Ukrainian narrative.
Related: On US-Russia relations.

Atavisionary comes across a political litmus test for employment.

The FBI is worried about cell phone encryption.

On currency.

Is African-American studies a front for athletic departments?

Ferguson as a get-out-the-vote drive.

The superstition of words.

Maybe if gamers win, Christians will decide the church is worth defending from feminists.

Against transaction in the church and relationships.

California forces churches to fund abortions.

Women’s sins partially enumerated.

How pre-marital sex damages a woman’s ability to be in a relationship.

Relationship advice for the older woman.

New neologism: sexzoned.

Carol Costello delights in men assaulting women.

Teach women not to lie about rape.

Rape culture is a construct that only exists in the mind of crazy women.

Possibly fake, but a bleakly amusing story of divorce fantasies gone awry.

World War T continues.

When women stopped coding.

Democrats in Wisconsin carry out illegal raids on conservatives.

Hillary Clinton: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

On AA’s effectiveness.

EU tries to rob Britain of $25 billion.

H/T: SDA, RPR

To Be a Christian: Response

***This is part of an ongoing debate I am engaging in with Trevor Blake. The terms can be found here, Blake’s opening here, my opening here, and Blake’s response here. If you are enjoying the debate, please consider donating to Samaritin’s Purse.***

Trevor has started by outlining what Christianity is and is not. He does this by pointing out there are two heads to the two first churches, many denominations, many interpretations, and many heresies and false religions with the obvious, but unstated, implication they can’t all be right and therefore are all wrong. Of course, any truth will be interpreted differently and incorrectly. Just because men can only see the platonic shadows on the wall does not mean that the object whose shadow is being cast doesn’t exist. Assuming there is no Truth because man can not fully and perfectly comprehend the Truth is to put far too much faith in a people who can not even fully understand their own minds.

I will ignore his jab at Martin Luther as even he admits that it is invalid.

In his strongest argument he implies that because the Biblical canon was not settled until the fourth or fifth century and because the Catholics and Orthodox have a few historical and wisdom books in their canon that Protestants do not accept, the Bible can not be trusted. As one would expect there to be disagreement on canon as those who can only see the shadows may disagree. Despite this disagreement, the canon was fixed and there is a remarkable agreement among Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox as what constitutes the New Testament, ie. Jesus’ life and teachings and the early church. Those Old Testament works upon which we disagree do not alter the Christian message. Also, note that a claim of non-canonicity is not the same as a claim of untruthfulness, only a claim that the book is undeserving of inclusion in the New Testament.

But, it could be argued that despite the churches agree on the NT canon, the majority of the OT canon, and that those works not fully accepted do not change the fundamental Christian message, how can we know this canon is correct, given the many debates over what should be included? Trevor implies that because of historical disagreement the canon may be wrong. For this, we simply have to check our presuppositions. If one believes God exists and sent His message to the world, would it not be reasonable to deduct that he ensured that the correct message reached the world? If one believes in the Christian God, then believing that He would make sure His word was triumphant in His church only makes sense.

He then mentions a few ‘contradictions’ in the Bible. Some of them only need a passing mention as interpreting poetic language like ‘the four corners of the earth’ as a scientific thesis or condemning a non-mathematical text for rounding diameter and circumference to significant numbers is just silly in a way that shouldn’t even need explaining. Although, it is possible that Blake believes newspapers are lying whenever they print stories about $3-billion government programs.

Trevor stands on better legs when he condemns historical texts for inaccurate historical counts. Given that 58 is the example he states in his opening, I’ll examine that. He uses the KJV, so I’ll use that too here.

And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushabhesed, five. – 1 Chronicles 3:19-20

There are obviously 8 names there, not five, but the objection misses one key thing: “:”. A colon is used to start an enumeration. After the colon there are five sons. Before the colon there are two sons followed by a daughter. There are two different lists of the sons of Zerubbabel seperated by a listing of a daughter and a colon. The list being counted as five has five. Why there are two lists, I’m not sure, although I’d guess it would have to do with Zerubbabel having sons by different wives, but there is no innumeracy here. Trevor just missed the colon.

As to the first on the list, where 3629 from Joshua 15:32, Wesley’s commentary explains succinctly:

Twenty nine — Here are thirty seven or thirty eight cities named before; how then are they only reckoned twenty nine? There were only twenty nine of them, which either, 1. properly belonged to Judah; the rest fell to Simeon’s lot; or 2. Were cities properly so called, that is, walled cities, or such as had villages under them, as it here follows; the rest being great, but unwalled towns, or such as had no villages under them.”

As for the second, where 1514, John Gill explains:

Either one of them was no city strictly called; or

Gederah and Gederothaim is put for Gederah or Gederothaim, so called, possibly, because the city was double, as there want not instances of one city divided into two parts, called the old and the new city. So the conjunction and is put for the disjunctive or, whereof examples have been given before.

I believe that is sufficient for my point, when one is listing names and the count does not match the number of names correctly, which is the more likely explanation, someone writing the history of their people can’t do basic counting and nobody reading his accounts corrected him, or either one city had two names or a named place was not a city proper?

We visited three cities: Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, Manhattan, New York, and Boston. 35

Trevor then makes the common (among atheists) mistake of judging morality by his own human moral compass. By what right does he decide slavery is immoral? How can someone who believes man is literally the accidental arrangement of carbon, water, and electricity (to grossly oversimplify) by chaotic forces impute any moral value to the actions of said sacks of carbon?

This is the center of the fallacies of his argument: he rejects absolute truth, implicitly imputes truth to his own morality, uses this morality to condemn Christianity and Christian morality, then criticizes Christianity because “It means what the believer wants it to mean”. The argument is flawed, and these flaws are easy to see when they are stripped to their essence, not (just) because his specific points are wrong, but because he has not checked his basic beliefs.

Either God is and His word is Law, or God isn’t and there is no Law.

****

We can move on to Trevor’s second statement.

He mentions the Gospel of Thomas; I have already dealt with the canon above.

He calls God a liar as He supposedly says prophecies will fail, yet, when we review the verse, we see only incomplete gifts or the doctrine of cessationism.* He brings forth the charge again, in one case calling the Lord a liar when the Lord hands an evil man over to the lying spirits of false prophets and the other where a charge of deceit is brought against the Lord due to the lies of false prophets. The lesson from these verses is not ‘God lies’, but rather God will deliver you to false prophets should you refuse to heed His words. If you reject the Truth, why wouldn’t He hand you over to lies?

Here Trevor once again condemns God as monstrous by his own standards of morality. Does not God have the right to harden the heart of His own creation when His own creation rejects Him? By what right does Trevor deny God this right?

As for those unreached by the Gospel, the Bible is mostly silent and not very explicit. The Bible is clear: Man is a sinner and damns himself to the punishment he rightly deserves. None enter hell undeserved. As well, Christ is the only way to heaven, and only through His unjust mercy can man be with God.

Yet Paul does write:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16 ESV)

As well, Peter stated, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him…” and Jesus said, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.”

Even among those who may not have heard of Christ by name, if they seek Him and follow the natural law written in their heart, they will find Him.

As for babes, have they followed the natural law written into their own hearts, and is not God a God of mercy?

Trevor then rips a verse out of its immediate context to call Him a liar once again. When not sundered from the following verses it is clear Paul is not referring to a physical, temporary resurrection, but an eternal ressurection. Christ was the first to be eternally resurrected, come the judgment we shall be so as well. The resurrection of Lazarus and the others were but temporary, they still died. They were still under the curse of Adam.

Trevor then enters into Trinitarianism, where he argues that God does not exist because we can’t understand Him. I guess he would argue that man does not exist as Mr. Escherichia Coli does not understand man. If man could fully understand the the fullness of an infinite God when man does not even fully understand his own mind, we could scarcely call the being God, now could we?

He then argues that because God demanded man not change His laws, that God Incarnate is not allowed to change said laws. This is self-refuting. As for fulfilling the Law, the Law was a tool so man could know God, now man can know God directly; the Law is not destroyed, only added to.

Trevor then argues that because Christians are given the use of Christ’s power from Christ that Christ is not special because Christians using Christ’s power can do as Christ does. Strip away the rhetoric and the argument is once again self-refuting.

Trevor then argues that because 72 apostles were given extraordinary instructions, protections, and powers, that God is a liar because these protections do not apply to Trevor as well. I wonder if Trevor also refuses to wear footwear or greet people on the road?

This is why it is important to read verses in their immediate context and in the context of scripture as a whole.

In his penultimate paragraph, Trevor mentions failed prophecies which are only failed in his mind. The kingdom of God did come to the disciples in the disciples’ lifetime in the form of Christ’s resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. As for the prophecies of the end times, they only fail if you define such phrases ‘shortly’ and ‘at hand’ in a particular manner**. Peter warns against taking just such an approach:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:1-10 ESV)

Finally, Trevor criticizes my opening statement because I did not go into the specifics of theology. The specifics aren’t needed for salvation or to be a Christian, only the basics do. Christianity is not an intellectually elite club excluding all but those gifted with the ability to understand deep theology, it is the good news of salvation for the perishing.

By discussing matters of theology Christian intellectuals can gain greater knowledge of and insight into the nature of God and His works, but the illiterate cobbler needs this not. The humble cobbler doesn’t need to understand the differences between limited and unlimited atonement or grapple with the particularities of the ransom, Christus Victor, and satisfaction theories of atonement to be saved, all the cobbler needs is to repent and throw himself on the mercy of Christ. Thank God for His mercy that we only need see the outlines of the shadows on the wall to be saved and not the perfect forms themselves, or we’d all be damned.

And if Christ does not require specific theological knowledge and views to save, who am I to demand that a Christian hold to such particular views?

So, to all my readers trust in Christ, repent your sins, and be baptized, for the kingdom of the Lord is at hand, and He will be faithful and just and cleanse of your unrighteousness.

****

* Once again, I am not entering into a debate over the finer theological points of cessationism.
** Not dipping into eschatology here either.

McCarthy & Fisher

I was just reading on McCarthy on Wiki and came across this:

In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. On June 9, 1954, day 30 of the hearings, Welch challenged Cohn to give McCarthy’s list of 130 subversives in defense plants to the office of the FBI and the Department of Defense “before the sun goes down”.[24] In response to Welch’s challenge, McCarthy suggested that Welch should check on Fred Fisher, a young lawyer in Welch’s own Boston law firm whom Welch planned to have on his staff for the hearings. McCarthy then mentioned that Fisher had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which Attorney General Brownell had called “the legal bulwark of the Communist Party”.

Welch revealed he had confirmed Fisher’s former membership in the National Lawyers’ Guild approximately six weeks before the hearings started.[27] After Fisher admitted his membership in the National Lawyers’ Guild, Welch decided to send Fisher back to Boston. His replacement by another colleague on Welch’s staff was also covered by The New York Times. Welch then reprimanded McCarthy for his needless attack on Fisher, saying that “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” McCarthy, accusing Welch of filibustering the hearing and baiting Cohn, dismissed Welch’s dissertation and casually resumed his attack on Fisher, at which point Welch angrily cut him short:

“Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyer’s Guild… Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

Welch excluded himself from the remainder of the hearings with a parting shot to McCarthy: “You have brought it out [the Fisher/NLG affair]. If there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good!” After Welch deferred to Chairman Mundt to call the next witness, the gallery burst into applause.

Fisher was relatively unscathed by the incident and went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm and organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while Welch’s maneuvering helped to ruin McCarthy’s life and career. McCarthy died at the relatively young age of 48.

After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not exercised any improper influence on behalf of David Schine, but that Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s chief counsel, had engaged in some “unduly persistent or aggressive efforts” on behalf of Schine. The conclusion of the committee also reported questionable behavior on the part of the Army: That Secretary Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams “made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth”, and that Adams “made vigorous and diligent efforts” to block subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board “by means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee”. Before the official reports were released Cohn had resigned as McCarthy’s chief counsel, and Senator Ralph Flanders (R, Vermont) had introduced a resolution of censure against McCarthy in the Senate.

Despite McCarthy’s acquittal of wrongdoing in the Schine matter, the Army–McCarthy hearings ultimately became the main catalyst in McCarthy’s downfall from political power.

Remember, this all happened a year after the Korean War, the year after Stalin died, and only a few years before the Great Leap Forward.

McCarthy is hunting possible traitorous supporters of mass-murdering communist regimes in the Army. An investigation is found in which the army is found to have committed questionable behaviour in stymieing these investigations, while McCarthy is found to be free of any wrong-doing.

During the trial, McCarthy calls out a lawyer who was a part of a known communist organization and McCarthy is painted as the bad guy. McCarthy ends up losing his career over this trial; the communist later ends up as President of the Massachusetts Bar Association and has major roles in the organizations for training new lawyers.

****

Also interesting: Fisher was a part of the Signal Corps in WW2 and the whole hearing was about McCarthy investigating the Signal Corps.

Lightning Round – 2014/10/21

Success Rebel.
Related: Financial advice.

6 habits holding men back. 4 of them for me.

On the Christian feeling alone.

Guidelines for self-defence.
Related: For those with nothing to lose.

Science: Don’t buy a big ring.

Science: Overconfidence rules.

Introducing Phalanx: a reactionary fraternity.

Progressivism is nihilism.

Democracy kills economic growth.

NRx and identitarianism.
Related: SM interviews the editor of Radix.

On rushing to action.

Tribalism and politicization.
Related: A response.

Pinkshirts vs. #Gamergate.
Related: A gamergate response to ‘Brianna Wu’.
Related: Popehat goes NRx on #Gamergate.
Related: #GG: Harassment and threats.
Related: Contacting Gawker’s advertisers.
Related: A #GG boycott list.
Related: MasterCard sponsors Ezra Klein’s hate.
Related: The fruits of taking business advice from SJW’s.
Related: The historical reality of women in gaming.

The SJW’s against Lovecraft.

The ontology of a troll.
Related: Weev’s apostasy.

Ebola and political correctness.
Related: Ebola and the nation.
Related: Why ebola is evil.

Crime reports defy progressive narrative on interracial crime.
Related: The racial breakdown of people killed by cops.
Related: Forensic evidence that Michael Brown assaulted cop.

Context denial in Keene.
Related: Liberal context denial.

Charles Murray reflects on the Bell Curve 20 years later.

The decay of meaning of the word ‘rape’.
Related: Fighting rape.
Related: Feminists argue for being able to retroactively withdraw consent.
Related: Making the world safe for foolish, promiscuous women.
Related: Affirmative consent in action.
Related: Yes means fear.
Related: What the campus rape hysteria is really about.
Related: It’s not neovictorianism.
Related: Women are too weak to say no.

Leftists use words differently.

Occult secret services.

Land’s take on the coming caliphate.
Related: The culture and technology jihad.

Democracy is stupid.
Related: Alex de Tocqueville’s dark sides of democracy.

Generation masturbation.

Fair-world fallacy and nerds.

On abortion and supporting single mothers.

Portland: exhibiting the signs of collapse?

On Ephesians 5.

Billy Graham: “As wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Atheists with an actual atheist worldview.

Idaho Town: Do gay marriages or go to jail.
Related: Gay “marriage” and the abandonment of law.
Related: Remember, there is no homosexual agenda.

Against the NFL.

A review of Quintius Curtis’ book.

Man awarded custody after woman made false accusations of abuse.

Eye gaze and attractiveness.

Why girls with tattoos and piercings are broken.
Related: Science: Tattooed women are sluttier, lack foresight, are selfish, and are mentally ill.
Related: Some hatred of Matt Forney.
Related: Matt Forney receives death threats.

15% of women over the director level have had work affairs. 37% of them got promotions because of it.

The context of sexual harassment while waitressing.

US marriage rates at all-time low.

In last quarter of 2011, more iPhones were sold than  babies were born.

Feminists and Democrats against making birth control over-the-counter.

EW’s take on teenagers.

AmRen and the lies of Robert Sussman.

Robert Caruso wants blood.

How do unschoolers turn out?
Related: Homeschooling and the Oculus Rift.

On grade inflation.

How to tell who is lying.

Reality is beginning to intrude on liberal’s minds.

Socialist millionaire: “Clothes and food should cost much more…”

Freedom Socialist Party pushing $20 minimum wage offering $13 for developer.

The causes of the US deficits and debt.

On why Amazon is in the right.

Fastest growing cosmetic procedure in UK: fixing stretched earlobes.

Slate commits minor crimethink.
Related: Slate come so close to a major realization.

Astrology: Now a science!

US still has world’s worst corporate income tax rate.

Will posts a classic Manowar song.

A story of a Compassion sponsor visiting his child.

The casualties of non-existent chemical weapons.

RT: RPR, SDA, CC, Pollack, Blake, WK