Not Whether, But Which

Douglas Wilson: Not Whether But Which, As I Keep Saying

...
Not whether, but which. It is not whether we will have an established state religion, but rather which established state religion we will have. It is not whether our culture will serve a god, but rather which god it will serve. It is not whether we will impose morality with a law, but rather which morality we will impose with a law. It is not whether our culture will rest upon a blood sacrifice, but rather which blood sacrifice it will be. It is not whether we will discipline in terms of our public morality, but rather which group will be disciplined. Not whether, but which.

A number of months ago, I pointed that the refusal to continue disciplining homosexuals in the military was tantamount to a decision to discipline those members of the military who (visibly) believed that such behavior was a sin. And so, when a report recently surfaced that said that the Pentagon was contemplated making the sharing of your faith an offense worthy of court-martial, this means I must now go on the record to confess that I was not being clairvoyant. You don't have to be a weatherman, Dylan said, to tell which way the wind is blowing. Not whether, but which. It is not whether you will discipline over issues of sexual identity, it is which sexual identity you will discipline.

The pretence of neutrality that secularlism was able to keep up for several centuries is now officially in tatters. Their game is now to make the open play for power, in the hope that Christians will continue vainly to play the old game, and will be the very last to adapt to the new realities. So far, things are right on schedule.
...

For atheism is not just about God

Shadow to Light: Misanthropic atheism -- "Look, now are finally getting to the point where I can see the fundamental flaws of atheism. For atheism is not just about God, but about ourselves."

Exactly! Atheism *starts* with the denial that God is -- this is definitional -- but it *ends* with the denial that we ourselves are.

Puppy Love

Michael Egnor has a post concerning an aspect of the "slippery slope" that, even now, even before it has been fully imposed on us, is following straight upon the heels of "gay" "marriage" -- Puppy Love -- Just as we tradionalists and/or Judeo-Christians were mock for pointing out -- the very same "arguments" used to justify stretching real marriage beyond all recognition, in the name of "gay" "rights", can, and will, also be used to justify even worse outrages. The ultime goal of the leftists is to *destroy* marriage ... and family, for family, and familial obligation and love always stands in the way of The Supreme State.

I made a comment there that I wish to share with Gentle Reader:

I have mixed thoughts on this -- that is, on the execution of that unfortunate young man, so long ago [a young man, little more than a boy as we moderns count these things, who was executed in colonial New England for beastiality].

On the one hand, not everything that is a gross (in multiple senses of the word) sin -- fully meriting death -- is necessarily something *we humans* should be executing people for doing. Most of this can be, and ought to be, left in God's hands.

Furthermore, not *every sin* that the Old Covenant commands the Israelites to execute people for committing is one that we, under the Covenant of Grace, ought to execute people for doing.

On the other hand, the fact that we, as a society, *don't* execute those who commit beastiality -- and, in fact, under the "liberal" corruption of Grace, we, as a society, do our best to pretend that nothing noteworthy is being done (until, of course, the leftists demand we celebrate it) -- goes far to explain why the "beastlovers" are emboldened, and why they will soon be demanding access to our children.

The same applies to, for instance, "out and proud" homosexuals -- it goes far to explain why such are emboldened, and why they are currently demanding, and getting, access to our children.

A one-liner from Bob Parks

Bob Parks: The B_and_R Monday Skim

He links to this -- Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left
and comments -- "Guns don’t kill people, abortionists do"


======
Mr Parks also links to this --MSNBC Claims Birther Bombshell; Natural-Born Citizen Issue Not Settled (I'm not at a computer/network which allows me to view it)

Of course the issue is settled ... just not in the way the "liberals" (including all the establishment "conservatives") have been pretending lo these many years -- That man is not, and logically cannot be, a natural born US citizen. THEREFORE, he is not legally the US president.

What Gosnell did is what abortion is

Michael Egnor: What Gosnell did is what abortion is -- Exactly. Warning: Graphic -- yet, mild in context -- images

Hermeneutics As Sexual Identity

Douglas Wilson: Hermeneutics As Sexual Identity

... There is much here to make an honest man wince, but let me point to just two things. First, what on earth does it mean to "take the Bible seriously"? Does it mean that disobedience can be sanctified by a furrowed brow? Does it mean that the Bible is given the honorary seat as lead discussion partner at the never-ending seminar? And, having been given that honorary slot, does it preside over all the subsequent discussions in much the same spirit that Jeremy Bentham's stuffed remains attend University College London council meetings, "present, but not voting"? Taking the Bible seriously means that you get all of the feely gravitas, and none of the nuisance. Your faith can be very precious to you, and at the same time not get in the way of something else that is even more precious to you. We need not go into what that is. ...

Douglas Wilson: A Fixed Given

... The apostle Paul says that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature. The words seem plain enough, but what is nature? That is where we find ourselves wandering in a labyrinth. We wander because we are refusing to read nature in the light of Scripture.

If I may make the problem stark, what is the difference between a man shaving his head, or a woman dying her hair, or a teen-ager getting braces on her teeth, or a man getting a sex change operation? All four can be cast as examples of us "tinkering with" nature. Nature wants the hair to grow, he wants it shaved. Nature wants her hair to gray, she wants it not to. Nature wants her to be snaggletoothed, she wants a straight smile. And he wants his body to conform to his "inner woman." Why is this last one a travesty, and the others not? ...

Real Temptations

Douglas Wilson: Real Temptations

God’s saints are often troubled by the mere fact of their temptations. Sin is one kind of trouble, but we know how to seek forgiveness for sin committed in the past. But what about the constant volley of suggestions that seem more than a little attractive, to which you have not given way, but which trouble you nonetheless? How could a real Christian be anything but repulsed by the thought of that, or that?
...
But returning to the issue of temptation, the Lord experienced true temptation in His own right. He was buffeted by suggestions from the devil, and He experienced them as true temptations, ...

But this means that for you to feel disqualified from this Supper because of your many temptations means that you are trying to be holier than Jesus. Your sins do not keep you back, because the broken body and shed blood are here for just that reason. And your temptations do not forbid you because since temptations did not corrupt the sacrifice itself, how much less would they corrupt the ones for whom the sacrifice was made?

So come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.

I don't exactly agree with this statement: "... the Lord experienced true temptation in His own right. He was buffeted by suggestions from the devil, and He experienced them as true temptations, meaning that they were things He wanted to do. He wanted to turn the stones to bread, He wanted to throw Himself off the temple, and He wanted to bow down and worship the devil."

Yes, Christ experienced real temptations, just as we do (I've discussed this idea in the comments here). But, as is frequently the case in our lives, it wasn't the sin that was the temptation: the sin, the wicked act or result, was the "payload", but the temptation was some thing good in itself. For example, worshipping Satan was a temptation to Christ, not because he wanted/desired specifically to worship Satan, but rather because of the promise that in doing so he could accomplish his mission -- to take up the rule of the world -- without having to be murdered on a tree.

Moral realism and anti-realism

Michael Egnor: Moral realism and anti-realism --

... If morality is an adaptive strategy, then morality is not real. It is a delusion. I think that Baggett is right. This debate will come down to classical theists (Christians mainly) vrs. atheists. Moral realists vrs. anti-realists.

I think that the prime motivating ideology of modern atheism is moral anti-realism anyway, so at least the debate will move in an honest direction.

New atheism has always been about morality, not science. Scientism is a tactic, not a motive, for atheist evangelism.

Plain as noses on faces

Diana West: We Give Up? -- "We [won't] recognize them killing us, and they don't recognize us, period."

The problem isn't something called "Islamism" or "radical Islam"; as has been true for the past 1400 years, the problem is Islam. Period. As the joke puts it: "Q: What's the difference between a 'Moslem extremist' and a 'moderate Moslem'? A: The distance to the bomb."

But, of course, the deeper problem is us: for we allow those who hate us and our history, who desire above all things the destruction of our history and traditions, which is to say, the murder of our common life as a people, to rule us and to dictate what we may even think.

A Wicked Thought

I had a wicked thought yesterday that I wanted to share with Gentle Reader.

One may recall a few years back that in their oppositon to the passage of NAFTA, protectionists and other Democrats warned us that the giant sucking sound we'd hear would be all our jobs going to Mexico. And I thought, "Cool! So the Mexicans will stay in Mexico!?"

Yet, somehow, here we are today: NAFTA in place and the Democrats and RINOs insisting that morality -- and the Constitution -- demand that we give US citizenship, and especially the vote ... and welfare benefits, to pretty much any Mexican who waltzes across the border. Well, at least they are (presently) for limiting the vote to those tens of millions actually on this side.

Edit: I phrased that last sentence in that precise manner because the US government is *already* giving taxpayer funds -- monies forcibly extracted from you and me under threat of violent death -- to Mexicans for Mexicans in Mexico.