Tuesday, October 30, 2007

[promiscuity] has zero to do with the logos

Bloggers, on the whole, are not a particularly religious bunch and a glance through this blog also finds no overt religion.

What it does find is a sense of right and wrong, which is what the political blogger is into – fisking is a blogging term, after all. So just as the libertarian is experienced at sniffing out political humbug, won’t you give the Christian credit for sniffing out moral humbug?

This blogger does not think the Christian has a mortgage on truth or on constructive social values – there are many who can see the right way to live but it is true that he perhaps focuses on the personally moral far more than the average citizen.

There is a key passage in the gospels and if we can forgive the quaint language of yesteryear, the general idea is clear enough:
15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16: Ye shall know them by their fruits.
And further down:
20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
This has always been the thorn in the side of Christianity – its exponents who interpret scriptural passages and put constructs on them as is their wont - and their wont is mostly to do with their own agenda.

But returning to the “fruits”, scrutinize this blog and what would you say are the fruits coming out of it? What values is it pushing? What message?

Go to Matt Murrell’s site and it is openly atheistic [and even a whole lot of fun]; go to Deeply Blasphemous and it’s a known known. But what to do when someone makes himself out a Christian but wants to combine it with promiscuity and Marxism, the politics of oppression?

Now I’m not asking anyone to come on board with my values – this is no sermon but what it does illustrate is that a man who has a large dose of personal charisma and charm, particularly with the other sex, to the point they become blind to the defects in his message, a man who admittedly visits and speaks with seeming decency and respect but who urges people to unite behind his new vision – this man is pure Jim Jones and Charlie Manson in the making.

This is beyond reason because it is a psychological thing, and tunes in with people’s own mindset far more than this post does. It is for personal and psychological reasons that this post will most likely be rejected. And the reason his is accepted is that it offers 72 virgins for the taking, all under the loving eye of the Lord.

What we have here is a prophet of moral equivalence and when he says he goes to Church and says the Mass - to a Christian this means zip if he’s not following the Word. The Logos. So, what is the Word?

On moral matters:
Matthew 5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

28: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Now you can argue all you like with the message and language in the following but you can’t deny that this is what it actually says [look it up for yourself]:
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
Equivocal? Capable of interpreting that to mean you can screw around as long as you have a “bond” with the other [usually younger women]?
1 Corinthians 7:1-2, KJV. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman [or, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," according to the NIV footnote]. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
So, to teach others, particularly young women, that it’s in keeping with Christianity to do such things means that such a person has surrendered the right to be called Christian. It’s a semantic point, a theological and a social.

To the majority out there reading this, it might also be a reason not to be Christian but with you, at least, there is a certain honesty to what you do. But for a person to divert the Word to his own sexual ends and use his blog to entice people to accept the social construct he’s surrounded it with is another thing.

To call himself Christian, whilst pushing this guff, is beyond the pale and a group which accepts this is also misguided. Therefore, this is not designed to make me friends or win people over – it will do the opposite and engender great sympathy for him instead.

That’s also a known known and popularity has never been my goal.

I’m no stranger to promiscuity myself but what cannot be denied is that actually condonng and preaching promiscuity, however well it fits into one’s new vision of the future, is definitively not Christianity.


Anonymous said...

I'm late to this theme, and I don't know to whom, or what you refer, but I'll go along with your words.

Nicely argued.

Your words could equally be applied to current teaching methods/subjects, to increasingly younger children.

The acceptance, and promotion, of moral/sexual standards that are repugnant to the vast majority of the population, to these young children.

The agreed consensus of equivalence of what was once the state religion, once upon a time defended by the Monarch, with every nefarious creed or belief system that anyone cares to mention is proceeding apace and is being felt at all levels of society. Witness the constant reports from schools, and "thought police" visiting protesting pensioners on the instructions of their superiors, and the failure of social services to protect abused foster children deliberately placed in the care of , errr "same sex couples" and who fail to prosecute those adults when they choose to abuse the children in their care.

Just where the hell is this society being herded?

A dysfunctional heterogeneous society is "Purposely" being created, with the "Purpose" of deliberate civil instability that increasingly demands a muscular response on the part of the "authorities".

"Common Purpose" has deliberately recruited those "Authorities in Waiting" - a parallel administrative structure - to work in common purpose with the overall agreed agenda covertly funded by the ODPM, but planned in great detail, and working to a plan used by Communist aspirants and Nazi aspirants in the last century, by all the "Special Advisers" and "Think Tanks" and "Charities" behind the curtains at No.10.

I was particularly horrified to see the link recruiting young children to "Change It", via Common Purpose.
Memories of Starzi methods of child indoctrination haunt me.


And the nonsense emanating from the EU relating to all things "Children".


Quite why politicians aren't crawling all over this one defeats comprehension. The Charities Commission is either criminally inept, or staffed by Common Purpose "graduates" at a senior level.
Same must be said of the Constabulary/CPS that investigated the "Cash for Honours" debacle

People, something must be done to stop the avalanche of legislation, to stop the avalanche of idiotic thinking emanating from Brussels, to stop the avalanche of proposals/initiatives/re-definitions of who we are.

We have a constitution, it is embedded in over 1,000 years of case law, and the "Fundamental Rights" so courageously fought for, for many centuries, are being given away, or "Redefined", on the instructions of a traitorous, unelected prime minister, who denies the rights of 80% plus of the electorate, by denying a referendum, who seeks the imposition of Napoleonic law.

Napoleon was left-handed, hence he rode on the right to keep his sword arm free.
Europeans thus drive on the wrong side of the road.
We were never conquered by Napoleon.
We demand that our freedoms remain ours to determine, and not to capitulate or be given away, to a bunch of conniving, non-elected self aggrandising worms, who seek power for power's sake in the promulgation and construction of a model state that has failed each and every time it has been attempted.

Viscount Higham-Davignon said...

I believe you're speaking the truth, Anon but the problem is one of hearts and minds and I fear this message, as contained in your comment will be lost for the reason that other readers come to it with a distinct world view of their own.

At best they'll look, nod and say OK and then move on. But when it actually starts to happen and the EU agenda is really so plain it's not funny, of course it will be too late.

Why should we care? What can we do? Simply bring it to people's attention so that it can be recalled to the mind at a later stage.

As for overt action, it's all been factored in and the likes of you and me can be neutralized if we pop our heads above the ramparts - we might be at odds on this.

Anonymous said...

This excellent article by Ian P caught my eye
Contains many disturbing links and facts.
The URL for CP is given as www2....
My browser fails at that.
Any ideas?

mutleythedog said...

I am not going to argue theology Sir James - as you can imagine. But I think you have every right to any opinion - even if other people find it uncomfortable or deny that it is true...which it may be by the way...

jmb said...

Well argued point of view, James, one I happen to agree with.

Julie said...

I don't know who you are talking about - pity, as I do enjoy a scandal.

IanP said...

you will find many of the CP web addresses begin www2.xxx otherwise known as Web2.

Just take the 2 out and it works fine.


Very brave post and very true. I Have yet to see such truth in the blogging community.

Count James d'Estaing said...

Two themes concurrently here. Have to find a way to solve this.