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.
.JPG)
