How The Left Works To Destroy Christianity

by Kung Fu Zu10/5/15

Some time back, I was reading through some interesting thoughts on religion and the Left when I came upon the following comment explaining one of the more sinister ways the Left works to undermine Christianity. Sadly, they are aided by unwitting dupes who naively try to have a reasonable interchange.

This piece deals with how a particular leftist homosexual propagandist worms his way into the conversation and stays there.

This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, “You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can’t we just agree to disagree?” That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.

This paragraph explains exactly how the Left corrupts Christianity, and frankly, everything they touch. This is how we got deviant marriage. A Leftist can invent the most outrageous, silly, dishonest and downright stupid thesis to which no moderately educated person would give any credence. But some well meaning, yet foolish intellectual will take it on face value. Then the thesis takes on a life of its own.

The People must stop deferring to so called experts and the like. These are people who too often live in Cloud Cuckoo Land and are so enamored of fine sounding words that they are regularly taken in by leftist scoundrels.

We must stop shirking our responsibility and call out the lies and liars for what and who they are. Time is running short.

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1639 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to How The Left Works To Destroy Christianity

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There are those who view the Devil as real and as one who rebelled from God.

    Who knows? But it’s pretty easy to see that all this homo stuff is a rebellion, plain and simple. Internal problems are not dealt with in a constructive way. Instead these problems are projected out (much like a rambunctious child) and this results in a prolonged and systematized lashing out at the order that does not include dysfunction and perversion as normal.

    This really is the destructive counterculture come home to roost. As I’ve often said about the Left, they are “Not that.” And I see that a lot on internet forums, for example. At heart, the Left’s ideology is very weak. Abortion, in particular, threatens to topple them from the pillar of moral superiority.

    So instead of making an argument for their beliefs, they simply lash out at those who hold different or opposite beliefs. This helps them, at least momentarily, to lose the uncomfortable doubt they have about their own selves and beliefs.

    This is one reason we don’t indulge trolls here. I have no problem with an honest difference of opinion. But I’ve been around the block a few times and recognize when people are in “lashing out” mode and whose purpose of engaging in dialogue (such as it is) is simply to prove to themselves yet again that, indeed yes, the right is full of anti-science, bigoted, small-minded, and mean individuals.

    And then they can go on their way, having provoked the reaction they were hoping to get. That’s one reason this site will never be a haven for trolls. I’ve already read their mail. They can’t get the normal satisfaction of reinforcing their supposed moral and intellectual superiority.

    And this is why it makes sense for a lesbian to shit on the church. This woman is in rebellion. She hides under the facade of “nice,” but she means to lash out. And the great victory of the Left is that they have been able to redefine their vandalism in terms of “tolerance” and other PC-speak. But there’s nothing tolerant about this group of enraged juveniles. They ought to be sent packing from every church that exists. Start your own damn church, but don’t vandalize someone else’s.

    But that they aren’t sent packing shows you how little most people understand their own religion. Not all things have to be accepted and tolerated. And at some point it’s incumbent upon Christians to understand that “tolerance” for queers and such is just dancing with the devil. They mean to swallow your church whole and leave nothing behind recognizable to Christ.

    • Rosalys says:

      “So instead of making an argument for their beliefs, they simply lash out at those who hold different or opposite beliefs.”

      “And then they can go on their way, having provoked the reaction they were hoping to get.”

      In other words, their amygdalae have been disturbed and they must do something to calm themselves down and make them feel good about themselves. If instead of having “nice” little discussions, we push the rabbits to the wall (figuratively, with clear statements of truth and an absolute refusal to back down in any way) letting them know that we know what they are about and what they are doing, you can hijack their amygdala. They will be the ones to back down and may even shut down emotionally and become a near catatonic blob of goo. Or they may go into an emotionally and totally irrational, explosive rant. Either way they show themselves to be the idiots, twerps, and cowards that they are. (For an explanation of r/K Selection Theory, and how to deal with these people, visit The site seems to be under reconstruction right now, so I couldn’t link to the specific page, but his blog is worth reading.)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I happened to read the following from Theodore Dalrymple yesterday.

        I have mistrusted my own rage ever since, as a student of physiology, I saw a cat stimulated to insensate rage by the discharge of electrodes in its amygdala.

        It seems appropriate for this discussion.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        In other words, their amygdalae have been disturbed and they must do something to calm themselves down and make them feel good about themselves.

        I do think people become addicted to drama (otherwise known as “Facebook”). And, yeah, we do that a bit here as well. It’s inherent to being a social species. But not too much, I hope. We ought not to be useful idiots for either the left or right and engage in regular Orwellian two-minute-hates. And we see an awful lot of that from the Left.

        It’s just been my experience on the internet, Rosalys, that Leftists come visit in order to rage about something. And because most conservatives have not read StubbornThings and become as informed as they should be, they too often take the bait and try to argue something point-by-point not realizing that the troll isn’t interested in debate but in confirming in his own mind that you are a moron.

        Talking points are like Linus’ security blanket. They need to be stated like a mantra every once in a while to retain what thread there is of believability to it. And some just like being a bully. The Left, by and large, is an ideology that leaves people alienate and angry. So they lash out.

  2. Rosalys says:

    The real problem is with (so-called) Christians who put up with this crap. They are weak, cowardly, and man centered. They don’t know the first thing about what the Bible actually says, (except for that part about, “Jesus said you can’t judge me! Niener, niener, niener!”) they don’t really know why Jesus Christ even bothered to come, and they don’t care to find out for themselves. The blind are willingly following a blind clergy. They just want to liked, and don’t want to rock the boat. Well I have some important news for everybody; Jesus rocked the boat! Hard! And he wants His people to rock the boat!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Dennis Prager has a saying for that: “Nice but not good.” There are a lot of Christians who are “nice.” But they are not good.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Matt Barber has an article available on Town Hall today which deals with the topic. He points out the alignment of modern leftism with militant (i.e., Koranic) Islam against Judaism and Christianity. He also notes the weaknesses of Catholicism in this struggle (such as Catechism selections that implicitly accept the validity of Islam) — and points out an African bishop who challenges this demonic alliance. The link is:

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The writer says,

      “the “progressive” left is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-Muslim”

      One often hears this meme, but it is not the case that the progressive Left is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic. In point of fact, no other racial, national or ethic group is so strongly “progressively left” as are the Jews. They make up an inordinate number of the movers and shakers of the progressive Left. I think there are clear historical reasons for these facts. One day, I may write a couple of pieces about this.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        They are, at the very least, strongly anti-Zionist, and I think there is at least a strong anti-Semitic streak. Leftist Jews are very good at self-loathing, both in Israel and America. (Anyone familiar with the likes of Golda Meir will know this wasn’t always true.)

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Many Jews are anti-Zionist; some orthodox Jews for religious reasons, the secular ones for other reasons.

          I don’t think that many Leftist Jews are so much self-loathing as religious hating. This hate includes religious Judaism. Of course, they hate Christianity more.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I written several pieces under which I could place the following link. But since this is my most recent article on the lunatic Left I decided this is the most convenient spot.

    It is important that everyone see the truth that Americans are getting fed up with the lying liars of the LGBT Left.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that the Kim Davis affair played a significant role in the Kentucky elections this year, with the Democrats rejecting their own (which is why she has now switched parties). Bevin made heavy use of the issue in his win, and William Westerfield nearly won for Attorney General (losing by just over 2000 votes) running heavily on the issue. But I’ll admit that neither was as impressive as the 61-39 rejection of homosexuality anti-discrimination and transgendered bathrooms in Houston.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Bevin was another great success story. Hopefully, he will go about building a conservative machine and get rid of the Turtle.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        But I’ll admit that neither was as impressive as the 61-39 rejection of homosexuality anti-discrimination and transgendered bathrooms in Houston.

        Damn. I was thinking of opening a transgender wing of ST. Why think small? We lead most of the web on opinion (if not hits), why not lead on something else? I’m shooting from transhuman. Why do things in piecemeal fashion?

        Hey, at some point you just have to go with the flow. Reality is what reality is (even if it’s a shared fantasy). I figure there would be people who would like to post on here as a crocodile, or a Martian, or whatever. Who am I to force them to take the identify of a human?

        I’m sure Jonah Goldberg would agree with me. Give me time. I’m just a little slow on the uptake sometimes. But I get there eventually.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Matthew 18:20 says, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

    So you have to wonder if an entire convention of methodists qualifies as a quorum. Evolution News and Views reports:

    The slogan of the United Methodist Church (UMC) is “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” But UMC officials are now under fire for being closed-minded and intolerant after they banned Discovery Institute, from sponsoring an information table at the denomination’s upcoming General Conference in May. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe show evidence of being the result of purposeful design rather than unguided processes.

    There is nothing more basic to Christianity than the idea that there is a conscious, purposeful Creator. “Designer” is a synonym for “Creator.” It seems clearly that the United Methodist Church is a Marxist (“Progressive”) organization. If I were Jesus, I would ask them to remove the cross from their logo.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The long march through the institutions is almost complete. The Reds have wonderfully wormed their way into the establishment denominations.

      There might be a small backlash mounting. The Anglican Convention recently suspended the American Episcopalian Church from having any input in the world convention for three years due to the ordination of queer priests. It appears the world convention tried reasoning with the Americans, but to no avail.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        There has also been a backlash within APEC itself, as some congregations have threatened to revolt against the cultural and religious liberalism of the hierarchy. I suspect that many will now adhere directly to the Anglicans.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That long march is indeed complete. I’m quite sure that “diversity,” “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” and “social justice” are the guiding influences. And for those dogmas you don’t need Jesus, and obviously you don’t need God.

        Don’t get me wrong. I think Intelligent Design is a one-trick pony. Until they take an archaeological approach and try to divine the techniques and history of the designer, they can’t do much but repeat the obvious, if profound, idea that “things are designed.” I do quite a bit of reading at Evolution News and Views, and it tends to be little more than a circle-jerk, although when they delve into biology it’s often a great read.

        But the idea of a designer is absolutely fundamental to the only belief systems outside of atheism. Either you believe this all somehow occurred by chance or you believe the opposite. The various revealed truths that religions add to this is another subject.

        But if you don’t support the idea of intelligent design (even if only in regards to the universe as a whole), then what the hell are you doing calling yourself a Christian or Jew?

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    More on this issue. I read half of an overly long article on the subject of why the United Methodist Church banned the Discovery Institute from having a booth at one of their conventions. By all means, read the whole piece if you like to watch paint dry.

    But what I came away with can be summed up in one sentence: Liberal Christians (such as they are Christians) are as scared to death to be called anti-science as most white people are nowadays to be called racist. Therefore they accept Darwinism completely and will not entertain ideas against this.

    Okay, that was two sentences. But I think it’s that simple. Contrast that with some of the early Christians who gladly martyred themselves for their faith. These panty-waste Methodists are scared to death of being thought of as rubes for questioning the dogma of Darwinism. So they question their Christian dogma instead (particularly the one the says that there is a supreme Creator).

    You can’t make up this kind of idiocy, and the powers-that-be in the Methodist church in question are clearly idiots.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is why liberal Christians aren’t genuine Christians. They place their secular ideology above their Bible (unless they rewrite their Bible to reflect it).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Those are fighting words, you intolerant person, you. Don’t you know it’s impolite to question someone’s faith? Yeah, their faith may be Leftism, but don’t question it.

        I’m still dabbling with the idea of Christianity. Haven’t quite had any light shining in my face on the road to Damascus or anywhere else. And it doesn’t help to see all these knuckleheads who don’t know their Christian asses from their Christian elbows. They make a mockery of it all. The good news is that, at least for me, it reaffirms that God is not a function of mere human culture, at least if that God is real and meaningful. And that is a God, however tentatively, who can be accessed without all the BS of “social justice” and whatever goofy crap the Methodists and others think is an addition to the Ten Commandments. (#12: Thou shalt not release carbon dioxide.)

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Perhaps God put humanity here for us to learn a hard lesson. If we learn it, we might just understand and appreciate good when we experience it.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Along the lines of the general subject, I think this article is right on the money: The Rise of Religious Narcissism.

    The only dot Bruce didn’t connect was the rise of Leftism as the animating force for this kind of narcissism. I don’t think this is something that arose on its own inside Christianity, for example.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It seems evident that this religious narcissism is basically liberal religion — a social activity (usually involving social activism) without the moral code that is the heart of any religion. They’d be happy with Aleister Crowley as their pope.

      Incidentally, since the article starts out by discussing the transgender movement, I will mention that the Olympics have apparently decided to allow transgenders to go as the sex they claim to be. Women who think they’re men have no further restriction, whereas men who think they’re women must promise not to change their minds (assuming they actually have a mind) for 4 years, and keep their testosterone levels reasonable. They might as well get rid of the separation between men’s and women’s sports as long as they’re going this far, but I suspect that’s too rational to be politically correct.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        It seems evident that this religious narcissism is basically liberal religion — a social activity (usually involving social activism) without the moral code that is the heart of any religion. They’d be happy with Aleister Crowley as their pope.

        Well, I agree with you, of course, Timothy. I think this is a good piece by the author, but he missed many large points.

        Many inside of religion think one should remain “unpolitical.” (In practice that means against-traditional and pro-liberal, but that’s another subject). So it’s the height of at least politeness not to point out that these “narcissistic” Christians are most likely being moved by the Alinsky Spirit, not the Holy Spirit. To be fair, I’m not sure of Bruce’s religious orientation.

        Another clue as to his unwillingness to dig down is this:

        therapeutic New Age outlook has given rise to a self-centered, highly emotional brand of religion

        I think feminism, and the demonization of the male, has had a lot to do with this focus on emotionalism. Strength is now not considered the person (man or woman) who can buck up under great strain. (Kipling: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs.”). It’s the person who can shed a lot of tears, come to “closure,” or go deeper and deeper into their identity as a helpless victim. (I’m convinced Prime Time TV would have no shows without this theme.)

        Liberal Christianity is compatible with Freudianism, psychobabble, Marxism, and Darwinism. It’s not particularly compatible with the Bible.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I thought the following observation by Bruce was on target,

      Though they denigrated traditional Judeo-Christian monotheism, humanistic psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow recommended Eastern mysticism as a means of self-realization. Since it is a religious outlook making few absolute moral demands, the New Age approach appealed to a free-wheeling, morally liberated youth culture, as Melanie Phillips observes. However, many of the Eastern societies where such religions flourish have been conspicuous more for their conformity and groupism than for individuality and self-actualization.

      As I have made clear in a number of my pieces, the hate for Christianity goes back a long way. Certainly before the question of economics became the moving force in politics that is has become.

      What types such as Maslow are really trying to do is cut the cord between Western tradition and the individual and culture. The “self-actualization” nonsense is made to create unhappy individuals from normal people. The man had a miserable childhood and projected universals through his personal ticks, much like Freud.

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    Meanwhile, as a reminder that they haven’t yet succeeded, Town Hall reports that a group of pro-lifers returning from the March for Life were stuck in the blizzard on the Pennsylvania. (NR’s Kathryn Lopez was one of them.) They decided to set up a snow altar and celebrate a mass, such as they could. A priest on a bus joined in with 300 hosts, and in the end they had 6 priests and 500 worshippers celebrating mass in the snow. It’s definitely a feel-good story from our viewpoint. The link is:

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was watching the football game between the Broncos and the Patriots. The Broncos won (yeah!) although I didn’t really have a dog in the fight. That also meant that I spent about 4 hours (geez those passing-intensive games are long) reading web content. I can’t stand to watch 4 hours of just football. I’ve got to multitask. So I read a couple Trump Derangement Syndrome articles over at NRO. And then, on a lark, went over to FirstThings to see what articles on religion they might have.

    Holy Jesus, if you’ll pardon my French. They’ve also got some Trump Derangement Syndrome going on, and one schmuck there is using the prestige of C.S. Lewis to try to prove his case (her case, I believe).

    And please don’t get me wrong. I’m not a Trumpette, or whatever they call the “He can’t do no wrong” maniacs. And every candidate has some of those. I think Trump is highly problematic. But he is there precisely because the Republican Establishment (including sites such as NRO) have failed their base. They have. This is undeniable. They’ve lied, manipulated, and outright blustered.

    So I’m surfing the web and finding there’s no escaping people who just can’t believe Donald Trump is ahead in the polls. I think I’d find the same thing if I browsed a gardening site. But I know why he is ahead in the polls. If you are at StubbornThings, you know why as well (frustration at the corrupt establishment, Trump’s emphasis on immigration, the general leftward tilt of mainstream politics, the elevation of celebrity). There’s no mystery here. And no one knows what the hell he would do as president, which is the same damn thing we could say about McCain, Romney, Bush, etc. — with the possible exception that one could say that, actually, we do know how they would govern…like liberals.

    With Trump? We don’t know. But, jeepers, to pull out C.S. Lewis to try to make your case. Good god. Where were all these really smart people when they tried to ram Romney, McCain, or Jeb Bush down our throats?

    I’m not a Trump apologist. But I am amused by all the supposed “conservatives” who have come out of the woodwork saying we need limited government. Baloney. When has National Review backed limited government except in esoteric rhetoric? But when push comes to shove, they back the Big Government RINO.

    And so do a lot of Christians. And that brings to mind something I truly believe: There aren’t a lot of real Christians out there.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I’m not a Trumpette,

    The snide term is now Trumpkin.

    Where were all these really smart people when they tried to ram Romney, McCain, or Jeb Bush down our throats?

    Middle-aged and young journalists are not the really smart people. Even, or especially, those who attended Ivy League schools. The education system has been churning out ignorant lemmings for decades now. The only difference between journalist lemmings and the others is that, occasionally, the journalist lemmings can write well. They still don’t know very much.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Oh, well, I could be a Trumpkin. I like that term. “Trumpster” works as well.

      I get your point about journalists. One of the things our universities are cranking out are parrots. They can, well, parrot certain phrases or ideas. I heard this one black elected official chick on NPR talking about Flint, Michigan, which is in such poor shape that the state has had to step in for emergency management. She said the problem they were having at the moment with getting good drinking water was the fault of “putting profit before people.” This person is an idiot.

      But hasn’t Kevin Williamson and his ilk simply learned to parrot different lines? But when it comes to putting them in practice, well, that’s not really the point, is it? It’s mental masturbation. Conservatism has been turned into a gigantic book club and lecture circuit. But actually trying to win the culture wars? They don’t even show up. You have fools such as Goldberg trumpeting his surrender (as he did by giving in to gay marriage).

      You have people parroting socialist slogans, or sometimes conservative slogans, and there isn’t a lot of real-world wisdom involved. That’s what we are short of. There are a lot of people who have learned to parrot what is considered erudite language. But it’s just a parrot. There’s no substance to it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Wasn’t Trumpkin the red dwarf in Prince Caspian?

      Note that the large group of conservative Trump critics includes a wide array of people, many of whom probably did oppose McCain and Romney in the primary (Glenn Beck likely did).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Note that the large group of conservative Trump critics includes a wide array of people, many of whom probably did oppose McCain and Romney in the primary (Glenn Beck likely did).

        As I recall National Review was pushing Romney long before the primaries even began.

        I find Beck now is worse than irrelevant, he is a clown. I would have to go back to get quotes, but he has said some odd things over the last year or so. I doubt his endorsement helped Cruz at all.

        As an aside, I figure Palin’s endorsement of Trump mainly helped him in Iowa, which is all he really needs her for as if he wins Iowa, he will be riding a wave which appears as if it will be unstoppable. It looks as if he has N.H. and S. Carolina in the bag. He would have to have a very bad showing on Super Tuesday for things to change.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yes, I’m afraid Beck has jumped the shark, although he did endorse Cruz (good choice). But he also said he’d vote for Sanders instead of Trump (the clown part).

          National Review was indeed pushing Romney. And they did their utmost to characterize Newt as something that he wasn’t…while ignoring the elephant in the living room which was the Romney was a liberal.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            How stupid was it of the Republican party to push a plutocrat who looked and acted like a stereotypical plutocrat?

            Trump has more money, but he didn’t make it in finance (this fact is important) and he doesn’t act like a plutocrat. I think many Americans see themselves as self-made in the way Trump is self-made, his rich father not withstanding. Few think of financiers as models, rather financiers are generally hated. And I will say, many of today’s bunch deserve it.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    My general premise is that Western Civ has no chance of righting itself without the re-implementation of traditional values, particularly (but not exclusively) Christian values.

    Well, I have my doubts about that, particular because Christians institutions themselves have gotten so off track. Here’s a pretty good article by Bruce Davidson in this regard: The Death of Evangelicalism

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Finally, a Christian who gets it and is willing to shout out from the roof tops what needs to be done?

    Such feminized “Candy-Ass Christians” as described by this man’s father need to be called out and shamed. The future of Western Civilization is at stake, men. Get some balls!

    Can I have an Amen?!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:


      To stand strong for one’s faith in Jesus Christ and push back against a culture that, in the words of Isaiah 5:20, “call[s] evil good and good evil” is to be “divisive,” “unloving,” “bigoted,” and “intolerant.”

      A concise way to note the moral inversion that has occurred.

      Here’s another crucial insight:

      This is because evangelicals have confused Christ’s command to love others with being likable, as if that were an attribute of God. (It isn’t.) As such, they endeavor to be, above all else, inoffensive and polite. This doctrinal malpractice has given us a generation of men who are what Lewis called “men without chests.”

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The present “leaders” of George Washington’s church are going to remove a plaque mentioning that he worshiped there. Their professed reason is;

    “The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,” leaders said, a reference to the fact that Washington was a slaveholder.

    If this does not show how dishonest and/or stupid these scoundrels are, nothing will. These vermin will never stop. Their egos can never be sated as there is a gaping void at their cores.

    Does anyone seriously believe these people are Christians? They are leftists and the left corrupts and destroys everything it touches.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Sadly, that’s what APEC (in which I was raised) has sunk too today. This really is no surprise. They’re also getting rid of a similar plaque to Robert E. Lee, who also worshipped there.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      While on the subject: How Roman Catholicism Can Get Protestantism Back To Its Reformation Roots

      I don’t agree with all this articles says. Nor do I necessarily disagree. Some of the thoughts aren’t well articulated. But it’s an interesting backdrop. In short (very short), Protestantism laid the groundwork for Progressivism which is basically the “church of I’ where each of us is specially anointed by God to make heaven on earth (instead of restraining or reforming our own behavior to better match Christ by acknowledging Christ not as a fuzzy “spiritual” thing but as a real thing). This “Progressive” view of Christianity — which the author makes a case bled right into Leftism — is in contrast to the view that mankind and his institutions need restraints because of our fallen nature.

      That’s very in short and, of course, Catholics have run off the road with all this “social justice” baloney. So I don’t defend this article point for point, so don’t hold me to it and crash the hold thing to the ground because it isn’t infallible. Still, I think there is an overall and necessary framing of the question in regards to how so many Christians — Protestant or Catholic — got off track. To this bizarre point where this “social justice’ culture feeds and encourages this kind of emotional manipulation and fraudulence such as regarding the Washington plaque. And if it isn’t fraudulent than this asshole has problems much larger than any plaque.

  14. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I am not sure whether this shows that the Jesuits or the Catholic Church as a whole is corrupt beyond saving.

    That a Catholic Institution would not only allow, but promote such heretical rubbish to be taught in its classrooms is scandalous.

    With such things taking place in its schools, can anyone doubt the rot has gone beyond remedy?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the truths of the day is that Christians need to run screaming from their organized churches. The institution of institutions themselves is broken. Catholic or Protestant. The pope has no more moral authority than your cocker spaniel.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        My cocker is loyal, faithful, and always happy when I come home and defends the family from the pesky mailman/woman daily. 🙂

        I can not, in truth, say the same of organized religion, yours mine or theirs.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        More proof that the present pope is anything but a Catholic. Talk about the Manchurian Candidate.

        And notice how the Vatican responds saying that the quotes in the article cannot be taken as accurate, but they don’t deny the quotes. Weasels and scoundrels.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Love the commenter who wrote: “Pope Apostate the First”. Better yet this one:

          Maybe the Pope will declare that the offering is an invention of man, and all churches are to cease the practice of donating money to the church.

          As I continue to say and believe, these kind of people present an opportunity for people to get back to the roots of Christianity. Whether there is a hell or not, I don’t know. Heaven? Ditto.

          What we can say for sure is that Marxist-based demagogues such as the false pope are not the means to steer us out of the darkness.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            One has the feeling that the only things Pope Apostate I is interested in are the money and power of the Church. This is why these leftist are dangerous as they are taking over ancient institutions which are integral parts of Western Civilization. They should all be purged.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I think that they think we are a bunch of boobs who need to be told by smart people such as themselves how to think and how to live. These people consider themselves revolutionaries, refreshing and freeing humanity from the reactionary forces of old.

              After all, Jesus said,

              “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”

              Actually that was Thomas More from Utopia. And what he wrote is 100% true. We all know that people who have enough to eat, a place to live, and a job never cause trouble in this world. Basically they tried the Utopia therapy on that Cruz shooter. One had only to erase the stigma that imperfect society was burdening him with. It was never a matter of the choices that Cruz made.

              What is interesting is to see a Catholic pope espouse this complete and total materialist/Marxist view of mankind. Man is only ever a victim or beneficiary of material circumstances beyond his control. There is no moral element or center. Such things are considered an illusion if not a superstition. Therefore we must “guide” him for his own good. And because we, the anointed, have been given exceptional vision, we must replace the crude vision of the common man with our own exalted one.

              In a very real way, this kind of stuff is completely contrary to the Christian view whereby one is reborn via devotion to god, as mediated by Christ as the mystical melding of man and spirit. Instead, the exalted good intentions of The Golden Children will transform us all by freeing us from consequences. I don’t know that I can express any better my contention that not only is Francis a fake pope, he’s an anti-pope.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                In the past, anti-popes were people who claimed to be pope when somebody else held the official position. In that sense, an anti-pope is needed now.

                I think it’s becoming obvious that Jesuits have ceased to be Catholics, and I doubt they can even be called Christians.

              • Rosalys says:

                “In the past, anti-popes were people who claimed to be pope when somebody else held the official position.”

                There are those who say Benedict had no authority to abdicate (or even partially abdicate) and therefore is still the true pope. That would make this Francis guy an anti-pope. I don’t care much for popery anyway, but this present clown, if not the anti-Christ, is at the very least, an anti-Christ.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I still smell something rotten in Denmark regarding the real pope abdicating.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think the really bad ones seem to be Jesuit-run, such as Georgetown and Marquette. Notre Dame seems to have kept more moral responsibility, though not as much as we would want. William Peter Blatty, a Georgetown alumnus as well as best-selling author of a religious-oriented novel, once tried to get the Church to clean the college out. I think the Peron Pope — the first Jesuit pope — may have been in place by then. In any case, obviously nothing was done.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Do you remember “Liberation Theology?” Clearly, this “pope” is a proponent of this belief.

        I thought Pope John Paul II and especially Benedict got rid of this cancer. Apparently not.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Liberation theology is associated especially with Maryknoller nuns (Tip O’Neill’s sister was one, which affected his views on foreign policy — especially in Latin America). But I think the Jesuits may also have been big fans of it. As I recall, Benedict denounced it, but obviously didn’t get rid of it, and now we have Francis the Talking Mule to restore it to health.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Here’s the definition of “liberation theology” that came up first on Google:

          a movement in Christian theology, developed mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics, that emphasizes liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of ultimate salvation.

          I’m a little dubious that “anticipation of ultimate salvation” isn’t more than dishonest window-dressing. I think the metaphysics underlying liberation theology is purely in line with Sagan’s atheistic statement that: “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be” combined with the new Sacrament of “free stuff.”

          Those who truly believe that a God of Judgment is looking over their shoulders would not propose the hideous and destructive ideology of socialism. I realize I’m totally out of step with most of today’s conservatives who are required to believe the good intentions of their adversaries. I simply don’t.

          If you want to give someone an “anticipation of ultimate salvation,” help to get them off the bottle. Help to get them off drugs. Help them to find and keep a job. Help them to stay out of trouble with the law. Help them to restrain their sexual impulses. Help them to spend their money wisely. Help them to develop the virtues of faith, hope, love, wisdom, justice, courage, moderation, integrity, and perseverance. Help them to feel the commitment to help others to do the same.

          But for God’s sakes don’t teach them that there is no such thing as right or wrong, that scratching every itch is a sacred right, or that if you screw up it’s “society’s” fault.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          RedState has a post on the subject of “there is no hell.” It includes bits of the Catechism of the Catholic Church including this bit from Item 1037:

          God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God

          One of the obvious difficulties is in regards to who determines (judges) “a willing turning away from God.” To a certain extent, a general “consensus” of tradition and scripture can at least present a somewhat unified opinion on this. But that first requires that “words mean things” and that the leadership is not corrupt.

          But what happens when the very organs of a church become corrupted, when you can’t depend upon the leadership or even some kind of consensus from the experts? When even the greatest of the virtues (charity) becomes a synonym for authoritarian state socialism, toward which direction pointeth God?

          More and more the answer to that is a sort of “Christian correctness,” a brand of “political correctness.” All the hard edges of duty are rubbed off until the transaction of life revolves around “I’m okay, you’re okay.” And, from a little reading, it seems the premise of this idea is based on the dynamic of childhood:

          The phrase I’m OK, You’re OK is one of four “life positions” that each of us may take. The four positions are:

          1 I’m Not OK, You’re OK
          2 I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK
          3 I’m OK, You’re Not OK
          4 I’m OK, You’re OK

          The most common position is I’m Not OK, You’re OK. As children we see that adults are large, strong and competent and that we are little, weak and often make mistakes, so we conclude I’m Not OK, You’re OK. Children who are abused may conclude I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK or I’m OK, You’re Not OK, but this is much less common. The emphasis of the book is helping people understand how their life position affects their communications (transactions) and relationships with practical examples.

          This is a dishonest reading of “Ok.” Define your term first, f-tard. But, really, children are not “ok.” They have a lot to learn. Without the direct and constant involvement of adults, they would die. Parents don’t know everything so they’re not necessarily “ok” either. Perhaps only God is “ok.” But we humans are forever left in various states of “not okay.” It’s just the way it is. On some things we are, of course, “ok” as well, usually after a lot of hard work. It’s a mix.

          You see the insidious libtard position that particularly became ascendent in the early 1970s, if not before then. Our state of human limitation and fallibility, instead of being faced squarely with wise and reasonable remedies, is turned into a product of subjective feeling, particularly that “feeling good about oneself” is the highest goal. Common sense, backed by research, reveals that those who tend to chronically “feel good about themselves” are amongst our worse criminals and are a good portion of the prison population. Those for whom “feeling good” is the primary goal need not, of course, care one whit about how others are feeling.

          We’ve helped to create little monsters such as the school-shooter, Cruz, with our psychobabble. And “liberation theology” is, at root, just this kind of psychobabble.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I recall when that crappy book came out. I thought Harris was full of shit then and, as I have grown older, I know he was.

            You will note how presenting life, its problems and solutions in a childish manner has become more and more popular. Lowest common denominator.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I never read it to begin with, so I obviously can’t comment on its contents. Sounds like I didn’t miss anything, though, which is about what I expected.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I’ve read several self-help books through the years. None of them were of any help. If you took all the pop psychology books that came out since the sixties and put them on a wisdom scale, they could be balanced on the other side by a few pigeon feathers.

                Rare was the tome whose theme was “Stop bellyaching about your life and man-up.” Nearly all of them were indulgent “Oh, woe is me” types of books that made easy promises about how you could be healthy, wealthy, and happy if only you fill-in-the-blank.

                People need help and deserve good help. But I’m very dubious about both self-help books and the psychology profession.

  15. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In that sense, an anti-pope is needed now.

    That’s a logical point, Timothy. As much as I usually disagree with Pat Buchanan, I think he nails it when he writes:

    Indeed, when asked early in his papacy about the immorality of homosexuality, the pope parried the question, “Who am I to judge?”

    But if not thee, who? Is not the judging of right and wrong part of the job description?

    I’m actually favorable to the idea that hell is a man-made invention whose purpose is to try to equalize things. How can this life be as it is with a benevolent God in charge if there isn’t some kind of Cosmic equalizer? I think it’s completely possible that Hitler simply was one of the “disappearing souls.”

    But that is a point born of witnessing (or at least reading about) man’s long trail of looking like anything but the product of benevolence. This is why Darwinism has gained so many converts as a religion. It’s not about explaining the biology. (It doesn’t.) It’s about explaining our harsh and seemingly abandoned position in the universe.

    Leftism, on the other hand (which is the false pope’s true religion) is about an entirely different set of beliefs, and these beliefs are certainly not entirely based on reason or the evidence of the world. To some extent, though, this system is logical. It’s not altogether irrational to have a pessimist/atheist view of the world. And any atheistic view of the world (from which the false pope’s views spring) has no need for faith, ambiguity, suffering, or Redemption. Enlightened man can become his own god and fix all things. Man is said to suffer not because he is individually sinful but because we are collectively sinful.

    Hell has no more place in this scheme than detention did in the scheme at Parkland High for Nikolas Cruz. Having accepted the premise that man is fully capable of redeeming himself via the Enlightened Few, there is no room for individual sin, thus any punishment of individual sin is seen as inherently an injustice.

    Granted, I would say that eternal damnation for, by sheer bad luck, missing being baptized or given the last rites is overkill, even evil. Thus I think there’s a reasonable proposition that Hell could not be a product of a benevolent Creator. Were Indulgences real? And shouldn’t we notice that the Church has taken on the powers of God with the idea of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”?

    How does one ever separate, particularly things of which we have no direct experience, between the God-made and the man-made? The logical problems of any religion are large enough to drive a truck through. This provides all sorts of opportunities for people like this fake pope to simply re-write and re-interpret as they wish. And given that so much of Leftism has already been grafted onto Christianity (Protestant or Catholic), it brings into real question the substance of the faith itself if it is so easily transmogrified.

    Can we assure ourselves that Christianity is anything but a social convention, especially seeing how it now so easily bends to today’s social conventions?

    Tradition has always played the role of an anchor in such things. What we see happening are new traditions being implemented which are particularly suitable for a socialist-minded crowd. We can have what we want. There is no reason to be burdened with the idea of right and wrong.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s still not clear what the Peron Pope actually told his atheist friend, nor the first time the latter has been suspected of playing with it. Apparently the Pope has a history of citing the horrors of Hell, making it unlikely he said what the atheist claimed he said. But in that case, it certainly is stupid for the Peron Pope to keep meeting him in private, knowing that the atheist will them lie about what was said. Or maybe he doesn’t really mind even if he didn’t say it.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I don’t buy it. If he didn’t say what is claimed then he should come out and clearly state that. If not for clarity then for the defense of Church Doctrine.

        I am convinced the SOB said something pretty close to what has been claimed.

        By the way, I have sometimes told someone to “Go to Hell”, but I don’t actually believe in a place with leaping flames, so one doesn’t have to believe in roasting flesh to use the term or try and conjure up the horrors of hell.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I agree with Mr. Kung. And whether the pope actually said it or not, it seems quite credible that he did because it’s so consistent with his other stuff. Still, the absolute truth of the specific alleged incident does matter.

        But it’s become a perverse form of formalized comedy: The Pope says something and then legions of Catholics or Vatican officials say, “What the pope really meant was . . .”

        Rinse and repeat.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          This “pope” would appear to be about as profound, in his thinking, as an artichoke.

          He should have gone on tour with Wayne Dyer.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One guy wrote “The George Soros Pope.” Another guy writes:

            The world has always been fractured with war and poverty. Not that I’m the best Christian out there, but The Bible discusses this dilemma in significant detail. I’m starting to think he’s never read it.

            Another guy perhaps gets to the heart of this narcissistic, silly, fake pope:

            As if the world wasn’t fractured at every point in history before the present generation. Let’s pretend they’re special and this is new.

            Another says (and I quite agree):

            The Pope himself is causing a lot of the division. “Physician cure thyself.”

            Good, succinct sense is rare on the internet. Here’s a comment that I thought was spot-on:

            A liberal that claims to be a christian: Culture is to influence God’s Word (The Bible)
            A true Christian: God’s Word (The Bible) is to influence culture.

            Catholics have been deceived. They need to get their act together.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              This sounds like the point I saw made about the pro-homosexual signs put up by a homosexual “christian” church in Indianapolis: a Christian adjusts his life to the Bible; a liberal adjusts his Bible to his life.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      One can question all those points of Christian theology and history, but then one should not belong to a Christian Church, much less claim to be the Vicar of Christ.

      Of course, if one’s mission is damage and destroy Christianity, well……

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Oh, I do believe the mission is to destroy, although few around the pope would openly use such words. They are there to “reform.” And you can “reform” an arch, for example, by removing the keystone. And I would say the pope has acted via word to remove several keystones of Catholic doctrine.

        I’m not daily involved in Vatican or Catholic politics so I couldn’t tell you what is being built up in its place. But a good guess is that it will be something technically heretical and throughly informed by Leftist/Jesuit impulses.

  16. David Ray says:

    This article hits the nail on the 1st of five mistakes that Eve made in the fall of mankind.
    The 1st thing she did was to respond to the serpent/devil. Once he had the conversation going, his foot was in the proverbial door.

    Her other four mistakes were to add a word to God’s original statement, subtract a word, and change a word. Hence, God’s word had been dismantled to a secular falsehood.
    The 5th and final nail was for Eve to act on Satan’s “John Lennon imagine” statement that they wouldn’t surely die, but be as gods. (Liberals, like Satan, insist that we’re just as smart & good as God and don’t need him.)

    It all kicked off by Eve doing what Fu Master is extorting our side to avoid. Nice article KFZ.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The 1st thing she did was to respond to the serpent/devil. Once he had the conversation going, his foot was in the proverbial door.

      Yep, and like Satan, these leftists are great liars when they pretend to be reasonable.

      Too many in our society have bought in to the “non-judgmental” b.s. of the left. When Satan comes calling, the correct response is “get the behind me.”

      Glad you liked the piece David.

  17. pst4usa says:

    I have great news for everyone! Sandy and I went to see the movie about the Aposle Paul the other night and, here is the good news, there is a movie coming out to tell us just how great the new Pope is. I mean how could you get any better than to have an entire propoganda…err…I mean documentary film made about how great you are. If Hollywood loves this guy enough to spend a lot of money to glorify him, how could they be wrong?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think this is the movie you are referring to, Pat: Paul, Apostle of Christ. I hadn’t heard of it. What did you think of it?

      As for a movie about the fake pope, Francis, that would be right in line with Satan’s plans, for sure.

      • pst4usa says:

        We enjoyed it very much. Good quality, not low budget, scenes, acting and the like. It is fairly accurate to the Bible and comes mostly from the book of Acts and is about Paul’s time in Rome while he was in prizon and as his life was coming to an end. Jim Cavieziel does a good job as
        Luke and takes us through his struggles with his faith and how Paul inspires and teaches him. Not a new story, but done well.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I believe Caviezel also played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ. He evidently gets around in Biblical movies.

          • pst4usa says:

            He did Timothy, and that role is supposed to have changed his life completely, or so I have been told. I was told that he won’t take any roles that do not have a good Christian message to them any more.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Okay, thanks, Pat. I’ll keep my eye out for that one on Red Box.

          I’ve got a Red Box app on my iPad. “Paul, Apostle of Christ” is not available there yet. But one I’ve been keeping my eye on is: “Darkest Hour.” I’m still not sure about it. But I read a review that gave me some hope that it’s not a piece of junk. Included in the review was this comment:

          The villains here are the snobbish pacifist appeasers. Hard to say what American audiences will make of this

          Hey. I know what you mean. Many of today’s yute (David Hogg, for example) act like Nazis. Would they really see them as the villain? Isn’t Churchill the sort of dead white male who would instinctively be vilified?

          But any film that takes a shot at S.P.A.s (snobbish pacific appeasers) is a film I have to see.

  18. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I would like to remind readers something I wrote in the above article:

    This paragraph explains exactly how the Left corrupts Christianity, and frankly, everything they touch. This is how we got deviant marriage. A Leftist can invent the most outrageous, silly, dishonest and downright stupid thesis to which no moderately educated person would give any credence. But some well meaning, yet foolish intellectual will take it on face value. Then the thesis takes on a life of its own.

    The People must stop deferring to so called experts and the like. These are people who too often live in Cloud Cuckoo Land and are so enamored of fine sounding words that they are regularly taken in by leftist scoundrels.

    I am happy to report that I have noticed an uptick in the number of conservatives, and others, who are willing to fight back and stop accepting the lies and nonsense which the left has been shoveling out.

    Even Rush Limbaugh, who I have always felt was a bit too commercially minded in his program, has begun to start calling out those scoundrels who have been undermining our culture for decades, and I don’t mean only politicians.

    But for my money, the best single place for reading the unvarnished truth as to what is actually going on is Takis Magazine. Below is a link to a wonderful article by Taki himself, which shows just how dishonest the left is. In this instance, he takes apart the idiot Madelaine Albright who is representative of her ilk. She calls anyone who trys to maintain their own culture fascist.

    Like all leftists, she is a liar and calls black white and white black, if it happens to suit her immediate agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *