Laughing Lesbian Lutheran

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu10/5/15
Today I came across the following article while browsing the web: World’s First Lesbian Bishop Calls for Church to Remove Crosses, to Install Muslim Prayer Space. I suggest everyone take a few minutes to read this piece and then contemplate the depths of depravity to which some have taken Christianity.

Only an ignoramus or liar could claim to be a Christian while leading the life this woman does. What bishop of any Christian Church could be a lesbian and call out for Churches of her denomination to remove all crosses to make way for Muslims? No, as Brad opined, “Her religion is Leftism…despite the funny hat. There’s no more Christ in her than in a box of Corn Flakes.”

Brad has hit the nail on the head. So the question must be asked, “What is this woman and how is it that she is a bishop of a Christian Church?” The answer is that this woman is a perfect example of a Leftist infiltrating and burrowing into one of the more important institutions of the West, in order to destroy it.  Why else wouldEva-Brunne-Lesbian-Bishop-640x480 she have spent her life in an organization, the tenets of which, she clearly does not believe? The “bishop” is nothing more than a cultural Marxist whose is doing her best to graft the idolatry of her religion, Leftism, on to the ancient and revered root of Christianity in order to produce a different fruit.  Or said another way, she wishes to use the old and trusted bottle of Christianity for dispensing Leftist wine.

To be sure, there is nothing new in what she is doing. In fact, she is simply the product of an ongoing plan by Leftists to undermine and then take over the cultural institutions, which represent the foundation on which Western Civilization is based.

If Christians wish to halt the downward trajectory of the Church, they must stand up and call out such fiends as this so-called bishop. She must be labeled the heretic that she is. And this must be broadcast from every pulpit in the world, particularly from Lutheran pulpits.

As Andrew Breitbart observed, “Culture is upstream of Politics.” To engage in politics is important, but if Christians lose their Churches the war against the cultural Marxists will be lost. Get out and fight and don’t worry about hurting other people’s feelings. Either they believe in the Bible or they don’t. Christianity is not a popularity contest. Christianity should not abandon its core beliefs in order to simply attract pew sitters.

It is time for true Christians to stand up and start separating the sheep from the goats. • (1940 views)

This entry was posted in Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Laughing Lesbian Lutheran

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Who’s this Brad guy? I’d love to do an interview with him. He sounds smart. 😀

    As I understand it, Mr. Kung (and the good Christians here will correct me if I’m wrong), to take Christ as one’s King is to mold oneself to a holy image. It’s not about sanctifying our sins as we currently practice them.

    Like I say, I’m not good enough to be a Christian. (But anyone is always worthy of attempting to follow Christ.) You could say seeing this lesbian fool confirms in my mind that:

    A) Much of this baloney is no deeper than culture.

    B) To follow Christ isn’t about wearing funny hats. It’s about a new heart, a new way of being, a commitment to a way of life not grounded in transient secular politics.

    My gut instinct, Mr. Kung, is that I’m in the wrong profession. I need to become a televangelist, and fast, because I don’t think many Christians have a clue what it’s all about. Instead of delving into this rich tradition they are vandalizing it with the graffiti of Leftism.

    One reason I don’t get offended when some Christian says either “You’re going to hell” or “You’re not diverse enough” is because fools are not my judge. My judge is from a Higher court than the court of jesters of Leftism.

    By the way, thanks for bringing that article to our attention. It just about made my head explode but thankfully I have a reinforced head.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Sorry, I must maintain limited contact to Brad. Too much of a good thing, you know.

      I don’t think many Christians have a clue what it’s all about. Instead of delving into this rich tradition they are vandalizing it with the graffiti of Leftism.

      Sadly, I think you may be correct. But if Christians are going to have any chance at retrieving the West, they need to verse themselves in the Bible. They need to know it in its totality and not just a piece here and a piece there. Picking at certain pieces is how Leftist confuse the discussion. They lie by omission.

      Christians should already know what to do. “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

    • Rosalys says:

      “To follow Christ isn’t about wearing funny hats.”

      Her bishop’s mitre looks to be made from denim and some cheap, upholstery trim. I guess she’s following Papa Frank’s example of an outward show of humility!

  2. Cardinal Fang says:

    I agree to label her as a heretic and honestly, she should be beaten with her own crosier for even suggesting her idea.

    There’s a joke in there somewhere.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I must admit, I used the term heretic advisedly. The word suggests one who holds some of the basic Christian beliefs, but has gone off the rails in one or more areas. An example would be Arianism which denies the Trinity as taught by the Catholic and most Protestant Churches.

      But I don’t believe this woman holds Christian beliefs in any way. That is why I also called her a fiend which is probably a better description of her true self. She is there to destroy Christianity, not to promote it.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        She’s a member of the church of “I’m okay, you’re okay.” But we know this isn’t true about people in general and human nature. Some things are not okay. We need instruction. We need to bend to the will of the Good rather than to just punt and sanctify whatever damn thing we prefer to do. Christianity is not compatible with this kind of narcissism.

        One might not like the tenets of Christianity. But one of the most basic ones is that man and woman were created for each other. Same-sex attraction ought to be viewed in these terms as something to be fixed, not something to be normalized. I’m good with the working definition of homosexual behavior as broken masculinity. As for the lesbians, I can’t help thinking that it’s part broken femininity, part self-hate, and part ritualized hatred of men.

        You could certainly start a church of I’m Okay You’re Okay. But don’t call it Christianity. And I have little doubt that people who are trying to do this to the church do it with all the glee of a vandal. And in this age of “I’m Okay, You’re Okay,” the goal is not to conform to God, to Christ, to the essence of holiness, as best we can understand it. The goal is “diversity,” “non-judgmentalism,” “inclusiveness,” “multiculturalism,” and “equality” — all words that streak straight past the reality that not all diversity is good, many judgments are necessary, some things need to be excluded, not all beliefs are equally good, and not all things are equal.

        So you basically have this church of I’m Okay You’re Okay where the point isn’t to adapt to a rational good standard but simply to bask in the artificial rays of “I’m Okay, You’re Okay.” But it’s self-evident to anyone with half a brain that this one lesbian, in particular, is not okay if she holds her own beliefs in such contempt that she leaves her church open to another faith that has long been its enemy.

        Behind the smiles, evil intent lurks. No doubt Christ would embrace this lesbian and then say “Go, sin no more.” But that’s not what these people want. They want Christ to “Go, do not have objective standards no more.” And many Christians go along with this stuff. And it’s self-evident to me giving the many warnings about false prophets in the bible that one ought to be very skeptical of this garbage, for if there is a God in heaven who actually laid out the doctrine as given in Christianity, then it’s not something to be stretched like Silly Putty to conform to quite worldly and corrupt motives.

  3. Rosalys says:

    The problem isn’t the world’s first, openly gay, female bishop wants to turn a Christian church into a mosque (because that is what is really going on here.) The real problem is that this sodomite and her sodomite lover were accepted as Christians in the first place, let alone being accepted into seminary, and ultimately being ordained as priests! Maybe they hid it for a while, but the moment they poked their heads out of the closet their asses should have been kicked into the Baltic Sea!

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I agree completely with you. She was out to destroy Christianity before there was any thought of giving Muslims pews in her Church. That act of vandalism is only a product of the woman’s animus to Christianity.

      Like the Obamanation here, this hag is just the most outrageous manifestation of a much larger problem. There were plenty of “good” Lutherans in the Church of Sweden who elected her, and others like her, to high positions in their church.

    • Rosalys , you are so correct when you stated that the problem is not this lunatic so-called bishop, but instead it is the people who accepted her in the first place. Just like all the crazy people who end up in leadership positions (whether religion or politics), the problem lies with the people who put them there. I could only stand to read the first paragraph of this article when I first saw it a couple of days ago because it made me so angry (I really need to get control of my emotions).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The Church of Sweden was, until 2000, the official church of Sweden. Without going into a lot of detail, suffice it to say that a major problem with such State churches is the fact that the State has too much say in the organization and running of such churches. The State collects taxes on behalf of such churches and as a result, State politics play too much of a part in the operations of the church. One result of this is people who are in no way Christians, but good politicians (generally socialists) gain entry into positions of power that they, likely, would not otherwise attain.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Another problem is that many people take the “I gave at the office” attitude toward their church. This is no doubt one very important reason why religiosity is so much greater in the US than in Europe — particularly if you ignore the religiosity of the non-state churches. (I read that there were more active Catholics than Anglicans in England about 30 years ago. Today there are probably more Muslims.)

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            For some time now in England, the sophisticates have somewhat jokingly expressed surprise when a high ranking cleric actually expresses belief in the Bible and Christ.

            The Archbishop of Canterbury actually believes in the Bible? You must be mistaken!

      • Rosalys says:

        I hear you, sister! I, too, find it very difficult these days to keep my emotions under control!

  4. oldguy says:

    I can think of no religions that don’t worship creatures. God as an old man in robes or some kind of creature with the body of a man with an animals head is usually the norm. This invariably leads to accepting some other human beings authority to determine right from wrong.

  5. Steve Lancaster says:

    This is why the old main line denominations are loosing members so quickly. The Presbyterian (PCUSA) used to have over 6 million members and is now down to less than 2 million and the median age is 65. These churches have embraced progressivism heart and soul. They seem to believe that younger church goers will flock to the new liberal theology, however, they have not considered that the people they want to attract are secular or atheist and could care less about the church.

    In the meantime the younger families have voted with their feet to evangelical churches. I think historians 100 years from now will be talking about the revivals of the late 20 and early 21 century.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Presbyterian is another word for…well, I think there must be a joke in there somewhere.

      The church my family frequented (relatively speaking) when I was young was a huge brick presbyterian church…which is still standing…and still presbyterian, to the best of my knowledge. But I was at the age where I was shuffled off to a kid’s room where I learned the art of boredom and church-going aversion. I have no idea if that presbyterian church was somewhat libtard back then.

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      I am acquainted with a UMC minister who has gone off the deep end liberal wise. He performs very few marriages and many more funerals in his dwindling and graying congregation. It was once thought that the adoption of the DNC political platform would bring back the people who had sought greener pastures, yet the faithful could not abide their church’s harlotry and the liberated young saw that a God that mimicked their culture was a redundancy. Having reduced the cutting edge abortion question to “a matter of conscience,” and suffered greatly in attendance, the church is attempting to rein in their renegades lest they go the way of the Anglicans and Presbyterians. At least the Unitarians were honest in believing in “only one God, at most.”

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        and the liberated young saw that a God that mimicked their culture was a redundancy.

        That’s a very interesting thought, Glenn. I would pay top-dollar to get a report from the field of a yute who was turned off by The Kardashians in Stained Glass (a suggested title already).

        My own thoughts on the subject are pessimistic. If an AIDS epidemic couldn’t stigmatize (or re-stigmatize) homosexuality, what chance do a few passages in the Bible have?

        Plus, much of church (inside or outside of libtard variations) has become a form of infotainment. I suppose that was always the case, particularly with the spiritual shock-and-awe produced by the great cathedrals and churches. But the stained glass and vaulted ceilings of the 13th century were meant to be an expression of man’s highest aesthetic devotion, producing digs, if you will, fitting for a great and benevolent Creator. But Beyoncé is not Brunelleschi. Not by a long shot.

        “Democracy” is likely the only chance for traditional Christianity to remain alive and relevant as people (as in that article) branch off. The main institutions, like the main political parties, are rotting from within.

        “Lifestyle choices” has replaced “sin” as an organizing principle. People are fat and happy, which isn’t a bad thing unto itself. But the idea of reality having a significant moral element of thou-shalt-nots has given way to a libertarianesque one where the Love of Christ is considered best expressed by smiling at any damn thing people do.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I suspect one reason AIDS didn’t lead to homosexuality being stigmatized is that liberals (including the synoptic media) dd their best to mitigate the connection.

          I think the key to why liberal churches have failed can be found in Bowling Alone. Such churches are nothing more than social groups, and those are in decline. To succeed, churches have to be something more — such as the real thing.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            With proper marketing (which they did in spades), AIDS was used to solidify homosexuals as a proper victim group. Never waste a crisis, I guess.

            I think the key to why liberal churches have failed can be found in Bowling Alone. Such churches are nothing more than social groups, and those are in decline. To succeed, churches have to be something more — such as the real thing.

            That’s crazy talk, Timothy. Now you’re thinking like me. Do you go to church to “feel good” and hear variations of top-40 hits or is it about something else? I haven’t read Bowling Alone and I didn’t offhand find a review for it here. The premise is possibly established by this first review at Amazon:

            …Americans no longer value civic engagement or regard relationships with neighbors as worthwhile. He cites declines in participation in public clubs such as the Shriners and Elks clubs as well as more informal social gatherings like poker playing and family dinners.

            And here I am preaching that the only way to stay sane is to disengage from popular culture. Granted, many of the traditional institutions (Rotary, The Lions Club, Elks, Shriners) have not caved to PC nonsense (that I know of).

            Every couple of years a “game changing” book like this comes along that typically makes some important points but misses some big ones. One reason people may not be joining typical civic institutions is because technology has made it easy and affordable for one’s home to be an entertainment center. Are people also not entertaining other people at home (dinners, BBQs and such), perhaps transferring external social contacts to internal ones? Maybe that book addresses that. It’s an interesting question.

            And brainless as it may be sometimes, the internet and texting has allowed socializing at a distance. Ever more specialized groups can than thus develop, if perhaps not meet in person.

            Part of this surely has to do with the loss of fatherhood. Who are young boys, in particular, going to learn about these traditional institutions from and make them seem important, if not cool?

            Also, the Temple of I has replaced most notions of helping others (beyond environmental exhibitionism). We add to our tattoos instead of helping a neighbor. We gleefully shout on Facebook “I’m having coffee now at my favorite coffee shop” instead of, well, doing anything worthwhile.

            Another reviewer writes:

            The crux of the matter is that our social connectedness is diminishing. Social capital, or the value that exists in the level of trust and reciprocity between individuals, institutions and communities needs to be strengthen.

            Again, I haven’t read the book. But I suspect it doesn’t see the forest for the trees. But who knows? But surely the crux of this matter is: What did you expect in a culture where group is typically pitted against group and one word out of line with the hyper-sensitive can mean loss of job? What did you expect would come from an ever-more socialized society which inherently puts people into a competitive and adversarial relationship with other groups as they race to get their little piggy noses up to the entitlement trough?

            And, really, what did you expect in a culture where “altruism” has been scientifically proven to be nothing but baloney by the libertarians and other “rationalists”?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I haven’t read it either, but a friend reviewed it for FOSFAX many years ago. Putnam later admitted that diversity exacerbates the problem, though he had been reluctant to admit this until he thought he had an answer.

          • Glenn Fairman says:

            A people that lives off a diet of signs and wonders is a hateful thing to a God that desires faith an obedience-the latter being a fruit of that faith.

            The Israelites, despite having witnessed the plagues of Egypt, a parting of the waters, being spared the Angel of Death, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night, manna from heaven and a host of innumerable miracles and deliverances–could not contain their apostasy. A fallen humanity will perform fallen acts. And even if God were to place His own signature on the cell (which in de facto terms, He has) people would grumble about a totalitarian busybody (as they do now) who objects to his creation indulging in a bit of fun.
            If God be hidden, he is hidden to those immersed in their various idolatries (putting a sensation, ideal, or object before God in the soul’s primacy) and can’t be bothered with the surrender of will that accompanies that serious joy that comes from walking, however clumsily, with Christ.

            That they are ignorant to the sublime blessing of this very personal endeavor, we can only ascribe to the laziness of His church, a stiff-necked humanity, and the droning maelstrom of the world that promises all.
            Like a slick carnival barker, the desiccated life leaves you in the end with empty pockets and more than a little regret at having not seen through the illusion of Vanity Faire.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              A people that lives off a diet of signs and wonders

              I’m not familiar with that band. Is “Signs and Wonders” a Pop or R&B group?

              I had a groovy spiritual moment in church yesterday. I furnish God’s people with all the tomatoes they can eat. I hand them out (or leave them out, actually) for the takin’. This is the church that rents a spot on the floor above my office.

              Every once in a while they have an after-church feast and often invite me (if I’m around…which I was yesterday). So I’m standing in the food line and this cute-as-a-puppy-dog-tail-and-snail ten-year-old black kid in front of me says, “Are you the guy who grows the tomatoes?” I answer in the affirmative. And then he says, while moving back behind me in line, “You go ahead.” The kid loves his tomatoes.

              By the way, from what I can hear, this church specializes in a host of thou-shalt-nots.

            • pst4usa says:

              Great comment Glenn! As I was reading your comment this verse came to mind, I think the first 3 really apply to the topic at hand, but it is the 4 through the 6th that I though applied to your comment most closely.
              James 4: 1-6 (NIV)
              What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
              4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
              “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”

              Go ahead you foolish churches, be proud of your false compassion’s and your cowardly ways; see how that works out for you in the end.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link below is to a short piece which shows some Christians are fighting back against the blasphemous teachings of the modern Church of England.

    These people, who are Anglicans, are standing up against the queer marriage being condoned by the Church as well as other non-biblical teachings which have crept into the choir.

    Good luck to them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This sort of thing has been going on for years. There’s been some degree of a split here among Episcopalians, and many in the Anglican community worldwide look to the Nigerian archbishop for conservative religious leadership.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It has been going on for years, but this is the first time I have seen those involved in the U.K. say that they might finally split from the Church of England. That would be much bigger than simply looking to the Nigerian archbishop for leadership.

        • Glenn Fairman says:

          100 years ago, that great empire in which the sun never set, sent missionaries throughout the pagan world – bringing the light of love to infidels, animists and Mohamet’s spawn. How ironic that the children of this endeavor are returning the blessing to a generation that in a short span of time, as reckoned by the brittle heart of man, has gone completely haywire.

          The Nigerian and Ethiopian converts have not forgotten the despair from which they were awakened from, and if they must venture overseas now to awaken the White apostate from his dark juju of drug and mammon, then History’s burlesque has taken a cutting turn indeed.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            The Nigerian and Ethiopian converts have not forgotten the despair from which they were awakened from, and if they must venture overseas now to awaken the White apostate from his dark juju of drug and mammon, then History’s burlesque has taken a cutting turn indeed.

            With the Ethiopians, we would be going back to a time long before the British Empire, in fact to the beginnings Christianity.

            Think Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. I find that very poetic.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              And of course the Ethiopian kings claimed descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. I once saw a show suggesting that the Ark of the Covenant ended up there.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Christ is toast. He doesn’t have the marketing savvy of the Kumbaya crowd. I appreciate the traditionalism expressed around here, but the jig is up. Ethiopians won’t be able to save Europeans (or anyone else) from themselves.

              It’s one thing for advanced Europeans to go into a backward and savage land and convert people to a better way of life. But when people think they already are on the leading edge of a better way of life (the socialist utopia), this is a different situation.

              Look for Islam to convert a whole lot of people though. But all Christians can do is talk. And I mean no disrespect. I just mean you can analyze this situation to death but it’s not going to change it.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    More proof that a large percentage, perhaps the majority, of mainstream protestant denominations are run by secular humanists pretending to be Christians as they parade around in funny outfits.

    These people have nothing to do with Christianity. Wrecking leftist bureaucrats posing as religious Christian shepherds. The destruction of Christianity is their goal.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Having been raised Episcopalian, I continue to observe the old faith with interest, and I rather like that Nigerian archbishop, who has become the effective leader of traditionalists in the Anglican community as a whole. He has a lot of support in America, for example. Too bad he’d never get named Archbishop of Canterbury.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Just smile, pretend it is normal, and chant “diversity.”

      One way to look at this, particularly those who believe God can make anything work for the good, is it could cause an entire reevaluation on the need for “church.” If the institutions become little but the product of culture and bureaucracy (and let’s assume that neither are the be-all, end-all of life), this represents an opportunity for clarity. Is Christianity real and not just a “religion,” as or own Deana insists, or is it just another product (now) of the entertainment/personal-fulfillment culture?

      If the former, we can laugh at the absurdity of whatever these leftwing denominations or churches are doing. But laughing is not enough. This also has to prompt one to get back to the basics.

      That’s what Chuck Knoll counseled after the Steeler’s 1-4 start in 1976, the year following back-to-back Super Bowl wins. He put the emphasis back on the very basics of football: blocking, tackling, protecting the ball, etc. They then reeled off 9 straight victories, including five shutouts, allowing a paltry 28 points in those 9 games (as many as many teams, even good teams, can give up in a single half of play).

      If Christianity is real, it’s arguably off to a 1-4 start in this century. Getting back to the basics and bypassing the baloney is an opportunity for people who want more than the culture of entertainment/personal-fulfillment. They could use some leaders, too, yes. But considering that these leaders will be working inside a system that is arguably beyond saving, there is an opportunity to think outside the box.

      The Steelers didn’t win the Super Bowl that year. They creamed the Baltimore Colts in the first round, 40-14. But with injuries to both Franco Harris and Rocky Blier, they could not overcome the eventual Super Bowl winner (and a great team in its own right that year), the Oakland Raiders. But they set a standard for defensive excellence that has never been matched, before or since (including their own Super Bowl winning years).

      Mixing Jesus and football is hardly unique. But there is a lesson there about what you can do when you dispense with all the peripheral junk and get back to basics. And no one need be beholden to what a bunch of kooks are doing in some fringe church. If anything, escape it and start your own bible study group.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The Left has just about completed its “March through the Institutions.” To save the West, the rest of us must fight to throw them out and, at the same time, create new institutions.

        An example would be the Boy Scouts which now allow queer scout masters which is the equivalent of allowing heterosexual i.e. normal grown men to lead Girl Scout troops. Who thinks that would be a good idea?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          To save the West, the rest of us must fight to throw them out and, at the same time, create new institutions.

          There does seem to be a strategic vs. tactical methodology. No doubt the strategic thing to do is the retake the institutions. As a practical matter, I don’t see the popular culture changing back anytime soon (at least not until Islam grabs control of it…then all bets are off).

          The immediate tactical thing to do may be to do an end run around this stuff and create new institutions, to wear the equivalent of a cultural condom. But I suspect that any institution created will soon reflect the culture at large. We have to become insurgents, the underground to some extent, with the sure knowledge that this stuff will eventually blow itself apart.

          Or it might not. The alternative is to be forever barking at the moon. I don’t want to go there. And neither will I just put on a shit-eating grin and go along to get along.

          Don’t like queers in the Boy Scouts? Pull your kid from it and start your own group. This is America. We’ve become way too beholden to the idea that we have to make sure that all public entities reflect our point of view. Do the end run. If you get sued, well, then persevere. Or cave. Those are the choices. But there can be little doubt that normal orthodox thinking has no place in this culture that has gone loopy.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I don’t know the details, but there is at least one scouting alternative that maintains sensible morality. It’s not very large yet, of course.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Don’t like queers in the Boy Scouts? Pull your kid from it and start your own group.

            That is exactly my point and the example I had in mind when I mentioned the Boy Scouts.

            The Mormons have withdrawn all support from the Boy Scouts which means, as I recall, a one or two hundred thousand less Boy Scouts. A good start.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I don’t sit at home and night and wring my hands over the fact that there are lesbians leading and/or being married into a Christian church. I understand the threat this has to liberty, including the opportunity for all sorts of thought crimes.

              But at this point what’s done is done. And I don’t want to be part of a Jim Jones-like cult of “true believers” who hold faithfully to the old ways and look for (even hope for) Cosmic payback to the Forces of Confusion and Vulgarity.

              Some do, and I suppose I can respect that. But how do you cope when the ridiculous is now commonplace? You laugh. You laugh at it while you can. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.

              At the same time, let’s not let these kooks, nuts, and flakes live rent-free in our heads. The best revenge is living well

              And good on the Mormons for pulling out of the Boy Scouts. It’s the sane thing to do. That organization has just given the green light to child abuse, so I wouldn’t want a son in that politically correct indoctrination mill either.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But how do you cope when the ridiculous is now commonplace? You laugh. You laugh at it while you can. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.

                I agree one should laugh at the liars and fools, but even more important is mockery. Those who push P.C. understand this and they do their best to silence all such speech because they know it is effective.

                Yes laugh, but ridicule, mock and fight these bastards wherever they pop up. Don’t ignore them hoping they will go away. One should not become one of those who are even sometimes encountered on ST who say “we must respect those who are trans-gender, push queer marriage, etc., etc.,” No we must not respect these wreckers.

                The Left is driven by their hate of Western Civilization, and they won’t stop on their own. They must be opposed at every opportunity.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I wonder what Lord Baden-Powell would make of them today. No doubt he’s rolling heavily in his grave.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I think the Archbishop of Canterbury must be exchanging fashion notes with the nattering Nordic nonce.

    Anyone who thinks the Church of England is a Christian denomination is out of their mind. It worships leftism.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, some Anglican branches (e.g., Nigeria) still keep the faith. There has been talk of splitting up the communion into a traditionalist branch (African and some American churches) and the leftist sympathizers.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I can’t help but draw connections to the NFL kneeling. Let me explain.

      We here at StubbornThings are not smarter than the rest of them out there. But we do take time to self-consciously observe some things that others do not. This is understandable. Life is full of shorthand and shortcuts. Few have the time to parse each issue starting at first principles. You couldn’t get anything done if you always had to do that. And this is the power that the Left knows how to use. They change the shorthand.

      Yes, it’s completely silly that a boy should be respected if he wears high heels and a tutu. This is self-evidently so (unless he’s doing a Broadway remake of “Glen or Glenda”).

      The power here is the repetition of how this issue is framed: This is a matter of freedom and respect. Those opposing it are bullies. Bullies. Bullies. Bullies. Compassion. Compassion. Compassion. Choice. Choice. Choice. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Bullies. Bullies. Bullies.

      We see the same thing with the NFL kneeling issue: This is a matter of freedom of speech. If you oppose it, you oppose freedom of speech and are a political bully.

      I’ve tried to explain to friends online that none of the NFL kneelers, so far as I can see, is protesting about their lack of freedom of speech. But foolish white people have learned the shortcut long forwarded by the Left: If you don’t support our cause, you’re a bully, are against freedom (and freedom of speech), lack compassion, are a racist or sexist, etc.

      Say what you will, this has been very effective.

      The overall context one could say is feminism. Men have been neutered and many now talk like this archbishop. Or they just shut up because they are intimidated. But what we lack in today’s culture is the input of men, particularly in setting healthy standards and in opposing clear nonsense. Instead (not surprisingly, given what the archbishop is promoting) we increasingly have boys in the bodies of men acting like boys (the kind of boys sanctioned by feminism). So you have this mix not only of feminism but of the increased juvenilization of society.

      We need adults. We need male adults. We need female adults as well. And that’s not what this kind of gibberish from the archbishop tends to produce.

      Another interesting point that intersects on this comes from our own Deana who, reasonably so, notes that Christianity is not a religion because the word “religion” implies just a set of beliefs people hold to. She says that Christianity, on the other hand, is real and thus not a religion, per se.

      It’s certainly possible that the Creator incarnated himself in order to forge a more direct connection with his creations. Whether this actually happened or not is the question. But if it happened then Christianity is indeed not a religion but a statement of reality. Because we weren’t there to directly witness it, some faith in the authority figures of the time is required.

      However, maybe the definition of “religion” has more to do with self-fulfilling emotional therapy than with mere cultural habit or consensus. The aspect of Christianity that gives credible evidence that it is not just emotional therapy is the idea of carrying your own cross, of inevitable suffering, of doing one’s Christian duty despite that fact that this is a hardship.

      Anyone (such as myself) sitting on the sidelines would note that perhaps 95% of Christianity as practiced today is more along the lines of what the Archbishop of Canterbury proposes: Life is about self-fulfillment, freedom from any constraints, with not a word said about transcendent standards or doing one’s duty. Life is not hard because of sin. It’s hard because we’re not adoptng the standards of the most fringiest of the fringe groups.

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Further proof that leftist heathens have taken over the ruling bodies of major Protestant denominations.

    How does one say, “God the Father” without using the masculine noun? The Swedes would appear to be further gone than even I believed.

    I am about 20% into one of Stieg Larsson’s books,” The Girl That Played With Fire” which is laughably leftist. Given Larsson’s insane support of Communist groups and his obsession with racism, in of all places Sweden, I had hoped it was just a case of a nut writing nuttiness. But it would seem the country is going off the deep end.

    One suspects it is just the beginning of the complete collapse of Europe.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I suppose they could say “God the parent”. I wonder if any preachers will try to continue the old liturgy instead of switching. It certainly should be embarrassing when they make the Anglicans look traditionalist. I guess the next step will be merging Swedish Lutheranism with Unitarianism.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I guess the next step will be merging Swedish Lutheranism with Unitarianism.

        Yes, the Unitarians who believe in nothing in particular, whose catechism is “I’m OK, You’re OK.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Notwithstanding the likelihood that God is beyond gender (but not “trans” gender), Dennis Prager has given some good explanations as to why God is thought of as a “he” rather than a “she” or even “it.” Our Father Is No ‘It’ or Gal God

      Speaking of which, perhaps that is the real reason behind the supposed “trans-genders.” They want to play god. They don’t want to be hemmed in by the reality that they are either male or female as determined precisely by the one and only being who could, in some way, be thought of as transcending gender.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        They want to play god. They don’t want to be hemmed in by the reality that they are either male or female as determined precisely by the one and only being who could, in some way, be thought of as transcending gender.

        An interesting thought.

        I liked Praeger’s piece. I think it cannot be stressed enough that female goddesses carried with them the explicit characteristic of fertility, i.e. sex. Read Graves “The White Goddess”. Some believe that original religious beliefs had a goddess as the most powerful of all beings. It was only later that those dirty male chauvinists imposed their male God on humanity.

        The modern Gaia is some type of expression of this grudge.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I liked Praeger’s piece. I think it cannot be stressed enough that female goddesses carried with them the explicit characteristic of fertility, i.e. sex.

          I think Prager made at least small mention to that in his article. But he’s certainly talked about it more in length on his radio program. Human history is full of sex-centered, sex-crazed wacko goddess cults.

          And, yeah, the feminist view would be exactly that: those dirty male chauvinists imposed their male God on humanity

          I guess the choice is clear. Who best fits the model of God Almighty, creator of the universe, this or this?

          One can argue doctrine all day long. But at the end of the day, do we confirm a transcendent God Almighty who, no matter how crude and inexact our images and idols, is above us and beckoning us to greater heights? Or do we try to instead glorify the vulgar animal aspects of ourselves. Pray or rut? In simple terms, it should be easy to understand one points one way, the other points the other way.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I think Prager made at least small mention to that in his article.

            Praeger certainly mentioned the point of sex, but I wanted to take it a bit further and explain why females are so identified with sex, which is because they are the ones who are observably fertile. They carry within them the future. And fertility is also connected to the matter of crops, the seasons, etc. The cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’m not sure a desexualized female god is so unimaginable, but it’s undoubtedly true that the Israelites never encountered one in their wanderings. In any case, Prager’s other points are quite compelling.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          As one ages I think it is a lot easier to imagine a desexualized goddess, but I believe this is less the case when one is young. And one must not forget that people generally died young until the last century.

          And with most women being pregnant in days past, it would be pretty hard to ignore they were sexual beings. Sex doesn’t show on men, yet. That’s just the way biology works.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Another “Anglican” who is in fact a heathen trying to undermine Christianity and Western civilization. It would appear the major denominations are completely rotten.

    This guy also let a Muslim read the Koran in his church.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It all makes sense if you translate that as their core religion is actually Leftism, not Christianity. Granted, both elements are mixed.

  11. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    More proof that the so-called “Main-Line” Protestant churches have been taken over by the left.

    For a Christian to try to make God The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, gender-neutral is blasphemous. These people are anything but Christians. Large swaths of the Christian faith have been hollowed out by worshipers of the leftist idol, (secular materialism) who have wormed their way into power in the most ancient religious institutions.

    Where is the prophet who will call down God’s curse on these heretics?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I saw that article, though for obvious reasons I saw no reason to read it. As for God’s curse, he seems to have gotten out of that business long ago. I think the modern history of the world would be rather different otherwise. He can hardly curse everyone unless he wants to repeat Sodom and Gomorrah on a much vaster scale.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Dennis Prager has a good article (somewhere…I can’t find it at the moment) on why God is known as a “He.” The touchy-feely Marxists-with-Stained-Glass pretending to be Christians might say they want to eliminate pronouns for purpose of equality. But the real reason isn’t to de-sexualize God (which Prager notes that Judaism and Christianity do) but to promote the destruction of the Judeo-Christian binary construct of male/female, and particularly its prohibitions against sexual liberalism.

      This is the article to read to get some background on what is going on and why: Dennis Prager on Why the Bible says Homosexuality is a sin. It’s a longish read but I recommend it.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Quite long, indeed, as well as quite interesting. I do wonder if Robert Mapplethorpe should be called a photographer or a pornographer, and whether women never engage in the various examples of deviant behavior he cites. I’m willing to believe such behavior is much rarer for women than for men, but are there no women who engage in sadism, masochism, extreme promiscuity, etc.? Prager also makes a persuasive case for maintaining the traditional Jewish/Christian ban on male homosexual behavior.

        I would also agree with his argument that homosexuality is abnormal, but what that means is another matter. I have outwardly rotating hips, flat feet, four toes on each foot, and no sense of smell. That’s a lot of abnormalities, some trivial and at least one not. So my view of what is abnormal may itself be a bit . . . abnormal.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Flat feet don’t cause social chaos and moral decay. Speaking of the Torah, Prager writes:

          It gave the world the Ten Commandments, ethical monotheism, and the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from the animal-like to the God-like).

          Physical abnormalities have little to do with the “goal of raising human beings from the animal-like to the God-like.” Think of Joseph (John) Merrick. The final measure of him was in spite of his abnormalities.

          Discipline is never a fun idea to animals and Pagans. I like to think (“like” used in a special way) that Jews are hated because they dared to offer a solution to man (through God) out of the social chaos.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, RedState has an article on this subject. I think this part gets to the essence of it:

      Why not just rewrite the whole thing? Jesus can come to tell the world of the importance of pronouns, and he can say there’s no such thing as an illegal person and that microaggressions are hate speech. He can even utter “Get thee behind me, Donald Trump.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That’s good news. They won’t adopt the leftist idiocy before 2030. I had thought they were getting ready to adopt it now. Who knows, by then it’s remotely possible that they might come to their senses.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Let’s just get it over with and re-write those Ten Commandments.

          The Ten Re-Commandments

          1) You will have no other god higher than Progressive government.

          2) You shall not do things to hurt other people’s feelings unless they are conservative, white, and/or Christian.

          3) Dropping f-bombs and other forms of foul language show you how hip and cool you are.

          4) Remember Earth Day and keep it clean (unless you’re going to an Earth Day even, then by all means, leave a pile of trash behind).

          5) Honor your self.

          6) Abortion is not murder, so have at it. The more the better.

          7) Sleeping around with no consequences is a human right.

          8) You need not steal. Just call it “social justice.”

          9) It’s not lying if it’s for a good (Progressive) cause.

          10) Covet every damn thing. You deserve “free stuff.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I did something similar in one of my Obama Bible pieces, but I don’t remember much. I do recall that #9 was “You shall bear false witness against your conservative neighbor” and #10 was “You shall covet anything that is your neighbor’s.” I think some of them were very similar to yours, with the idea that the Black God (which actually is a reference to a demon from medieval Russian folklore) was the object of worship.

            I had a version of the Lord’s Prayer as well, and also the Parable of the Good Samaritan. (The good guy, finding the victim of thieves, went to the nearest town to get someone in authority to take care of him. Of course, the victim was dead by the time they got back, buy hey, he meant well.)

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Coveting is such a big item these days. And intellectual honesty and integrity stand little chance against the corruption of finding a hundred ways to justify and re-name coveting. Have sympathy for the honest man or woman out there. I don’t believe there are that many.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of laughing lesbians (or whatever), I read on Drudge the other day that Spain’s entry into the Miss Universe pageant is a pretend female, Angela Ponce. He doesn’t look half bad.

    The article I linked to isn’t the same one I had found on Drudge. But what really caught my eye was a comment from one of the commenters on the initial article that I read. It went something like: Leave it it a man to be a better woman than a woman.

    Someone tell me why this isn’t sexual imperialism. Ladies should be outraged. Probably some quietly are.

    This comment from the above-linked article isn’t bad either:

    next thing we know, a robot will join and win the pageant – “MADE-UP” women!!!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Spain is ruled by Socialists under one name or another. Perhaps someone needs to ask the Spanish if they agree with the left that no señorita in the country looks as good as a male.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s a good point as well. I think the whole point of choosing Ponce was simply a matter of virtue signally.

    • pst4usa says:

      Although he makes a good looking female, he is by no means Miss Universe quality. Talk about PC, (Political Cowardice), run-amok.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Pat, I think “Miss Universe Quality” has morphed from physical beauty to social-conscience beauty. Where once (rightly or wrongly) we held physical beauty up as a thing to be admired, now it is specific political attitudes that are admired. That simply must be the dynamic here, or at least that existed in the judges in Spain who selected a man to stand in for a woman at what typically has always been a beauty contest.

        It would be saner to have a “Miss Cross-dresser Universe” and just let these types have a category of their own. Think about the oddity of it. Where once women (as I understand it) wrapped their boobs tight to make that evening gown look more elegant, now men will wrap their balls tight to do the same thing.

        The sane thing is probably to just mock this stuff and boycott any sponsor who advertises during the competition. I’m not sure what else we can do.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Strapping their balls tight? No way. If they want to pretend to be women, they must be geldings.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            This is always an option. Fast forward to 21:40 to get to the business end of this. Nothing to make you feel queenly like getting a wheelchair as a prize. But I think if you re-booted this show with a gender-bending theme, it could work.

            I’ll take one of those girls in the bag. The actual winning queen looks like she wants to be anywhere but in that chair. This was indeed a strange show.

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Prince Charles really is the best argument against a hereditary monarchy since George IV.

    Once this fool hits the throne, the U.K. can kiss the House of Windsor goodbye.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I knew he was an idiot, but I didn’t know he was a lunatic. But that is how S. M. Stirling portrays him in a fantasy alternate history series. Of course, he used to be Canadian until he moved to America a couple of decades back.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Elizabeth II single best trait is longevity. Other than that, I don’t think she’s a rocket scientist either, Mr. Kung.

      The House of Windsor should probably be fumigated and some other royal house elevated over these clowns.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One of the books in my old house was a humorous set of supposed files from the Clinton White House. It included a letter informing them that some international conspiracy had chosen the Clintons over Bush 41 as the President. The Queen of England (and I think the Pope, who would then have been John Paul II) was stated as having supported Bush. That’s unimpeachable evidence of her importance (and also sagacity).

        The Clintons’ acceptance was to be signaled by wearing some sort of duck costume in public. They then showed a photograph (which may have been real for all I know) of Hillary in such a costume. An interesting tidbit is that the letter had a long list on the side of their partners, all of whom were former US vice-presidents. (I recognized most of them and verified the few I didn’t.)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        While Elizabeth’s longevity is a big plus, I think it is so because of her ability to, generally, keep her mouth shut and mumble mainly banalities when she does speak.

        The fact that she was strongly against the funeral circus which Blair created for Princess Diana speaks strongly in Elizabeth’s favor.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The fact that she was strongly against the funeral circus which Blair created for Princess Diana speaks strongly in Elizabeth’s favor.

          It was a nice gesture, and her heart was in the right place on that one. But it was mere window dressing in the scheme of things.

          The Queen’s job is to protect her vast fortune from Parliament and the mob who may soon figure out that the Monarchy serves no useful purpose. Mumbling banalities certainly helps her in this regard.

          The long view is that it won’t be long until there will be a crescent moon over Buckingham Palace. The Royal family has been silent while the political class has allowed the invasion of a Muslim horde. What use is she or any of the royalty if they don’t at least protect the very essence of what it is to be English?

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The royals, especially the Queen, are supposed to keep silent about political issues. No doubt there are ways for a clever monarch to push an issue anyway, but you have to be very subtle about it. And if she did, would it even get reported by newsliars who (unlike Hungary’s Orban) want to bring about The Camp of the Saints?

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The royals, especially the Queen, are supposed to keep silent about political issues. No doubt there are ways for a clever monarch to push an issue anyway, but you have to be very subtle about it.

              Right. And what I am so in so many words is that it is more important for the Queen to protect her riches than her country. There is nothing to prevent the Queen from speaking out on a subject. That might put Parliament in a huff, but if she’s right, and if it’s a topic of great importance, she’d survive and be doing a service to her country.

Leave a Reply

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