ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

It all comes together

In one glorious, feminist cuckservative anti-racist dyscivilizational Churchian heresy:
An old friend of mine has a sister who decided to go back to college and get a degree in “ministry.” This was on her hard-working husband’s dime, obviously. She has four young-children at home, including one she adopted from Africa and uses as a virtue signal all over social media.

Anyway, she “preached a sermon” at an area church last Sunday. Of course, she plastered it all over the various relevant social media apps so she can emotionally masturbate in the “Christian” feminist echo chamber. My wife showed me the title of the sermon:

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

The thrilling frontier of female preaching.
Satan is fortunate to not possess a material body, or he would be at regular risk of rupturing something inside, seeing as how much what passes for the modern Church regularly provides for him to laugh at.

William S. Lind is right. The West really needs to revive the practice of burning witches.

Labels: , ,

74 Comments:

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier November 02, 2016 1:06 PM  

Devils trapped in physical bodies is a big part of me phantasy novel. Don't be stealing ideas!

Having just buried a pet yesterday, I'm feeling more like less violence would be better. But, that said, I know the lessons would definitely be concrete and sink in to the audience that had to watch that.

Blogger ZhukovG November 02, 2016 1:08 PM  

The school where she got that degree should be subjected to atomic heat cleansing. As that will just take a few minutes, faculty will be instructed to remain at their desks.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 02, 2016 1:10 PM  

-- William S. Lind is right. The West really needs to revive the practice of burning witches.

Similar things have ben said about duels and the freedom to punch an asshole in the mouth.

As to burning, a Ceausescu-style dispatch would be too clean for some W. European leaders. For the squeamish though, if the stack of wood is large enough the condemned dies of smoke inhalation before she feels unbearable heat.

PA

Anonymous johnc November 02, 2016 1:12 PM  

In the good ol' days -- when people weren't morons -- a heretic was considered a treasonous, dangerous enemy of the state and was executed.

Make the Papal States Great Again!

Blogger Leandro Novaes November 02, 2016 1:13 PM  

@3 I second punching people in the mouth. It would solve around 60% to 80% of the problems I have at work.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 02, 2016 1:17 PM  

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

Hmm...

“Exploding the just ice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy digression and sets up the status quo of an unjust umpire.”

Then...
“Exploding the ice of the Holy Spirit, witch softens society as unholy aggression and sets off the stress squees of an unjust vampire.”

Where does she draw her scripture reading for the day, the Necronomicon?

So nice to see Regan grew up to become a productive and totally normal member of society. A secret society, at that!

Anonymous p-dawg November 02, 2016 1:20 PM  

The proper Scriptural punishment for witchcraft is stoning, not burning. Burning is reserved for very special crimes.

Blogger Leandro Novaes November 02, 2016 1:26 PM  

@7 Scripturally speaking, the punishment for nearly everything was stoning, wasn't it?

Anonymous Wilbur Hassenfus November 02, 2016 1:30 PM  

"Scripturally speaking, the punishment for nearly everything was stoning, wasn't it?"

If it ain't broke...

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr November 02, 2016 1:30 PM  

I'm a strong advocate of bringing back the duel, or at least trial-by-combat for certain civil cases.

Burning has one drawback...witches really ruin the taste of the smores and hot dogs the kids are roasting.

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 02, 2016 1:31 PM  

William S. Lind is right. The West really needs to revive the practice of burning witches.


((( Shitlord )))

now i've seen everything.

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 02, 2016 1:33 PM  

9. Wilbur Hassenfus November 02, 2016 1:30 PM
If it ain't broke...



if you're throwing stones so hard that it's breaking them ... you might want to dial back your fastball a bit.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda November 02, 2016 1:39 PM  

How is it these "ministers" miss these passages:

1 Corinthians 14:34

1 Timothy 2:11-12

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 1:40 PM  

And no doubt the "minister" spent the whole sermon talking about herself, her feelings, and how her experiences really matter so much, and how much we can all learn from her feelings.

/barf

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 1:41 PM  

"How is it these "ministers" miss these passages:"

They don't give a shit.

They aren't there to preach The Word. They are there to advance their cause.

Blogger SirHamster November 02, 2016 1:43 PM  

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

Like #MAGA?

Anonymous readywatchman November 02, 2016 1:44 PM  

@13 Short answer to your question: "Paul was a mysoginist". I wish I was kidding.

Anonymous The OASF November 02, 2016 1:52 PM  

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

Blogger Balázs Varga November 02, 2016 1:59 PM  

This is why a lot of people view Christianity as a religion that totally failed in the last 50 years and lost of all if its usefullness.

It has just became an empty hugging group support with no "real message" beside "be nice". There is no mystery in it.

Anonymous Broken Arrow November 02, 2016 2:02 PM  

Is there a single denomination which allows for the ordination of women to preach which also upholds Biblical Inerrancy? I'm defining it as the Chicago Statement.

Anonymous Just another commenter November 02, 2016 2:04 PM  

To all the "Christian" pacifists, please explain to me Mat 10:34
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.(35) For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (36) And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.(37) He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

Yeah, that is disruptive, but it does not quite sound very go-along-to-get-along to me. I don't hear it preached much these days, but it seems rather important to me.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 2:05 PM  

Humans are designed to exist in hardship.

When too many of Nature's hardships are held at bay, humans collectively go off the rails.

Today, when nature offers even a hint of hardship, instead of accepting reality and adjusting as best as one can to it, people instead are encouraged to manufacture their own little post-modernist corner of reality, basically creating a little diorama inside their heads where nature's laws are far more flexible. Today, delusion is paper to reality's rock, but only in R-P-S can paper beat rock.

From importing invasive subspecies of humans (infested with their own peculiar diseases both physical and behavioral) to elevating feminine Feelz to a sacrament of the Universalist Cult, all signs point to a repeal of the bulwarks holding Nature's fury at bay.

We will return to hardship. It seems inevitable.

Anonymous BGKB November 02, 2016 2:09 PM  

"Scripturally speaking, the punishment for nearly everything was stoning, wasn't it?"

Make sure to explain that it is with rocks, otherwise people might be ok with being stoned to death.


OT: We got to the point of Podesta talking about the need to delete emails.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/tyler-durden/going-dump-emails/

"between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says “On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 2:10 PM  

@19 It has just became an empty hugging group support with no "real message" beside "be nice". There is no mystery in it.

As practiced, there is no mystery, no honor and no discipline in it. The Bible, like the Constitution, is no more enduring than the sophists who claim to interpret both.

Modernists are truly permanent children like Peter Pan's Lost Boys who exist in an alternate reality where no principles exist in stone and all maps can ignore the territory.

The motto of modern organized churches and dominant politics alike should be, "Anything goes."

Blogger cheddarman November 02, 2016 2:11 PM  

Title of her sermon should be "I'm gonna burn in hell"

Anonymous readywatchman November 02, 2016 2:12 PM  

@21. They can't. Too many have conflated and tortured Biblical agape love into "tolerance, acceptance, etc."; peace into "absence of conflict or peace with man" rather than "peace with God"; grace into license (cf. Rom. 6:1,2); unity into "union or association and groupthink" rather than "having the mind of Christ" (Phil. 2); and meekness ("power under restraint") into "weakness".

In Mat. 10 opponents would be in one's own household. Today that remains true. As well as opponents who *claim* the name of Christ.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 2:16 PM  

While no longer a "practicing Christian," it is obvious to me that widespread ignorance of the principles and lessons of the Bible, political treatises and philosophical foundations of Anglo-Saxon civilization do not cause them to disappear.

Such axioms exist even if not a single man acknowledges them, and if such a case ever occurred, sooner or later (as long as there are men) someone would recover them. Truth just is.

Blogger Chiva November 02, 2016 2:17 PM  

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

Romans 8:6 - The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace

Blogger Wanderer November 02, 2016 2:18 PM  

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

Technically this is correct if you understand the politically incorrect truth about reality in that the "unjust empire" is the kike mafia that runs the world, and the "status quo" is cancerous bullshit like feminism and other anti-traditionalist, anti-family values.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 2:20 PM  

PS: far from all of those philosophical foundations of Anglo-Saxon/Western Civ are English in origin. Some seeds obviously go back 2100 years and more.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep November 02, 2016 2:30 PM  

With that peppy title, I bet her lecture (not sermon) will have them shoutin' and stompin' in the aisles, and then they'll carry her out on to the street on their shoulders, to fight against the unjust empire by harassing some old white guy at a bus stop.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda November 02, 2016 2:36 PM  

@15

Nate, sometimes the art of criticism involves having the audience draw the obvious conclusion on their own.

Blogger Ransom Smith November 02, 2016 2:36 PM  

My own sisters are into this kind of BS.

I swear, I don't know who they are.

Blogger Stilicho November 02, 2016 2:39 PM  

A recent NYT column claims the Hillary is, effectively, a witch. Hmmm...

Anonymous Sam the Man November 02, 2016 2:45 PM  

Could someone explain exactly why the title of that sermon is so off? It seems to be pretty self explanatory to the Christens here.

I think I have the basic point (sounds like a SJW talk), but perhaps I am missing what the real is.

Not looking to challenge/troll anyone, this is a sincere attempt to understand subtle stuff I might be missing.

Thank you in advance.

Blogger tz November 02, 2016 3:00 PM  

Most such degrees should be renamed "sophistry", especially PC "ministry".

Her husband might burn in hell for not saving his wife.

Maybe we need a "Matreon" to compete with "Patreon".

(On that, a simple auction type site to replace AirBnB, Uber, Lift - I'm offering a ride, about $x, then link a live negotiation, so if you don't want certain kinds of customers or providers it would be fine - for smaller transactions, cash could work and subscriber fees...).

Anonymous krymneth November 02, 2016 3:09 PM  

Sam the Man, it is a fair question. The best way to get lies past people is to mix it with enough truth to penetrate their defenses. "Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.” sounds like something that could be literally true, but in SJW parlance, the meaning of "justice", "holy", "disruption", "unjust", and "empire" don't resemble what the normal English words mean, or used to mean. What sounds like a claim that the Lord God is disruptive to human plans and that the Holy Spirit is sovereign and in control probably translates to a sermon in which the preacher claims the Holy Spirit's goal in the world is to disrupt the patriarchy, end white privilege, and bring unbiblical arrangements of government and home life into being, in this lifetime.

In truth, in that description, "Holy Spirit" also has no bearing on what the Bible says either.

Blogger S1AL November 02, 2016 3:10 PM  

@Same the Man -

For reference:

"Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire."

1) The Spirit isn't associated with dispensing Justice at any point in the Bible. Churchians LOVE to appeal to the Spirit because they don't have to say "God" or "Jesus".

2) This is a speech title, not a sermon title.

3) The implication is one of "Social Justice" nonsense. I could write an entire treatise on the failure to properly understand Social Justice in the church today.

Blogger tz November 02, 2016 3:14 PM  

Just remember, you can burn Witches without burning them to death.

Blogger DrAndroSF November 02, 2016 3:21 PM  

Although all the churches, the Western ones especially, are in deep trouble and functionally hostile to the West, any Christian church which ordains women to its ministry or priesthood has committed suicide. There is no coming back from that. Women destroy every male institution to which they are admitted on grounds of "equality."

Blogger pyrrhus November 02, 2016 3:22 PM  

Bombshell---http://truepundit.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/

Anonymous Jill November 02, 2016 3:26 PM  

Isn't this hearsay? A search for the sermon title produced no results for me.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 3:39 PM  

How long before she's fucking on the altar?

Anonymous GreyS November 02, 2016 3:46 PM  

The fruits of Protestantism.

Blogger Paul November 02, 2016 3:51 PM  

Does Milo get a 5 minute head start on the stoning?

Blogger Stilicho November 02, 2016 3:51 PM  

@44 it sounds like Jesuit "liberation theology" as well. Motes, beams, etc.

Blogger RobertDWood November 02, 2016 3:57 PM  

You speak truth

Anonymous Sam the Man November 02, 2016 4:13 PM  

S1AL and Krymnth,

Thanks for the explanation, a few questions to make sure my understanding is correct:

1) Would it be fair to say the "holy spirit" is that aspect of the divine that is accessible to Christians through their acceptance of JC? By accessible I mean it somehow communicates wisdom to Christians?

2) If the above is correct is it not primarily a individual phenomena or is associated with the setting of a church gathering of Christians? Said another way does the communication occur as part of a service only or it generally accepted that the holy spirit communicates directly with individuals?

3) So if 1 and 2 answers are "Yes" and "Individual allowed", would it also be correct to say the female minister is presenting heresy on what is an essential part of Christian doctrine? I seem to recall that blasphemy against the Father and Son will be forgiven, but against the Holy Sprit is not. If that is correct then this would be a most serious false teaching.

Am I on the right track or not?

Anonymous Oye November 02, 2016 4:46 PM  

"The West really needs to revive the practice of burning witches."

Pretty hard to make the case for pinnacle civilization.

Sharia has stoning/beheading or I think hanging for those that practice witchcraft.

Juju believing albino eating subsaharan culture is abominable to the point where I think both Sharia and William S. Lind would both be correct.

If you go Sharia on her Vox, I won't say a peep.

Blogger tublecane November 02, 2016 5:05 PM  

@24-Speaking of "Anything Goes":

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today
And black's white today
And day's night today

Blogger Wanderer November 02, 2016 5:22 PM  

GreyS wrote:The fruits of Protestantism.

Lets not turn this into a debate over which branch of Christianity is more liberal and trendy. Last I checked Pope Francis was sucking muslims' toes whilst encouraging Europe to commit demographic suicide.

Anonymous GreyS November 02, 2016 5:36 PM  

@51 It's not a debate. This stuff comes straight from Protestantism. No reason to act as if it doesn't.

Blogger Jim Carroll November 02, 2016 5:53 PM  

Wait. Satan doesn't have a material body? There goes all of my theories about Hillary.

Blogger Eric Mueller November 02, 2016 6:17 PM  

I used to be on a Christian forum. I eventually dropped because I was tired of all the fighting over stupid stuff.

One thread went nuts "Can women preach?" My answer, which was totally ignored, was "Yes, but you're asking the wrong question. Of course women are capable of preaching. The real question is, should women assume teaching and leading roles in the church, especially over men?" I answered no. Amazingly, it was ignored and the fighting continued.

Like you, I won't get near a church with women in leadership. Of course, women should be teaching and leading each other.

Silly anecdote: a friend of mine got married in one of these modern churches. They had two "pastors", a male and a female. The female was masculine, and the male was effeminate. HIs portion of the marriage sermon was about "stop and smell the daffodils." Gay. I couldn't wait to get out of there so I could laugh. The sad part was, it was an old church with a lot of history and woodwork. Too bad it was dying. It was also right in the heart of the DuPont Circle area of Washington, D.C., which explains everything.

Anonymous krymneth November 02, 2016 6:50 PM  

First, allow me to say the true answers are in the Bible. But here's my best attempt to answer your questions:

Would it be fair to say the "holy spirit" is that aspect of the divine that is accessible to Christians through their acceptance of JC? By accessible I mean it somehow communicates wisdom to Christians?

Yes. The Holy Spirit comes and indwells Christians when they accept Christ. Exactly what that entails is a divine mystery, in my opinion.

If the above is correct is it not primarily a individual phenomena or is associated with the setting of a church gathering of Christians? Said another way does the communication occur as part of a service only or it generally accepted that the holy spirit communicates directly with individuals?

As with many truths, when you get down to it, "yes", and again, the precise mechanics are a divine mystery. Whereever two are gathered in his name (Jesus'), there he is also.

So if 1 and 2 answers are "Yes" and "Individual allowed", would it also be correct to say the female minister is presenting heresy on what is an essential part of Christian doctrine? I seem to recall that blasphemy against the Father and Son will be forgiven, but against the Holy Sprit is not. If that is correct then this would be a most serious false teaching.

It is likely that there is heresy, but to be very technically precise I have to admit I'd have to hear the actual sermon. I don't deny I'm extrapolating a bit about what that sermon title actually means. But if I am correct about the true contents, it would be quite blasphemous, yes.

(I would also say the precise mechanics of the "unforgivable sin" are up for debate. I have seen it suggested the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Lord to His face... but that as none of us currently have access to His face, it is not a sin we can currently commit. Personally, I'm planning on not trying to find out exactly.)

You'll note I'm hedging my words here and trying to carefully label them as my understandings, while pointing you to the true source, and I'm reluctant to firmly claim the preacher is blasphemous on the current evidence. I believe it is very dangerous to try to speak on behalf of the Lord; I think He has made it very clear that He does not approve of people getting His Words wrong. (One of many ways to measure a preacher, in my opinion; they should express humility and a certain amount of fear about getting things wrong, for the teachers shall be judged more harshly.) I, perhaps uncharitably but with probability on my side, would suspect the preacher of that sermon is not so... careful.

Anonymous RPchristian November 02, 2016 7:01 PM  

@Jill

I posted the original comment at Dalrock. It is not hearsay. She posted the sermon title on her social media account. My question is, why would you doubt it? This garbage is everywhere.

Blogger S1AL November 02, 2016 7:12 PM  

"Would it be fair to say the "holy spirit" is that aspect of the divine that is accessible to Christians through their acceptance of JC? By accessible I mean it somehow communicates wisdom to Christians?"

The Spirit is generally presented as the member of the Godhead that indwells Christians. The Spirit is often regarded as God's invisible presence. Details get a bit complicated - the theological split between East and West was a difference of linguistics with regards to the nature of the Spirit.

"If the above is correct is it not primarily a individual phenomena or is associated with the setting of a church gathering of Christians? Said another way does the communication occur as part of a service only or it generally accepted that the holy spirit communicates directly with individuals?"

The Spirit is always presented as manifesting within the individual (Pentecost, for example), even if it is a corporate occurrence (meaning a gathering of believers). If you go to the Old Testament, you can see the manifestation of the Spirit in circumstances that cover a huge spectrum. A service is not necessary.

"So if 1 and 2 answers are "Yes" and "Individual allowed", would it also be correct to say the female minister is presenting heresy on what is an essential part of Christian doctrine? I seem to recall that blasphemy against the Father and Son will be forgiven, but against the Holy Sprit is not. If that is correct then this would be a most serious false teaching."

Blasphemy is generally regarded as requiring intent. There are a few places in the Bible where an "unforgivable sin" is mentioned. The other circumstance involves a believer who, having experienced the fullness of the Spirit, abandons the faith. It is my view that these are one and the same: to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit it is to abandon the faith even while believing it, this denying the Spirit.

Of course, I could be wrong. Regardless, I do not think this would qualify. It does, however, violate a number of much clearer prohibitions. That's the major point of concern.

Blogger SirHamster November 02, 2016 8:25 PM  

Sam the Man wrote:Could someone explain exactly why the title of that sermon is so off? It seems to be pretty self explanatory to the Christens here.


Others have covered possible implications from the title on what the woman would teach wrong.

The main issue I see is that the wordiness is something you'd expect from a modern research paper. Boring the church to sleep before you even start is not what sermons are for.

Distill, not confabulate.

Blogger Paul November 02, 2016 8:34 PM  

@Jill

I posted the original comment at Dalrock. It is not hearsay. She posted the sermon title on her social media account. My question is, why would you doubt it? This garbage is everywhere.


I think you've just described what the word hearsay means: we've heard you say it, nothing more. Not that it isn't just hearsay, only that so far you've only confirmed that it is.

Pasting a link to the social media site where it exists would make it more than hearsay.

OTOH, as you allude, it doesn't really have to have been a real occurrence, merely your creative composite representation of the garbage that's everywhere. Same end value without the hearsay.

Blogger Lazarus November 02, 2016 8:44 PM  

GreyS wrote:The fruits of Protestantism.

Debating the merits of Protestantism versus Catholicism is akin to debating Pharisees versus Sadducees.

They each had some of the Truth but not all of it, and opposed Jesus.

And at this time, the FIRST harvest began.

Blogger Can't wait November 02, 2016 8:49 PM  

Women in a leadership role in the Church, the marriage, and the home is not only forbidden by God's Holy Truth, but also obviously disastrous to any student of history and observer of current society.
I say let Satan and his SJW's have this fallen world. These fools think they know better than God. My heart and mind obeys God and my inheritance is not of this world.

Anonymous Jill November 02, 2016 9:18 PM  

RPchristian wrote:@Jill

I posted the original comment at Dalrock. It is not hearsay. She posted the sermon title on her social media account. My question is, why would you doubt it? This garbage is everywhere.


I don't necessarily doubt anything. I put the sermon title in a search engine because I was curious to read said sermon, just to see how bad it is...mostly because I write satire in my spare time. Nothing popped up but your comment and VD's post. Hearsay is a problem in social media. That's about the sum total of my thoughts on the issue.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 9:45 PM  

More and more I'm realizing that the old definition of a wicth had nothing to do with casting spell, hexes, having a familiar or a direct pact with the devil, or druidism or anything else.

The old definition of a witch, at its core, was a woman, any woman, who could not be turned aside from seeking power, control, or persuasion over men.

"Controversy" over female ministers? There's no controversy. The bible specifically prohibits and condemns any such thing.

Blogger Tom K. November 02, 2016 10:36 PM  

I'm sorry, but I can't even imagine the name of the "church" she delivered that message in.

Does anyone still attend such sarcophagi?

(Note: the meaning of the word "sarcophagus" is "flesh-eating". Appropriate.)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 02, 2016 10:45 PM  

The sin against the Holy Spirit, as I understand it is to lead people and especially oneslef away from conviction in their own sin and the need for forgiveness.
In other words, it is God's Holy Spirit that shows us just how sinful and spiritually worthless we are, and to sin against the holy spirit is to believe and to teach that 1) we're not that bad and 2) that we don't really need to reform, that sin is something other people do.
The reason it's unforgivable is that we can't be forgiven if we don't repent, and these sins lead us away from repentance.

Anonymous RPchristian November 03, 2016 12:54 AM  

@Jill

You're not going to find it googling. I would post a link to the sermon but not quite ready to send a swarm of manosphere/alt-right folks her direction. Suffice to say I listened to it and it's no different than you would expect considering the title.

By the way, I learned by browsing her posts that she studied "womanist theology." What the hell is womanist?

Anonymous GreyS November 03, 2016 11:37 AM  

Debating the merits of Protestantism versus Catholicism is akin to debating Pharisees versus Sadducees

Not a debate, it's historical fact. The secularism we are awash in, and the feminization of Protline churches is directly traceable to the Protestant Revolution. Your stay-at-home-cuz-I-know-the-bible post-Christianism is both a result and a cause. The guy above tries to shoehorn Francis into it, but what's the essential complaint about PF? "He sometimes seems like an Episcopalian".

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 12:03 PM  

"Not a debate, it's historical fact. The secularism we are awash in, and the feminization of Protline churches is directly traceable to the Protestant Revolution"

No. There is no historical basis for that claim. The Reformation is not the cause of all problems for Catholics.

Anonymous GreyS November 03, 2016 2:07 PM  

There is no historical basis for that claim.

It is historically clear that the Revolution led to secular states and widespread secularism, promoted especially by the U.S. around the world. One of the things it led to was woman pastors. Catholics have zero. Protlines have them all over. All while their post-Christian men give over their churches to women and stay at home and tell everyone online how much of a True Christian they are because they aren't a part of that feminized church.

The Reformation is not the cause of all problems for Catholics.

Never said it was. This isn't about Catholics, after all. But the Revolution is the source of the secular influence the Church battles within and without.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 2:48 PM  

"It is historically clear that the Revolution led to secular states and widespread secularism, promoted especially by the U.S. around the world."

This is utter nonsense. Not a single society that felt the effects of Protestantism became a secular society. That didn't occur until WW1, and had equal effect on Catholic and Protestant societies alike.

Furthermore, the United States is the single most active missionary society on the planet.

If you want to trace the roots of secularism, look to Marx, who was reacting the collapse of feudalism (by his own admission).

"One of the things it led to was woman pastors. Catholics have zero. Protlines have them all over. All while their post-Christian men give over their churches to women and stay at home and tell everyone online how much of a True Christian they are because they aren't a part of that feminized church."

Speak for yourself. I've been in Catholic services and heard more feminist nonsense than I ever did in my Baptist Church. Don't make the stupid mistake of treating Protestants as monolithic.

Never said it was. This isn't about Catholics, after all. But the Revolution is the source of the secular influence the Church battles within and without."

No, no it is not. The source is the insistence of the Papacy that it had the right to govern the affairs of rulers in the Middle Ages. Back in ye olden days, that led to antipopes.

Blogger Matamoros November 03, 2016 3:05 PM  

@15 They aren't there to preach The Word. They are there to advance their cause.

Exactly. Christianity is merely a cover for them, not their religion.

@21 Yeah, that is disruptive, but it does not quite sound very go-along-to-get-along to me.

True. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, is a very manly religion of sacrifice and service.

@60 Yeah, that is disruptive, but it does not quite sound very go-along-to-get-along to me.

That is where you are mistaken. Catholicism, being the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, founded 33AD, is the "fullness of truth".

Protestantism is, at best, a partial truth. All that is good in Protestantism is found within Catholicism, but not vice versa.

@70 I've been in Catholic services and heard more feminist nonsense than I ever did in my Baptist Church. Don't make the stupid mistake of treating Protestants as monolithic.

Two observations. 1) the Catholic Faith is immutable - it cannot be changed. As one jew remarked, the motto of the Catholic Church is Semper Idem - Always the same.

So, if you hear someone going against doctrine they are an infiltrator, an idiot or SJW, but then I repeat myself.

2)Protestantism not being monolithic is actually one of the major strikes against it. Jesus founded one (1) Church, and St. Paul talks of One (1) Lord, One (1) Faith and One (1) Baptism.

No where in Protestantism can this exist because protestantism is anarchic not a unity.

That is also why all the true Christians within Protestantism will eventually return to the Church as their groups go under.

Only the Catholic Church is granted divine indefectibility (Matt. 16:18) and for this reason it will endure.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 3:38 PM  

"That is also why all the true Christians within Protestantism will eventually return to the Church as their groups go under."

Ah yes, I do love it when Catholics throw off the pretensions and tell the rest of us that we aren't "true Christians". You know, I think I'll just hold to the promise of Christ, instead. But you keep on blaming Protestants for all the problems. Nothing new.

Blogger Matamoros November 03, 2016 4:39 PM  

@72 Without trying to be polemical, I will simply state again that the Church is one. Christ said those who try to attain by any other means will not be saved, and He also said that unless you eat His body and drink His blood you have no life in you (John 6:54), which He stated is NOT an allegory. All holy Scripture.

Even most Protestants believe that you should grow into the "fullness of truth" - the reality is it is only in the Catholic Church.

As for Protestantism, been there, done that, got the tshirt.

So, your choice, do it God's way or yours.

Anonymous GreyS November 03, 2016 6:49 PM  

This is utter nonsense. Not a single society that felt the effects of Protestantism became a secular society. That didn't occur until WW1, and had equal effect on Catholic and Protestant societies alike.

False. All of them did. America was founded as a post-Christian nation because Protestantism was already a failure, state-wise. In order to protect Christians FROM Christians they could not and did not commit to being a Christian nation. Secularism was part of the founding and has been spreading ever since.

Furthermore, the United States is the single most active missionary society on the planet.

Doesn't matter. There are many many many more secular "missionaries" from this country who have greatly helped make the world a more secular place. We are the biggest exporter of abortion and porn in the world, and export an attitude of selfishness and greed around the globe.

Speak for yourself. I've been in Catholic services and heard more feminist nonsense than I ever did in my Baptist Church. Don't make the stupid mistake of treating Protestants as monolithic.

Never said they are monolithic. But one side has woman pastors (the subject of this post) and one side doesn't. The hard truth is that Protestantism in general leads away from Christ and toward secularism. Seems pretty historically obvious to me but I know it's not comfortable to talk about, so people lash out whenever it's brought up.

The source is the insistence of the Papacy that it had the right to govern the affairs of rulers in the Middle Ages. Back in ye olden days, that led to antipopes

Shhhit dude hahahaha. Ok thanks...

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts