So then, Milo Yiannopoulos, world-class provocateur, had himself a week. After a pretty hot run, the bad guys finally got him, and they got him with their most powerful weapon—to wit, indignant hypocrisy.
Of course the hypocrisy of the Left goes without saying. We know all about that. We factor it into all our equations. No one is surprised anymore. We don’t even get out of our seats. We yawn and look away.
But the hypocrisy of conservatives still gets results. Among other things, Milo was disinvited from a speaking gig at CPAC, the convention for non-conserving conservatives. We are at the place in our decadence where an outrageous flamer had been invited to speak to the bastion of traditional values—which was okay because the surrounding culture mandates that we be okay with that kind of thing, and conservatives are nothing if not obedient to the demands of progressivism, and it is now against the law to use flamer retardant fabric in anything—and yet it was the work of two minutes to get them to withdraw the invitation to speak because it came out that the good Milo had said something considered immoral by the lynch mob. Immoral? What curious words you people use. By what standard? Who says? Why?
The charge was that he was okay with pedophilia, and even though there is reason to believe he actually wasn’t saying that, let’s pretend for a moment that he did say that, and that he was okay with pedophilia. America’s ongoing commitment to her lusts is Lake Oroville, and our quite arbitrary belief in the moral authority of the age of consent is that collapsing spillway. There is no conceivable way that you can give way to rampant perversion the way we have done, celebrating it the way we do, and demanding applause for it from the reluctant, without having it put enormous pressure on the few remaining hydro-normative dams.
But certain dams are still holding, and that is how they are able to get someone like Milo. Conservatives still react to some things as though it were the old days. They like pretending that we haven’t actually abandoned ourselves, and like to pretend that we still have a basis for our standards. No, what we actually have is a collapsing moral infrastructure, and some parts of the dam fall down before other parts do. It doesn’t fall down all at once.
To his credit, Milo does have a genuine hostility to the social justice crowd. If he didn’t, he could probably get his book deal back if he proposed to his boyfriend, set a date, and then went out to find an evangelical baker to sue.
I love that Milo is a bull in a china shop. The china shop I refer to is the politically correct ecosystem we call American politics. And for what its worth, that china shop needs to burn and we tax-payers need to collect the insurance check. None the less, he’s a troll. An entertaining one though. Oh Milo. Don’t ever change. But do…
Bull in the china shop? No, he is the creepy leather boy lusting after your 13 year old son.
Glad you are entertained by him though……
Mr. Post-Mil with a Milo post (see what I did there?)
Milo exposes how far “conservatives” has slid down the greased slope. It’s appalling that any Christian follows him. It’s not too long ago that his flamboyant demeanor and diatribes would have disgusted anyone claiming Bibilical moral groundings. Now, just because he rails against progressives and their sacred cows he’s on the team? People aren’t paying attention because while he is now carefully choosing his words (have him define “pedophilia”) he at the same time spews the immoral doctrines held by the homosexual men of NAMBLA. Are people so ignorant that they miss it? Is it because Christians can be so… Read more »
“Now, just because he rails against progressives and their sacred cows he’s on the team?”
Well…yes. I believe “has all the right enemies” is the phrase.
“has all the right enemies”
You mean like God?
Just to clarify: he actually agrees that homosexuality isn’t the ideal, that we shouldn’t have gay marriage, and that he would rather not be gay. As far as I can tell, he also agrees with the Catholic church’s traditional view of marriage and sex.
It’s an odd form of cognitive dissonance with him. He says all the right things, even when it hurts him, but doesn’t live them out.
Respectfully, he has no basis on which to agree or disagree with anything because he has no basis for truth. Therefore, he can easily say one thing one day and the opposite the next. This is the problem with anyone outside of Christ, not just Milo. Truthfully, my heart breaks for him and what he has gone through. Yet, I cannot say that I will overlook his promoting of sexual immorality because of it. This is because I know that homosexuality is caused by just what Milo went through and perpetuates itself in more and more harmful ways through the… Read more »
I agree with that assessment, JL, it is clear he has many deep wounds as so many homosexual men do. But he certainly capitalizes on it and is now eager to gain even more. Unfortunately, Satan is standing by ready and eager to hand him the world.
He also says that he was abused as a teen, including by a priest. He is truly messed up, and at some level he knows it.
Well, he’s on my team and I’d proudly stand with him. In fact, his company is much preferable to many of those who call themselves “Christians.”
Oh! Like the Clintons! ; – )
LOL! Okay, I just choked on my coffee. Yes precisely. It’s a bit like that. :)
Or, like Trump?
As always, when comparing Trump to Clinton,
nothing more need be said than:
“Close,….but no cigar.” ; – )
He’s a disgusting degenerate, but he’s shooting at our enemies. So yes, so long as he’s doing that, and so long as our enemies remain unsubdued, he’s on the team.
The appropriate response to people like Milo is not to wag one’s finger disapprovingly, but to criminalise sodomy and homosexual propaganda, then put him in jail or a noose.
ashv, it sounds like you just wrote he’s a team member whom we should put in jail. As a Christian, how does that work?
Refer to Pastor Wilson’s earlier discussion of allies vs co-belligerents. In war, take all the help you can get. People like Milo should be dealt with when we are in a position to impose our principles, tut-tutting about it beforehand will accomplish nothing.
Can you point out where Pastor Wilson said that?
This is a war. Of this we surely agree. Where we disagree is who we consider as trustworthy allies.
If Christians believe they can fight on the same side as people who are admittedly enemies of God, then they have (literally) made a deal with the devil.
JL, not that I want to draw to much of a parallel, but David was with the King of Gath, a Philistine, for over a year! Comically enough, Goliath was from Gath.
Apparently, they had “Gath years”, before they had “Gap years” ! ; – )
Hmm. Interesting. Also God led Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt for safety.
Still there is a difference between allying oneself with the enemy and hiding amongst the enemy. Even though David was with the King of Gath, he had to pretend to be crazy. I’m not sure I’d call that an alliance.
I think the closer parallel is what Balaam advised. Infiltrate the church so that it loves what is evil and hates what is good.
One time he pretended to be crazy. The other time, he was out and out committing treason against the King of Gath the whole time. That is not really what I’d call an “alliance” so much as a ruse de guerre.
As always Lady Dunsworth, a solid point of view!
The most sensible thing I would add is that everyone, especially “christians”
should be extreamly carefull about imputing “guilt by association”,
or tipping the hand of others, when that is not ours to do!
“Bad company corrupts good morals” all the same.
“A” dad,
As with many of your posts I recognize a subtle statement, but I don’t know what it means! If I am in need of correction, I would be grateful for it.
Lady Dunsworth correctly mentioned a “ruse de guerre” by David, aka a ruse of war. So Godly people may be in a ruse, of many sorts, in their Godly walk and struggle. People “judging” David as some sort of scum bag, during that ruse, would have been wrong. So we should be very careful in our assement of others, and in so doing not “spill their beans” by questioning others, in a non private context, we run the remote risk of spoiling their “ruse” in complicated situations. That being said, if there are people we think it would be loving… Read more »
Thank you, “A” dad.
But I don’t think that means we have to suspend judgment on people’s behavior, because absolutely anything might be a ruse de guerre. Judging David as a “scumbag” in general would have been wrong. Judging that he had gone over to the Philistines and was not trustworthy, would have been correct, because we’re not held responsible to judge except by what can be known. We would have found out later, what he was up to. And this was out of his normal pattern, which would have been legitimate reason to suspend judgment. When something fits completely with someone’s normal pattern,… Read more »
Team members that are humping your children probably should not be team members.
Classic small government conservatism! Low taxes and a massive police state obsessed with what people are doing with their genitals. I mean it’s a really fantastic idea! Why should Iran have all the fun?
I really can’t parse this, did something get deleted from your post?
Taking a guess at what you might mean, I will merely say that I am not a conservative and think that the 1350s are a better time to look for ideas on how society and government should work than the 1950s.
That might depend on whether divine providence made you the King or Cedric the Swineherd.
Why?
If divine providence had determined that no matter how bright or ambitious or talented I might be, I could never be more than a shepherdess on the green, I would not be happy with that social order. If I were the highly literate queen, that would be another matter even though my role would still be circumscribed.
This seems like a distinctly American view, making one’s career a primary part of one’s identity. My immediate reaction is that the shepherdess on the green could indeed be something more — she could be a wife and mother. “Godliness with contentment is great gain.”
Yes, it is certainly a modern view. I think it is wonderful to be a wife and mother. But, but for some women, there must be an outlet beyond that or contentment can be very hard to come by. This outlet doesn’t need to be a career, but it must be something–scholarly work done at home, writing, whatever. Could you, with your advanced academic training, find genuine contentment in a life of purely domestic pursuits and the care of small children? Neither can some women. For an educated woman with academic interests, being a stay at home wife and mother… Read more »
Could you, with your advanced academic training, find genuine contentment in a life of purely domestic pursuits and the care of small children? As a working-from-home father of two toddlers, I’m confronted with this question frequently! Not that I have “advanced academic training”. Complaining on the Internet seems to help. As you say, “brilliance is distributed across social caste” — but this is good. The alternative can be seen in Middle American small towns where everyone with slightly higher than average ability left for the big city, and in the increasingly out-of-touch Acela elite that absorbs as many people as… Read more »
They seem to have dropped that verse from the version we sing in church, although my mother learned it as a girl. I give you Cromwell, but the history of British science and technology is full of people from humble backgrounds who could not have excelled without some access to education.
I was not referring to myself earlier. I thoroughly enjoyed my toddler–having a captive audience for my tendency to spout verse at the drop of a hat.
I would add to Ashv’s point that women have, biblically speaking, multiple ways to express their gifts. You point to the convent, but the church, even us patriarchal types, and I and my OPC church are as patriarchal as it gets these days, is the biblically mandated way that women use their talents and personalities to grow the kingdom of God. Babies are good, and wives are great, but females need mentors and role models as well, even those who can write some good poetry are rather helpful, too.
Yes, I agree with you. The women who are the worst off, in terms of the ability to express their gifts, are those who are working an eight hour shift in a restaurant then coming home to do housework and childcare. In spite of how my marriage ended, I am extremely grateful to my husband for being the sole breadwinner, allowing me to be home with my daughter.
From your mouth to God’s ears. Well said.
I meant to add that I tried the convent myself and lasted three days! I think I might have had trouble with the Grand Silence. I admire nuns very much for the work they do with children and the poor, but it wasn’t right for me.
Contentment is self reported and meaningless
Apparently God has no purpose in the distribution of gifts, since the gifted are not to desire to use them if they can be doing something humble and be happy about it. Talents buried in the ground *are* safe, after all, for the individual and the society as a whole. The contrast isn’t between housewife an jet-setting journalist, it’s between someone whose job is dawn to dusk following sheep around, and someone who has an opportunity to express her talents among others. She actually can’t be a wife and mother if she’s a still a shepherdess — no one has… Read more »
Or worse, Cedric’s Swineherd, Gurth.
ashv wrote:
Ashv also voted for Trump, probably using the same reasoning. What could possibly go wrong when pragmatics Trumps principle and virtue?
I feed you to the monsters first? ; – )
The charge has often been levelled at conservatives that they’d rather lose gracefully than win. Hard not to think of that when I read posts like this.
Some of us would rather lose the whole world and gain our own souls, but hey, I guess that’s just a personal taste.
Are you a pacifist?
Winning isn’t everything. But losing isn’t anything.
No. However, I am someone who believes that some weapons are legal, other weapons are illegal, and the Bible’s pretty clear about which is which. And that we can only actually win through obedience; anything else is actually loss.
And some of us would rather inherit the Earth than lose our souls for Wales. I can buy the lesser of two evils argument, but don’t try to tell me it isn’t Wales.
Jane finally, after years of pestering from me, watched AMFAS…and did not love it as I’d expected she would. ????
Can’t get them all. :)
ashv wrote:
There is far, far more to life than a political win. Trust in princes is a Scriptural warning because we are easily tempted to make idols of our rulers, and look to them for the win.
I agree. But there’s no virtue in losing either.
Well, I think you’re both right, but I think a mistake Christians often make is in forgetting that Christ is seated in victory at the right hand of the Father. In victory! So winning is actually our birth right, victory is assured. Victory is a virtue we are called to walk in.
Maybe, but I doubt Lee and Jackson would agree. It’s a good sermon but not good strategy.
ashv wrote: But there’s no virtue in losing either. That is sophomoric and simplistic. There is great virtue in losing a battle, on righteous principle, so that one can win the war. This is the basis of Christ going to the cross to die. This is the basis of Christian martyrdom, and also the basis of Christ’s statement that he who seeks to save his own life will lose it, but he who loses his life for My sake will save it. Ashv may differ with me, but winning and losing are not defined by who takes office. That’s just… Read more »
I agree.
I merely suggest that when our enemies attack people like Milo, don’t help them, regardless of his own failings.
I see no need to help the liberals in their latest hypocritical, selective shock as they pounce on Milo’s perverse sexual commentary. We should highlight their hypocrisy, first, before we offer any opinion about Yiannopoulos. That doesn’t mean that we can’t ever express a negative view of him though, even if liberals think it helps their cause. Nothing revealed in Milo’s recent interview changed my views of him, as if it should make me suddenly turn against him. My opinion of him was not informed by any desire to help liberals, but I had already found him to be the… Read more »
I wish we would seek His Kingdom first, but that would require repentance and humility. Instead we seem to be seeking everything under the sun instead of repentance. We want to seek political and policy solutions first, and once those are exhausted in failure, then, perhaps, we might be persuaded to consider thinking of Christ’s Kingdom.
Having all of the right policies is not a substitute for repentance.
Sure, and I don’t see anyone arguing for the creation of heaven on earth. At the same time, those of us who live in society have a duty to preserve it. When losing begins to look a lot like societal dissolution, winning attains to signal importance.
Uberti wrote: At the same time, those of us who live in society have a duty to preserve it. When losing begins to look a lot like societal dissolution, winning attains to signal importance. Ironically, ashv is the one who has proposed a societal reset. He is not in favor of preserving much of any of the founding principles of natural liberty, limited government, freedom of association, etc, etc. He seems to want to destroy it all in favor of an autocrat. I would much prefer a return to founding principles (with some improvements and lessons learned). I see no… Read more »
I don’t speak for ashv, but I would point out that there is more to a society than forms of governance. (I am also pretty sure he believes in freedom of association…) I.e., a society with a monarch can also be one with a sensible degree of religious freedom and general liberty. England would be a good-ish example of this. “making America great again has already been tried.” I am not sure what you mean. Surely Trump ought to get a year or so before we judge his experiment a failure? Naturally I don’t think the man is Christ returned,… Read more »
I’ve not said that God can’t work with various forms of government, but all forms of government are to be limited in their charter, and bounded to the sphere of jurisdiction God defined for the sword-bearing state. Ashv has spoken against the very principle of limited government itself. Uberti wrote: (I am also pretty sure he believes in freedom of association…) I pressed him on this specific point in the past, specifically with regard to Jim Crow laws, and ashv said that government should have the power to limit freedom of association, particularly across ethnic lines. Ashv claimed that such… Read more »
So do you define failure in the political sphere as anything short of nationwide repentance? That’s pretty eschatological of you. I regard moving back toward sanity as, if not perfection, at least a kind of progress.
Uberti wrote: So do you define failure in the political sphere as anything short of nationwide repentance? That’s pretty eschatological of you. My concern is not a niggling perfectionism. I honestly believe that the U.S. is ripe for a very very serious judgment from God. By that I don’t mean the end of space-time, but something like Venezuela is experiencing right now. They have severe shortages and rioting unrest. Many are going without food and other necessities. There is real suffering. Imagine if the government counterfeit money suddenly became worthless in the U.S., and how many people that would immediately… Read more »
And is the need of the moment grave because we are very sinful, such that national repentance unto salvation is required? I am sorry, because I feel that I am not following your argument. What is the “gaping hole”, specifically? Is it a moral failure? A lot of little moral failings that compound?
Could it or they be addressed by major, as opposed to minor, changes in policy? What might those be – could you give me an example?
Uberti wrote: What is the “gaping hole”, specifically? Is it a moral failure? A lot of little moral failings that compound? The need to ask this question is very telling of our cultural situation, even among fellow Christians. Sure, we have things like the dismembering of millions of unborn. That can be easily overlooked by our culture. But that, as wicked as it is, is not the root. Legalized abortion, like celebrated homosexuality, is, itself, already a judgment of blindness for something even deeper. What is the root failure? Where did we first go wrong? See the progression in Romans… Read more »
I am not unable to come up with a list of America’s sins. But you are arguing against particular presidential candidates on the grounds that they won’t save America. Agreed! No-one can but Jesus. Shall we write in “Jesus for President”? Or is it okay to give thanks for less open wickedness among our rulers?
Uberti wrote:
Certainly. We can give thanks that the outside of the cup is not as dirty as before. But the giving of such thanks is still not a substitute for repentance for the inside of the cup. As a nation, we are still busy filling a cup of wrath.
It is unclear to me if we even disagree. I certainly have no problem with general repentance. We can also thank the Lord that Trump is making all the right people angry – a necessary, but insufficient step.
Also, in the case of Venezuela, if their current woes represent God’s judgment, then I can imagine a whole host of different policies that would have spared them a lot of it. To put it another way, it seems that sometimes God judges nations for being idiots, and that the wisdom to govern successfully does not necessarily coincide with Christian faith and morals. Nebuchadnezzar was really good at running Babylon. So I fail to understand this distinction between “repentance” and “policy”. Unless your point is that the sorts of policy changes necessary will be impossible without repentance?
Uberti wrote: To put it another way, it seems that sometimes God judges nations for being idiots, and that the wisdom to govern successfully does not necessarily coincide with Christian faith and morals. Nebuchadnezzar was really good at running Babylon. So I fail to understand this distinction between “repentance” and “policy”. I suggest that Uberti read Psalm 2 and ask whether these vain kings could have chosen a fine set of policies for their kingdoms, continued to ignore King Jesus, and not “perished in the way”? Is Uberti giving a nod to a legitimate form of secularism that ignores God?… Read more »
I think the real question here concerns this notion of the secular. I agree that there is nothing over which Christ does not claim dominion. I am less certain whether we expect him to work by means of nation-states, as with Israel or Persia in the Old Testament, or through his transnational New Israel, the Church. If, as I suspect, the church is what is primary, then we would not expect God to hold nations as righteous or unrighteous, and judge them en mass. At least, not in the way he judges Israel. Because, frankly, if we are using the… Read more »
Uberti wrote: I am less certain whether we expect him to work by means of nation-states, as with Israel or Persia in the Old Testament, or through his transnational New Israel, the Church. If, as I suspect, the church is what is primary, then we would not expect God to hold nations as righteous or unrighteous, and judge them en mass. Does this mean that we should stop referring to Jesus as King of kings? Must we at least take away His rod of iron that He rules the nations with, and that sword from His mouth that He uses… Read more »
Jesus is King of Kings because even kings have to obey him, and they are judged – by the arch-king – if they do not. So I don’t know what you’re on about there. Jesus obviously exercises dominion over the affairs of men, and that includes political matters – he is God, after all. It hardly follows that we should regard nation-states as God’s primary vehicle for action in the current age. Do you have an argument to that effect? Americans have always been lustful, because humans are lustful, wicked creatures. This is not a new thing under the sun.… Read more »
Uberti wrote: It hardly follows that we should regard nation-states as God’s primary vehicle for action in the current age. Do you have an argument to that effect? Uberti tried to suggest that God only dealt with nations, as nations, in the Old Testament. I provided abundant evidence to the contrary. I have no need to argue that Christ’s rule and judgment of the nations, as nations, is His exclusive role, or that it is somehow primary over His other roles as High Priest and Prophet and Father. It is enough for me to point out that one of His… Read more »
What evidence? I see a lot of tangential claims, and a wholesale refusal to engage with my argument. ” It is enough for me to point out that one of His repeated titles is King of kings, and that He is explicitly said to judge the nations, as nations, with a rod of iron.” Yes, in the Old Testament. The New Testament, broadly speaking, takes OT politics and interprets them spiritually – the two sons of Abraham are saved and reprobate, the Babylonian exile is the current state of the church in the world, et cetera. Your assertion that this… Read more »
Look, you clearly feel that Psalms 2, and 110, and maybe a few other passages, make a dynamite case that nations are judged, in the present day, as nations. That is, the Italians, say, or the Russians, stand or fall together, in some obscure sense. I do not follow this argument at all. Are you saying that bad things don’t happen to Godly people-groups – i.e., like Jeremiah’s Judah, America had better repent because otherwise God’s going to smite us? I am looking at these passages you cite, and I don’t see what you seem to see there. Psalm 2… Read more »
Uberti seems to be arguing that Jesus is the sort of King of kings who never actually judges any nations, and who never actually uses the rod of iron, and who never smites any nations with the Word of His mouth. Uberti tries to brush aside Psalm 2 as a general warning that God is powerful, and that gentiles are villains, but that’s not what the text says. It says that the nations devised a particular vain thing. They devised to reject any duty to honor God. They wanted to cast such cords away. God laughs at their arrogance. God… Read more »
It actually says “the kings” devise that. And yes, kings do have to honor God, like the rest of us, and are peculiarly tempted not to do so. That on its own does little to support your claim.
Uberti wrote:
Satan tempted Jesus with all of the kingdoms of the earth. I disagree that Satan tempted Jesus with something He didn’t even want in the first place.
The Ancient of Days says to the Son of Man, “ask of Me and I will give you the nations as Your inheritance”.
Jesus is Lord of all, not just Lord of the spiritual. Politics needs saving too.
“Satan tempted Jesus with all of the kingdoms of the earth. I disagree that Satan tempted Jesus with something He didn’t even want in the first place.” Whether or not Jesus, in his humanity, was able to be tempted by earthly preferment doesn’t say a lot about the current priorities of the Son of Man. After all, inasmuch as he is God he cannot die, and the resurrection was no surprise to him, yet still he found the cross a terrifying ordeal. Satan also tempted Christ with bread. Will you claim that Christ, as he sits in glory, still takes… Read more »
I also do acknowledge that you have spoken with A. far more than I
I don’t believe in freedom of association in the classical-liberal sense, no.
Could you expand on that, please? Are the citizens of your ideal polis to be slaves, then?
Serfs sounds a little prettier but comes to much the same thing!
To expand: Liberty is the capstone of a godly society, not its foundation. Freedom of association (like most things under the heading “liberty”/”freedom”) is beneficial when granted to some, harmful when granted to others.
I agree with that in principle. I am content to restrict my young daughters’ liberty in all sorts of ways. Naturally, any liberty enjoyed by fallen man is likely going to be abused.
But what does that system look like in society? A caste system? Serfdom? Helotry?
Depends on the people and the circumstances; I don’t think there’s a universal answer. In a society like colonial America, I expect it would look a lot like colonial America.
Is this a kind of resignation? In other words, the Colonists were generally virtuous and responsible, so they made a virtuous and responsible and (largely) free society. The Russians, meanwhile, being by contrast undisciplined or irresponsible or barbarous or what have you, wind up with Tsars and then Commissars, and to impose Colonial-style freedom on them winds up doing more harm than good? That sounds like Mencken, and would seem to be the antidote to Wilsonian globalism.
Uberti wrote: I agree with that in principle. I am content to restrict my young daughters’ liberty in all sorts of ways. Naturally, any liberty enjoyed by fallen man is likely going to be abused. Certainly some liberties do require maturity to enjoy, and not all liberties are natural (given, alike, to everyone in God’s image), but occasionally parents (and often governments) try to insert themselves as mediators of freedom, as things to be earned and merited, rather than gifts to be guarded. For example, I’m sure that Uberti, as a parent, does not see himself having any role to… Read more »
I agree that it is not for me to decide whether my daughter is murdered or tortured. Freedom from such things is her birthright as an image-bearer of God.
I am not sure that freedom of association falls into that same category. How would you make that argument?
ashv wrote: To expand: Liberty is the capstone of a godly society, not its foundation. Freedom of association (like most things under the heading “liberty”/”freedom”) is beneficial when granted to some, harmful when granted to others. It’s hardly possible to reject this lie in too strong of terms. What ashv is saying is that natural liberties from God are not at all natural (gracious and unearned), but must be merited by us through an intermediate authority, and dispensed to us from a central administration. This is very much how the Roman Catholic church viewed themselves as gatekeepers and mediators of… Read more »
If you don’t view liberty as foundational to society, you’re already most of the way to rejecting conservatism/classical-liberalism.
Do you believe fathers may restrict their children’s freedom of association? Or is that opposed to the spirit of grace as well?
ashv wrote: Do you believe fathers may restrict their children’s freedom of association? Or is that opposed to the spirit of grace as well? It is certainly opposed to the spirit of grace if the father sets himself up as mediator of a thing to be earned or merited from him, rather than as a free gift of God to be increasingly enjoyed in maturity. Does ashv believe that the sword-bearing government stands in the same role as a father and mother, to nurture the people into maturity as if they were children of the state? This is certainly the… Read more »
It is certainly opposed to the spirit of grace if the father sets himself up as mediator of a thing to be earned or merited from him, rather than as a free gift of God to be increasingly enjoyed in maturity. Fair enough. I don’t see why that can’t be true of a king as well. I affirm that the state’s role is not that of nurture, but of justice. I’d like to hear more about this. Was David not a shepherd of God’s people? Are fathers not to rule their families and discipline their sons? I agree that there… Read more »
Ashv is still not seeing the paradigm contrast. A protector is not a mediator. No one said the government can’t be a protector. They are required to be guardians and shepherds. Note carefully, ashv describes the state (or parents) as giving, or granting, or restricting natural liberties. This is mediatorial language. However, God has already given them to everyone made in His image. God is not in need of someone to mediate them to us. The role of parents is to guard these gifts on behalf of their children, so that their children may grow to enjoy what is theirs… Read more »
I don’t have deep objections to phrasing things in terms of “natural liberty” if you like, I just don’t see it in Scripture as the only lens through which to view society. Certainly the king as a minister of God bears the responsibility of creating an environment where godly freedom is enabled and encouraged. But, as you say, his protective duty requires him to restrict the autonomy of some for their own good, and the good of society. To make the analogy to a father ruling over his own household, some children (due to injury or other incapability) do not… Read more »
ashv wrote: Similarly, not all subjects of a ruler are capable of functioning in society as freemen. I have never spoken of natural liberties as absolutes. I have said that natural liberties are not earned, but they may be lost or forfeited by us or our representatives. In other words, we don’t have to work to gain them, but we have to work to lose them. What I object to, in the strongest terms, is the idea that the State bestows or dispenses natural liberties on those they think are worthy. That is false. They are not gatekeepers or worthiness… Read more »
I think this is exactly what I asking when my post to ashv crossed yours. I think that there must be a role for the state in protecting those whose lack of rationality makes them incapable of protecting themselves, and I think the state has failed in this. It is cruel to allow unmedicated psychotics to sleep under bridges in the name of respecting their civil rights It would be equally cruel to demand that every person with a serious psychiatric diagnosis be institutionalized if he can function in the community without harming himself or others. But my principal worry… Read more »
You have spent a lot of time trying to argue for natural liberties, and I see the vein of your argument, though I disagree.
I suppose I am curious if you would be willing to list them. I don’t see the bible offering liberty to sinners to exercise their sin. I see Christ offering liberty to sinners from their sinful hearts, only to become slaves to Christ.
How is this not just a restatement of Locke’s anthropology, imagining individuals as logically prior to society? If you want to reject both Filmer and Locke’s understanding of society and government, what’s left?
To come at this from a different angle, consider Carlyle’s approach to the topic: “I say, it is the everlasting privilege of the foolish to be
governed by the wise; to be guided in the right path by those who
know it better than they. This is the first ‘right of man;’
compared with which all other rights are as nothing.”
I KNEW you would like Carlyle. Does it enter into the discussion that Carlyle was not Christian and rejected any traditional understanding of the value of Christian liberty? Children can be compelled to be obedient and good; is there any theological value to such obedience? It may ensure a well run, quiet household, but does it bring them any closer to heaven? And it still doesn’t answer the question I asked you earlier. Is one presumed to be foolish because of one’s race, sex, or social class? When Carlyle married the fiercely intellectual Jane Welsh, one of their friends said… Read more »
Yes, Carlyle rejected the faith. He’s certainly not a reliable guide, but when he’s wrong he’s at least interesting. Children can be compelled to be obedient and good; is there any theological value to such obedience? It may ensure a well run, quiet household, but does it bring them any closer to heaven No, of course not. The law cannot save. But this does not diminish the value of law in any way. Willing obedience out of love is, of course, the highest good in those situations. But compelled obedience isn’t worse than disobedience. (And it’s often better for the… Read more »
Quoting Carlyle, ashv wrote:
After rejecting not only entitlement rights, but also natural liberties, how ironic that ashv now quotes for us in defense of the “rights of man” to be ruled and governed by the Divine Right of kings.
Yes. That is the point.
So ashv’s point is to defend the “rights of man”, and the Divine Right of kings? I guess all of his talk against the entire principle of rights was not really so principled.
I’m glad you can identify irony when you see it, but maybe you should learn what it’s for. (In particular, what scare quotes connote.)
Your last statement is obviously true; we have traditionally restricted the freedom of lunatics and what we used to tenderly call “God’s innocents.” But do we do this pre-emptively, or only once the person has revealed his unfitness for liberty? And do we this without making assumptions that entire groups of people lack the capacity for responsible autonomy?
Why did Paul not tell slaveowners they had to release their slaves?
Nor Moses, nor Peter.
I honestly don’t know. I can conjecture that perhaps, like Luther, he was not interested in people’s worldly estate but only in preparing them for the life to come. Or that he didn’t want to put extra stumbling blocks in the paths of new Christians by demanding that they impoverish themselves. Alternatively, he may have hesitated to disrupt long-standing arrangements, turfing elderly faithful servants out into the street. He might have believed that some version of love existed between master and slave, and that a slave was in some sense part of a family. Of course, that would not have… Read more »
You’re probably familiar with my answer to the question: slavery is not intrinsically evil. Where I was going with that is to say that a hierarchical society is the Christian norm. As for the ethnic-group issue: when significantly different ethnic groups live together in the same polity, one of them will rule. If a dozen of us were dropped into an African village, would we have a reasonable expectation of having the same status or freedom of action that we do in our homes, or that they themselves have? Seems to me the answer is no; we would not know… Read more »
If I grant the need for a hierarchical society (which I don’t, although I appreciate its orderliness), why should birth rather than merit be the method of stratification? Prince Charles may be a worthy soul but he is an intellectual dullard who, fortunately, is not in a position to do real harm. If society is to have a ruling class, shouldn’t intelligence, virtue, and wisdom be more valuable than noble blood? It would not be unjust if imposing guardianship on the aliens is presumed to be temporary, ending when the aliens have learned the local customs. Suppose, however, that the… Read more »
I’m going to quote something recently said by Tucker Carlson, of all people. “The SAT 50 years ago pulled a lot of smart people out of every little town in America and funneled them into a small number of elite institutions, where they married each other, had kids, and moved to an even smaller number of elite neighborhoods. We created the most effective meritocracy ever.” “But the problem with the meritocracy is that it leeches all the empathy out of your society … The second you think that all your good fortune is a product of your virtue, you become… Read more »
I notice that ashv didn’t respond to jillybean’s question with any Scriptural arguments. He seems to be selecting anecdotes freestyle. If he had tried to make a biblical case, he might have run afoul of the fact that God had a peculiar habit of choosing rulers from the lowly classes, and of not anointing the first-born to be king. Ashv seems to be advertising that he wants a highly centralized state, with lots of preemptive, arbitrary restrictions to freedom. I’m sure he presumes that he will be part of the upper class that controls and mediates various liberties for some… Read more »
This is unbecoming of you. Have I implied any sinister motives to your peculiar syncretism of liberal political theory and theonomy? By trade I am little more than a high-tech plumber and come from a family of poor farmers. Your accusations are unfounded; I want a society where the ruling class actually rules, expects to actually rule, and is expected by everyone else to actually rule. When that is the case, the church’s prophetic ministry can speak the clearest on God’s requirements for obedience, grace, and mercy, from the lowest to the greatest. The chaos engendered by the continuous struggle… Read more »
Ashv, I realize the transition to this kind of society is highly theoretical, but I am curious what kind of ruling class you envision. Would it just be the descendants of our current meritocracy?
Depends on where you’re talking about and when. A Trump dynasty would be better than a lot of other possibilities.
My focus is less on who does the ruling than on the structure of power. No man can rule justly without the grace and favour of God – but the American system is optimised for channelling political power towards sociopaths and away from the godly. On the other hand, even an Amon can father a Josiah.
ashv wrote: This is unbecoming of you. Have I implied any sinister motives to your peculiar syncretism of liberal political theory and theonomy? In fact he has. Ashv is intent on labeling me (and others, including Wilson) as liberal even when I have corrected him several times about his equivocation, and about my actual motivations. Liberty is not liberalism, just as femininity is not feminism. I guess he will continue to assign and impute motivations to me regardless. ashv wrote: Your accusations are unfounded; I want a society where the ruling class actually rules, expects to actually rule, and is… Read more »
I’m sure he presumes that he will be part of the upper class that controls and mediates various liberties for some underclasses that he is not part of. Think for a while about what other stuff you might be sure of that ain’t so. I will accept your apology for your uncharitable assumption of pride. I don’t use “liberal” a cussword, just a descriptive term. Plenty of people who didn’t really question political liberalism going to Heaven. Unless you want to claim some other tradition that rejects liberty as a foundational, unqualified good (note this is different from saying liberty… Read more »
ashv wrote: Think for a while about what other stuff you might be sure of that ain’t so. I will accept your apology for your uncharitable assumption of pride. I’m not sure that ashv is one to speak to us about uncharitable assumptions, but I happily confess, from his sweeping assertions about how the founders got almost every foundational thing wrong (not to mention his tilts toward white supremacy over blacks), that I did assume that he viewed his place among the ruling class (particularly over blacks). I confess that I had never previously seen him assume the role of… Read more »
We generally called them remittance men! But I take your point.
Meritocracy can lead to the attitudes you describe. But so can hereditary privilege. Not every nation’s aristocrats shared the English sense of noblesse oblige; some were utterly indifferent to the fate of those below them. I think whether you see your privilege as imposing unavoidable duties is dependent on upbringing and education as well as religious training.
“The people had to earn and merit, and do penances, in order to approach God. Grace was turned on its head.”
It sounds to me like you may be conflating liberty and grace.
Christopher Casey wrote:
Certain liberties are the things gifted. Grace describes the manner in which they were given.
Which certain liberties do you have in mind? If God has given a liberty to everyone then it would naturaly be the governments duty to preserve that liberty, but there are not many liberties that don’t have conditions attached.
Christopher Casey wrote:
My point was not that liberties (or even natural liberties) are absolutes. My point was that natural liberties are gracious gifts from God, not earned. They can only be forfeited through action.
Once forfeted can they be regained? And if regaining them requires action are thay still gifts?
Also, forfeting liberties generaly involves some authority other than God, doesn’t that make the liberty subject to an intermediate authority?
Christopher Casey wrote: Once forfeted can they be regained? And if regaining them requires action are thay still gifts? Why the hesitation among Christians to understand and accept that natural liberties are an unearned gift from God? If a woman is given a diamond ring, as a gift, and loses it because of carelessness, does it cease to have been a gift if she later regains it? Christopher Casey wrote: Also, forfeting liberties generaly involves some authority other than God, doesn’t that make the liberty subject to an intermediate authority? There are many authorities other than God. All derive their… Read more »
Losing a ring through carelessness and having libreties restricted due to criminal activity are not at all the same.
You may say I’m looking at this overly pragmaticly, but authorization to postemptively strip liberties nessessarily grants the ability to strip them preemtively.
Certianly authorities are subject to God and accountable to him for their abuse of power, I’m not sure however that I agree with the American idea that that they are also subject to their subjects.
Maybe because of a complete unfamiliarity with this terminology and outlook? I came at this stuff from a economic-libertarian background, got exposed to (and mostly convinced by) theonomist discussions of society, church, and state — but you don’t associate yourself with either of these viewpoints, really, and it’s unclear why you expect us to understand and accept ideas that you either 1) invented yourself or 2) won’t name the antecedents of.
Ready to explain?
ashv wrote: Maybe because of a complete unfamiliarity with this terminology and outlook? … Ready to explain? It must be difficult to request that I explain when I have already written post after post on the Scriptural foundations of natural liberty, such that ashv has even complained about the length of these explanations. In any case, it’s not difficult to explain and establish the paradigm. Let’s start with the big E on the eye chart, the natural liberty of life. Does ashv suppose that life, itself, is mediated to us by the State, or by social contract? Does ashv suppose… Read more »
I understand the paradigm you’re trying to sell, but… why do you believe it’s the one uniquely in accord with Scripture? “Natural liberty of life” is not really Scriptural terminology, so why is this perspective more valid than pre-17th-century-Enlightenment conceptions of society and state?
In other words, why was Filmer wrong?
ashv wrote: “Natural liberty of life” is not really Scriptural terminology, so why is this perspective more valid than pre-17th-century-Enlightenment conceptions of society and state? Neither is Trinity a Scriptural term. Neither is Divine Right of kings Scriptural terminology. So arguing mere semantics doesn’t help ashv. Regardless of the terminology, the principle is as I described. We are discussing liberties that are gifts from God, belonging naturally to those created in His image. Ashv didn’t interact with the questions that I raised, so I can only assume that he has no Scriptural objection or alternative to offer. Or does ashv… Read more »
Neither is Trinity a Scriptural term. Neither is Divine Right of kings Scriptural terminology. Sure. But there are, you know, books about these ideas that can cover them at length, that people have written responses to, etc. They’re ideas with identifiable history and meaningful traditions behind them. If I’m skeptical about the doctrine of the Trinity I can go back and read about the Arians, Athanasius, etc., look at their motivations and their interactions with Scripture, what people after them said, and so forth. Where should I go for your “natural liberty of life” concept? Jefferson? Kings are not absolute… Read more »
“Reset” is a good word. Anglo-American society has gone down a tributary into a political swamp, and would greatly benefit from returning to the mainstream of historical Christian political thought. (Of which there are good exemplars in English history, too.) I certainly don’t want to “start from scratch”, as the French revolutionaries sought.
In summary: Filmer was right, Locke was wrong.
ashv, is it fair to say that you agree with Hoppe’s assessment that monarchy is superior to democracy, but disagree with his “a plague on both your houses” libertarian conclusions? Can you recommend any reading in addition to Filmer on monarchy, conservatism as a branch of liberalism, etc.?
The first book I would recommend on political theory is James Burnham’s The Machiavellians (free version here: https://archive.org/details/TheMachiavellians ). Sir Henry Maine’s Popular Government is a good companion (https://archive.org/details/populargovernme01maingoog ). I recently finished Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power (https://archive.org/stream/onpoweritsnature00injouv ) and found it to be extremely helpful. As for conservatism as a branch of liberalism, pretty much all conservative writers I’ve read acknowledge their foundation in classical liberalism; it’s hardly a secret. I was raised with a general evangelical-American-Republican outlook and found libertarianism appealing because it tried to consistently apply the principles of classical liberalism. I left it behind when… Read more »
Are you familiar with Gary North’s historical and economic writings? He shares many of your historical views (or views I would suspect you hold) including the idea of the Constitutional Convention as a coup, the idea that America would have been better off without revolution and independence, etc., yet he arrives at libertarian conclusions based on biblical considerations (specifically, biblical law as the basis for political and legal theory). Put another way, isn’t a general liberty philosophy compatible with Christian monarchy? It seems that the rise of Medieval Christendom led to greater liberty, when compared to other ancient or classical… Read more »
Yes, I dove pretty deep into Mr North’s writings. His economic commentaries on the Pentateuch were instrumental in getting me to reject liberalism — I got to Leviticus 19:13 (“… The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning”) and couldn’t believe in “freedom of contract” as a fundamental human right anymore. From there it was hard to see the rest of the libertarian program as coherent. Yes, I do believe that a non-liberal society under a Christian ruler is much more likely to produce a higher level of general liberty than anything… Read more »
I really wish Christians today would begin to see this. I have several in my church who somehow think that theonomy and libertarianism are somehow compatible. Maybe it was because I was raised by simpletons, but I just started reading the bible, believing it, and then I started thinking about government. I never ever found myself thinking, the conservatives are right. Perhaps I, too, am a simpleton, but it is incredible to me that people don’t see that classical liberalism is not Christian.
I see this with Catholic conservatives as well; do you? William F. Buckley was a devoted son of the church, but his writing always struck me as worldly. You have to go to people like Hilaire Belloc to get away from that, but then you encounter elements that are even more problematic than mere worldliness.
ashv wrote: In summary: Filmer was right, Locke was wrong. This is ashv’s attempt to cast and define the terms of the debate. It won’t work. We need not make any appeal to, or defense of, Locke in order to reject Filmer’s Divine Right theory. According to the theory of the Divine Right of kings, the king is absolute in his earthly authority, above any constitution or codified law. The king cannot be overruled by appeal to any law, not even God’s Law. The king cannot be deposed, resisted, or limited in any way without violating the will of God.… Read more »
Well, maybe you can help me out here, because every interaction with Filmer I’ve seen from conservatives has been off-handed dismissal or appeal to Locke. Can you point me at more substantive critique to read? I agree that God raises up and casts down kings through various means, including war. “Divine right of kings” has never meant that kings are approved by God in all their actions, but that kings are directly responsible to God for the care of their subjects and realms, both in methods and results. And yes, when the law compels disobedience to God, we obey God… Read more »
You need to perhaps nuance this a bit. Supporting Trump over the apocalypse is rational. Supporting Milo because he makes fun of our enemies serves us nothing.
Durden wrote: You need to perhaps nuance this a bit. Supporting Trump over the apocalypse is rational. Ironically, ashv has acknowledged that Trump may even hasten a socioeconomic collapse. This did not stop ashv from voting for him, because ashv voted along the lines of immediate self-interest. There is a definite burn-it-to-the-ground vibe in ashv’s rhetoric. He wants a social system built on completely different founding principles than what we have now, and getting there would likely require a catastrophic reset. Ashv does not want limited government, or natural liberties, etc. He wants an autocrat with strong central power to… Read more »
I happen to agree with much of Trump’s economic agenda. I oppose globalism tooth and nail. Those who desire global economic trade are not pursing my economic self-interest or the economic interests of America as a whole. I voted for Trump for three reasons. He wasn’t Hillary, aka the end of the world. He opposed immigration. He opposed globalism with his America first approach. Regarding Milo, I will happily take the point when our opposition scores an own goal, to borrow a metaphor from a sport I can’t stand. I suspect Ashv is the same. Being happy to take the… Read more »
“…he’s on the team.”…..”then put him in jail or a noose.”
Can we maybe not put that on the recruitment posters? :)
Most of the people worth recruiting are comfortable with the idea of criminal penalties for homosexuality.
But not homosexuals. One of which you identified as being on the team. If we want them on the team/think they are (and “we” don’t/don’t) then it would hardly do to telegraph down the road intentions. That’s what I was getting at.
This isn’t the first time lack of reading comprehension here.
I know. It’s never because you’re cryptic or self-contradictory.
At least it is honest. A chicken foolish enough to join the foxes in attacking the hen house should be made to understand that, at the end of the day, he is just another chicken.
A fox willing to attack other foxes should be made to understand, at the beginning of the day, that it doesn’t mean the chickens want him any where near the hen house.
For a culture to be worth anything, it must have honor and shame. Milo has no shame. And conservatives that embrace him have no shame.
I’m curious who you see embracing him. (I shudder at the mental image.)
Clayvessel wrote:
I thought Trump already did that. Perhaps it needed to be done again.
Well as you get the closer to the bottom the more obvious it becomes.
Milo is a curious figure to me – when I look past the provocation and trolling, I see someone who is basically a political moderate (he has said that he likes George W. Bush), and who mimics the serious political philosophies of more standard figures in his circle like Ben Shapiro (his talking points, once he gets past the “I’m gay and can say mean things to liberals” shtick, sounds almost identical to Shapiro’s stump speeches). I think he’s amusing, and because I tend to agree with Shapiro, tend to agree with Milo as well when he’s being serious. However,… Read more »
Somewhat interesting Ian, speaking of hypocrisy, Salon seems to have gone and deleted all their pro pedophilia articles in the wake of the Milo scandal. That was the first thing I thought of when this broke, a number of Salon articles saying far worse things,but now it is, “that article cannot be found.”
This was a very well organized smear campaign.
Quick Sherman! To the way back machine! ☺
Yeah, I saw that. I think it was done before Milo’s attack, but I think they were gearing up for it.
My rage is just simmering, as it always has. If I see someone actually mea culpa-ing for Nickerson and Delany…
To be fair, I don’t think Todd Nickerson was a name anyone knew of before this scandal. I also think this current Milo scandal is just the tip of a very large iceberg Conservatives have been ignoring for some time. For instance, there’s also a picture floating around of him wearing a German “Iron cross”, he’s also been known to post holocaust memes while flirting with white nationalist movements.
This troubles me most of all, and I find it incredibly disheartening that it does not seem to trouble anyone else. When exactly did hating Jews become a conservative value?
jillybean wrote: When exactly did hating Jews become a conservative value? American Conservatism never held that as a value. This attitude is not anything really new though. Neither is alt-right. Ethnonationalists and skinheads have been around for awhile, and they just get lumped in with conservatives over on the right end of the increasingly meaningless left-right paradigm. Black Lives Matter is put over on the left end of the spectrum, but the underlying attitudes make them two ideological sides of the same ethno-driven coin. A leadership vacuum has formed, and various groups are asserting themselves to fill it. There is… Read more »
You are aware that Jews are overwhelmingly leftists, and a huge number of them are communists. One can distinguish between ideas and people, as I do, but it is very much a historical oddity for conservatives to agree with Jews.
I am aware that this has been true historically, and it may apply to Jews in media and academia. However, I live among Jews, having married into a huge Jewish family, and I have many Jewish friends. There is much more diversity among ordinary Jewish people than you would imagine. I have never met a Jewish communist–in fact, I don’t think I know anyone who is a communist. Before I married, I tended to believe in stereotypes that have a certain amount of truth but also have so many exceptions that I was amazed. Not every Jewish family is prosperous… Read more »
I don’t doubt your experiences. When there are numbers in the millions of any demographic, finding anecdotal examples are easy. But statistics tell a different story. They are overwhelmingly leftists in the US, and many in Israel are quite hostile to Christians. My only point was not to slander and overgeneralize, but to note that it is simply not odd for conservatives to oppose people that happen to be a common demographic, who are opposed to what they stand for.
I can understand that–I have a few groups of my own that I view with suspicion! I think the important thing is to learn not to pre-judge individuals. I used to be much more critical of conservatives before I started hanging out on this board! I did not realize how much we had in common.
Please, whatever you do, don’t call me a conservative. I am a theocratic Christian radical. Conservatives are far too liberal for my taste!
Well, I like you anyway.
I knew about Nickerson pretty much as soon as the Salon article was published, because I keep my ear to the ground about the slippery slope I knew was coming. I can well believe that Salon didn’t promote their shameful pulpit, though. I did say responding to ME that I can’t really stand with Milo, and the things you bring up are exactly why. I don’t think he’s actually a bigot, but I do think he’s a fool, and one who has chosen to make other people’s lives miserable. But he’s also a man who has called his favorite politician… Read more »
This is exactly my feelings on him. Your last sentence rang true in my own heart. I feel the need to commit to pray for him.
Milo is a cultural libertarian. He advocates allowing evil to thrive in the open. How can a bible believing Christian support that?
Supporting someone does not mean supporting everything they do. Otherwise, no one could support anyone. For example, I support Doug Wilson, but I don’t agree with all of his stances (obviously, since I’m Baptist ;). I also support John Piper, but disagree with him on gun ownership and use.
I have said elsewhere that I don’t “stand with” Milo, but I do think that he’s not merely a degenerate troll. I support the complexity he can bring to the table, and support him as someone who needs the gospel no more than I.
I wasn’t talking about Milo as a person, he is a disgusting degenerate. I was talking about his positions. They are cultural libertarian. In this case, he is both personally repulsive and his position is unbiblical.
You said you agreed with Shapiro and that Milo and he were the same. I don’t know anything about Shapiro, but there is simply no way a biblical Christian can support his position.
…I said “when I look past the provocation and trolling, I see someone who is basically a political moderate (he has said that he likes George W. Bush), and who mimics the serious political philosophies of more standard figures in his circle like Ben Shapiro (his talking points, once he gets past the “I’m gay and can say mean things to liberals” shtick, sounds almost identical to Shapiro’s stump speeches). I think he’s amusing, and because I tend to agree with Shapiro, tend to agree with Milo as well when he’s being serious.” How do you get from there to… Read more »
You said this:
How is this a straw man? I am not trying to pick a fight, but you seem to suggest that you agree with Milo and your reading of his political philosophy.
What is the point of me putting all of the qualifiers in my statements if you’re just going to erase them with bad reading? I said: “when I look past the provocation and trolling” – meaning that I see them, they are there, and they are part of Milo’s character, but they are not what I’m talking about now; “mimics” – that is, I do not think Milo is a serious thinker with ideas of his own; “gets past” – a reiteration of my first qualifier; “tend to agree” – not full agreement; “sounds almost identical” – sounds and almost… Read more »
You are not understanding me at all. I got all of the qualifiers. You are looking past his performance, trying to get to what he believes or claims to believe. You equated it, roughly, to this Shapiro guy, and then said you like the Shapiro guy. Is that an accurate statement of what you said? My question, again, was that if while Milo is being serious he is echoing or trying to echo something you agree with, this Shapiro character, then I wondered how you as a bible believing Christian could do so when is advocating a position of cultural… Read more »
Qualifiers mean that “Milo is the same as Shapiro” is not an accurate summary of what I said. And no, I do not “like the Shapiro guy.” I tend to agree with Ben Shapiro. That is what I have said. Cultural libertarianism is a complicated issue – I have gone and continue to go back and forth on how much our society current can be expected to behave in a Christian way. I want to decrease the number of abortions, homosexual acts, fornication, pornography, etc – but I don’t believe that simply outlawing any or all of them will accomplish… Read more »
You are being unnecessarily difficult for reasons that I simply don’t get. “I tend to agree with Ben Shapiro” is not fundamentally different than “like the Shapiro guy,” especially when you later say that when Milo’s antics get Shapiro’s message out you are happy and when those antics distract from his message you are not. Plus, “Milo is the same as Shapiro” was obviously meant to be understood as their political philosophies, after all the qualifications, of course, are the same, or basically so. Not that they are the same people. Now that you have finally gotten to the question… Read more »
Tend to agree is not an emotion. Like is. My agreement with Shapiro is mental assent, not having my ears tickled. God was clear what things should be illegal in a society that is ruled either directly through His work, as in Moses and the judges, or by a king appointed by God. As a good Baptist, I’m not nearly as comfortable as Doug in prescribing the old covenant to people who live in the new. I don’t at all throw out the Old Testament, but I do think there is a significant difference in how the Law applies to… Read more »
Tend to agree is not an emotion. Like is. My agreement with Shapiro is mental assent, not having my ears tickled. Wow. You can’t let this go, it seems. I never meant to insinuate otherwise, just so you know. I am not a troll, unlike the topic of this post. I appreciate you filling in the background. Our differences run pretty deep, so without getting bogged down into the minutiae, how about this question. Hypothetically, if we somehow made it possible to get enough votes or enough support to establish a biblical government, would you then be willing to make… Read more »
I don’t think I have enough information to say yes or no on that question. Does “enough votes and support” mean we actually have communities that are more or less living out the gospel? Or just people who are whipped up by the flavor of the month populism? If the former, I’d say we have the infrastructure to legislate the morality that is being lived out. If the latter, then it’s just going to create more tensions and escalate to violence.
Let’s try a more simple approach. Is there a scenario you can envision where you would be willing to criminalize that behavior which was criminalized in the bible? In other words, are you ever, under any circumstances short of glory, willing to let the government restrain those evils by legal sanctions?
Assuming we’re still talking about abortion, homosexuality, and adultery, yes, I can see it being helpful to criminalize them if, as I said previously, the culture is actually working to create discipleship as a majority way of life. Additionally, if a significant part of discipleship is prison ministry.
Good, we are getting somewhere. Our difference on this particular point is direction. Government is established by God to restrain evil, so that discipleship might be able to progress, not vice versa. If your goal is to make culture work “to create discipleship as a majority way of life,” then we ought to be making calls and advocating that the government do its job, restrain evil, so that we in the church might do ours, disciple the nations. In other words, supporting cultural libertarianism allows evil to flourish and makes discipleship harder. The bible nowhere tells us to give room… Read more »
The Bible tells Christians to give no room for evil – but not everyone in society will be Christian, and we cannot force obedience past a certain point. I believe we lose more than we gain if we manage to outlaw things without making them unthinkable first.
The flaw in this thinking is two-fold. If it is unthinkable in a widespread manner, there is no need for the law. Restrain evil and make disciples, in that order. The reverse makes no sense. We lose nothing by honoring God’s word by having the government restrain evil. Are we afraid the depraved sinners are going to get themselves thrown into Hell number 2? They are already objects of wrath. They already reject God. Unless we make room to use the word to preach to the heart, we can’t disciple them. Honoring God’s word in this way is the most… Read more »
The flaw in your thinking is that if you outlaw something in a government driven by democracy/voting, all the laws in the world will quickly be overturned unless you create the culture necessary to support it. See also: Prop 8 in California. I would have voted for that measure if I’d (shudder) lived in California, but it did no good, and is no longer law. If it is unthinkable, that doesn’t mean it will go away – there will still be people who practice it. Abortion is not a 40 year old evil, it’s thousands of years old. Making it… Read more »
Thank you for taking the time to chat. I know we started off a little combative, which I still don’t understand, but I do appreciate you taking the time. As a retired old man, I have plenty, but I know others do not. I am grateful. Your point about voting is spot on correct. That is why we should oppose basing our legislative process on the voice of sinful men. Of course, that is what we have, but it should not stop us from trying to move toward a more theonomic basis. You have the process backwards, meaning changing hearts… Read more »
Well, as is pretty clear, I’m not completely on board with theonomy. I think that’s the ideal, and as the church transforms the culture, that becomes more possible, But I am against tyranny, because I don’t think it works, ultimately, to spread the gospel. Cultural libertarianism is dangerous, but it allows for the gospel to be preached. And while the blood of martyrs spreads the gospel, I don’t think we should actively encourage the creation of a state which martyrs people for any reason. If we put in place the power of the state to make morality explicit, we’ve put… Read more »
Do you think God’s revealed theonomy is tyranny? You seem to suggest that you oppose theonomy, because you oppose tyranny.
I am deeply, deeply suspicious of theonomy, because in the absence of God speaking directly to us like in Judges, I believe it becomes an excuse for sinful men to become kings. (Also, I would never, ever want to live in Isreal during the Judges – I might have a concubine, and then cut her into pieces, and cause civil war.) And yes, this time, you are correct – I oppose theonomy because I oppose tyranny. Democracy, as the old wag says, is the worst form of government – except for all the others. I believe it offers the most… Read more »
We have nailed our difference. I must say that I believe God has spoken, and we can either accept it or reject it, but it is quite clear how He feels about these actions. Democracy has given us moral degeneracy, so I am not sure how you can see it as having the most checks upon sinful man. In my mind, it has the least. It places sinful man in charge. I support theonomy, because God is love, and He has made it clear that restraining evil is the most loving thing a government can do. Perhaps one day I… Read more »
Theonomy gave Israel moral degeneracy too, unless you want to argue that the incident to which I referred didn’t happen in Judges. Every man did as he saw fit in his own eyes.
I believe the Law in both Old and New Testaments are loving grace. But without sanctification, the Old Testament Law is death. Says my main man Paul. :)
If you can argue that it was the theonomic Law of God that caused the degeneracy of Israel, while also arguing that Democracy restrains evil, we have lots of ground to traverse before we find a meeting place. But, that is what blogs like this are for.
And before we bring this chat to a close, I might also note my main man Paul :) also said that these criminal activities were deserving of death.
Thanks and blessings.
I should have clarified – I don’t think it was God or His Law that cause the degeneracy of Judges – but I also don’t think democracy causes it in America either. It’s always been here, because of the groaning of creation under the Curse. And yes, it’s allowed by democracy – but so too was it allowed in Judges. The main man Paul is right – but we are all deserving of death. To quote a different, and naturally lesser, main man, Shakespeare, if all got what they deserved, who should scape whipping? So we obviously have to pick… Read more »
The difference between the two systems is that one places the decision for what is allowable into the hands of sinful men and the other leaves that decision into the hands of a gracious creator.
I don’t think we ought to be doing the picking about what sins must be law. I think, because I am a theonomist, that is best left into the hands of God.
That’s silly of you. Do you think that eating pork is unacceptable? What about all the regulations about women’s periods? You are picking and choosing no matter what you do – and I think that’s the point of the Law in the OT. Only Christ COULD do it. We should strive to do it, but through sanctification, not by mandate of the sword. Furthermore – I don’t think that simply saying that your version of theonomy is putting government in God’s hands is at all true. Someone has to be enforcing the law, and thus interpreting it. If you don’t… Read more »
I have had a number of reactions to my claims of theonomy, but never being equated to a jihadi. This is a first. Pork is acceptable, because inspired writers said so. Pointing to that as an example of some flaw in theonomy shows you haven’t really thought this over much. I am happy to accept that good bible believing Christians can advocate for positions that are not theonomy, and happily worship with them, but what I cannot seem to get them to do is be consistent. Either our laws are rooted in God’s revealed Law or it is rooted in… Read more »
I’m not accusing you of being a jihadi – I’m simply asking that if we pursue external restraint of evil without a greater focus on internal conversation and conversion through discipleship as a church, how is it different? Our laws are human, and therefore imperfect approximations of God’s plan for people living together. It’s not an either/or. We cannot pick one or the other, because we live in a fallen world. Compromise is part of living on Earth, not heaven. I’m not happy about compromise – but I don’t think that a new round of heresy trials (which is what… Read more »
I’m not accusing you of being a jihadi – I’m simply asking that if we pursue external restraint of evil without a greater focus on internal conversation and conversion through discipleship as a church, how is it different? I simply haven’t done this. I wholeheartedly believe that we need both. I don’t think that a new round of heresy trials (which is what I think would happen if you were able to implement any form of theonomy) is good for the faith or people’s souls. Heresy is under the purview of the church, and while I think we need more… Read more »
So, the Bible has many, many conflicting interpretations. Thus, many, many denominations. Do you really think that the Law is clear enough in the Word, when power, punishment, wealth – all of society’s temptations – are at stake, to prevent a whole power structure building up around interpretation of the Word for the government? Look at our own court system interpreting our human laws – I cannot conceive that it would get any better, and believe it would be much worse, because we would be handling the Words of God, if we were to try to implement what I understand… Read more »
First of all, yes, absolutely. The sufficiency of Scripture is a very orthodox position, and I am wondering if perhaps you have unconsciously begun to think that Scripture isn’t.
Secondly, what other choice do we have? Either our laws are rooted in the gracious and loving revealed Law, or it is rooted in the sinful, patently ungracious, very unloving minds of sinful men.
Well, as a good Baptist, whose entire denomination is founded on a central disagreement in interpreting the sacraments, yes, I do think that the Scripture is not as clear on everything as I have heard Presbyterians declaim. Clear on the Gospel? Yes, absolutely. Clear on nearly everything else? No. I believe that it’s not obvious, and our understanding is changing to meet the challenges we face as well as increased sanctification. And in governing a society that is not wholly Christian, the problems would only be more compounded. Again, I categorically reject the “either/or” postulation that you must have either… Read more »
If disagreement on an issue means that the Scriptures are insufficient, then your claim that it is clear on the gospel also falls. You cannot claim that the Word is insufficiently clear on the sacraments, because people disagree, and then state that it is clear on the gospel, where many people adamantly disagree. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We will always be faced with problems as a result of sin before we enter glory, so every system of thought will have to contend with that. I am not suggesting this is some magic formula for perfection.… Read more »
Thank you for your conversation as well. I wish you and your family well, especially the babies. :)
Could you expand on that, Ian? Do you mean that the Catholic church is using power directly to enact legislation, or that it influences Catholics to vote for the legislation it favors? These are very different things. If the second, do you see that as a problem when the desired law is one you would agree with?
No, actually, I was talking about the historic corruption I believe the Catholic church fell into when it was combined with the state. So, I guess, the former, but historically, not really currently.
I don’t have a problem with the second, as long as the parishoners are exhorted to compare the exhortations to the Bible like the Bereans, rather than just “If you don’t vote pro-life, you’re a bad Catholic.” (I happen to believe that you are a bad Christian, Catholic or otherwise, if you don’t vote pro-life, but I don’t think it should be forced on people without explanation).
Yes, the historic corruption was not pretty. Franco’s Spain comes to mind, with the bishops blessing the rifles used by the firing squads. What we are typically told from the pulpit is to follow our conscience, bearing in mind the totality of Catholic moral and social teaching. I must never vote for a pro-abortion candidate specifically because he favors abortion rights. But, if a politician is in line with church teaching on every single issue except that one, while his anti-abortion opponent campaigns on an otherwise evil platform, I can conscientiously vote for the former. For example, if Candidate A… Read more »
I was thinking further back – Inquisition, etc.
I would agree that if you believe someone is pro-abortion, but the opponent is worse, it’s not necessarily wrong to vote for the pro-abortion person. However, I’m not certain the a third party candidate would not be legitimate in that case, either.
Galations 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Might moving in a theonomic direction place men under a schoolmaster leading them to Christ? You said we should make laws and diciples is it possible that making laws is part of making diciples?
I believe that a Christian in office should strive to pass and enforce laws that are consistent with a Biblical ethic. I do not think that this is the same as making disciples. And I would seriously ask: how is legislating Christianity to a population that does not believe it make us better than Muslim rulers enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims? The fact that it’s true doesn’t make the people who rebel against it more likely to be saved. So briefly, no, I do not think that the political law of a country should be considered part of making disciples.… Read more »
I really believe Milo’s “crime,” his social faux pas, revolved around hinting at the relationship between child sexual abuse and homosexuality. That is simply not done and the repercussions are always horrific. If we were willing to be honest here, we would speak the truth. Child sexual abuse is the theft of a kid’s mind, body, and spirit. It causes harm in far reaching ways and one of the forms of harm is perverted sexuality. People are often groomed into homosexuality by adults who prey on them at a time in their development when they are sexually imprinting. It’s no… Read more »
I don’t know how much I can fully stand with Milo – but because of what he’s said and done before this stuff. I don’t have more qualms about him now, and thought his apology was quite well done.
I do fully agree about the link between pedophillia and homosexuality (and other sexual perversions). However, saying anything about it is way, way beyond any kind of forgiveness by our current blind culture.
We are the United States of Irony. The left howls and rails about pedophilia and child sex trafficking while supporting with billions of dollars Victoria’s Secret and their ilk who spend untold numbers of dollars on models who look like 14 year-old hookers so that our 14 year-old daughters can yearn to look like hookers.
Remember “heroin chic?” That was just a phase, right?
Oh, I am so glad someone else sees the problem! I keep saying “iron sharpens iron,” people, not “irony!” Irony is another word entirely. Don’t get your iron and your irony confused, that’s very bad. I know, it’s just one letter, but it really matters. :)
According to me in 2012, apparently, it was a phase. https://swimthedeepend.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/the-addict-signs-of-addiction/
Don’t forget Beyoncé, favorite of the MSM, friend of the Obamas. Her entire routine is dressing up like a stripper or hooker. As Carlos Santana said recently, she’s an entertainer, not a musician. (Santana is pretty much a commie, but he’s a real musician who can play the guitar.)
Yes, good point about Beyoncé. And let us not forget the poster-child for modern American worship at the Ashera Pole, Miley Cyrus.
As a result of the essay I posted yesterday, I have spent countless hours debating with purported Christians who defend Yiannopoulos with clearly leftist arguments, including that my criticism is based on my subjective standards which they reject. Yes, my subjective belief that conservatism holds virtue in high esteem is the problem. It is my subjective, arguable beliefs which suggest that Yiannopoulos’ repeated proclamations of his love for “black d*ck,” and his repeated thanks to a priest who taught him at age 14 how to “give good he*ad,” and his public references to women as “c*nts,” and his redefinition of… Read more »
“Yes, my subjective belief that conservatism holds virtue in high esteem…”
I’ve been busy trying to figure out how in the world cpac has anything resembling virtue at all? I mean they invited Milo knowing perfectly well who and what he was, but that was the winds were blowing favorably. The moment a little rain falls, they bail. That is the last thing you want in a politician, wishy washy values based on nothing more than popular opinion. It’s pure hypocrisy.
Their error was that they invited him at all. I’m glad they corrected their error. Maybe they will find a backbone and return to having Christian values.
I guess one could call what CPAC did repentance. It’s a good start!
One could also call it stupid, counterproductive pandering to their enemies, a.k.a. the “Eat Me Last” gambit. CPAC was fine with him as a sodomite and *now* they get the vapors?
As a Christian I say that it was stupid, counterproductive pandering to the enemy that caused them to invite him in the first place. I hope they rescinded the invitation because they came to their senses.
Sure, that’d be nice. But are you really so optimistic? (I agree they should be a Christian organization, and not feature speakers engaged in conspicuous ongoing wickedness. But since they aren’t, and do, I’m not going to compliment them for moral fiber. If anything, the reverse is the case – they were arrogant to invite him, behaving as if God’s law was irrelevant. They are cowardly to disinvite him. It’s the worst of both worlds. Even gentiles and tax-gatherers love their own.
Well said. I do not honestly know what was in their hearts. However, had they stood firm in their support of Milo, i would not be applauding them for it now. It is possible that they thought they would draw in the Alt Right and a younger audience with Milo and were unaware of how horrendous his past behavior has been. It’s also possible someone high in the political food chain took offense that they had invited Milo. It could be a number of things. I do know that CPAC acted appropriately at the end, and for that I am… Read more »
Has CPAC renounced the normalization of homosexuals? If not, then I wouldn’t call their final position any more appropriate than their initial position. Unless by “position” you mean strictly “whether they did, in fact, invite Milo to speak.”
It could be a number of things that motivate it, but when you see the “conservatives” acting in response to left-wing agitation… you must admit the timing lines up. Would you be comfortable calling it “presumptive cowardice”?
I like the term ‘presumptive cowardice’ and will certainly use it in the future! I think it is more likely that this was a case of gross ignorance on CPAC’s part. While CPAC may have been willing to change the definition of ‘traditional’ to include sodomites, they weren’t quite prepared to include *that*. As Pastor Wilson pointed out, there is still a line that conservative leadership will not cross, at least not in front of the masses, and that is pederasty. I also suspect that there was a considerable backlash from their conservative base against hosting Milo in the first… Read more »
I completely agree. As I said in my article, Matt Schlapp and any other CPAC leaders who supported the invitation to Yiannopoulos should lose their positions. It isn’t just Yiannopoulos’ clear statement about Father Michael and his clear statement that sex between adult men and “sexually mature” teens does not constitute pedophilia–a not-uncommon view within the homosexual community. It is also Yiannopoulos’ full-throated (no pun intended) endorsement and celebration of homoeroticism and his nasty and obscene rhetoric that render him unsuitable as a spokesperson for conservatism. He is, of course, deserving of compassion, forgiveness, and prayer, but he is also… Read more »
Well, technically it doesn’t constitute pedophilia, as the definition of pedophilia is desire for the prepubescent.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong and indefensible.
ME, this is sorta tangential, but I am curious why you’re so favorable towards Milo, who has done a lot more to popularize and mainstream the alt right misogyny and racism (though to clarify, I don’t think he is a misogynist or racist, but he certainly didn’t draw a hard line against it during Trump’s rise, and his coattailling) than Doug?
It is somewhat unfair of me, isn’t it? I do hold Pastor Wilson to a higher standard than I do Milo, perhaps sometimes to an unfair standard. I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense however, because Wilson is a Christian and a Pastor while Milo is Milo, kind of a train wreck of a man. My expectations are different. What helped to make me fond of Milo was watching him confront some genuine white nationalists, a couple of misogynists, and publicly expose a couple pedophiles, before eventually distancing himself from the alt-right. There was some integrity there I… Read more »
I think a higher standard for Wilson is sensical – but Milo fell much further short. I do think Milo has matured a bit through this process, but I was perplexed a bit by the radical difference in similar actions.
I hope I’ve indicated that I do have appreciation for Milo, but I also think he’s seriously inconsistent on very serious issues.
I agree that conservatives ought to hold virtue in high esteem. It’s just that now the horse is already over the hill and far away, and so I am disinclined to clap too loudly when they make a big production out of padlocking the barn.
Gotta start somewhere. Too bad it took his redefinition of pedophilia to force conservatives to find and dust off those rubbery spines.
He really did not redefine pedophilia. Some footage was edited to make it look as if he was. If you watch the entire tape, he clearly speaks out against it.
There are also his numerous articles exposing actual pedophiles, one of whom is currently in court. Milo is no pedophile lover. That’s a false accusation.
No, what he did was to say that pedophilia is sex between adults and prepubescent children and he strongly opposes that. But sex he said that sex between “sexually mature” teens and adult men is not pedophilia. He said it in at least two interviews. This is a common view among male homosexuals–though not widely publicized. It is also the most common form of homosexuality throughout history in virtually every culture that tolerated or approved of homosexuality. If you visit homosexual websites–which I don’t recommend–you will often see photos of young, skinny, hairless, shirtless males. I’m sure they’re of major… Read more »
I don’t agree with Milo’s view, but it’s factually not pedophilia. Pedophilia is defined as an attraction to prepubescent kids. That’s what the word means.
Yes, if we want to split perversity hairs, pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Hebephilia is the sexual attraction to early pubescent children from about the ages of 11-14. And ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to teens in mid to late adolescence (about 15-19). But do we really want to split those hairs? And for what purpose? To efface cultural disapproval of sex between adults and 14-year-olds? Moreover, it seems that most of society considers sex between say 40-year-old men and 13-year-old boys to be pedophilia. Perhaps we should use the term pederasty.
The important distinction is between the sin of pedophilia and the crime of statutory rape. Sex with a pre-adolescent is disordered – malum in se. Sex with a post-adolescent can be holy in the context of marriage; if illegal, it’s only malum prohibitum. Far from splitting perversity hairs, there is all the difference in the world.
Shorter version: Joseph was not a pervert for marrying Mary, even though she was very probably underage by our definition, and hence unable to give legal consent. I’d say that’s an important hair to split.
Another important distinction is between homoerotic sex–which Yiannopoulos has in many contexts celebrated–and heterosexuality. I grant that pederasty is a more precise term for the activity Yiannopoulos endorsed in multiple interviews.
That said, the culture–including both conservatives and liberals–view sex between adults and children–who can be post-adolescent at age 10 or 11 for girls and age 12 or 13 for boys–to be not only criminal but sinful.
I am completely uninterested in “the culture’s” definition of sin. Milo is certainly a great sinner, but that is because he is a practicing homosexual. He is considered wicked by the current leftist regime because he hates Marxism, not because of any sexual disorder. This age-of-consent business is merely a convenient stick to beat him with.
Uberti wrote:
Indeed. That is the nature of their hypocrisy. As others have pointed out, this stick is no longer theirs to swing.
Is a minor able to consent to sex rearrangement, at the hands of an entire team of surgeons, but somehow not old enough to consent to a simple act of copulation?
We certainly do want to split hairs. It is wildly unhelpful to compare age <10 to age 19.
Yes, but is there a significant moral difference between adults having sex with prepubescent 9-year-olds and pubescent 11-year-olds? I suspect many rightly believe there is not. And yet, those who quibble about puberty being the red line between licit and illicit sex will be compelled to say, there is a significant moral difference.
There has to be a line somewhere. I think that post pubescence is where the line is.
Yeah… because that’s really what happened. It’s totally unrelated to the official two-minutes’ hate declared by the powers that be. Just got a dose of moral fiber with the breakfast Wheaties, that’s all.
Laurie, I have dsagreed with you many times, but I am grateful to hear this plainly spoken. Milo’s statements about women and about his sexual desires are vile. The side that professes family values was willing to overlook all that because he apparently despises all the right (or left) people. Reagan would be spinning in his grave.
Nice to hear from you, jillybean!
“Statements about women”? You mean when he says “Feminism is cancer”?
It’s terrible that you’d call a man vile for speaking the truth. ^_^
No, I didn’t have a problem with that statement. I don’t like the fat-shaming, and I don’t like his calling women c@nts–which he has, repeatedly. And I would be equally disgusted by women who call men filthy names.
I’m not sure what he’s said re: fat-shaming. If he’s just randomly making fun of overweight women, I don’t support that. If he’s reacting to Yahoo posting constant pics of 170-lb women in tiny bikinis and calling it “the new normal” I’m okay with it. If you’re a so-called model or Lady Gaga and show every bare inch of your skin that you legally can, expect some negative feedback.
How easy it is for Christians to step out of the Kingdom.
Gee, if you look past his crude talk of sucking body parts, his complete disrespect for Christianity, his flagrant flaunting of his sexual immorality, his intentional redefining of pedophilia so that if a 14 year old ‘wants’ it, then it’s okay …
If you overlook all of that, he’s a really great guy.
Christians, wake up!
It seems to me that Jesus Christ looked past all that darkness within us and saw our higher selves. “While we were yet sinners, He died for us.”
Sometimes I think we forget that as Christians and start perceiving the kingdom as if it were a country club reserved for all the “right people,” those of us who know which fork to use.
Jesus loves his sheep who walk in darkness. That’s why we tell them the Good News. To tell them that they are fine in their sin is hatred, not love.
You err to think that we can live together peaceably and find any common ground with them outside of Christ. That’s why I say you have stepped out of the Kingdom.
The Kingdom of Heaven, as described in the last part of Revelation, has walls and a gate! Do you think that anyone can enter?
“Do you think that anyone can enter?” No, but I think we’re called to love those who don’t appear to be entering those gates anytime soon, all the harder. Also, we’re called to bring the good news, which should having something “good” to it. So when someone like Milo discloses sexual abuse, we don’t suddenly declare him a pervert and start celebrating the false allegations that have been hurled at him. I assume wrong is still wrong, right is still right, whether you like the guy or not? It is never okay to start a whisper campaign accusing someone of… Read more »
The kingdom of darkness eats its own with little provocation. That is their nature.
We should not be like that. We should stand together as soldiers in Christ. We should expect persecution because of our stance.
Our argument is over where Milo falls. He is not of our Kingdom. No one would be happier than I if he repented and became a Christian. The best we can do as Christians is offer him a lifeline. To support him in his sin is not in his best long term interests. or ours.
Jesus didn’t look past our darkness. He bore it for us. And while he walked among us he told sinners to repent and follow him. He told them to go and sin no more. He didn’t offer them a platform to disseminate their darkness.
And he told us to expose the unfruitful works of darkness–not to excuse them or celebrate those who celebrate them.
….And he told us to expose the unfruitful works of darkness”
It seems to me that Milo with his disclosures of child sexual abuse and his resulting homosexuality, vulgar language, and bad behavior, has done more to expose the “unfruitful works of darkness” than any of us ever dreamed of.
The sad part is that there are so few Christians who can actually hear what he is saying.
What suggests to you that few Christians can actually hear what he said yesterday?
Only that some of us are not fawning all over him as some kind of modern-day St. Sebastian shot with arrows. We’re just a bunch of judgmental and hypocritical old meanies.
“But he calls Jews “pig-sh*t” and women filthy names, so he can’t be all bad.” That would seem to be the argument of his Christian defenders. What in heaven’s name have we come to?
ME, I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that when you say, “…Jesus Christ looked past all that darkness within us and saw our higher selves,” that you mean something completely different than how it sounds. The whole point of the Gospel, rightly understood, is that there was never any “higher self” in any of us before salvation. Jesus didn’t look at anyone and say to himself, “there’s someone with a bit of good inside them which will shine if I just remove that darkness that is obscuring it.” On the contrary, he looked on… Read more »
Thank you St Lee, I appreciate your granting me the benefit of the doubt. I mean God looked past how we really are on and saw our potential. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Some of us may be cloaked in the righteousness of Christ, but that is not something we have earned by refraining from “crude talk, disrespect,or flagrant flaunting of sexual immorality.” One does not earn grace. The accusation against me was, “I say you have stepped out of the Kingdom.” Well shoot, if supporting Milo gets me kicked out of the kingdom, the rest… Read more »
There is a difference between sinning in the past, before we knew Christ, and willingly advocating for sin now while we claim to be in Christ. This is not about whether we sin or not. Surely we all still do, but the correct response is always repentance and a return to right standing through the blood of Christ. The issue is two parts, and I think you have been addressing one, and I have been addressing the other. How do we as Christians show compassion to someone like Milo who has been hurt? I think we agree on this. It’s… Read more »
“How do we as Christians show compassion to someone like Milo who has been hurt? I think we agree on this. It’s tears. It’s prayers” At some point it should also involve justice, the simple naming of evil for what it is. Someone, a couple of them, sexually abused Milo as a young boy. That’s evil. So how much of Milo’s crude behavior is simply symptomatic of the evil that was inflicted upon him? Compassion requires us to name that evil, not to point fingers at a child abuse victim, call him a pervert, and then condone the hurtful and… Read more »
Oh, I see what you’re getting at now. Thanks for sticking with it! God’s justice is sometimes really hard. Do you remember in Ezra how the men of Israel had to kick out their wives and children? I always felt so bad for the children who hadn’t done anything wrong. I agree that many in the church have taken a hard stance against homosexuality, but have forgotten the mercy Christ showed to them when they were enemies of God. This has caused a real polarization in the body of Christ until we either insist on justice or mercy, but not… Read more »
We can’t give people moral blank checks because they’ve been abused or ill treated as children. Most pedophiles were apparently abused as children, yet we don’t say poor loves, they can’t help it. It is rare to find a serial killer without a traumatic childhood, yet we don’t offer mercy at the total expense of justice. I do not understand Milo’s appeal in the first place. What is noble or refreshing about an “honesty” that make you say every vile and venomous statement that pops into your head? Is the hatred for “liberals” so deeply entrenched that Christian conservatives are… Read more »
I never ‘got’ Milo either.
Hey! We agree on something! Tell the truth. Does that scare you? :)
No because I am sure we would find much common ground if we met face to face! I have my conservative moments!
” Being part Jewish when you identify with people who hate Jews must also be hell. ”
I don’t think that’s really true. Most of those who identify with him hate SJWs, plain and simple. A small fraction may be truly anti-Semitic, and some other may be mildly in that camp, but that’s not what unites them.
Like many, Memi is worth any investment, even if it is just blog comments. Here is a link to a part of her story, that I find compelling:
https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/i-am-my-fathers-daughter-2/
I love ME’s passion and I agree with her more often than not. I just sometimes need to be prodded a little to unstick from my viewpoint before I can see another, and she has shown patience more than once and stayed with me until I understood.
(Is this the part where ME says, “I’m right here. I can see what you’re writing!”)
I was enjoying re-reading Milo’s remarks on victim culture: “Being a victim is big business. The left has turned it into a badge of honor, and something used to consolidate money and power. On campus, I also see evidence of students eager to proclaim themselves victims. Of course, when they can’t find ways to be a victim, they fake it!” “Just as we’ve turned into a thin-skinned culture, we’ve turned into one in which victims are held in ludicrously unjustified esteem. So some people — liberals — become victims by any means necessary.” So when Milo’s words got him in… Read more »
JL wrote: Now, what do we as Christians do when the person who is advocating for a sinful lifestyle does so in the public square where he can influence many people? Wilson has often made a distinction between refugees from the world, and apostles of the world, and how we should treat them very differently. I would also make a distinction between enemy civilians and enemy combatants. Someone may not be repentant at all, and may not be seeking refuge from the world at all, and yet still not be engaged in front-line advocacy. For example, there is a difference… Read more »
I was a retired enemy combatant. Yet, it was a message of truth mixed with compassion that opened my eyes. My husband was an enemy civilian, and the same message opened his.
I see it as quite a bit simpler. I would say there are those lost sheep who hear and recognize Christ’s voice and those who do not. One must correctly tailor the message through discernment and determine whether we are speaking to a proud heart or a broken one. Maybe this is what Pastor Wilson meant?
Yes. I would say that evidence of a proud heart, in the public square, is what distinguishes a combatant from a civilian. Discerning a proud heart is the example that Jesus gave as He would variously show gentleness or severity with unbelievers and believers, as the situation called for.
He is far less dangerous to us than many people with less obvious vices.
He just convinced many Christians to defend a man who advocates sex with children and who has described his own ‘good experiences’ of being groomed and coerced into sex as a child.
What exactly is your idea of more dangerous?
Russell Moore comes to mind.
Russell Moore wants to normalize Muslims, who also enjoy pederasty.
He is dangerous admittedly, but not more dangerous.
I wonder if ashv means that, even among those who laugh at Milo and egg him on, there are few people with any sort of moral compass who actually admire him or think he is a decent human being. Most Christian young people are not likely to want to grow up and want to be like Milo. But they might admire Russell Moore (I don’t know why ashv dislikes Russell Moore, but I think that might have been what he meant).
Thanks, jilly. That makes sense.
Milo is damaged. That makes him dangerous. It just so happens that he is taking out his damaged behavior on individuals who hold evil positions.
Actually, Milo has repeatedly defended Christianity and been seriously mocked for it.
Milo, if I understand correctly, has called himself a Christian. If he is, I hope he will repent. Otherwise he makes a mockery of it.
Turns out when you order a hot dish of hip conservative gayness at the Log Cabin Cafe, they don’t let you hold the sexual perversion.
I see Milo as a Fool, ala Shakespearean Fool. Why is it that he is the only one who can speak the truth about the death of free speech, and promote discussion on things that need to be talked about. He is crude, exceedingly so, but if there were others talking philosophically like him, then how would he even be given a stage??
As for this takedown, I’m wondering if it was someone at CPAC, who didn’t want him to speak.
“…the few remaining hydro-normative dams.”
I was in mid-chew during lunch when I read that line and almost projectile-laughed all over my screen.
Needed a good guffaw. Thanks for that.
Those dams are a reflection of the California ethos: broken and weeping.
Yes, and over-engineered by foolish bureaucrats, who in their pride, used to design environment-changing structures, now only patch and repair, having decided that the environment must remain unmolested.
What is this talk of “Left” and “progressives”? Milo was invited by a conservative group, then disinvited by that same conservative group. I’m afraid you can’t blame the usual boogeymen for this one.
Another swing-and-a-miss from Matt. Wilson wasn’t blaming progressives here. Wilson noted that their hypocrisy is a given. Here’s what Wilson actually said:
Wilson was actually writing about the hypocrisy and weathervanity of CPAC itself.
Well now I am confused. The “bad guys” got Milo here, but you seem to be claiming that the bad guys are CPAC themselves, who invited Milo and then…set out to get him? CPAC invited Milo, then became a lynch mob, then successfully pressured themselves to withdraw the invitation. I think my interpretation is far more reasonable, and “progressives” are the lynch mob here.
Another swing-and-a-miss from Matt. Not sure how many times the point has to be repeated. “Of course the hypocrisy of the Left goes without saying.” Wilson wasn’t belaboring that point. This post was about the hypocrisy of the so-called conservatives.
Man “weathervanity” is such a great word! ‘first time I heard of it! ; – )
It’s the first time I’d heard of it too, but it seemed to fit the situation. :-)
I suspect it is both. Some on the left seem hypocritical because Milo would be celebrated if he espoused leftish ideology, but despite being gay and a sex abuse victim, he loses minority credentials when he uses them for right leaning objectives.
But some on the right are also hypocritical as per katecho’s analysis.
So hypocrites on both sides. The right see the left’s hypocrisy but need to see it when it happens on the right.—perhaps?
Not everyone on the left would welcome Milo as a comrade in arms. There are liberals who despise left-wing celebrities who spew the same kind of in-your-face vulgarity, who think that Roman Polanski and Woody Allen should die in jail, and who don’t think that inciting others to hatred is hilarious performance art.
Agreed. And I have friends on the left who would be in this category. I was referring to the media left and the activist left. I think that restricted to that group, my comment is largely true.
The point is that the hypocrisy of the left is gettting so ridiculous that it is getting harder to recognize the hypocrisy on the right.
Milo gets sued again; accused of male sexuality/re-abused like when he was young. Manipulated by his all too measurable gonads. Rather than keep his junk tucked up out of space edited for x’s and alphabet.soup-he presented with Y. “Hey kids” its ok to discuss aoc because thats how you get-well-aoc laws. Of course a wacky alternative wiuld be to recognize farhers authority to ‘let them marry’ and when, but since there are parents who dont believe in free will free love and at what age their little Oskie the bear should come out-we must defer to gov. Parents may error… Read more »
A small part of me wants to try to decipher what you’re saying here.
Your uninvited to
I don’t usually feel inclined to pray for celebrities and touring speakers, but in Milo’s case I really do want to pray. of course, if he is converted it will be the end of his career – a steep price. He is one of the more honest people holding a microphone right now.
Perhaps this situation is God’s grace in his life?
I hope so. He is a tortured guy.
The idea of God’s grace working in Milo’s life right now, is one I’ve pondered. Part of what got him into so much trouble was joking, making light of the sexual abuse he himself suffered at the hands of a priest. That’s typical of sexual abuse victims, an attempt to rewrite the narrative about what happened, to make the evil that was done to them good. Almost like a kind of Stockholm syndrome. If I were counseling Milo, I would have shut that down immediately, said, no, you’re not going to avoid the truth, you’re not going to make light… Read more »
Saul / Paul survived a 180 degree career change! ; – )
His career change quite literally killed him.
Not in a worldly sense, unless you count getting chased out of nearly every town you enter, thrown in jail, nearly getting killed multiple times, and ultimately being executed as a good career move.
Strangely enough, Paul did! ????
He came to view his initial career as a sanctimonious “politically correct” murderer, as over rated!
????
Yes, but you’re equivocating. It was the end of the career he had, traded in for something far less pleasant and successful in the worldly sense, and a steep price. And that’s what would happen to Milo in the proposed scenario.
Strangely enough, sometimes our crosses to bear, come to us. And while Paul worked in his second career, he knew he was working on something permanent and Ordained!
Always a pleasure to speak with you Lady Dunsworth!????????????
All I am saying is that the Bible isn’t Pollyannish about the cost of discipleship. Yes, “these light afflictions work a great weight of glory” and “whatever I have gained, I consider loss,” and yet the word “loss” IS used, and we ARE to “count the cost.”
So we can talk about cost as though it’s real, while acknowledging that in the end, the gain is greater.
This is why I like so many of your comments.
Gay man taught me that priests who abuse male children sexually are ex. of hetero rape. They (un)edited Milo-hetero and then kicked him in the ‘sex’ parts.
I just finished reading David McCullough’s The Johnstown Flood, and it certainly lends some vividness to your metaphor of choice here.
I realize that I am late to this party, but we should all see in Milo a good case for what engaging in homo behavior does to an individual. He is a narcissistic degenerate who is an attention whore. He is utterly damaged and in need of prayer and Christ. Anyone who sees him as one who Christians can support need to really re-evaluate their priorities.
I agree with you, but I believe that even if Milo were straight, he would be displaying the same conduct, just directed toward women. I think we are seeing a character disorder which you rightly identify as narcissism. I think promiscuity always leads to degeneracy.
Can’t say I disagree one bit. Degeneracy is not exclusive to homos. It manifests itself in a number of ways. Homo self-abuse is just one obvious manifestation. I will say that while heterosexuals can manifest degeneracy same as anyone, we can’t equate homo butt plugging with a guy who fails to wait til he married. One is a lack of self-control which requires he do the right thing and marry her with the father’s permission (Exodus 22:16-17), while the other is a capital crime (Exodus 20:13). Now, having made that clear, the game promoting serial fornicators who teach the alphas… Read more »
Gathering sticks on the Sabbath was also a capital crime under the Old Covenant. Moses had a man stoned to death for this very action.
I hope you don’t plan on shopping at Home Depot this weekend.
I haven’t worked on the Lord’s Day for 42 years. Well, I did have to clean out my basement once on Sunday when we got flooded out.
I would be quite happy to have Blue laws back, but only noting the gathering of sticks incident is misleading. Jesus had much to say about the Sabbath Laws which we must consider as well.
I think we can support him in the sense that we support Trump, or in the sense that good Jews could support Cyrus, the heathen King of Persia. Being thankful, even enthused about someone’s contribution is not the same as a blanket endorsement.
The difference here is that those examples, as well as Trump, are rulers who affect our lives. Milo is an entertainer. Accepting a compromise, or a lesser of two evils position in politics is not the same thing as supporting a sodomite entertainer.
When support means “I appreciate what he is doing and am not going to go out of my way to attack him” I don’t see a major difference. It’s not like I’m buying his hotel room.
I think your position is not available to a movement or party which presents itself as the standard-bearer for traditional Christian morality and conservative family values. It is an utterly secular position that says, if someone is with us on immigration, tax reform, and an end to political correctness, we do not care if his values and lifestyle are what we have always called evil in anyone else. The most secular part of the left can say “We don’t care if people have public sex with their cats as long as they are good on abortion rights and open borders”;… Read more »
I am not a great partisan of Milo’s. But I’ll be a monkey’s uncle before I join a mob seeking to expunge him from public life on false charges. Let us oppose him honestly or not at all. And certainly not because our mutual enemies, who lie constantly about us, are now telling lies about him!
If they are false, I agree with you. Although he has certainly used other discourse which, while not putting him in the moral leper category, should perhaps raise a moral eyebrow or two!
Fair enough, I suppose. But I can’t even get behind what he does say. Most of it is so flagrantly unbiblical that even saying, “I appreciate what he is doing” is further than I can go.
Likely so. “What he is doing” in this instance is something like “driving social justice warriors bonkers” – I couldn’t tell you what he mostly talks about, except free speech.
But inviting him to be the keynote speaker at your annual gathering is LOT like buying his hotel room. Likely they literally did pay for his hotel room as part of the deal.
Sure, agreed. I don’t think, were I in charge of CPAC, that I would want him to be the keynote speaker.
Meanwhile, I see that our pro-LGBT president and his Education Secretary forgot to be pro-LGBT for a moment and did away with the tranny bathroom stuff for schools that came in under Obama: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/22/trump-administration-revokes-obama-era-transgender-bathroom-guidance-for-schools.html
Whether or not you consider Trump a conservative, he’s certainly surrounding himself with them, and letting them get their way.
I don’t know why he is doing it piecemeal. It only invites the media to accuse him of targeting LGBT rights. He should just revoke all of Obama’s executive orders in one pass, and reinstate what he thinks should be kept. That way it looks more like a general action, rather than singling out any particular group. On a related note, bathroom stalls are one thing, but the media doesn’t give much attention to the government school shower room. Are they supposing that the sexually confused (or curious) would never use these same arguments to get in there? But, once… Read more »
I am kind of glad he is openly trying to repeal these so-called rights of the mentally ill and perverts. It is better that he takes the opposition head-on, rather than trying to act like most conservatives in the federal government and appear all neutral.
Remember that Trump wrapped himself in an LGBTQ rainbow flag during the campaign. So I doubt this is coming from Trump as any kind of head-on confrontation. I think Trump is just purely opportunistic about the entire issue, and that ashv is right that it’s someone else in his administration getting their way.
You are probably right with this. I know he doesn’t care about the issue, at all, but he does seem to care about keeping his word from the campaign trail. Pagan though he may be, he is doing more in this regard than any of his conservative predecessors.
Looks like it’s Jeff Sessions. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/transgender-trump-sessions-override-devos/
I love that guy.
I’ve never been prouder to be from Alabama. ;-)
We’ve got this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_LePage
But not much else.
It is also worth adding that a bit of skepticism about Milo’s claims is justified. First of all, I am as happy as anyone about watching SJWs melt down at the sound of words. So, consider me amused at his ability to make them cry. But, seriously, he only claims to be a victim of abuse, by priests no less, after his career starts to go up in smoke. He never told his parents. He never told the police. He never disclosed to anyone, until magically his words about homo relationships between men and boys, which is the way it… Read more »
I am a bit skeptical, too. On the one hand, I’m sure he was a “pretty boy” and could have been targeted by an evil priest. But the timing here is a little suspicious. It is so easy to say, and is almost certain to be believed.
While we’re at it we’ll paint you wrong, since pedophilia is commited overwhelmingly by otherwise heterosexual males. Pesky things, facts. They’re always getting in the way of flawed ideology.
Pederasty runs rampant in the homo world. It has historically and still does today. Pesky things, facts.
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths
90% of those who molest children are male and are married to a female.
I think that it is possible that both statements could be true. Oscar Wilde was married to a woman when he hired an underaged male prostitute. I don’t think anyone could make a strong case that he was heterosexual. Furthermore, age of the victim is a major factor. I believe that classically defined pedophiles–those who like prepubescent children–are difficult to classify as gay or straight. I do not remotely support the idea that men who lust after very young children are typically gay. However, it is not possible to read widely in classical and European literature without encountering the phenomenon… Read more »
True enough. But my point is that if I’m a little kid, I’m far more likely to be molested by a man who is married to a woman, not someone who is openly gay.
I’m going to object to the idea that a “heterosexual” male pedo who goes after boys is actually heterosexual.
Something about a contradiction in terms.
http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths
1) Page not found
2) Dude, SPLC is the worst propagator of pro-gay lies in the US.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
If you buy the lies of the SPLC, why should I listen to you when you have new links?
Because you enjoying indulging in logical fallacies?
I certainly enjoying the grammatical correctness of you post.
Replies the man with no other defense but to change the subject. But you’re right. It’s probably best to ignore the real issue and gawk at typos.
I’m not actually interested in talking to someone who’s idea of defense and attack are posting links in isolation. But I was amused that you think logical fallacies are a good tactic while also being completely inarticulate.
You haven’t even offered an argument at all. I’m sorry if doing a little reading was too tough for you. I posted them because you aren’t really worth my time. In fact, I’m done with this conversation and with Doug Wilson. His quasi-defense of Milo is inexcusable. Au revoir!
Vaya con Dios.
That was very well handled. I didn’t even waste my time.
http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of those organizations which, if they said “Water is wet”, would prompt me to conduct an independent investigation to determine whether their claim were true.
It’s good to be skeptical, Kilgore, but Milo speaking of sexual abuse goes back at least two years. In fact, the edited video being used against him isn’t even recent. So these are not new revelations that just came to light after his career went up in smoke.
Speaking of his own abuse? Then why did he say that he hated that his parents were finding out this way? Talking about it in general is one thing, claiming to be a victim of it is another.
“Speaking of his own abuse?”
Yes. He has been talking about it for sometime now. The very video being used against him is from last year. So these are not new revelations that just came up.
If he had gone public about this abuse from the hands of priests years ago, then it makes no sense whatsoever to say he is heart-broken that his parents had to find out like this.
He knows the SJW game very well, and unless I am completely mistaken, which could be true, I think he is just continuing to play it now.
Well, with all due respect, I think you’re mistaken about him playing the victim card or engaging in any SJW games.
I do know he’s been somewhat estranged from his parents for a long time, and his last video was really the first time I’ve heard him speak seriously of his sexual abuse, as if he had been genuinely harmed by it, with the thought in mind that it might hurt his parents to know he had suffered.
I might be mistaken. I was only advocating for skepticism, not declaring he was lying. He is clearly a damaged man, and I have all the sympathy in the world for people who have been abused. But my skepticism arises from the fact that he knows their world. He knows their games so well. With his book deal and his appearance on Bill Maher, his brand is growing and his financial prospects are about to boom. That was why this attack came when it did. I have no doubts that the attacks on him are cynical. But for that very… Read more »
Wow, great job, Mr. Wilson. Defending a man who advocated sex between 13 year old boys and grown men. I guess you weren’t kidding when you told Dan Barker you were morally bankrupt. Keep on waging that war against the left no matter what your side is doing. I’m sure the ends will justify the means! Just be careful not to end up in outer darkness!
^– This, y’all. Don’t do this.
This is where an LOL response is entirely appropriate.
Just out of curiosity: can you point to a specific Bible passage that condemns sexual relations between an adult male and a girl under the age of …. say 13?
Not that I support such things. I’m just curious where you get your moral judgment on this topic from.
Seriously?
… probably not a useful rabbit trail to go down. Just sayin’.
Defend? Where? How?
So, I do understand the concept of don’t shoot the guy who’s shooting at your enemies. I quite understand it. But, I have a problem. You see, Milo is a human being. The Christians in this discussion seem to be unable to discern that Milo is a person in whom the image of God is marred by sin. He’s not merely some guy who might have some benefit to “the cause”. He’s a lost soul on his way to a permanent residency in Hell. It should be no surprise that he acts the way he does. I believe every Christian… Read more »
I don’t think the Rahab argument works. Rahab allied herself with Israel, not vice versa. She desired to be a part of the covenant community and Milo hasn’t shown that desire.
One cannot ally oneself with anyone unless both parties are in agreement. It’s a contract, not one way. And, btw, you might want to read Joshua 2 again for the order of events. They came to her,not the other way around, not that I really think it matters. She did not express desire to become part of the community until after they had secured lodging at her house and she hid them up on her roof and lied to the governing authorities on their behalf. The fact is, they were in cahoots with a well-known prostitute/idolater. I think the parallels… Read more »
Except that she was only really their ally insofar as she followed through on trusting them and hanging out the safe sign. Otherwise, she would just have been a tool, not an ally, and would have been slaughtered like the rest.
They didn’t ally themselves with her in the sense that they agreed to be on her side. They requested her help, and she gave it, and only after she agreed to be on THEIR side, did they offer her something in return.