Contents
All the Biden Intrigue
Re: swapping Biden I could be mistaken, but I think there is a relatively simple path for swapping Biden. Because the primary process has commenced, and Biden has nearly all the delegates pledged to him, he has only to withdraw and endorse another candidate. The delegates are then pledged to that other candidate.
If there was in fact some sort of plan for all this (which I suspect given that the media seems to have gone along with the he’s-as-sharp-as-a-tack to we-had-no-idea-he’s-senile narrative overnight), we need a credible explanation for why they ran him at all and why they chose this particular timing to initiate the swap-out. I think a serviceable explanation is that this path has the advantage of THEM choosing the candidate rather than the American people.
I sense that you think they are not machinating THE PLAN, but just don’t know what they’re doing. I disagree. I think they have THE PLAN and know exactly what they are doing. I just think the plan is not as clever as they think it is.JPH
JPH, your point about having a plan is a possibility. But I believe that when the DNC changed the rules after last time, it meant that Biden could not just endorse anybody. His delegates would have to go to Kamala. And if they don’t do that, they will perish on the DEI sword they have been wielding.
One of the most basic principles in becoming truly good at a competitive game is to always assume the best in your opponent. Using Chess as the comparison, if your opponent makes a move that you don’t understand, the very first thing is to assume that he has a genuinely good plan that you simply haven’t found yet. The reason for this is simple. If they’re making a mistake, you will assuredly reap the benefits of a stupid mistake anyway. You don’t need to work to benefit from an unforced blunder. However if they do have a genuinely good idea behind it, you are almost certain to pay a price for not putting in the effort of finding it. At face value, everything about the Biden affair *appears* to be an unforced blunder. As you point out, and I have had to point out to friends and family as well, it is nearly impossible for them to change the candidate at this stage anyway. Who would they exchange him with if they could?
Taking the gaming principle to heart however, assuming that they have an idea behind everything, my theory would be this. They sacrificed Biden on purpose. They called for the debate. They set the terms. They provided the moderators. they controlled the media which reported on it after the fact. They knew his condition. So it would appear if they aren’t simply stupid, they must have sacrificed Biden intentionally. If they’re sacrificing Biden intentionally, they must have already calculated the 2024 election as a loss since there is no discernible path that sacrificing Biden helps in 2024, and are already moving toward the steps after that. If they’re already moving toward steps after that, expect deliberate attempts to damage the economy. The Fed will declare rate hikes. Large monetary commitments will be made to foreign nations which Trump will naturally oppose, causing drama and stress when the commitments come do during his term. Popular but impractical promises will be made by executive agencies which will force the Trump administration to “cancel” such programs when he takes office.
All speculation of course, but if anything about this is actually a good idea, there aren’t many possible explanations.Justin
Justin, I have thought of this scenario as also possible. Biden is a write-off, and bad things are coming our way. Assume a Trump victory, and then ensure that all the bad things explode on his watch. I believe this is what they did to him with COVID, and they well may have other crises waiting in the wings. This is not at the top of my list of possibilities, but it is on there.
Can we talk about the Doom Voyeurism everywhere right now? It’s impossible to cast your eyeballs in any general direction without being reminded that we’re at the end of our empire, political arrests, general mayhem and misery are afoot… And if this doesn’t change THIS SECOND we are DOOMED for all time!
Yes, we are in hard times, and putting on rose-colored glasses would be a lie. But I was just listening to a little ditty about raising postmill sons, and how bad it is when Coach announces they’re going to get squashed again this season. No Average Joe reading anything like what the Big Fish in the Reformed pond are posting about can change it. Now Average Joe feels helpless and hopeless. There’s gotta be a better way for everyone to be talking to the troops.
I don’t even see anyone aside from Andrew Sandlin even reminding people to pray, let alone getting on our knees to beg like we should be doing.
With utmost respect (genuinely),Already Nervous Enough
ANE, your point about worship and prayer is well-taken. But I don’t see all this as the sane people falling apart. I see it as the insane people falling apart, meaning some tumultuous times for everybody, but with things stabilizing (in my lifetime).
Sexual Decorum in the Home
Thank you very much for your Christian courage and your careful precision in applying the Bible to all of life, drawing on years of in-the-trenches experience with people, and as I think I observe, viewing problems and situations in your church and with your people over the decades not as annoying disturbances, but rather as opportunities to bring God’s word to bear on peoples’ lives in love for their salvation and sanctification.
In the post, in the section “Fathers and Brothers” you said:
“. . . The duty of the men in the house is to protect [the women] by remaining warm, affectionate, and close—but not creepy close. As much as it is made fun of, there is a lot to be said for the Christian side-hug.
[Also] you have a responsibility to behave like a gentleman 1 Pet. 3:7, treating the women in your house like ladies. There is a flippant and crass closeness that is also wildly inappropriate—innuendo or casual touching. Your home is not the locker room of your men’s rugby club
Two separate categories of admonitions . . . Would you please give some more detail and some specific, concrete examples, etc. to flesh out and explain exactly what this would “look like” or not look like in practice?
(Or if you could point me to another resource where you have already done this?)
Thank you!Robert
Robert, that was just the outline that you read. When the full sermon is posted, you should be able to get some extra detail there.
Nudity in Movies
I have a question regarding nudity in movies. How do you personally handle this issue when it arises, and how do you counsel other men to handle it? Before I met my wife I had never considered it before. But when we would watch a movie, she wanted me to turn my head when any inappropriate scene came on the screen. I understood her point but this made me feel like a child being mothered. My solution was to simply stop watching movies. She loves movies and wanted to continue to watch them together, just with me turning my head at certain parts. She didn’t understand why all this bothered me so much and thought I overreacted (I probably did back then). It has caused quite a bit of conflict over the years, and now the movies are kind of a sore subject.J
J, I would suggest a two-step solution. First, cut back on the number of movies you watch, which likely would be a good discipline for both of you. And second, subscribe to a service like VidAngel, which will take out objectionable parts for both you. Neither of you should be watching certain things.
Cessationism
I am now a cessationist having once been a preacher in a very small Pentecostal church many years ago. I have heard you on several podcasts put forth an argument against continuationism stating that prophecies must be on par with Scripture as the same Spirit is behind it. It should therefore be treated as such, ie. recorded and disseminated. I believe this to be hacking at the branches rather than striking the root. The Bible said not all the words of Jesus were recorded. Certainly, He spoke by the Spirit always. But the Holy Ghost chose not to include those heavenly utterances. Prophecy and knowledge remain with the church until the 2nd Coming. The better arguments is to attack the continuationist’s admission that our signs, miracles, etc of today are not on a par with Jesus and the apostles with reference to quality, and frequency. But Jesus told them (the ones who received the gifts) these and greater works will you do.
The other argument is to hammer on the gifts of tongues being a sign for the Jewish unbelievers referencing the destruction of Jerusalem. It states in acts 2,8,10, & 19 that speaking in tongues was the evidence that one had been baptized in the Spirit.
I forbear saying any more.Manny
Manny, your arguments are good. But so are mine. The issue is not what God can do with His own words, as He did with Phillip’s daughters. The issue is what we must do with God’s words if we genuinely believe them to be such. We should act like we believe it.
The Fire Next Time
I’m a resident of a town just north of you in Idaho. Every year we have a 4th July parade which until recently has been a somewhat wholesome small town event that you could bring your kids to. Recently the North Idaho Pride Alliance along with other LQBTQ+ floats have entered the event making it less family-friendly. This year, the folks in charge of parade decided that religious symbols (i.e. crosses) would be banned from any float. Many Christian (myself included) are understandably upset. The myth of neutrality is vanishing and the left-leaning foundations of those in charge are becoming more obvious. Here is my question- would it be wrong for a professing Christian running the parade to ban the LGBTQ+ floats while allowing the churches to participate with our religious symbols? I know free speech is a Christian ideal I’m just having trouble working it out in this context. Would love your input. Thanks.Jeff
Jeff, one idea would be to have a Noah’s ark float, with a big rainbow, and your theme could be The Fire Next Time. Make them ban your rainbow. As for your second question, a coherent society is not possible unless we agree on the central things, and reject the same kind of things. So free speech is a Christian ideal, but not an absolute.
How to Respond
I hope you are well. I have greatly benefited from listening to your engagements with culture, your teachings on masculinity and femininity, and your thoughts on Christian Nationalism.
God-willing, I will be traveling to the US soon, but I have no idea how to interact with unbelievers there. How should I address transgender people? What should my reaction when meeting a sexually deviant person for the first time? How do I communicate the truth in love to these people, when they might not know the first thing about who we are as Christians and the message we preach?
Warmly,Joel
Joel, I would simply say love them as individuals, and refuse to cooperate with any delusions they might have on display.
Spanking in Babylon
Hi Doug, grateful for your ministry. A young gospel minister and father of two girls under four, seeking wisdom from an older and wiser minister.
We’re Brits, English to be precise. You may or may not know that north of the border in Scotland, smacking (or spanking as you New Worlders call it) is criminalised, and with the likely change to a progressive Labour government in Westminster next week, England will not be far behind. As Christians convinced of the biblical requirement that physical discipline be a component of parental love and instruction, this puts us in a serious quandary.
We can’t simply set aside the LORD’s instruction, in either love for Him or for our girls. On the other hand (young children being the open and chatty sort that they often are) it seems unlikely that one would be able to keep such a practice securely private. So, proceeding contra to the law of the land risks 1—prosecution (bad but acceptable), and 2—removal of the children (very, very, very bad, and not at all acceptable).
How would you counsel a father and mother navigating this situation, as well as a young pastor seeking to help the flock think through this issue. Clearly the first action is to pray that no such law is passed.
Gratefully yours in Christ,Richard
Richard, yes, this is a serious problem, and earnest prayer is appropriate. First, make sure you know how to disciple in biblical grace and wisdom, and that you are not among those who give biblical discipline a bad name. That said, tightly circumscribe the areas of your discipline, both with regard to behaviors and place. Next, include in your instruction of your kids how they are to talk about it in public. And don’t discipline in any place where there are likely to be cameras. And last, have a plan in place that would enable you to leave the country—passports current, etc.
A Friend Who Has Lost the Bubble
Thank you for the tireless output of content for us, that gives excellent broad cultural commentary, in my opinion, the best there is out there. I’ve especially been enjoying your stuff on racism and antisemitism, and the video “Antisemitism as a False Flag Operation” has prompted this question. It is kind of a small scale question for my own personal life.
I have a friend who is a Holocaust Denier, and has fallen down the hellhole of antisemitism starting with Martin Luther’s work, “The Jews and their Lies.” While I’m not about to call the Jews wholly perfect or wicked, they’ve had a very dicey history for better or worse, I know that Holocaust Denial is wicked. He calls the Holocaust and anti-Nazi propaganda a communist conspiracy. He’s even gone so far as to praise “Mein Kampf” as good and wise as well as Hitler himself.
He’s very unteachable, and while I’m a friend to him, he can be quite infuriating. What should I do to be Christ to him? He claims the name of Christ, and I’m trying to encourage him to repentance, but is all hope for convincing him lost? What should I do?Kenneth
Kenneth, the key word in what you write here is the word “unteachable.” Make sure you have made a good faith effort to reach him, such that he knows that you love him. But with that said, there is a time for the principle that Paul sets down for Titus. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10–11).
I Don’t Recall . . .
I have a quick question about something I think you had said in a debate with Dr. James White, or in some other setting. Apparently, you said something about Calvin accepting baptism even if administered by Satan himself. My apologies if I don’t have the quote right. If this is something you said, as a man who wrote his dissertation on Calvin, I would love to be directed to where he wrote this. Any correction or direction would be helpful. Thank you!Michael
Michael, I am very sorry. I don’t remember anything like that, either from Calvin or from me. Perhaps some of our readers with a photographic memory might help?
Homemade Apostolic Study Bible
I heard you suggest in a recent podcast the concept of what I would call the Apostle’s Study Bible. You reference OT references in the NT and then you return the favor referencing the NT in the OT. My birthday is Monday and my wife got me a set of journaling Bibles. I think it’s 5 spiral bound books to culminate in all 66 books. I intend to embark on a project to make this study Bible.
Question: Do you have any suggestions or resources you might recommend for someone doing this? My plan is to map it out in these books and then transfer the results to a unified Bible.Doug
Doug, that sounds like a good way to do it. And you might want to pick up something like this as well.
Non-Liberal Governments?
I read with interest your piece On the Imposition of Liberty. The timely rebuke of civic Pelagianism is much appreciated.
In your description of how nations can merit civic liberties but more often deserve to lose those liberties, I was left with the impression, and perhaps it was my mistake, that you consider every non-liberal government to be some kind of “pirate.” Is this in fact your view? And how would that square with the Davidic monarchy?
I wouldn’t trouble you with the question, except that “Protestant Franco” is understood by those who promote the concept as a good thing (in particular circumstances) not merely a lesser evil. I wouldn’t put my knowledge of historical Franco up against anyone, but personally I agree with Adams that America’s traditional form of government is unsuitable for a nation lacking the requisite virtue.Nathan
Nathan, no. I believe that a just man can be the head of a non-liberal government, and not thereby be a pirate. But that said, I believe that such a set-up is far more vulnerable to piracy. However, there are times when that is the only possible option, and you have Joseph in Egypt.
NatCon 4
It’s been a while since I’ve written but I’m still reading And listening. I see you will be in DC the weekend of July 6 for a conference, I’m hoping to make it, and hoping there might be some kind of round table with you, Al Mohler and the Roman Catholic traditionalists/integralists present, I think Reno and Mark Bauerlein, that would be a discussion of the whole CN thing in a rational and productive way. Probably too much to hope for. We’ve got to get the Protestants—and the the conservative Catholics in my view—pulling together rather than tug or war.
This is also an invitation to come and worship with us on the 7th at Capitol Hill Baptist Church at 525 A st NE, just 6 blocks from the Capitol, preaching the gospel since 1878. We can save a seat for you, my wife and 2 kids sit 3 rows back directly behind the podium (keeps the kids in line better when you’re down close). You have lots of listeners and those in agreement on this issue at our church, as well as large numbers of friendly skeptics as you know.
We have space to give you a ride, too.Preston
P, thanks for the invitation, but I won’t be there over a Lord’s Day. And at the conference, I am going to be presenting together with Dr. Mohler, with some time budgeted for interaction.
On recovering the masculine mind. I like this very much. And i don’t disagree. But i would like to keep in such a discussion clarity that the individual is very much important within the church and society generally. While we should not have taken individualism so far as we have and lost the covenant household and masculine headship thereof, we ought remember that we are each deserving of justice in society as individuals and that the government’s sword may—in extreme miscarriages of headship—rightly skip past the masculine head (or even take it off). Further, in the church, children and wives are not in-Christ-in-their-family-head, they are simply in Christ, so they do not take communion from the father/husband, but from the Bridegroom Himself.
We must, put otherwise, take care in our defense of masculine headship to find the right relationships of individual, family, church, and society, taking care not to swing the pendulum too far in our push back against the broken individualism that reigns and ruins us now.Nathan
Nathan, correct. We honor the reality of the individual, as we go to Heaven or Hell by ones. A wife should not receive the sacrament from her husband as husband because the pastor and elders hold the keys. But in the matter of church government, the household can be recognized as a real entity by the church, which is what household voting does.
Broken Link
Pastor Wilson, Lord bless you! The NSA link that once had all of your WCF lectures is broken. Anywhere else I could find those? Thanks.Benjamin
Benjamin, I don’t know. Let me check.
Women Teaching Women at Church
Thank you for the ministry you all are doing through Canon+ and elsewhere. I am currently going through your daughters’ podcast and I enjoy it and have been helped so much. I love when they start cracking up with laughter.
I have been looking into women teaching women on the Lord’s Day/at church as in Sunday School. I would appreciate your thoughts. I have gone through your blog and see you have addressed women should not be ordained teachers but what about the situation I am asking about? I see from the Scriptures that God gives instruction to qualified men to do the teaching done within the church. We weekly have Sunday school first (split into groups of men, woman and teens) then our gathered service. The women’s group is always taught by a woman. The other groups are always either taught by elders or have elder oversight. The women meet up to 8 times every month for Bible study and prayer group and we never have elder oversight. It is always led by a woman. The men meet during the month and always have an elder there.
I see the Scriptures as saying the elders need to teach everyone in the church. In 1 Tim 2:11, 1 Cor 14:34-35 women are instructed to learn quietly at church. In Titus older qualified women are to teach/instruct/correct women in regard to husband, kids and home. Certainly the Titus instructions to older women will involve the Bible but I don’t see this verse application being a public Bible teacher to women on Sunday teaching biblical theology. Hopefully, I am making sense.
I have spoken to my Pastor and he thinks what we are doing is fine because the elders pick the material that is being taught in the women’s study.
It seems to me women should be taught by the elders in the church which I think includes the Sunday school as well. Am I seeing this rightly or am I off? I would appreciate your take on this.
Best regards,Merry
Merry, yes, I understand your question. The oddity in this situation is not because women are teaching women, which I think is fine, but because it appears you have a de facto situation where male elders in the church are excluded from teaching women. If that is not watched carefully, you will have a women’s ministry develop where some women are pastors to the women, a church within the church.
I’m not responding to a specific post so I’m not sure if this fits the requirements, but I have a question about church structure.
I have really enjoyed watching Doug’s videos about manhood and I believe it has made me sensitive to areas in my life that could benefit from a return to true manhood. This has become specifically evident to me in the local church that my wife and I are a part of.
We are a young church that was planted off of a classic church model with the intention to focus on discipleship, outreach, multiplication, etc. We do the “house church” model (for lack of a better term), where we meet in multiple different homes on Sunday mornings and come together once a month for “big church.”
At the big church meeting we worship through song, the lead pastor preaches a sermon, we take communion and spend time in prayer.
On the other Sunday mornings when we are meeting in our separate homes, there are 2 elders present, we have a passage that we all read as a church, and then we discuss what we believe God has showed us that week while we read. The elder(s) sometimes guides the conversation (primarily by asking questions), but for the most part the floor is opened to free discussion.
For the most part I believe that we are doing our best to mimic the early Church. No overhead costs, meeting with believers in our immediate areas, keeping the groups small in order to know everyone’s needs, “doing life together,” and raising up new leaders to lead the next “church” when we get to big and have to multiply out. However—
Recently I have started to wonder if we are doing it the correct way. Some circumstances lately have made the dynamics of our small church meetings skewed towards women who are outspoken and men who are prone to listening. While going through Romans, I’ve noticed that our conversations have often gone the direction of “I like to think that God doesn’t harden anyone’s heart . . . that must be lost in translation” and “I like to think that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell and that it’s our choice whether we do or not.”
My issue isn’t always the content of the conversations. But when our feelings decide the direction of the conversation, I wonder if we have allowed women to lead.
Questions:
1. Do you believe God commands us to meet weekly, worship through song, and have a qualified teacher preach a sermon every week?
2. Do you think if we meet as a smaller group and do the “discussion model”, that we are allowing women to teach by default?
Thank you for any feedback.Justin
Justin, I don’t think there is anything overtly sinful about your structure, but it does have the vulnerability that you have observed. That said, I do believe that there should be worship in song every week, and a message, and the Lord’s Supper.
AI & God’s Law
Since there is nothing new under the sun, I’m struggling with how to classify artificial intelligence biblically. Would it fall under sorcery and divination? How should Christians handle it? Thanks,KP
KP, obviously a complicated subject. Some of it is demonic, but that would be the result of the DIDO principle—demons in, demons out. Some of it is a useful tool. The subject screams out for a thorough and cogent worldview analysis.
Warfare and Generations
Some thoughts that have been circling around recently are very much in line with some of the directions you’ve been going . . . So I thought I would share them and see if you can iterate the details to the next step.
Essentially the realization I’ve had somewhat recently is that there’s a reason the spiritual component of what’s going on is so much more noticeable than the struggles of previous eras: Military theory teaches about generations of warfare, and currently society has moved up to 5th Generation Warfare, which is information warfare. The new and interesting thought is that the Venn diagram of Information warfare and Spiritual warfare is very large, since Spiritual warfare is so much about proclaiming The Truth.
In this light, it’s not so much that we’re in a cold civil war but that we’re in an increasingly non-covert information war that just hasn’t gone hot with bullets or artillery yet. It also highlights that military theory has advanced to the point where it’s brushing into realms of theology.
I’m not quite sure this revised perspective changes anything, but I do find it interesting.Ian
Ian, thanks much. I find that interesting also.
Applied Theology for Women
I’ve benefited much from your family’s ministry, especially your daughters. Thank you! I also love to read these letters :) I organize two women’s groups, one for homeschooling moms and one for young moms, discussing child raising, marriage, homemaking and similar topics. I have stayed away from teaching in-depth theology, but I’m curious if you would share specifically what you think women should stay away from teaching other women, so as to not become a “Bible teacher.”Allie
Allie, I don’t think you need to avoid theology, but I think you should always drive that theology toward practical Christian applications for the home.
Kenneth, it is a sin to call holocaust denial a sin. Just be aware of that.
Is calling calling holocaust denial a sin, a sin?
No, because I’m not making up sins. Denying an historical event is not a sin. Making up sins is Pharisaism.
Denying a historical event is a lie, and therefore a sin. Affirming an ahistorical event is a lie, and therefore a sin. Of course either instance requires awareness of facts to qualify as a lie.
Who’s telling the truth about the historical event, though? And what’s their agenda? Why is one group given permanent victim class status over an event where the stories & number greatly morphed over time? The International Red Cross originally said 52,000 died at Auschwitz, by the way.
And why is Hitler a household name but a Russian Jew mass murderer named Genrikh Yagoda isn’t? Yagoda killed more people than Hitler no matter what Holocaust numbers you believe.
This what happens when you replace Biblical ethics and standards with post-war consensus programming.
https://x.com/DrLoupis/status/1806932886387560630
I guess only 52,000 makes Hitler not such a bad guy after all.
That’s not the point. Besides, you’re the last person who should be determining what’s a sin and what isn’t. You declared Kathleen Zielinki’s husband a Christian despite his support of taxpayer-funded child murder (and most likely) the LGBTQ+ sexual abomination.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/letters-not-yet.html#comment-281920
Ditch that awful Anabaptist theology and maybe you’ll see more clearly through your sin goggles.
Well, yes, I’ll grant that one can be a five point Calvinist but not really a Christian. However, I question your ability to discern the point.
If an Anabaptist who simps for the likes of Zielinski and Jack O’Liar Spamly questions me, I must be doing something right.
Cherrera, his point which I think does warrant a response is: What does it matter if the numbers have been inflated? What possible gain is there from choosing to die on this particular hill? I highly doubt its possible to declare with accuracy any one particular number as correct, particularly from our position as casual laymen, but lets say you can and the popular number is wrong…… So? What’s your point? If the number doesn’t actually matter, and yet you still feel a clawing at your heart to bicker about it to delegitimize a Jewish position….. that creates the perception… Read more »
Justin, I appreciate the tone and honest questions, but I think I answered you in my first post: “Why is one group given permanent victim class status over an event where the stories & number greatly morphed over time?” I continually hear that “Jews have been horribly mistreated throughout” history and have heard more about the H-Cost (through the MSM, academia, museums & other public displays, Hollywood) than any other event except maybe black slavery in the U.S. And it’s similar in many nations outside the U.S. Like I said, you can be sent to prison for questioning the official… Read more »
I was mostly asking the question because of the opportunity to phrase it in such a silly way.
But surely WHY you are denying the historical event is the issue in question, not the mere fact of the denial. No one would call a 60 IQ man denying that smoking is bad for your health a sinner. A 180 IQ man who happens to be addicted to nicotine denying smoking is bad for your health is another matter.
Armin, that is not true. Whether or not a purported historical event actually happened is immediately relevant to any discussion about sin because it is an issue of truth. If a purported event did indeed happen, then the denial of that event is sinful because it is a denial of truth. I appreciate how Doug Wilson has succinctly said it before, “It is a sin to believe a lie.”
Is denying the official narrative around 9/11 or JFK a sin?
If the official narrative around 9/11 or JFK are true, then yes. If the official narrative around those are false, then no. One does not need to agree that something is sinful or false in order for it to be sinful. My point is that the relationship between what is said about an event and the factuality of the event will determine whether something is sin.
This is very rigid. Since the holocaust didn’t happen, by this logic, everyone who believes it did (including presumably you) is in sin. I don’t believe this. You have to admit that it’s funny that I, the low status, anti-social nazi loser, am actually the one who’s being more nuanced here.
Being rigid is not inherently wrong–some things must be rigid. And “nuance” is not a virtue. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). That is as rigid as it gets. And yes, everyone who adamantly denies a historical fact in order to justify attitudes and behaviors is in sin. Your point about the holocaust makes my point–central to this discussion is whether or not it actually happened. Whether you believe something or not does not determine if it is true. But, as I have said… Read more »
Is it that you think the nazi’s didn’t do anything to the Jews, or are we just quibbling over numbers here.
The holocaust is one of the best documented events in history, and for this reason it was made a crime to deny it in post-war Germany, as it was so insulting to the survivors. British intelligence knew of it via decoded enigma scripts. The Catholic bishops knew of it. The Nazi regime documented in great detail exactly who was transported to where and when, and I have seen documentaries where survivor’s ancestors have been able to trace what happed to their forbears and families. It’s all archived. I have watched interviews with some of the few remaining survivors. In German… Read more »
“and for this reason it was made a crime to deny it in post-war Germany, as it was so insulting to the survivors.”
I’m no holocaust denier, but oh my word was this a spectacularly terrible idea. Leave it to Germany to make fascist laws against fascism.
Try to pass a law forbidding the denial of a fact guarantees without fail that you will multiply the number of people who deny that fact.
Interesting that the debate is so fierce regarding discrediting the history and the attempt to erase this one small group of people (Jews). Looks like the holocaust all over again.
It was as democratic country that made the law, it was controversial because freedom of speech is otherwise guaranteed. It was the right thing to do, and does not stop academic research into the subject. I find the indifference to human suffering in some of the comments here breathtaking. The sheer gullibility. My parents lived though the war, saw the footage and heard the broadcasts about the camps. Met Corrie Ten Boom after the war – or were her accounts actually fiction? Studying German at university one text we had to read was a play largely comprising verbatim transcripts eyewitness… Read more »
No, it’s not one of the “best documented events in history.” There are myriad reasons to question the numbers and accounts; we’ve only scratched the surface here. Documentaries (which are almost always biased) and eyewitness accounts (you can find plenty of those for UFO abductees) don’t prove your point. Defending Germany’s totalitarian laws is appalling, but I’m reminded of you wanting to make the Covid jab mandatory where you live. Awful takes are nothing new for you. I also remember you defending the BBC at that time and calling it a good source of information. Yes, the same BBC that… Read more »
“British intelligence knew of it via decoded enigma scripts.”
That’s just flat out not true. In fact, it’s not only not true, it’s the exact opposite of the truth. There is absolutely nothing in the decoded Enigma messages to support the holocaust story. The utter lack of Enigma messages having anything to do with mass murders of prisoners, let alone gassings, is one of the strongest pieces of proof that it’s not “deniers” who “believe a lie”, but Holocausters.
This is easily verified. Anyone who doubts it can Yandex it.
When did “Holocaust Denial” become a sin, a sin so heinous that continuing in it makes one a heretic? You are aware, are you not, that many Holocausters insist that it’s not enough to affirm that Germany murdered six million Jews? That one must directly lay the blame for the Holocaust at the feet of Christianity, and 2000 years Christians feeding on the anti-semitic New Testament, and anyone who refuses to do so is a Holocaust Denier? “Without Christianity, there would have been no Holocaust. Christianity laid the foundation for the Holocaust and it may well give us another Holocaust.” –… Read more »
Yeah, well, this principle could easily apply to Dennis Prager also. Because, as said above, it is a sin to believe a lie. And if you believe a lie in a stubborn and unteachable way, then there comes a time when it is best to save your breath for walking uphill. Notice also that I called for the principle found in Titus to be applied, which can be applied to situations that do not rise to full heresy.
Man you got A LOT of holocaust deniers in the chat. The company you keep…
It doesn’t strike me as particularly fair to categorize them as “company he keeps” when its an entirely antagonistic relationship. If you condemn something as a sin, you are inevitably going to get people who do that sin upset and arguing with you.
Of course, if he never condemned holocaust denial and didn’t discuss the issues, I’m sure he’d be blamed for having never done so as well.
Just seems that ultra conservative Christian circles seem to float this question around more frequently and sincerely than, well just about any other.
Historically that checks out too…
Remember Chris can’t account for his/her morality and thought it was funny that a totally innocent U.S. journalist was tortured and murdered by Zelensky’s thugs. The idea of Chris judging anyone else’s moral standards or reasoning is as absurd as planning to travel from San Diego to London by bicycle in 3 days.
Love living rent free in your head 🛀
Says a guy who trolls on just about every post here that allows comments…while I’m sometimes absent for months.
Project, lie and double down….you’re the master!
Dude, look how much you are engaged in this, and denying the holocaust for the most part. I’m just entertaining myself on the toilet.
“Nazism, not Christianity, built Auschwitz“ – Dennis Prager
“The complex truth is this… European Christian anti-Semitism — including from Martin Luther… laid much of the groundwork for the acceptance of Nazi demonization of the Jews. But no mainstream Christian institution or theology called for the extermination of the Jews. It took the secular shattering of the Christian conscience to accomplish that. ” – Dennis Prager
A serious discussion regarding the Jews and their history cannot be had without the spiritual dynamic. There is a spiritual war in the cosmos between good and evil and the Jews are at the center. Once one accepts this premise then, the reality of the holocaust back 80 years ago is not difficult to accept. There are even groups today wanting to wipe them off the earth. Every other discussion and/or comment, pro or con, is just academic without such an understanding. I know few like to speak of the spiritual aspect of it all, but there you have it.
No responsible or self-respecting historian will tell you that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
Were any Jews killed in the holocaust, or do you think it’s kind of a fake moon landing?
Funny you should mention the moon landing, as there’s a direct connection between it and the holocaust . As Adrian Monk would say, here’s what happened: We know for a fact that the Germans murdered six million pure, innocent, helpless Jews, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. We know this for a fact because if you doubt any aspect of it, no matter how crazy, illogical, or even physically impossible, you’ll be fired, ostracized, and your preacher will condemn you to hell for heresy. In dozens of countries, you’ll go to prison for it. However, there’s no forensic evidence of anything… Read more »
Poor John Middleton can’t even seem to pull off a loaded question fallacy today. But yes, of course you’re an idiot for believing we pulled off something 55 years ago (before the pocket calculator was invented) that we can’t do today…not even through the private efforts of Richard Branson, Elon Musk, etc. I’m still holding on to my landline phone so I can call the moon like Nixon did. The REAL Phone Call from President Richard Nixon To The Moon – SHOCKING (rumble.com) Back to the original topic–when you hear about 90+ year old grandmoms being imprisoned for denying the… Read more »
Richard, talk to a solicitor first about the idea, since Musllims are spanking their kids in Scotland and they are, the ban is unequally used. Maybe you can get it thrown out that way on an equal weights and measures thing.
I never say six million Jews. I say eleven million people. Jews were just the largest group. Remember, the Nazis tried to exterminate the Gypsies as well. They culled the Poles for their Lebensraum, killed the disabled Germans, political opponents etc. Eleven million may not be exact, but it is closer to the actual number.
Do you also mention the nearly 11 million Germans starved to death in open air prisons like Rheinwiesenlager? Or is it “Nah, I only care about the Jews, not those pesky Germans or the much larger number of people killed by Stalin and Mao.”
I don’t think your 11 million figure is on point but won’t quibble with it here. The victors write the textbooks, after all.
No these are just the Nazi victims. I could have easily included the millions of Germans who starved to death in the winter of 45-46 that the allies allowed to happen, but that is a different subject as are the references to Mao and Stalin.
What’s your ballpark number of victims of the porn industry? E. Michael Jones showed how much certain Jews were involved in the industry in the 1990s and earlier. And we’ve seen it in the internet age with the owners of PornHub, OnlyFans, etc. Jones also showed who was behind the attacks on nativity scenes and other public displays of Christianity (hint: it wasn’t Buddhists or Muslims). Then we have high-profile financial crimes where guys like Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried seem to share certain characteristics. (As an aside, what are the odds they have names like “Made-Off” and “Bank Man Fried”?).… Read more »
Any Bible reader should know, Jews are human beings, able to sin horribly and able to repent in Christ Jesus; MAYbe with a cultural tendency to sin in certain ways (cf Cretans are liars and “slow bellies”), and with some spiritual and cultural advantages (to Jews were given the oracles of God.) But Ezekiel says each shall be judged for their own sin–kids can repent of parents’ sin and people of their own earlier sins. Nothing wrong with questioning details or scope of the the holocaust, trying to get historical details right–can’t cremate the huge numbers, etc–and purposeful lying is… Read more »
Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you said, which of course includes the Ezekiel passage.
For the record, here’s well-known Jew Dennis Prager saying something most any Gentile would be cancelled over.
Basically every subversive movement of the 20th century except Nazism was founded or led disproportionately by Jews. Man, where is the ADL when you need them?
“Marxism, humanism, socialism, environmentalism, feminism… Jews.”
https://x.com/sovereignbrah/status/1777464946907042055/history
Justin, I was once part of a home-based church like yours and, in my experience, opening up the floor for discussion by all is great at first: but eventually the loudest voices end up taking over. In our group’s case, that meant the women. Men have a tendency to back off when women speak. They can’t disagree with a woman without looking like a bully, and women’s feelings are hurt much more easily than men’s most of the time. C.S. Lewis wrote in one of his essays about how when women show up, all the men begin to act differently.… Read more »
If I Corinthians 14 about “every man hath” a significant contribution to the main worship service were to vanish from the Bible, would it make the slightest difference to the “decency and order” of most evangelical churches? I think saint Jim Rutz of blessed memory had a good point in The Open Church, however we might quibble about details (‘If you feel alone and unimportant in church, there’s a good reason: you are alone and unimportant. Hard to fellowship [and one-another] with the back of the head in the pew in front.). Sermons teach people, drill people, to sit down… Read more »
For Michael on baptism by Satan — The citation is in the debate with James White, “Are Roman Catholics Members of the New Covenant?” at 10:35, quoting from John Calvin’s Commentary on Amos 5:26:
Josh, thanks. I don’t remember that one at all.
Food for thought, particularly for those who only ever wish to bash Roman Catholicism! In Nazi Germany, the predictor of who would be a supporter of Adolf Hitler was living in north and eastern Germany, and Protestant. Where Catholics were the majority of the population Hitler only ever achieved between 25% and 40% of the vote in elections. This covered most of the terrítory that became the old West Germany, whereas virtually all of the territories lost in the east were firmly Nazi supporting. The Catholic Bishop of Mainz criticised the treatment of Jews early in the war, and actually… Read more »
I don’t know of anyone who claims that all Catholics through history were baddies and all Protestants through history were goodies, so I’m not sure why this would be particularly interesting for critics of Rome. The problem with trying to derive useful conclusions from your statistic is it is a single variable analysis, when there were almost assuredly many other variables at play. The Protestants and Catholics in question likely came from similar backgrounds amongst themselves, with similar political interests amongst themselves, before and regardless of Hitler’s hideous influence. We would need to know more about these Protestants and Catholics… Read more »
“I don’t know of anyone who claims that all Catholics through history were baddies and all Protestants through history were goodies”
There are people who will say the former, but the Protestant world is way to divided for anyone to say the latter. Baptists, Presbies, Lutherans, Anglicans, Charismatics, Non-demons, Calvinists, Arminians…no way they’ll unequivocally defend each other!
I brought it up because I was gobsmacked at seeing it – I would have thought Protestants who have the bible and believe it (well in theory) would have been far less susceptable to Hitler’s lies than Catholics who, unpopular as it is to say today, are imo in a church that largely lost the gospel centuries ago, and in my view is a sub-church with some Christians in it. Yet it was the Catholics who took a stand for righteousness. I suppose you have to take into account which country invented liberal theology, and its spread amongst the mainline… Read more »
Looking a bit like Infowars in here, keep it up! I don’t miss the supplement ads.
Justin and Pastor Wilson, Hanlon’s Razor comes to mind, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”