Very good introduction to Critical Theory, that explains how diametrically opposed it is to Christianity. CT is a more proper appellation for what some (including myself) refer to as Cultural Marxism. CT is foundational to movements such as BLM, modern environmentalism (see Great Thunberg), and many others.
So, I was reading this, and towards the end of the page there is a section about “defamatory language” that should not be used when referring to or talking about a person who is a professing gay. Right at the bottom, one reads:
Associating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people with pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest.
My goal here is simply to show the logical absurdity of a worldview that rejects the idea of an absolute moral standard whilst, in the same breath, making absolute moral judgments.
Well, the paragraph presupposes that the following things are objectively immoral: pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest. They say it’s offensive to associate LGBT people with any of these. Why is it offensive? Well, because those things are “bad”.
Ok, agreed, they are. But here’s the problem: who says they are bad? You? Society at large? Science? Science cannot say anything about morality, because you can’t derive “ought” from “is”. The other options confine you in the realm of relativism.
Therefore, LGBT people have no objective basis to claim that any of those things are inherently immoral (though I have no doubt they feel compelled to, since they too live in God’s world), and therefore no objective basis to be offended by being associated with those things.
There’s only one worldview that provides objective moral values, and that’s the biblical one.
And in the biblical worldview, sex is only moral if occurs within heterosexual wedlock.
But here’s the good news:
God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
In “the world” and “whoever” are included all people. LGBT, too. Contrary to the claims of many, the reason why we preach the good news is out of love, not out of hatred. And the reason why we point out worldview-defining sin like in the case of LGBT is because when a particular sin becomes what you identify with at your core, then you have a massive stumbling block for believing the gospel. You would like that eternal life, perhaps, but at your conditions, not God’s.
But here’s the thing. God is perfectly good, and we are all flawed and inherently tending towards evil. So what God wants for us is better of what you want for ourselves.
The world has redefined love as always being in agreement with somebody about their preferences and what makes them happy. But that’s foolish. People are constantly drawing happiness and satisfaction from things that are harmful to them: drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, promiscuous sex, easy-yet-illegal money, etc.
Love is having the courage of telling them that they are harming themselves; and that there’s a better option.
Choose better. Choose Jesus.
these [things] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
United Church of Christ. A denomination with a liberal bent. Which means they don’t reason from the Word of God. They reason autonomously.
I am willing to concede that there was a good intention behind the message, but it remains nonetheless fallacious, and it gives the wrong message to the unbelieving world out there.
The good intention was probably to try and rebuke Christians that fall into hateful behaviour. Whilst “hateful Christian” should be an oxymoron, the Bible testifies that Christians can be hindered from growing spiritually (1 Corinthians 3:1-3) after they have been born again (John 3:3), and remain carnal. Thus, however disgraceful it may be, it can even happen that a born again Christian falls in the trap of their own carnality and might display hateful behaviour. That’s shameful, and a disgrace as to testimony of the name of Christ. But a possibility.
The wrong message to the unbelieving word is to preach of a God that accepts people based on their own merits, and not on Christ’s merit. The Apostles tell us clearly that no one can be accepted by their own works, but only by grace through faith in Christ.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Romans 3:23-28)
An atheist can be as kind as they want all their lives, if they keep refusing the necessity of trusting Jesus for being saved, they shall not have eternal life. God will have no choice but to judge them, finding them still to be guilty outside of Christ. For all have sinned. Even the kind atheist. In fact, especially the atheist. What is atheism if not the ultimate act of pride, raising oneself above the God they know exist, and yet deny? (Romans 1:19-21)
The fallacy. God “prefers”. Nope, God does not have preference.
For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:11)
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32)
Justification before God is by grace through faith, lest one should boast.
For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
If you still think you can “be good enough” for God, drop it. It can’t happen. We have all broken God’s law. And a just judge will condemn the law breaker. But the same Judge was willing to bail us out, paying the price Himself on the Cross, and rising back to life to prove the payment was in full.
Would you accept that payment of your behalf?
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)
Such structures could have great applications for digital displays or cosmetics with bright colours that could be viewed from any direction without distortion. However, making them is “currently challenging”, so studying these rainbow spots “may provide fresh impetus for bioinspired and biomimetic multifunctional applications”.
[Genetically,] Jews today absolutely fit both the biblical expectations and their oral and written history since the completion of the Old Testament canon. From the detailed history of the Jewish nation preserved in the biblical narrative, it should be clear that they started as a mixed population, maintained a degree of mixing with their neighbours, and continue to mix with outsiders today. However, as a Middle Eastern tribal community, they should have Middle Eastern genetic roots, and the evidence tells us they certainly do.
“Serious historians do not really believe that the teachings of the historical Jesus are better traced through the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, or even the Gospel of Thomas than through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 234.
Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel. In a room they found a note and a lighted candle. Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:
“Hi! It’s 2:30, and I’m leaving to run some errands. I’ll be back in a couple of hours. BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. — Manuel.”
Then Lucy said, “I know how we can find out how long it’s been since he left! Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that’s melted and dripped down. If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left.”
Chris said, “Why waste your time? The note says he left at 2:30.” Lucy said, “Don’t believe everything you read.” Chris replied, “Look, I’ve known Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting. Don’t be ridiculous.”