Tuesday, April 03, 2018

The bigot-bomb and the 2016 election

By the way, the attempt to, as I call it, bigot-bomb people who believe in and defend traditional marriage by comparing them to Klansmen is one of the things that got Trump elected. Evangelical Christians noticed that Hillary's infamous "deplorables" comment took place at an LGBT gathering. That and some statements by Obama administration officials that trivialized religious freedom issues as merely a cover for discrimination. 

It is one thing to say that we need gay marriage to be fair within a religiously diverse society, but we understand the right and rationality of people to dissent from the idea that gay relationships can ever truly be marriage. It is another to attribute all opposition to bigotry, as something not even deserving of respect in a pluralistic society. 

What puzzles me about all of this is that the Democratic politicians like Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Kaine, are all Christians. Hillary seems very serious about faith. I know conservatives like to discredit faith claims made by liberals, on the assumption that if they were true believers they wouldn't be pro-choice. But liberals could just as easily counter that they think the faith of conservatives is phony because they support public policies that harm the poor and the needy, something that is all over the Bible. 

If you look at Romans 1 and other passages on homosexuality, it doesn't look good for gay relationships at least on the face of things. 


Now there may be ways of interpreting those passages so that they aren't so bad for homosexuals, or you can say that they reflect a limited understanding of homosexuality from the first century and they are not God's final word on the matter. But you have to admit that if it can be reasonable to be a Christian (I take it all these Democratic politicians think that), then it can also be reasonable, based on what Christians think of a special revelation, that homosexual acts are sinful. Because these arguments are Christian-specific, they might not be an adequate basis for law, but when we separate church and state we leave areas for the church that the state has to keep its hands off. By contrast, no reasonable interpretation of the Bible supports white supremacy. (Curse of Ham? Give me a break). These Democrats are also recent converts to the idea of gay marriage (Hillary says that Chelsea convinced her to accept it), so was she a bigot when she opposed gay marriage? Was her husband a bigot when he signed DOMA? 

This implied bigotry charge against conservative Christians kept a lot of them in the Trump fold when Access Hollywood should have sent them running for the hills. I believe that if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign had retained a respectful attitude toward opponents of gay marriage, even while disagreeing with those opponents, they evangelical bloc would not have held for Trump and Hillary would be President today.

I stand by my view that the price of electing a corrupt, impulsive, racist such as Trump who has spent a lifetime disrespecting women is too high to make this choice the right one. But I do understand it. 

64 comments:

John Moore said...

You say the "implied bigotry charge against conservative Christians kept a lot of them in the Trump fold." This itself is pretty clear evidence that anti-homosexual people are bigots. I mean, if you prefer to join hands with racists, sexists and xenophobes in order to keep gay people from marrying, then it really looks like you're a bigot. People tend to judge you by the company you keep.

The fact that gay marriage is a recent idea simply means people can overcome their ancient traditional bigotry. This is good news.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Let me see. Socrates always asked for consistency. President John F Kennedy was a serial adulterer. But the Press hid that fact. Martin Luther King was a serial philander, plagerist and a member of the most bloody genocidal ideology, Communism (its real name, International Socialism). We have a national holiday for a Communist! Wow. President Clinton forced himself on women, raped another, and had sex with an intern on the job at the White House, and the Democrats said, someone's private sex life is not our business. President Clinton is feted and adored by the Democrat Party.

And Trump is evil? I don't get it.

Locker room talk is just that. I was in the Marines and the Marines did that all the time! Football players engage in that all the time. Rap music? Ever listen to Rap music? The most vile disgusting stuff about women. Rap music is glorified and listened to by many!

I find Trump real, true and he is keeping his promises. When he talked on the first day about stopping illegal immigration---I voted for him. He is more a conservative than all the 16 other Republican candidates. The 16 would have worked with the Deep State.

Trump is a Buchananite. This is what a Pat Buchanan presidency would look like but Trump is more of an Alpha male than Buchanan. Trump is a true leader. Yes, he is rough around the edges---but he is a New Yorker. He is not polished smooth talker like the globalists are.

Starhopper said...

I don't know about how much the marriage issue affected the 2016 election, but I personally know several people who would otherwise have gladly voted for Clinton had she not been so pro-abortion. I do believe the so-called "social issues" did not get enough scrutiny in the election post mortems. They all pretty much focused on rust belt economics.

Victor Reppert said...

No, even Trump can't stop gay people from marrying, and they know that. He hasn't even said that he wants to. The point is, the Democratic leadership, in effect, said that the public expression of opposition to gay marriage was similar to segregationism. Not consistently, but evangelicals felt that this was snowballing to the point where people might, for example, pass hate speech legislation that would prevent a street preacher from preaching a sermon based on Rom 1:26-27. It has happened, if I am not mistaken, in Canada.

Starhopper said...

You are not mistaken. It has happened in the United Kingdom (specifically, Scotland) as well.

Victor Reppert said...

I don't care, or not so much about Trump's affair. His methods of concealing it do disturb me. He's willing to pay six figures to keep it concealed. Who else knows about his affairs, and what concessions is he giving them to keep the affairs concealed? That is a concern. Clinton's affair wasn't just an affair, it was an abuse of power, and to be honest, his party should have asked him to step down.

Joe Hinman said...


Metarock's blog

Sinclair broadcasting is threat to democracy

Legion of Logic said...

Responded on your blog, Joe. Problem goes far beyond Sinclair.

Joe Hinman said...

LL I answered your statement my blog. you are indulging in a game that republican hacks stump all the time, Obama did mild versions of all the stuff Trump get's blamed for.First, minimize the obviously well organized assault on democracy and cut it down to boys will be boys. Then jack up the few little gafs Obama committed implying that it was the real conspiracy. that's an old political trick.

Joe Hinman said...



Compare CNN's biases to the constant all out attack on all media sources of Trump;s propaganda machine is totally reprehensible.

Joe Hinman said...

the end times paranoids has had evangelicals heroically imagining themselves in the role of the persecuted church beset the government of satan so long anything that doesn't suit their political whims auotmaktclaly implies the anti-Christ, All the while they have been running the show since 1980.

Joe Hinman said...

I do believe the so-called "social issues" did not get enough scrutiny in the election post mortems. They all pretty much focused on rust belt economics.

No issue did. there were no issues just personalities

Legion of Logic said...

When I see the multiple ways in which our "news" sources are biased and manipulative in their stories, I do not see it as a game at all. I see it as a massive problem that needs addressing.

Fox or Sinclair or MSNBC may be blatantly biased, but I'd prefer that to someone claiming to be objective but who is biased in more subtle ways. At least with the openly biased sources I can understand their agenda from the get-go and fact check their claims accordingly. In the more subtle cases, it's not so much the factuality of what they are reporting, but wondering what they are NOT reporting, or wondering the agenda behind choosing a particular story to push. That takes more effort and is harder to detect, but it's still a disservice to everyone who reads or watches their material.

Legion of Logic said...

Joe, I just read your response to me on your blog. It was very petty and hateful to personally attack me for holding opinions you disagree with. All I am doing is merely telling you the many problems I see with the media (and nowhere did I claim all were equally bad, just that all were bad), and my issues with their methods and how what they do isn't actually "news", but rather editorializing and propaganda. Even if I was completely wrong in every single item I listed - and I have no reason to even suspect that I am - your response was completely uncalled for. I was more polite to Cal and Stardusty.

Since you elected to be so aggressive and hateful, only being gracious to those who agree with you, I will not be posting on your blog from here on. If you can't handle people not seeing things the way you do, maybe you should avoid the Internet.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
When I see the multiple ways in which our "news" sources are biased and manipulative in their stories, I do not see it as a game at all. I see it as a massive problem that needs addressing.

Fox or Sinclair or MSNBC may be blatantly biased, but I'd prefer that to someone claiming to be objective but who is biased in more subtle ways. At least with the openly biased sources I can understand their agenda from the get-go and fact check their claims accordingly. In the more subtle cases, it's not so much the factuality of what they are reporting, but wondering what they are NOT reporting, or wondering the agenda behind choosing a particular story to push. That takes more effort and is harder to detect, but it's still a disservice to everyone who reads or watches their material.


LL the problem, is you want to assert that CNN,Sinclair and MSNBC are on a par with each other,they are not. We all have biases,i did not claim that mu sources are without bias. But objectivity in journalism is a goal for which they strive.
Sinclair has never heard of it. They have no idea,their copy is written by the white house,not so with CNN, it is written by reporters, albe it biased ones.

I put out a guide once of the sources I think are best and how I rate them. Of course the hand full of people who read it property did not pay attention. CNN and MSNBC were not at the top. Those at the top are hatred and ridiculed by fearless leader.

there's the rub,I say we all have decrees of bias and those of us who are self aware know this and struggle noncontinuous to overcome. The Trumpie says the Fearless leader says it I believe it that tattletales it,

Starhopper said...

"Fox or Sinclair or MSNBC may be blatantly biased, but I'd prefer that to someone claiming to be objective but who is biased in more subtle ways."

I could not disagree more. The openly biased media is just that - biased. The so-called mainstream media does at least make an honest attempt to be objective, regardless of what "subtle" biases may (or may not) be there. It's the difference between making the effort and saying "screw it" to the truth.

"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)

The openly biased, (mostly) rightwing media is an unsound eye, and all who listen to it are full of darkness.

Joe Hinman said...

LL nothing I said to you can be construed as hateful,you do not know what hateful is. Aggressive is not hateful,I was aggressive but not hateful.

I am not making judgement about your view or pretending not know your heart,I think you are very sincere person. The approach you took is a standard approach of most supporters of Trump. I am not saying you are one,but it is.IF You wave a reg flag in front of a Bull he;s going to charge.

Joe Hinman said...

LL's post on Metacrock's blog

I did say "that's brainless nonsense,' I do apologize for that,I was just carried away,went to far, the rest of it was not hateful but it was blunt.

Joe Hinman said...


try this

Blas said...

I can reverse your argument. If I´m a racist because I stand with racist, you are performing aborts as you are supporting who pay for aborts.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Prof. Reppert writes: What puzzles me about all of this is that the Democratic politicians like Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Kaine, are all Christians. Hillary seems very serious about faith. I know conservatives like to discredit faith claims made by liberals, on the assumption that if they were true believers they wouldn't be pro-choice. But liberals could just as easily counter that they think the faith of conservatives is phony because they support public policies that harm the poor and the needy, something that is all over the Bible.

There is a good book by Philip Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics that argues that the particular kind of Protestant Christianity of America is Gnostic. The political commentator Kurt Vonnegut observes that the Puritans were full blown Gnostic. Gnosticism is an age-old problem for Christianity. It is a major heresy. Just as in the early Church, Gnosticism is throughout the whole of modern Church. Liberalism is just another form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism's characteristics is the hatred of particularity, the hatred of nature, elitist feelings of the adherents.

Kurt Vonnegut also outs Marxism as Gnostic. American Protestants created the so-called Social Gospel and this movement led the groundwork for the Marxism to move in. America's culture today is Marxist. And all the churches, Catholic and Protestant, are Marxist, hence Gnostic.

Your list of "Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Kaine" are not really true orthodox Christians but Marxist Christians, or more specifically Gnostic Christians.

That is the problem. I have a saying, "Modern Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Marxism with a cross".

As the cry went out that "The whole world was Arian", the saying today can be said, "The whole world is Marxist". And when Christians adopt the tenets of Marxism--they become apostates. The Church in its totality is in Apostasy, and in heresy.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper: "The openly biased, (mostly) rightwing media is an unsound eye, and all who listen to it are full of darkness."

The fact you failed to mention openly biased left-wing media pretty well takes the bite out of this. Note that I did not limit my media criticisms to only those outlets that don't share my perspective. I wonder why you did.

I stand by my observations of the media, after years of watching and learning the patterns. If they do any of the things I listed on Joe's blog, it's not meant to inform, it's meant to sway. It's advocacy, not reporting.
I can't take seriously anyone who pays so little attention that they would actually think CNN even remotely resembles objective reporting.

However, it seems most people have no interest in calling out the media for their crap - the left now says calling the media out (except right wing media of course) is an assault on democracy or the First Amendment, which is absolutely absurd. Biased reporting and propaganda, regardless of which side and regardless of how blatant or subtle, is the true threat to democracy. CNN does not have clean hands by any rational measure. But I suppose as long as they oppose Trump, they're fine. Sad.

Starhopper said...

If "hatred of nature" is a characteristic of gnosticism, then, given their support for environmentalism, there is no way can liberals be gnostics.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

@Starhopper. You bring up a good point. Environmentalism is really their hatred of capitalism. Liberals are progressives---the seeking of utopia. They care more for animals than they do for humans. Yes, their concerns of the environment and protecting it is good but they take it to an extreme in some cases. They love the Shimmer of Nature, not its concrete reality. On their hatred of nature, they hate the aspects of nature, not the things of nature. They hate hierarchy. They hate race/nation which is particularity. They hate the division of function---why they support feminism. They hate the basic condition of reality---that Life is War (war as strife, competition which is capitalism). They hate the way God created reality.

The German Classicist of the early 19th century, Karl Otfried Mueller, an expert on the Doric Greeks, wrote about Athenian democracy: "Democracy hates all divisions and loves a large mass". That is the essence of Gnosticism. Democracy and Marxism are inseparable. Democracy is the carrier of Gnosticism. That is why liberals hate Monarchy and aristocracy. Why they push for equality. Equality doesn't exist in Nature. I'm a farm laborer. Female cows, at the dairy barn door, line up hierarchically. Hierarchy is throughout Nature. The Liberals, even though they are environmentalists, hate what Nature teaches. It is a paradox. Liberals are Gnostics. And as Br. Seraphim Rose points out in his book, Nihilism, The Root of Revolution in the Modern Age, Liberalism is the first stage in Nihilism. Liberalism, Nihilism, and Gnosticism all share a common core. That is why we see liberals and Marxists are working together to bring about the Tower of Babel.

bmiller said...

Hi @W.LindsayWheeler,

Most farm laborers aren't as well read as you.
Do you care to share how you came to that line of work?

bmiller said...

I think I have a solution to the political arguments of the day.

There is at least one thing that we can all agree on right?













Everyone is biased....except for me.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Blas said...
I can reverse your argument. If I´m a racist because I stand with racist, you are performing aborts as you are supporting who pay for aborts.

in what trimester? if republicans really wanted to stop abortion they would mandate Ru486. they want abortion to continue because it enables organizing,

Joe Hinman said...

There is a good book by Philip Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics that argues that the particular kind of Protestant Christianity of America is Gnostic. The political commentator Kurt Vonnegut observes that the Puritans were full blown Gnostic. Gnosticism is an age-old problem for Christianity. It is a major heresy. Just as in the early Church, Gnosticism is throughout the whole of modern Church. Liberalism is just another form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism's characteristics is the hatred of particularity, the hatred of nature, elitist feelings of the adherents.


(1) you do no not know whit from shinola about Gnostoicism


(2)Just another ridiculing label call call people has no meaning in modern politics,


(3) you are a racist who calls MLK names,)

you are not a believer Idios

Joe Hinman said...


"In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies....Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have. The updated study shows that strong regulations that require stringent emission controls can have a dramatic impact in reducing air pollution across the country, saving lives, and avoiding a host of other adverse health impacts. The study also shows regrettably that some areas of the country still suffer from unnecessary levels of pollution from power plants that could be cleaned up with the application of proven emission control technologies.[3]"



Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Task Force 114 State Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109
Joseph Chaisson, Research and Technical Director, http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
(accessed 10/11/17)


that says 13000 people a year will die as a result of Trump's elimination of regs on coal fired plants. This is not Gnosticism it's killing people this is what Trump does.The rich have fauwning slaves like the right wing stooges to pitch their ideology but those facts are scientifically provable. It's;not an opinion. It's scientific facts, Trump's policy will kill these people.

right wrong stooges don't give a shit, let them die. But he will not come back with scientific fact he will call my study names and say it;'s Gnositc.

the study is talked in the lik to the bib entry, read it

Joe Hinman said...

hey racist is this Gnsotic?

factually quantifiable harms already accrued as result of Trump's attack on civilization

*13 million lose health care due to Tax scam


* 13 thousand /year die from air pollution due to roll back of regs on coal fired plants
(Trump's war on breathing: Resistance is not Futile)


*50,000 lives / year lost due to roll back auto emission stadards
(Ibid, see also "Trump has started the roll back" the Guardian)

* Roll backs on regs that protect drinking water for 117 million
("Trump wrecks nation's clean water," Resistance...)


and more

see this page with links here:

http://resistance-not-futile.blogspot.com/2017/12/trump-balance-sheet-what-trump-costs-us.html

W.LindsayWheeler said...

@bmiller. What line of work? Agricultural laborer or researcher? Or both? After a stint in the Marine Corps, I was impressed by the knowledge of a Norbertine priest who was a polyglot and had a photographic memory. His learning about Christianity and Europe so impressed me that I took off to Europe to see for myself. Quite the dumbass that I was, I went to Europe not knowing anybody there and not thinking of how to live there. I kinda fell into agricultural labor there; working in Crete Switzerland and Denmark on farms. It was a great experience. I learned a lot on those farms. Many European youth travel on a sort of sabbatical from higher education. When I came back to America, I fitted better doing ag work. What one learns on the farm is the original true Natural Law which is the basis of true Philosophy. In the Timaeus, Plato says philosophy comes from the nature of the universe. The Barnyard is the schoolhouse of true philosophy. What is the "Sophia" in the word "philosophy"---it is the "sophia" hidden in nature. One becomes a friend, a philos, to the "sophia" in Nature. And if you read Plato's Laws, it is Clinias the Cretan, who when Plato asks about the defense of theism", responds with "Look upon the Cosmos, See Order, Know God" (this is paraphrase). What that "order" is, is the real, original Natural Law. It is the real, original Natural Law that put the Order in the Cosmos. There is where true Philosophy comes from. One must be a reader of Nature, in order to do true Philosophy.

On being an armchair classicist/researcher, there I have to point to the tragedy of Waco. That inspired me to protest. Outside a library, a guy, coming out of a library with books under his hand, stopped and challenged me. He asked what form of government do we have. I proudly and immediately said, "A Democracy". He then asked me to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I began. I then said, "...and to the repu...." and I stopped. And he said, "that's right, we are supposed to have a republic" and he marched off. Well, that got my goat up because something didn't add up. My curiosity was piqued. From then on, I began my research on what a republic was. That door opened up a can of worms. And thru that learned what true philosophy was and its true origins. A can of worms indeed. (A true republic is mixed government, and Sparta is a true republic. The FFofA did not create a true republic but took the name and re-purposed it for Humanism and liberalism. America is a psuedo-republic. Funny, how I went out to find out the difference between a republic and a democracy, only to find out that America was never a true republic in the first place.)

My second goad, which connects to Reppert's OP, is the attack of liberals upon Christianity. In my brief spat at a private college in Kentucky, I was a reader of the local paper from Lexington, KY. A Joel Pelt was a political cartoonist there. He had a cartoon with Jerry Falwell with a Hitler mustache. Jerry Falwell stood up for old American/Christian values and was fighting against Homosexuality and other stuff and here was a liberal painting Hitler mustache on him. I was outraged. It was a pure attack on Christianity. I went out of my way to defend Jerry Falwell and Christian teaching.

So thus began my career. I'm an agricultural laborer and an armchair classicist/researcher.

Joe Hinman said...

OK W.Lindsay Wheeler Let me speak to you as a brother in Christ,I love Jesus because he saved me from the life I Led as an atheist. Seeking God is the major part of life,I write books trying to provide people a way to find that path to that search. I have not take a penny for those writings,It all goes back to the publisher so I can publish more and hopefully lead more people to Christ.

Yet I do not imagine that my view of Christianity is the only valid one. Christianity is very diverseness it would be prideful to think my view is the only valid way to to understand the faith.

You speak of "the attack of liberals upon Christianity." That is a prideful assertion, Your political poppets are all of a single stripe and they are all attacking the truth? I am a liberal and I am a Christi I am not attacking Christianity I;'ve.

You can see my blog I have a recent post on what is liberal theology?


You are being brain washed by a heavily politicized view point. It's a fancy method of brain washing called "culturl-iza-tion." Many of the things you say demonstrate this brainwashing, Your assertion that civil rights movement is communism betrays real uninformed thinking.

Do you know that in the late 19th and early 20th century to thousands of black people (themselves Christians)were lynched by good God fearing Christians? It is true, I know it because my father waked a lynching as a child, in East Texas,His uncle was the lead of the lynch mob.

Now is that a evil communist attack to oppose lynching people? that sort of thing went on all over the south,that's why there came to be a civil rights movement.

Joe Hinman said...

"America is a psuedo-republic. Funny, how I went out to find out the difference between a republic and a democracy, only to find out that America was never a true republic in the first place."

MeYour thinking is fallacious, you are assuming that the first historical instances of a form define that form for all time. America is not the kind of republic ancient Rome was, it's the kind of republic we have today. that does mean it's not a republic.That is that same kind of prideful thinking that says my view is the only form of Christianity that is valid.

That is not even real conservative thinking.It's just bigotry. It's obvious why right wing what you to think that,so losing democracy doesn't matter. you are being brain washed to fight democracy.

Starhopper said...

Joe, it is futile to reason with people like Wheeler. From long experience, I have found that whenever any poster to this site brings politics into the mix, those politics trump (no pun intended) Christianity every time. Thus, if you're a right winger, all liberals are the devil himself and cannot be a "real" Christian. If you're a Christian socialist, then capitalism is the antichrist, and businessmen cannot truly be Christians. If you're a pacifist, then it is impossible to support the military.

It's not worth the ones and zeroes it takes to answer such over the internet. It is casting your pearls before swine.

Joe Hinman said...

being willing to try and reach them is eh difference in them and us.

Joe Hinman said...

ok it's not the only difference but it sounded cool

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Yes, I read the beginning of your post about "What is Liberal Theology". And to the idea of politics, yes, politics is a window. How I found what true philosophy was, was thru studying politics for as Plato reports on Socrates in the Republic, the character of the person is what creates a specific type of state. All things are according to nature.

I refer to Thomas Bertonneau's essays on Gnosticism. Thomas F. Bertonneau is a Visiting Professor of English at the State University of New York College, Oswego, New York. He holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature (UCLA, 1990). From his first essay, "Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part I":

The trend of politics in the Western nations since Eric Voegelin’s death in 1986 has made his work increasingly relevant to any philosophically rigorous conservatism or traditionalism. In particular, Voegelin’s argument that liberalism and its Leftwing metastases constitute an evangelical religious movement, mimicking and distorting Christianity, has gained currency. The pronounced irrational character of the “Global Warming” cult and the obvious messianism of Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency have together sharpened the perception that contemporary Leftwing politics shares with history’s specimen-type doctrinally intransigent sects an absolute intolerance for dissent, even for discussion, along with a conviction of perfect certainty in all things. The sudden experience of Leftwing triumph attests that, indeed, utopian radicalism draws its strength from a deep well of resentment that puts it in conflict, not merely with those whom it regards as heterodox, but also with the inalterable structure of reality. Voegelin argued – in The New Science of Politics (1952), Science Politics & Gnosticism (1965), and throughout Order and History (1957-65) – that the rebellion against reality was a recurrent affliction of civilized life; he pointed to the acute anticosmic sects of Late Antiquity as offering a paradigm of the phenomenon and expanded the scholarly designation of them as “Gnosticism” to cover insurgent ideological doctrines of the modern period, particularly Marxism and National Socialism.

Thus Lawrence Auster, creator and supervisor of the View from the Right website, explicitly links his understanding of the Left and his idea of his own conservatism to Voegelin’s argument that modernity is essentially Gnostic.
(from: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4440)

What is a fact is that much of what is going on today is Utopian thinking. Equality, Progressivism are all Utopian thinking. Christianity is not about Utopia whatsoever. That is a heresy. I am not a Utopian of any sort. I'm a realist. And, like Socrates and Plato wish to live----according to Nature and to God. Jesus did not come to this earth to start or create an utopia. I concur with Bertenneau and Auster that Modernity is Gnostic. We live in a Gnostic culture.

Starhopper said...

Like I said, politics trumps faith with these people. I give you the above posting as Exhibit One.

Joe Hinman said...

Wheeeler tiy need to read the cosen by Chiam Potok

The problem with autodidacts when they discover classicism they are like cult members,they think they have universal truth. It's just because you havne;t studied enough.


Yes, I read the beginning of your post about "What is Liberal Theology". And to the idea of politics, yes, politics is a window. How I found what true philosophy was, was thru studying politics for as Plato reports on Socrates in the Republic, the character of the person is what creates a specific type of state. All things are according to nature.

you only read the beginning because you can[t staid to be disagreed with. you will never learn anything because you can't bear to find what's wrong with your current ideas

I refer to Thomas Bertonneau's essays on Gnosticism. Thomas F. Bertonneau is a Visiting Professor of English at the State University of New York College, Oswego, New York. He holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature (UCLA, 1990). From his first essay, "Gnosticism from a Non-Voegelinian Perspective, Part I":

English is not a field in which Gnosticism is studied,I studied Gnosticism when I did my Masters at Perkins (SMU). I was taught by people who actually have degrees in studying Gnosticism

The trend of politics in the Western nations since Eric Voegelin’s death in 1986 has made his work increasingly relevant to any philosophically rigorous conservatism or traditionalism. In particular, Voegelin’s argument that liberalism and its Leftwing metastases constitute an evangelical religious movement, mimicking and distorting Christianity, has gained currency. The pronounced irrational character of the “Global Warming” cult and the obvious messianism of Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency have together sharpened the perception that contemporary Leftwing politics shares with history’s specimen-type doctrinally intransigent sects an absolute intolerance for dissent, even for discussion, along with a conviction of perfect certainty in all things. The sudden experience of Leftwing triumph attests that, indeed, utopian radicalism draws its strength from a deep well of resentment that puts it in conflict, not merely with those whom it regards as heterodox, but also with the inalterable structure of reality. Voegelin argued – in The New Science of Politics (1952), Science Politics & Gnosticism (1965), and throughout Order and History (1957-65) – that the rebellion against reality was a recurrent affliction of civilized life; he pointed to the acute anticosmic sects of Late Antiquity as offering a paradigm of the phenomenon and expanded the scholarly designation of them as “Gnosticism” to cover insurgent ideological doctrines of the modern period, particularly Marxism and National Socialism.

high falout'n rationalization for fascism,trying to create fictional villain behind all the enemities it he from Gnosticism is really stupid,

Joe Hinman said...



does your name happen to be O'Brian?

Joe Hinman said...

This is from Wikipedia on Voegelinian

Politics and Gnosticism, Voegelin opposed what he believed to be unsound Gnostic influences in politics. He defined gnosis as "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite."[8] Gnosticism is a "type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism. Gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism)."

He's borrowing the term and using it symbolically then constructing a fictional idea of some movement that doesn't exist and then witting it;s principles. its manifesto.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

I went back and read the whole post on Liberal theology. After finishing it, my conclusion was that the beginning was all I needed. It is all right there in the definition you posted in the first two lines: The difference between conservatives and liberals is rooted in two fundamentally different methods of doing theology. The conservative tradition is authoritarian in method. The liberal theological tradition, by contrast, adopts a method in which truth claims are subjected to experience and reason.

See, the Liberal uses """"His"""" "experience and reason".

That is now what the Bible says. Scripture has it: "My ways are not your ways." Isaih 55:8-9 (Septuagint, numbering may be different in Masoretic text)

We don't think like God. What Schleiermacher and those that follow him---ameliorate Scripture to their taste. They make God look like them.

This is a problem of orientation. I, as a traditionalist, take the Bible at face-value. I read the Bible to see How God thinks. I appropriate what the Bible says and make it my own; in other words, I adopt His Ways.

Schleiermacher and the Liberal line, make God into their own image. Their character is still in rebellion and they have not submitted totally to God. They still want control over what God says.

I did not read the rest of the post to understand it. It was all there in the first lines. The Liberal injects his opinion instead of just accepting it. The Bible is strange and weird---because the Bible is His Way---not ours. The Bible and the Christian religion is His Way---NOT our way.

That's the difference.

Starhopper said...

"I, as a traditionalist, take the Bible at face-value. I read the Bible to see How God thinks."

This, in a nutshell, is Wheeler's problem. One need read nothing further. Wheeler believes that he somehow has a direct line to the mind of God, and his personal interpretation of the scriptures is somehow the only correct one.

Thank God (literally) for the Magisterium. I need not rely on my own personal interpretation of scripture (something, by the way, expressly and explicitly condemned by no less than St. Peter) to learn the mind of God.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

@Starhopper. Your interpretation is your projection. What you say of me is NOT what I said. What you intimate about me is nowhere the truth. Nowhere do I claim "personal interpretation". It is St. Paul who said, "All scripture is there for teaching, reproof and correction". The Bible is there for all to read. I don't interpret Scripture any different from the Holy Tradition of the Church.

Starhopper, you are the one jumping to conclusions. I thought the Church and its Magisterium is Traditionalist. As far as I can tell, you are all liberals.

Joe Hinman said...

See, the Liberal uses """"His"""" "experience and reason".

That is now what the Bible says. Scripture has it: "My ways are not your ways." Isaih 55:8-9 (Septuagint, numbering may be different in Masoretic text)

that is a sword that cuts both ways brother. When he says "my ways": he does not mean Wheeler's ways,He is also saying "my ways are not wheeler's ways" just as they are not Hinman's ways.

We don't think like God. What Schleiermacher and those that follow him---ameliorate Scripture to their taste. They make God look like them.

that is quit false, you have to understand what Hegel said first, Because Schleiermacher is answering Hegel,and in light of Kant, So you have to know what they said, The problem is as a result of what they did say philosophers had come to believe that we should not speak of God. As Hegel said:"where of one has as not known one does not speak," IOW God is not given in sense Data so we should not talk about God.

This is a problem of orientation. I, as a traditionalist, take the Bible at face-value. I read the Bible to see How God thinks. I appropriate what the Bible says and make it my own; in other words, I adopt His Ways.

No you don't You make your own canon within the canon and use that as a guide to understanding the bible, I've been down that road man.I had my fundie period too. I used to argue for ICR with my brother everyday in the coffee shop. There is no unity, the Bible contradicts itself there's no way around it accept to make assumptions and use those assumptions as a canon within the canon,when you do that you are doimg what liberal theology does.

when did you last fetch Pau;'s coat from Troas? do you pray for Timothy to get well? we are told to do these things. When you start putting the pieces together in a a way that makes sense to you you are doing the same thing fur which you condemn liberal theology.


Schleiermacher and the Liberal line, make God into their own image. Their character is still in rebellion and they have not submitted totally to God. They still want control over what God says.


Fudies do exactly the same when they image God is angry and punitive and super prudish hates sin so deeply hes agaisnt everything I'm agaisnt yada yada mhe;sa capitalist he;s sanctifies their topological crap that;s the same rationalization. bless,me for I am holy.

I did not read the rest of the post to understand it. It was all there in the first lines. The Liberal injects his opinion instead of just accepting it. The Bible is strange and weird---because the Bible is His Way---not ours. The Bible and the Christian religion is His Way---NOT our way.

That's the difference.


the difference is your guys pretend God is like them and that you care what he wants. you don't care what God wants. You can that he blesses your political aged, you have no room for what he really says.

God say thou shalt not kill. your fake president took action that will result in the deaths of 13000 people a year from now on,you don;t give a rat's ass.I have yet to a Republican say he does care.do you?come on tell me you care why don't do something about it?

the Bible says the new covenant is written on the heart "no longer will a man say to his neighbor 'Know the lord' you will all know me from the least to the greatest," (Jer. 31/Heb 1)so knowing God is at the core few the faith and that means experience of God is at the core, that's Schleiermacher,"



Starhopper said...

"As far as I can tell, you are all liberals."

I think of myself as socially conservative and economically liberal. As far as my personal faith habits, I am a traditionalist (e.g., daily Rosary, the Divine Mercy chaplet, Eucharistic Adoration, etc.), but in no way am I a "rad trad". I tend to read The Bible (which I read daily; I'm in the middle of 2 Kings right now) as literally as possible, but I take into account the literary form of various passages. There are countless parts of The Bible which must be read allegorically or in some other non-literal fashion, such as Psalm 57 ("their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongues sharp swords") Now unless you can show me some incredible beast with spears for teeth and a sword for a tongue, I rest my case.

Joe Hinman said...

I always appreciate your posts Starhopper. This is a general comment not aimed at you, but labels are ridiculous, Our labels hang us up.I should know I'm an existentialist.

Starhopper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

Labels have their usefulness at times, but generally I do agree with you - they are often ridiculous. Just look at my personal views and try to attach a label to them as a whole:

- As far as my faith is concerned, I believe the Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the One True Faith, and cannot err in its teachings, being protected from such by the Holy Spirit.
- I accept global climate change as established fact, and believe it is caused by human activity. I agree with every word in Pope Francis's encyclical, Laudato Si'
- I am opposed to same sex unions being called marriages - they're not.
- Government intervention in the economy (such as "stimulus packages") is a Good Thing.
- I believe our taxes are skewed toward the rich, but as a rule are too low overall. We need to kill the deficit.
- Government programs to help the poor and disadvantaged have their place, and can do great good.
- The 2nd Amendment needs to be either repealed, or else amended to make it crystal clear that the right to bear arms is restricted to members of a "well regulated militia" and not just anybody.
- Abortion is a great evil, yet I believe that efforts to change the law are futile and counterproductive.
- The US needs to greatly increase its funding of scientific research.
- The US ought to have a National Health Plan similar to Great Britain's.
- We need to slash our military spending by a large percentage (perhaps by a third?).
- Public Schools ought to be the country's top priority.
- The US needs to get off our addiction to fossil fuels and move on to renewable energy.

So how would you label me?

Joe Hinman said...

you almost a Hinmanist! We have a lot of views in common, you make a good point.

Victor Reppert said...

People need to read C. S. Lewis's Meditation on the Third Commandment. Over, and over and over, and over, and over.

Christianity will make you uncomfortable with the ideology of ANY party. If you are completely comfortable with the ideology of any party as a Christian, you are not thinking clearly.

bmiller said...

So how would you label me?

Primarily as a political creature.

Starhopper said...

"Primarily as a political creature."

Not really. I would only appear so in the above posting, because the subject matter was political viewpoints. Had the subject been sports and I listed my favorite baseball players, you'd be tempted to label me a "sports creature" (which I'm not).

I actually spend more time thinking about backgammon than I do about politics. And a lot more time pondering music.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

About the slandering of Christians which is the essence of the OP.

Philosophy is the knowing of Nature and how she works. Us humans are a part of Nature. So the things that operate Nature, operate on us.

All things are according to Nature. That "according to nature" is throughout the Platonic texts. Fr. Malachi Martin in his book, Keys of This Blood (1990), that ". “Clearly, the time had come to on in deadly earnest with the Marxization of the mind of Western culture.” The whole of the West has been Marxized. Political Correctness/Social Justice is Cultural Marxism and that is taught everywhere in Europe and the Anglosphere Diaspora. The West is now Marxist. In Nature, there is the idea of critical mass in warfare or the black holes the event horizon. Critical Mass and Event Horizons are essentially Tipping points. Once those lines are crossed, there is not going back and there is an increase in the event.

What is happening is that the Left thinks it has reached its Critical Mass, its Event Horizon or in other words, Victory over its enemies conservatives. Or in Marx's words reactionaries. They have won the cultural battle and now it is time to cleanse the earth of their enemies.

Victor is a philosopher. He ought to know about the Telos. Does not Aristotle teach that all things seek their perfection? The acorn----a mighty oak. A colt---a stallion.

Marxism also has a Telos. Its Telos is to have a pure Marxist state. All things move to their perfection---their Telos. The Left slanders its Christians amongst them and Christians outside their sphere because at the center of Marxism, International Socialism, is a hatred of God. The Left, according to its nature, is attacking Christians through slander. It is now open and true because it has reached its event horizon. Marxism has now reached critical mass in America and Europe and smells blood and Victory. It is now going to dispose of its enemies.

The Left is going to get more rabid in its attacks upon Christians. That is coming. It is the same in Bolshevik Russia, in the Spanish Civil War, in the Greek Civil War, in the Vietnam War. I watched the Vietnam War on TV as a kid. The first thing the Viet Cong or the NVA did when they entered a village was kill all the Catholics.

Reppert and others think that they can parlay peace with the devil with half a loaf. The Devil doesn't compromise. Neither do Marxists. There is NO compromisation. Conservatives, traditionalists are reactionaries. We are to go to the guillotine. Nature doesn't compromise. Nature moves all things to their perfection. A philosopher should understand that.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Not really. I would only appear so in the above posting, because the subject matter was political viewpoints. Had the subject been sports and I listed my favorite baseball players, you'd be tempted to label me a "sports creature" (which I'm not).

You asked how I'd label you and it wasn't just this post I used to settle on the label I did. You may be passionate about music, but it seems obvious what your first love it. I think Joe is right....you're almost a Hinmanist.

Starhopper said...

Ahh, I prefer the label Polish-American Catholic.

And unless you identified my first love as astronomy, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just take a look at my blog.

Joe Hinman said...


On Metacrock's blog
l

Frederick Schleiermacher is called "the father of liberal theology," His notion of the feeling of utter dependence gave theology an object of discourse after Kant and Hegel had removed God from public discourse. The point is not proof but freedom from the need to prove, Here I present the feeling as a basis for rational warrant (decision making paradigm) my substitute for a "proof" of God. I am using concepts foreign to Schleiemracher such as Derria's trace to set the feeling in a framework of the center of a justification for belief argument; in other words it's a warrant for belief,

Joe Hinman said...

Starhopper said...
Ahh, I prefer the label Polish-American Catholic.

And unless you identified my first love as astronomy, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just take a look at my blog.

I love astronomy too man, I took it five times (the same class,ouch!)

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Ahh, I prefer the label Polish-American Catholic.

And unless you identified my first love as astronomy, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize your question was of the: "Do I look fat in this dress?" variety. I thought you wanted an honest answer.

I've seen you curse passionately while discussing politics, but I doubt you'd do the same regarding whether Pluto should still be a planet or not. Hope you went to Reconciliation.

Starhopper said...

Pluto is a planet! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!!!

bmiller said...

Everyone knows Pluto is Mickey Mouse's dog.

Starhopper said...

Actually, although there is some (minor) controversy, the cartoon character is believed to have been named after the then newly discovered planet Pluto.

The planet Pluto was officially named on 24 March 1930, and that name wasn't attached to the Disney character until the following year (in the short feature The Moose Hunt).

bmiller said...

And I thought it was the other way around. Go figure.

Joe Hinman said...

One-Dimensional Church

Christianity made a major contrition to making western civilization.It is now contributing to to make Marcuse's one-dimensional man,the antithesis of civilization.