Why So Much Cuckstianity?

- Posted in Uncategorized by - Comments

Christian lady washes feet of girl who will kill her childrenThere's been a flurry of indignation over that wretched Super Bowl ad with the message "He gets us." The ad shows various scenes of modern Christians compromising with antichristians, while traditional Christians are depicted as being on the other side (the wrong side). If you haven't seen it and need some more detail, see here.

I call this error "cuckstianity," which is a portmanteau I made up, although I assume that many others made it up before I did -- I've just never heard it. It combines the word "Christianity" with "cuck," a word first used in the alt-right (remember them?) as a shortened form of "cuckold," meaning a man who is deceived into raising the illegitimate child of his cheating wife's paramour. To the alt-right, it meant Westmen who drank the suicidal slop fed to them by those who would take away their nation, wealth, and daughters -- and not necessarily in that order.

Cuckstianity, then, is my word for Christians who believe that the Christian thing to do is whatever the Marxists demand, and Christian doctrine is whatever the Marxists say we are to believe. This, of course, is not traditional Christianity. The cucks reject traditional Christians as white-supremacist heteronormative patriarchal colonizers. They apologize for the great Christians of the past who bequeathed their heritage to us, and they grovel in shame as they ask today's Communists and perverts to forgive and accept them as they offer up their nation, wealth, and daughters.

That's the background for my essay's topic "Why So Much Cuckstianity?" What on earth has happened to see this wholesale apostasy from original Christianity to a new religion that rejects and apologizes for the old?

My degrees and college teaching were largely in the history of Christian thought, so I am keenly aware that explaining anything requires explaining what went before, and that's a rabbit trail that leads back to the time of the apostles, and even earlier. To economize, let me focus on an era we remember personally: the '60s.

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free
Listen, please listen, that's the way it should be
Peace in the valley, people got to be free

There'll be shoutin' from the mountains on out to the sea
No two ways about it, people have to be free
Ask me my opinion, my opinion will be
It's a natural situation for a man to be free

Oh, what a feelin's just come over me
Enough to move a mountain, make a blind man see
Everybody's dancin', come on, let's go see
Peace in the valley, now they want to be free

This was recorded by the Young Rascals in 1968 and eventually sold four million copies. That's the only reason that I heard of it. It was very popular, but what does it mean? Faithful preachers in the '60s and '70s pilloried such babble mercilessly, comparing it to 2 Peter 2:19, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of sin and corruption." Ostensibly the song was about civil rights, but Marxists framed anything they wanted in those days as "freedom," as in "I want to be free to drive a Corvette" (therefore I have a right to a Corvette, and that right is being denied) or "I want to be free to live in your house." Using the word that way makes it meaningless. Shoutin' from the mountains, everybody's dancin', oh, what a feelin', all are substitutes for clear thinking. Know this: "They want to be free" means "They want your stuff."

Such nonsense from the '60s became enshrined in our national consciousness. No longer is it seen to be incoherent rabble-rousing. Instead, it has gotten elevated to the status of our guiding star. Like the North Star, we may never get there, but we keep pursuing, 'cause people got to be free.

The culture's mindlessness eventually had to make its way into how people interpret things. Traditionally in the West, interpretation was done through common sense, and disputes were settled by common sense. If the bank called you on the phone and complained that you were three months behind in your mortgage payments, it never occurred to you to respond, "Well, that's your interpretation, it's so easy to see/ it's a natural situation for a man to be free." Such a respondent would soon be living in his car whenever he wasn't shoutin' from the mountains or dancin'. The contract was written in plain language, and a white Christian was expected to read it with common sense and pay what he owed.

You can see the flim-flam at work in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. The Supremes didn't claim that abortion was a legal right under the Constitution. They couldn't even pretend that it was in the penumbra of the Constitution. They just grabbed the idea that the rays that emanate from the penumbra that surrounds the Constitution had in them the right to privacy, so it turns out that you can kill your child so long as you do it in private. That decision was overturned in 2022, the Court ruling that Roe and similar decisions were "egregiously wrong."

Ya think?

It was egregious flim-flam because such a method of interpretation could obviously be used to make anything mean anything. It could make "peace in the valley" mean that people want to be free. (See the lyrics above.)

More to our present point, such a mood of mindless interpreting is inimical to Christianity. Throughout its history, biblical religion has been presented as the revealed religion; and, since Moses (1500 B.C.), that revelation has always been aggregated in a body of texts called "the Scriptures." How do you know what God wants? Either you look in your heart (wrong) or you look in the Bible (right). But what if you look in the Bible and it contradicts what you feel in your heart? If you're a traditional Christian, you're outta luck; you just found out that God disagrees with you and you're going to have to adjust your thinking to his.

But if paganism has infected your thinking, you can just pretend that the Bible really means something that it never seemed to mean before. Then you can start start dancin' and shoutin' from the mountains "People got to be free!" and go ahead and do as you please, assured that God agrees with you. (For some reason, God never disagrees with Christian cucks.)

In American Christianity about seventy years ago there came a movement of men who called themselves "the New Evangelicals." (If you're not familiar with the lingo, "evangelical" in this case is roughly equivalent to a Bible believing Protestant.) They said that they differed from the old evangelicals in that

  1. they were going to put a greater emphasis on higher education and intellectualism,
  2. they would adopt the emphasis on "social" issues that liberals already had, and
  3. they would use a strategy of infiltration rather than separation, believing that they could embrace liberal churches and seminaries and beat the liberals at their own game.

Well, bless their hearts, it didn't work. The whole operation was tainted by the notion that the antichristian world would accept them if they'd just become more like the antichristian world: intellectual, socialist, and tolerant. When faced with an unpopular demand from God's word, they would take a position that might best expressed by, "Why, we can't do that! What would Satan think of us if we did that????"

You may be asking "But if they believed the Bible, why didn't they obey it?" Why, silly child, they DID obey it . . . after they got done making it say what they knew in their hearts it ought to say.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there have always been some differences between Christians regarding the interpretation of the Bible, but I draw the line at creating new interpretations that contradict 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice. But since the world was drifting in a Marxist direction, the New Evangelicals followed closely behind, hoping to gain the world's approval and win more souls to Jesus.

New Evangelicalism was formulated in the '40s and '50s, but its pernicious effects weren't evident until the national nervous breakdown of the '60s. That's when multitudes of churches, swept along by the mindless enthusiasm of rock music, renounced tradition and began looking, acting, and behaving like the antichristians. Since then the degeneracy has progressed inexorably. As the ship sinks, the cucks frantically try to save themselves by throwing more and more cargo overboard. When you've thrown out enough real Christianity, eventually you wind up with that wretched Super Bowl ad.

There are pastors on Gab who are still uncucked. A Gabber can heed them with profit, but they're still too few to solve our nation's problem. I don't profess to have a general solution, but every reader of this essay can take the first step by following Hebrews 11:7,

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

My Review of "Shiny Happy People"

- Posted in Uncategorized by - Comments

Shiny Happy People: Dugger Family Secrets (hereafter SHP) came out this month and its producer Amazon Prime refers to it as America's most popular show. The Internet is currently awash with reviews of this anti-Duggar, anti-Gothard, anti-Christian "docuseries" (a documentary that appears in a series of episodes), but all the reviews say the same thing, basically echoing whatever Amazon Prime tells them to think.

I'm here to tell you that it's a hatchet job, a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, and unworthy of your serious viewing.

There's a Bible verse that says everyone's story sounds good until you hear the other side (Prov. 18:17). The Duggar family very wisely, in my opinion, refused to be interviewed for the project, as did the organization they're closely identified with, Institute of Basic Life Principles (hereafter IBLP). That leaves you, the viewer, with only one side of the story.

In the docuseries, you hear testimonies of the wrecked lives of kids who grew up in families (like the Duggars) who followed the teachings of IBLP and its founder, Bill Gothard. If you listen closely, you'll hear them testify of their own sinful behaviour that wrecked their lives -- but they'll assure you that it was IBLP's fault. You get the impression that anyone who finds IBLP's material helpful will wind up the same way -- but, of course, the opposite is the case.

For instance, IBLP has a program called Alert Academy where young men can attend after high school for nine months and receive military-style training in preparation for various vocations. It's a great program; read about it hereSHP makes it look like a terrorist organization.

Another video shows a crew of boys on a construction site running power tools, swinging hammers, and cutting a trench with a mattock. Normal people see that and say, "Wow, look at what those boys have learned and are accomplishing! What a wonderful opportunity." SHP tells you that it's slave labor and child exploitation.

Sometimes they allow their interviewees to simply lie. "You obey your father, your father obeys the pastor, the pastor obeys Bill Gothard and, I don't know, Bill Gothard gets messages from God or something." This type of falsehood is common among malcontents who are criticizing something they've been "delivered from."

I have a long history in the movement represented by the Duggars and Bill Gothard. I understand it thoroughly, I know the lingo, and I've been encountering lies about it since I first heard of it as a teenager. I will concede that IBLP's teachings on authority and chain of command have been twisted by some followers to the point of abuse, but nowadays abuse is found everywhere. So are pedophilia and porn addiction. Those who oppose Christianity blame these perversions on religion not because they can prove it, but because they want to kill Christianity's influence.

If SHP has one good lesson to teach, it is that authority must be checked by other authority. No system is safe if an authority figure cannot be questioned and challenged -- whether it's a family, a church, a police department, or a revolutionary junta. But the other side of that truth is that no system is going to accomplish anything unless there are clear lines of authority with people in positions of leadership who know where they're going and why.

I encourage every reader to check in with the Duggars and IBLP and try to learn from them. Eat the fish and spit out the bones.

I Can Prove the Existence of God

- Posted in Uncategorized by - Comments

People talk about God a lot. They often talk about proving things. They seldom define their terms. That's one reason why they talk so much. If they knew what their terms meant, they'd have a lot less to say.

"Proof" means various things, depending upon the situation. In mathematics the standards are very high. In a medical exam for a life insurance policy, the standards are pretty low. We used to say in the sales department, "If he can fog a mirror, we'll get him covered one way or another." Proof of insurability was pretty easy to claim.

Suppose I walk into my home with a friend and announce "Someone has been in here" and he asks "How do you know?" If I say "That light is on; I always turn it off," he might reply "That doesn't prove anything; anyone can forget to turn off a light." The burning light proves something to me because I know my habits of life. It proves nothing to my friend.

Proving the existence of God is easy. The philosopher John Locke pointed out the obvious fact that "matter cannot put sense into itself." Since everything in nature is permeated with intelligence, someone with infinite intelligence must be the cause. Otherwise, you are left defining hydrogen (the simplest element, one proton and one electron) as "an odorless, colorless gas which, over time, becomes scientists."

This, however, proves nothing to someone who wishes to deny it. He can watch a spider build a web and believe that the spider and her ability to spin six kinds of silk and to engineer that web came into being through fortuitous random mutations (lucky birth defects) and natural selection over millions of years.

Likewise he can watch a hummingbird beating its wings at the rate of fifty times per second in a figure-eight pattern, hovering perfectly, and believe that it came into being through random mutations and natural selection.

If the intelligence we see all around us doesn't prove the existence of God, what would?

I heard one college student respond, "If God were to appear before me, right here and now, that would prove it." He's wrong, though. As a comparison: if I saw a pink elephant appear in my living room, I wouldn't start believing in pink elephants. Instead, I'd believe that I was hallucinating. A disbeliever in God isn't basing it on observation. If he were, a hummingbird would suffice to convert him.

I can prove the existence of God to someone who accepts my premises (e.g., matter cannot put sense into itself). But if he rejects my premises, saying "Oh no, matter can become intelligent if it has enough time," then he is beyond proof.

I have known of three atheist philosophers who became Christians; two I knew personally. In none of the three cases did any of them convert because of logical, philosophical proofs. In each case it was because he became tired of his sin and guilt. When he quit fighting and surrendered to God, the truth came rushing in upon him.