It all just seems like an extension of Gnosticism. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but I don't think I am. In both cases it starts with your "enlightening" to the fact that the status quo is oppressing you and that you need to rebel against it - violently if need be - though partially also by using subversion (the first approach would be in the style of the Young Hegelians, while the latter is the style of the Old Hegelians who are playing the long game - kinda like the Fabians).
And eventually that struggle (supposedly) leads to a synthesis where you TRANSCEND. Get it TRANScend - that's why trans people are sacred, they truly represent a higher form of being - at least if you believe in Gnosticism and hopefully it now is apparent that this truly is a religion.
There is zero evidence that homosexuality is innate. That's why there are former homosexuals. As he continues to read, you can see exactly what I keep saying. This is about REBELLION. And the ultimate against which they are rebelling is Jesus Christ. THAT is what ALL of the letters represented by the alphabet flag is all about.
"I probably have that citation somewhere and could pull it up to read it to you, but I didn't plan to. I don't think I put it in this essay, but it's an eye-opener. So But I'm going to read some from St. Foucault as it is, just so that you can have a sense that this is not about gay identity."
That's the first problem, calling this sexual deviancy an, "identity."
"So the first words of this relevant definition appear on page 62. That's the page in this book. You have to read 61 pages of Jesus Christ, could you just shut, you weirdos."
And using "Jesus Christ" as an expletive/expression is part of the problem. Again, rebellion against Jesus Christ is what this entire mess is all about.
"It is based on sex in both regards, but it's not necessarily a sex as an activity oriented cult. And that sex-based religious cult primarily targets children, and almost none of it has anything to do with gay people or gay identity. And all of that is actually demonstrable in their literature.
The least obvious of these points is that last point that has nothing to do with gay people, and it's a great place to start."
This is where I differ with Dr. Lindsay. It has everything to do with gay people, because mainstreaming the sexual deviancy of homosexuality is how we got here in the first place. ALL the letters represented by the rainbow flag are sexual deviancy. ALL of them.
As Dr. Lindsay even says, "queer" is rebellion against the norm. And the norm, as set by the biology that was designed by God, is sexual activity is to be only between one man and one woman, in marriage.
THAT is what the current "queer cult" are really rebelling against. It's Jesus Christ. But the other letters of the pride alphabet are also rebelling against biology and against Christ, who designed it.
Why are we not just tolerating but normalizing one brand of sexual deviancy and complaining about another? On what basis? It's hypocrisy. It's ALL wicked. And it ALL needs to stop, especially when it comes to children!
6:43
"And this idea of an oppositionally defiant identity, political identity, against norms and expectations is what Halperin said today. means queer. And in fact, he says that it means queer, where Foucault says the homosexual, it can only be interpreted to mean queer."
Exactly. It's all part of the same rebellion against Jesus Christ and the limits He has placed on human sexuality.
James, whenever you talk about Christian Nationalism, I want to tell you what I've said to my Christian family members - it's Islamic Christianity. They understood what I was saying and instantly called it a stupid idea.
I haven't started listening to this, so I don't know if he ever gives specific names of people/groups. But I am not aware of any Christians promoting forcing nonbelievers to submit, pay a tax, or die. That's what Islam does. Anyone who has bothered to educate themselves even a little about Christianity knows that is not it. Who is promoting such a thing in America under the name, "Christian Nationalism"?
There is an author who wrote a book on it, a few social media trends, a small minority of true believers, many (not that many) more people (and bots) who don't think too hard retweeting memes that sound Christian and American. The msm has promoted the idea that it's a mainstream movement among religious conservatives, which is absolutely not true.
James is afraid that religious conservatives will react by actually adopting the idea, which is basically that America was founded as a Christian nation so we should merge the Church and the state, and legislate Christianity onto America. This is the Islamic way, in my opinion, which doesn't rely on whether or not they have suggested the specific methods of enforcement you mentioned.
Christianity can change the world, but it can't be wielded as a tool. Christianity does not transform humans towards the will of the state or other humans. It invites humans to surrender our will to God through imitation of and participation in the life and love of Christ.
America was founded on biblical principles. That cannot be denied, no matter how much people hate it. But that's entirely different than, "merge the Church and the state, and legislate Christianity onto America." I don't even know what that means or how it would look.
And again, I still have no idea who is promoting that view! I'm still working my way through this podcast, so maybe he will mention it. But I've listened to countless hours of podcasts of his and still don't know exactly what he's talking about or who is promoting this.
All I can say is I'm not seeing it. The only thing "Christian Nationalism" means, as it's used when I see it, is things like Christians being involved in politics, ending baby butchering (since murder is ALREADY illegal), ending child mutilation, getting these perverts out of schools, etc.
Nobody (that I can see) is promoting the idea of dragging non-Christians to church or jailing them if they don't say they are Christians! That's silly. The Bible doesn't teach to do that. I don't know where he gets this idea. Again, I am still working my way through the podcast. So if he does mention it, then I will know.
A man dressing in woman's clothing is putting himself in a state of sexual arousal.
1) why does this man want to read to your children?
2) why do you want this man reading to your children?
It all just seems like an extension of Gnosticism. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but I don't think I am. In both cases it starts with your "enlightening" to the fact that the status quo is oppressing you and that you need to rebel against it - violently if need be - though partially also by using subversion (the first approach would be in the style of the Young Hegelians, while the latter is the style of the Old Hegelians who are playing the long game - kinda like the Fabians).
And eventually that struggle (supposedly) leads to a synthesis where you TRANSCEND. Get it TRANScend - that's why trans people are sacred, they truly represent a higher form of being - at least if you believe in Gnosticism and hopefully it now is apparent that this truly is a religion.
There is zero evidence that homosexuality is innate. That's why there are former homosexuals. As he continues to read, you can see exactly what I keep saying. This is about REBELLION. And the ultimate against which they are rebelling is Jesus Christ. THAT is what ALL of the letters represented by the alphabet flag is all about.
7:04
"I probably have that citation somewhere and could pull it up to read it to you, but I didn't plan to. I don't think I put it in this essay, but it's an eye-opener. So But I'm going to read some from St. Foucault as it is, just so that you can have a sense that this is not about gay identity."
That's the first problem, calling this sexual deviancy an, "identity."
"So the first words of this relevant definition appear on page 62. That's the page in this book. You have to read 61 pages of Jesus Christ, could you just shut, you weirdos."
And using "Jesus Christ" as an expletive/expression is part of the problem. Again, rebellion against Jesus Christ is what this entire mess is all about.
2:34
"It is based on sex in both regards, but it's not necessarily a sex as an activity oriented cult. And that sex-based religious cult primarily targets children, and almost none of it has anything to do with gay people or gay identity. And all of that is actually demonstrable in their literature.
The least obvious of these points is that last point that has nothing to do with gay people, and it's a great place to start."
This is where I differ with Dr. Lindsay. It has everything to do with gay people, because mainstreaming the sexual deviancy of homosexuality is how we got here in the first place. ALL the letters represented by the rainbow flag are sexual deviancy. ALL of them.
As Dr. Lindsay even says, "queer" is rebellion against the norm. And the norm, as set by the biology that was designed by God, is sexual activity is to be only between one man and one woman, in marriage.
THAT is what the current "queer cult" are really rebelling against. It's Jesus Christ. But the other letters of the pride alphabet are also rebelling against biology and against Christ, who designed it.
Why are we not just tolerating but normalizing one brand of sexual deviancy and complaining about another? On what basis? It's hypocrisy. It's ALL wicked. And it ALL needs to stop, especially when it comes to children!
6:43
"And this idea of an oppositionally defiant identity, political identity, against norms and expectations is what Halperin said today. means queer. And in fact, he says that it means queer, where Foucault says the homosexual, it can only be interpreted to mean queer."
Exactly. It's all part of the same rebellion against Jesus Christ and the limits He has placed on human sexuality.
James, whenever you talk about Christian Nationalism, I want to tell you what I've said to my Christian family members - it's Islamic Christianity. They understood what I was saying and instantly called it a stupid idea.
I haven't started listening to this, so I don't know if he ever gives specific names of people/groups. But I am not aware of any Christians promoting forcing nonbelievers to submit, pay a tax, or die. That's what Islam does. Anyone who has bothered to educate themselves even a little about Christianity knows that is not it. Who is promoting such a thing in America under the name, "Christian Nationalism"?
There is an author who wrote a book on it, a few social media trends, a small minority of true believers, many (not that many) more people (and bots) who don't think too hard retweeting memes that sound Christian and American. The msm has promoted the idea that it's a mainstream movement among religious conservatives, which is absolutely not true.
James is afraid that religious conservatives will react by actually adopting the idea, which is basically that America was founded as a Christian nation so we should merge the Church and the state, and legislate Christianity onto America. This is the Islamic way, in my opinion, which doesn't rely on whether or not they have suggested the specific methods of enforcement you mentioned.
Christianity can change the world, but it can't be wielded as a tool. Christianity does not transform humans towards the will of the state or other humans. It invites humans to surrender our will to God through imitation of and participation in the life and love of Christ.
America was founded on biblical principles. That cannot be denied, no matter how much people hate it. But that's entirely different than, "merge the Church and the state, and legislate Christianity onto America." I don't even know what that means or how it would look.
And again, I still have no idea who is promoting that view! I'm still working my way through this podcast, so maybe he will mention it. But I've listened to countless hours of podcasts of his and still don't know exactly what he's talking about or who is promoting this.
All I can say is I'm not seeing it. The only thing "Christian Nationalism" means, as it's used when I see it, is things like Christians being involved in politics, ending baby butchering (since murder is ALREADY illegal), ending child mutilation, getting these perverts out of schools, etc.
Nobody (that I can see) is promoting the idea of dragging non-Christians to church or jailing them if they don't say they are Christians! That's silly. The Bible doesn't teach to do that. I don't know where he gets this idea. Again, I am still working my way through the podcast. So if he does mention it, then I will know.
I agree. Basically no one is promoting this idea except the main stream media as an accusation and a reflexive psyop.
For example, NPR published "More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey"
I think James is trying to "prebunk" the idea so it doesnt catch on in the way that the msm is promoting the idea in hopes that it does.