Monday, 6 August 2018

Abolishing shame

This article is excellent in its clarity and relevane, concerning the state of modern evangelicalism and the homosexual revolution:

Friday, 3 August 2018

An authoritative Bible must be an inerrant Bible

There are some writers and teachers in the evangelical world who claim that the Bible (when properly interpreted) is not absolutely without error in all matters on which it pronounces.

At the same time they assert that they still, being evangelicals, hold that the Bible is the final authority in all matters on which it pronounces.

This position is logically incoherent. If, on some matter, the Bible proclaims something false, then on that matter, it is ipso facto less authoritative than any other source that proclaims the truth. And thus, the Bible cannot be authoritative in all matters on which it pronounces. A falsehood cannot be authoritative.

Thus it follows, that to proclaim an authoritative Bible is necessarily to proclaim an inerrant Bible. If someone openly says that they do not think that the Bible is inerrant, then they are also saying that they think that on some matters, other sources are a higher matter than the Bible. And, as night follows day, on those matters, the Bible is not the Word of God, and not inspired on those matters.

There are writers and teachers who want to say "A, B, C, D, ...", but then, for now, want to deny that they are heading towards E as the next step. Such are not friends of God's flock. Let us be careful what we believe about the Bible. When someone says that they believe, as you do, that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, but that, unlike you, they believe it has some mistakes, perhaps just small ones, they are self-deceived, and attempting to deceive others too. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or the Bible is a stew of mixed truth and falsehood like every other book in the world. There is no middle ground between these two positions.

Friday, 27 July 2018

When sanity becomes forbidden...

A woman was banned from a gym, because she didn't want to share the women's changing room and showers with a man. It's not a dystopian future from an over-imaginative novel: it's the UK in 2018.

"Hasn't happened to me yet," somebody says, "and besides, I can live with not going to the gym, or I'll just change at home".

If that's our strategy for dealing with 2018, then few of us (should any of us have any daughters, sisters, wives, or care about anyone who does, that is) are going to enjoy 2028 very much. It's only by speaking up and speaking plainly now, that you can stop the juggernaut. The juggernaut doesn't intend to politely stop 10 inches outside your front door, school, or office, etc.

The Cliff

Wednesday, 27 June 2018

PayPal forbid anything they arbitrarily choose to dislike

PayPal recently changed their terms and conditions (explained here, though the link will go out of date), allowing them to forbid use of PayPal on any site that has "activities that relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of ... forms of intolerance that is (sic.) discriminatory".

That's all. No mention of what areas you can or can't discriminate (definition: apply a difference) in.

In other words, it's an ultimate "anything we dislike" clause. Some years ago I was reading an article on the absurd number of new laws passed in the UK in recent decades, and the surprisingly enormous number of things that are actually illegal. The article (in a secular newspaper) was about how the general principle that laws should have a reasonable correspondence to peoples' sense of right and wrong, or that the law should be easy to discover, had been broken. Tyrants everywhere love to make everything illegal... and then enforce that law arbitrarily to favour their friends and hurt their enemies.

Adam Ford has written here recently about the kind of power that Facebook and Google have (and use) to enforce their founders' Californian world-view, and suppress Christian or conservative ideas. Their algorithms and procedures are not neutral, but written in lines with their founders' ideas about what ideas should be promoted, and which should not be promoted. It seems that PayPal have decided to get in on the same game. They've introduced a catch-all clause that could be used to render just about any idea they choose to take exception to as out-of-court... but which is so broad that it couldn't possibly be used consistently. It rules out "discrimination", without limits. But all of life involves discriminating... hopefully, between things that are right or wise, and things that are wrong or foolish, and choosing the former. You can't live life well without discerning the difference and making a choice.

To take a real-world example.... if a pro-life group, campaigning to protect unborn lives, has complaints filed against it for being "anti-women" or "anti-freedom" (which is what the current lying propaganda says), and another pro-abortion group has a complaint filed against it for being discriminatory against unborn lives... then if PayPal follow the route of Facebook and Google, the outcome will be easy to predict. The current "progressive" ideology promoted in Silicon Valley says that to forbid the "right" to end an unborn life is discrimination against women..... but that Christian viewpoints that want to protect lives are discriminatory, even hate-filled (and yes, they also added a clause to forbid that in vague and general terms too). Christians are not tolerated; they are banned, for intolerance.

We now await to see what happens next, and if the outcome is any difference to how things have been with Google and Facebook.