liberalism

To Train, A Child To Be Without a Fear of God is Senseless and Evil and Rejects the Value He Sees In Them!

Quote Posted on Updated on

Drag Queen Story Time protesters get pushback from mayor, council member — who join counter-protest: ‘They want us to get angry’ – TheBlaze

via Drag Queen Story Time protesters get pushback from mayor, council member — who join counter-protest: ‘They want us to get angry’ – TheBlaze

For parents looking to educate their children on the diversity of life, there are elements to support doing so in a sensible manner. Scripture testifies that we are to raise up our children to God and to put forth a discipline focused upon rearing them for an eternal purpose. 6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Prov 22:6 A verse often misinterpreted in regards to rearing children for God, as it’s declared to express that if one trains up a child in a certain way they will not fully depart from it, but will come back because there is a seed planted in them.

The truth is to train someone is to promote in them all principles and standards for achieving an end result. In the case of believers, it’s to have children that fear God, in the case of socialist liberals it’s to have children that are senseless and hate God. This effort of training is like training an athlete to apply certain principles and standards that have historically been proven to train the mind and body to perform at the highest level in a particular event. The key here is dedication, both from the trainer and the trainee, as they set out on a course that’s given priority in having a purpose resulting in events to occur as a part of the process.

The word translated train in the previous verse is the Hebrew word (hanak) meaning “to initiate a narrow set of principles”, or “standards of discipline”. Thus we can assume one must be dedicated to following such principles in viewing them as a proprietary choice in life. So, parents who refuse to learn the truth that pertains to one having sensible principles, place the child under disciplines they may not understand the purpose of, as they see it as either liberty or restraint in his or her life. This means forcing them to partake in activities that are contrary to the things of God in order to form senseless ideologies in them is an abuse of their right to life. 4 Fathers, do not irritate and provoke your children to anger [do not exasperate them to resentment], but rear them [tenderly] in the training and discipline and the counsel and admonition of the Lord. Eph 6:4 (AMP)

Many parents work diligently to raise their children in a sensible manner of principles, but the way by which those who have accepted liberalism as the normality of life work to accomplish it by using ideology opposite to any true sensibility. In using mannerisms such as this storytime with drag queens to garner confounded thinking that leaves the child having a level of resentment toward the truth about their created value in society, is nothing less than an abuse of the child’s right to know good and evil exist. I assure you this is not a mistake, these parents are willingly accepting the world’s system of inclusive social placement, and are trying to bring about a maturity that at its core is immoral, immature, and senselessly repugnant.

Children who have sense enough to live by their own wits and maturity of thought is not about how many rules they keep or how many laws they do not break, it’s all about becoming someone who has sense enough to know the difference between any good or evil working about them. This is why this kind of activity parents are willing to expose their children to is so mind-boggling, as it clearly states they’re without any sense of the value of the life of the child by exposing them to such things. The fact is every child should have the right to choose in their own life whether or not they need a change in the soul by the saving grace of Jesus Christ. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Cor 5:17 But history reveals those who’ve been trained to be inclusive of all evils will place opposition to God within their heart and mind.

I’ve said this before and usually get in trouble for it but God clearly says in His word that anyone who loves correction and instruction also loves knowledge, but those set against what’s sensible and right in what’s being revealed, are STUPID and INDISCRIMINATING. 1 Whoever loves instruction and correction loves knowledge, but he who HATES reproof is like a brute beast, stupid and indiscriminating. Prov 12:1 (amp) (capitalized emphasis mine). These parents are purposely training up children to indemnify evil activity while invoking a moral injustice, and the evidence this does as I’ve stated is in the current manner of a character being displayed by many of our youth today. Where they join in evil intentions and activities because they’re fully ignorant of the historical events that frame any future by its outcome.

The word of God declares that a child will reflect in what they do whether or not they have a clear and straightway path established in them. 11 Even a child is known by his deeds, Whether what he does is pure and right. Prov 20:11 (NKJV) That makes this event and others they’re being exposed to even more unacceptable, as these parents and the promoters of this activity abuse the rights of children in order to fulfill an action that’s selfish, perverted, and laced with evil intent in the light of truth. It’s all about training a child to be as senseless as themselves.

Jesus was ‘drag king’ with ‘queer desires,’ claims theology professor | Fox News

Posted on Updated on

A Catholic college theology professor’s claims about Jesus are rather unusual and would be considered blasphemous and heretical to most Christians.

Source: Jesus was ‘drag king’ with ‘queer desires,’ claims theology professor | Fox News

While I must admit the statement made by this professor is unusual and in contrast to most Christian theology, it isn’t too far from the truth of what many of today’s liberal idealists think. Christian faith is the paradox of many a discussion on who Christ really is and whether or not He is the Son of God. However for someone to make such a statement as those by Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew who heads the New Testament studies at Holy Cross University would have to be badly skewered in their thinking by liberal ideology in order to place God’s Son in a category with the LGBTQ community.

The issue over these statements made almost a decade ago should be whether or not he should be allowed to continue to hold onto his position when such views are only one statement away on a daily basis and exegesis of teaching. What strikes me about this is that he clearly was trying to define Christ in a sexually sensual way that would defer any qualms about transgenderism among the faithful who see him as a progenitor of New Testament truth.

“[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion,” he argues. “If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a ‘king of Israel’ or ‘king of the Ioudaioi [Jews],’ but also a drag king.” In this statement made by Dr. Liew, we can see that within the atmosphere of the Catholic church there is ample room for audacious scriptural interpretations to occur that not only strike across theological zones but also God laden spiritual boundaries.

John’s gospel in the New Testament is the most sensual of the four, but it is not given to any sexual perversity of mind, He clearly writes about the passion and love Christ has for all who would believe He is the Son of God. Nothing contained in those scriptures reveals the kind of sensual and seductive imagery that Dr. Liew is promoting. His use of Jesus’ crucifixion to somehow justify a description for homosexual bonding taking place between Father and Son should set off alarms warning everyone he is personally cognate of such sexual promiscuity.

Holy Cross representatives distance themselves from such sighted views but continue to uphold him with the declaration that he is a good teacher and man of faith. Something I will disagree with simply because faith isn’t an atonement for spiritual defamation of the one who is at the core of Christianity, and cannot contain any mindedness to afflict on others such a corrupted view. It might be worth remembering that Satan can promote himself as an angel of light in order to be seen as not conflicting to what scripture says about him. 2 Cor 11:14-15 (MSG) 14 And no wonder! Satan does it all the time, dressing up as a beautiful angel of light. 15 So it shouldn’t surprise us when his servants masquerade as servants of God. But they’re not getting by with anything. They’ll pay for it in the end. 

Though Dr. Liew isn’t currently presenting any structured teaching on this doesn’t clear him of any responsibility or accountability concerning the truth about his view of scripture concluding Jesus as a sexually confused male, as he states, if that is what He truly was. The fact that he hasn’t as yet repented of this spiritual error should be a clear statement that he still considers it factual enough to weave it into an ongoing detail he teaches about Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Those who would come to the defense of Dr. Liew are also most likely to defend the devil and his evil mannerisms if it promotes the cause of liberal academics. Any exhorting of such extreme imagination solely for academic freedoms is just an excuse to defame what God has put in place in order to gain personal premises. The sanctioned activity within the confines of liberal arts is today being used by liberals as a platform for relativism as a means to subdue any thought process prone to see naturalism in God’s creation as truth.