Very good introduction to Critical Theory, that explains how diametrically opposed it is to Christianity. CT is a more proper appellation for what some (including myself) refer to as Cultural Marxism. CT is foundational to movements such as BLM, modern environmentalism (see Great Thunberg), and many others.
Author: vincenzo
Ethnic Gnosticism
Very relevant sermon in this period.
Voddie is possibly the only Reformed scholar/preacher I can actually listen to. Unlike the majority of Reformed I know, he actually has a Christian heart. Plus he’s funny. Plus he’s quite good a Jiu Jitsu.
Ethnic Gnosticism is a term crafted by Dr. Voddie Baucham to explain the phenomenon of people believing that somehow because of ones ethnicity that one is able to know when something or someone is racist. In this sermon, Dr. Baucham sheds light on the way this ideology is undermining the gospel and compromising genuine christian relationships in the church today. In recent years we have a growing concern about āsocial justice.ā What is meant by that phrase, however, varies widely among those who use and promote it. What is too often missingāeven in the calls for āsocial justiceā coming from Christian leadersāis a clear understanding of biblical justice. Justice exists because God is just and righteous. He is the One who defines justice and He has revealed what true justice is in the Bible. For more resources on these topics, you can visit www.founders.org. This presentation was given by Dr. Voddie Baucham on January 4, 2019 at the Southeast Founders “Do Justice, Love Kindness, Walk Humbly” regional conference in Cape Coral, Florida.
BLM founder admits to be a ‘trained Marxist’
As if she needed to confess to be a trained Marxist. Their statement of belief on their website is Marxist.
I take this chance to share a passage I read yesterday, and that seemed the perfect description of BLM (or any other Marxist movement):
There are six things that the Lord hates, even seven things that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift to run to evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who spreads discord among family members.
Prov 6:16-19 (NET)
- Marxists are arrogant, proud and unforgiving
- They lie to achieve their goals (that’s why they can team up with Islam in the Red-Green Axis ā both ideologies accept lie as a just means to achieve their spread)
- They devise evil plans (e.g. Burn Down the American Plantation)
- They are quick to resort to evil (see reaction to Floyd’s murder)
- They lie when providing witness
- They put human being against human being, and definitely create discord in the Church, due to some Christian being gullible enough to jump on the bandwagon of these Marxists movements, be it BLM or Great Thunberg nonsense.
Human lives matter
After having discussed the recent events in the heat of social networks, I wanted to lay down my point of view completely and clearly. I know it will be a long post, but, hopefully, it’ll be worth it.
Of course, this relates to the recent events in the USA, and the movement that calls themselves Black Lives Matter, amongst others.
This is a matter that is doomed to be polarising, so it is not surprising that I myself I have got into trouble with some friends and brothers in Christ already. It’s sad that some people should even begin to think that for some reason I am denying well established history about the exploitation of Africans over the centuries. I’d be a fool if I did that.
Anyhow, I am getting ahead of myself. I need to break this down properly. So, let’s start with the foundation.
Continue readingID is dead, long live ID!
Despite incessant declarations that āthere is no controversyā about evolution, ID is evidently on the mind of many biologists, to the point of obsession, reports Evolution News.
If one European researcher is correct, scientists in the United States spend one-fifth of their waking time thinking about how to ācombat intelligent design.ā
The logical absurdity of a missing standard of absolute morality
So, I was reading this, and towards the end of the page there is a section about “defamatory language” that should not be used when referring to or talking about a person who is a professing gay. Right at the bottom, one reads:
Associating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people with pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest.
My goal here is simply to show the logical absurdity of a worldview that rejects the idea of an absolute moral standard whilst, in the same breath, making absolute moral judgments.
How so?
Well, the paragraph presupposes that the following things are objectively immoral: pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest. They say it’s offensive to associate LGBT people with any of these. Why is it offensive? Well, because those things are “bad”.
Ok, agreed, they are. But here’s the problem: who says they are bad? You? Society at large? Science? Science cannot say anything about morality, because you can’t derive “ought” from “is”. The other options confine you in the realm of relativism.
Therefore, LGBT people have no objective basis to claim that any of those things are inherently immoral (though I have no doubt they feel compelled to, since they too live in God’s world), and therefore no objective basis to be offended by being associated with those things.
There’s only one worldview that provides objective moral values, and that’s the biblical one.
And in the biblical worldview, sex is only moral if occurs within heterosexual wedlock.
But here’s the good news:
God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16
In “the world” and “whoever” are included all people. LGBT, too. Contrary to the claims of many, the reason why we preach the good news is out of love, not out of hatred. And the reason why we point out worldview-defining sin like in the case of LGBT is because when a particular sin becomes what you identify with at your core, then you have a massive stumbling block for believing the gospel. You would like that eternal life, perhaps, but at your conditions, not God’s.
But here’s the thing. God is perfectly good, and we are all flawed and inherently tending towards evil. So what God wants for us is better of what you want for ourselves.
The world has redefined love as always being in agreement with somebody about their preferences and what makes them happy. But that’s foolish. People are constantly drawing happiness and satisfaction from things that are harmful to them: drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, promiscuous sex, easy-yet-illegal money, etc.
Love is having the courage of telling them that they are harming themselves; and that there’s a better option.
Choose better. Choose Jesus.
these [things] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
John 20:31
Making the most of old devices
One thing I like a lot is to make the most out of old devices. I like that in an era where people keep throwing away, I manage to reuse. I like that whilst everyone else changes smartphone every 18-24 months, I manage to survive 5-6 years with the same one. I like that my 2010 MacBook Pro is still serving my wife well and my old PowerBook 12ā G4 worked until 18 months ago. And still would if I could be bothered with changing the motherboard.
This week was time to put my old Minix Neo X7 onto a new job. It served me well from 2013, but recently became more and more neglected. I was only using it occasionally to watch RaiPlay (via VPN). Everything else was now available on the Smart TV (and more recently, on my Apple TV 4K).
Anyway, that’s no longer a problem, so the X7 kind of became obsolete. What to do with it? Sell it? It won’t sell. Let’s reuse it.
The Minix Forum was the right place to begin. Easily managed to get hold of a root patch for the version of the software my box was running.
With that, I was able to easily turn my X7 into a VPN router capable of 30Mbps, just needed to connect it to my router via ethernet, use my NordVPN app and subscription, turn on the WiFi HotSpot, and use this tiny app that takes care of the iptables
rules for me.
And that’s how a 7-yo Android TV box still serves a purpose in 2020 š
Reformed are Sola Patres, not Sola Scriptura
Like all disagreement with Reformed chaps, yet another one just resulted in the same pattern: Ā«the church fathers held this and thatĀ» and Ā«but the Reformers held such and suchĀ».
The Bible is hardly quoted, and when it is, it’s out of context and filtered through the presuppositions of the church fathers.
In this, they are no different than Roman Catholics. In fact, “pure breed Reformed folks” aren’t but Catholics without popes, saints, relics, indulgences, and marianism. Even their soteriology is more similar than they actually realise. And appeal to tradition is one of the main informal logical fallacies they are constantly guilty of.
Reformed are not Sola Scriptura. They are Sola Patres. They are so presuppositionally committed to the church fathers that it is no surprise their exegesis is never coherent nor consistent, but adopts multiple standards. As it is no surprise that they quote the fathers more often than they quote the Bible. They are slave to a fake intellectualism, having repudiated true wisdom in favour of man-made self-indulgent knowledge.
Let me break it to you: church fathers were wrong on a good number of things.
Adopt a sound exegesis, put the fathers aside, and understand the Scriptures.
The first book of public hygiene
Three thousands years ago there was a nation in ancient near east that was very different from all the others surrounding it. Of all the difference, strangely enough, they were on a whole different level when it came to hygiene. The name of the nation is Israel and their hygiene rules are recorded mostly in Leviticus and Deutoronomy, but also other parts of what Christians call “the Old Testament”.
Progressivism and IT companies
One thing that gets increasingly more difficult for me is the fact that in my line of work almost everyone is a hyper-leftist/progressivist/super-liberal of some sort. That means that we have diametrically opposed worldviews, even on the smallest things in life. And yet their worldviews are now shaping entire businesses policies, mottos, and ways of working.
What follows is a testimony from an interview.
The candidate had been asked salary expectations, which they provided. They then received an offer, which was not quite close enough to their expectations. So they tried to negotiate their way up.
This is what HR said to the candidate in the first instance.
I really appreciate you making a detailed case for increasing the salary offer, we do appreciate the wealth of experience that you have and this is something that was taken into consideration. We like to ask candidate compensation expectations as a check and balance to see if our ranges are in line with candidateās expectations. Weāve found in the majority of cases they are. We believe strongly in internal equity and donāt offer salaries solely based on candidateās expectations. Weāve found that could lead to a significant gender gap in wages, as male candidates have a tendency to negotiate much more aggressively, so Iām going to have to decline to negotiate. Please let me know if I can answer any other questions about working here
The emphasis is mine.
What’s really sad is that they think they really are smart and clever with these policies, and they have no idea whatsoever of how absurd their policies are. And when I say absurd, I literally mean that their view reduces to logical absurdity. Let’s see why.
The dirty trick about negotiation
The way they declined negotiation is unfair, because they started the negotiation the moment they asked for salary expectations. Regardless of the reasons for which they do it, asking the candidate for their salary expectations sets HR up as the first negotiator, giving them an advantage. It is reasonable to assume they wouldnāt offer the upper bound salary to someone whose expectations did not exceed such an upper bound. In other words, if a candidate does not understand their own worth and asks for a low salary, they will get what they asked for: a low salary. However, the one that asks for a high salary, they very likely won’t get what they asked for. Dirty trick.
The self-refuting logic
They believe in equity and don’t offer salary just based solely on candidate’s expectations. Well, that’s a silly thing to say to start with: no one offers salary based solely on one’s expectations, because otherwise everyone would be asking for astronomical salaries and they’ll get it.
The fact of the matter is that a candidateās expectations are based around their perceived merit, which is corroborated by factual information about their experience and past career, and the output of the hiring process. Thus, unintentional as it may be, they seem to be adopting a double standard for how they set the first salary, and how they decide future salary increases (they said elsewhere: “We offer merit increases every 12-18 months”). The latter are based on merit, the former are not, or at least, not entirely, as they are constrained by other, contrary, factors.
Also, equity has got nothing to do with this. In fact, a principle of equity works directly against recognising one’s worth. You either pay someone for what they are worth, or you put everyone on the same salary because of equity. You can’t have it both ways. And this applies also if you just mean “equity per role”, because people that perform the same role, are likely to perform it at different levels of effectiveness and driven by different experience. And to be quite blunt, some people are just cleverer than others.
Gender gap?
Weāve found that could lead to a significant gender gap in wages, as male candidates have a tendency to negotiate much more aggressively, so Iām going to have to decline to negotiate.
In the attempt to try and avoid discrimination, their policy has indadvertedly led to discrimination nonetheless. Iād like to share that with you:
- Females are labelled as less able to negotiate
- Males are labelled as getting what they want by being aggressive negotiators
- Males are deprived of alleged gender-specific skills and the ability to put them to full use; negotiation, and ability to defend oneās worth in general, should be valued as a skill, not dismissed as a menace;
- All people, irrespective of gender, that are good negotiators are deprived of their skills; they are constrained to be a lesser version of themselves.
- Cases built on facts are dismissed for the fear of them being uniquely driven by built-in rhetorical aggressiveness, thus effectively discriminating towards those that merit higher compensation, but will have to oblige and be valued less, merely because they are, well, potentially aggressive negotiators.
I mean, that’s just a sick thing to say during an interview process.
That aside, the whole thing crumbles when you think they support gender self-identification. I mean, are they assuming my gender here?
Conclusion
The direct result of applying such self-refuting worldviews to the workplace is not recognising and rewarding worth fairly and justly. And it will only get worse, especially in the IT sector, where they seem to be way ahead of the curve in adopting such mentality.