Problems with Preterism Kindle

 The Kindle version has come out and is much cheaper. I changed the link to the left to go to this version instead of the hard copy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BNLLZ8YB/ref=redir_mobile_desktop/143-8070388-8609841?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1673755942&ref_=tmm_kin_swatch_0&sr=8-1

M. Night Shyamalamadingdong's Gay Anti-Gay Movie

Spoilers. 

Knock at the Cabin is M. Night Shyamalan's latest underwhelming flick. At least on the surface. However, the interesting twist about this movie is not in some surprise ending as usual. Instead, it's that the movie itself is either an absolute atrocity of screenwriting and virtue signaling cast in an interesting idea that never manifests itself into a great story, or it's an ingenious movie too subtle for the dimwitted woke crowd to realize due to their inability to understand nuance and creativity in literary development.  I honestly cannot tell if he meant to create a really deep subversive movie that would be truly brilliant for our time or just had a cool idea for a movie and then put together a piece of garbage for the sake of telling us that gay people are people too.  Gay is everywhere now. It's in everything we watch whether we want it or not. We are being brainwashed to believe it is moral by training us that it is normal. This movie is likely in that same vein but it may be a counterargument all the same. In my hope for the latter, let me tell you how this movie reads to me. 

The premise is that a gay couple who have adopted a Chinese daughter (because two white men adopting a white baby isn't woke enough) are up at a cabin when four individuals, who represent the four horsemen of the apocalypse, tell them that one of them must be sacrificed by them in order to save the rest of humanity or the three of them alone will survive the apocalypse to walk the earth and see humanity's end. Unlike the biblical four horsemen which represent conquest, war, famine, and death, these four represent "all aspects of humanity: malice, nurture, healing, and guidance." Of course, malice is represented by the only white straight male out of the main characters. The others, who represent positive qualities, are all of other ethnicities, genders, or sexual preferences. Throughout the movie, we are shown how the two gay men have experienced each of these characteristics throughout their lives (which makes me believe Shyamalan meant this as a virtue signal). 

However, here is where it gets interesting. These two men cannot procreate. They are literally partaking in the destruction of humanity by entering a homosexual relationship. There is no two ways about it. The only reason we don't see it that way is because there are lots of other people procreating instead, including the people who bore their adopted daughter. So by choosing this lifestyle, even with the world not coming to an end, they have chosen to partake in the destruction rather than the preservation of humanity. This becomes even more apparent, however, when they are told that the three of them alone will be left on earth. Now, if the couple had been heterosexual, one might simply know that humanity could still be saved, still be preserved for another day. But knowing that these two are gay, they have chosen a sexuality that will spell the absolute end for all humanity in a world where they alone are left to propagate it. This is why they had to adopt. This is why homosexuals have to find surrogate mothers. They don't produce life in their relationships, only death, only the end, only the apocalypse, never life, never preservation, never a new beginning for humanity, never genesis. 

Throughout the movie, one of the men seems to know that this is all true but doesn't care. He constantly makes statements about letting the world all die because they have the three of them. It is a selfish choice filled with hatred for all humanity. He talks about their love being all they need and to forget humanity that doesn't accept their love. It is a good riddance to a humanity that is said to hate them, even though the bulk of the hatred is coming from this gay man toward the human race. This is what a homosexual chooses when he chooses to indulge in a lifestyle that neither creates nor nurtures human life.

This brings me to the next point and that is the fact that these men adopted a baby in selfishness, knowing that all studies show that in order for a child to develop well he or she needs a mother and a father. The lack of concern that the daughter would grow up in a world covered in darkness and despair is evident in the hateful gay man. He truly represents the homosexual who is selfish and simply wants what he wants at the expense of everyone else around him. He doesn't care that she will suffer, only that the world did not make him give up what he wanted.

The second gay man seems more empathetic toward humanity. He isn't the hateful, selfish, and angry gay man but the one who realizes that he must sacrifice what he wants, i.e., his life (i.e., I think primarily representing his relationship with his partner), in order to save the girl he wanted as his own and the rest of humanity. This would be the man who may struggle with same-sex attraction but decides that he will participate in the preservation of humanity by turning away from his homosexual relationship and the adoption of a child within that. 

The movie becomes fantastically subversive to the ever popular mantra that gay couples are no different than straight couples and that gay sex is as much love as straight sex and that gay adoption is just as much loving as straight adoption. None of this is true. Gay sex and gay parenting is hatred toward humanity and works to end it. It is the apocalypse. Only choosing to sacrifice these will stay off the destruction of humanity. As one of the four "horsemen," the woman who represents nurture, states, "Our choices make our destiny" in response to angry gay dad's proclamation that "there is always a choice." This could be Shyamalan's subversive way of saying that homosexuality is a choice (if he's brilliant and not a complete brown-nosing moron who sees no connection between what is being said and the homosexual relationship he has chosen to showcase in the movie).

Those who choose non-creational sexualities hate humanity and participate in its demise. Those who choose "non-traditional families" do the same. Those who choose to break from that relationship choose life, the preservation of a larger humanity. It is a choice between selfishness, taking what one wants and all others be damned, and selflessness, giving up what one may personally want for the greater good.

If Shyamalan did not mean for his movie to have this message, and I suspect he didn't, I am glad that yet another woke movie, in attempting to stick it to the man, brainlessly stuck it to itself instead because this is absolutely what it communicated. 

There are a few other subtleties I found interesting, one of which was a ridiculous mural of an overly happy Jesus playing soccer with some kids in contrast to what was clearly the wrath of God being placed upon humanity for, well, in line what I suggest above, things like homosexuality and other anticreational sexualities. I'm sure Shyamalan would say it was for a lack of tolerance and acceptance of gay people. The irony, of course, is that Shyamalan himself turned the wrath of God represented by the four horsemen into aspects of humanity in the same way that the mural turned Jesus as Almighty God who judges wicked humanity into a happy hippy playing soccer. 

The first scene is of one of their parents disapproving of them, showing how people are horrible for not being super happy that their children have decided to end their biological line, essentially wiping their participation in humanity from the face of the earth. Bigots. This isn't even to mention the advertising the movie does for such overly woke resurrected cartoons like "The Proud Family” and others by stating how educational and woke the similar cartoon looks and is good for children (ironically, as what we just noted shows that such is bad for children in every way), but I digress.

Numerous people die, of course, while the homosexuals make up their mind and only do so at the last minute. The same could be said for homosexuals and other people who partake in anticreational sexual activity, as each act could be one that saw new life and preserved humanity but instead does not partake in a sexuality that would do so. 

So, as I said, this movie is either ingenious or so completely stupid and oblivious that it puts Captain Marvel that was trying to be a movie in support of feminism to shame. Either way, it has the same message and humanity should harken to it if it knows what is best for it.

Andy Stanley and the Theological Atmosphere of Evangelicalism

Note: If you're not aware of the recent things that have come out concerning Andy Stanley's views about the Bible and homosexuality, you probably won't get this post. https://youtu.be/E8KlhMPrTPs  

https://youtu.be/e1BChE9SRWw

I used to listen to Andy Stanley every Sunday he got the pulpit from his dad. He's a great speaker. Very gifted. Very charismatic. And in no way is he qualified to be in ministry. And that's all Evangelicalism's fault. Evangelical compromises concerning the nature of the church, its reduction of Christianity to a generic belief in Jesus or an affirmation of a few creeds, the qualifications of an elder/pastor, and its capitulation of a biblical teleology of sexuality to the teleology of the sexual revolution. And these are actually all related when it comes to Andy Stanley and those teaching like him.

All of these have created the situation in which we find ourselves with the modern Megachurch movement and their pastors who walk on, or over, the line between orthodoxy and apostasy. Evangelicalism has a tradition rooted in false religion, and this wicked tradition is made up of the above characteristics. This is the air that Andy Stanley and those of us who grew up in Evangelicalism breathe.

1. The revivalistic mentality of evangelicalism, where one becomes a Christian by giving their assent to Jesus, confirming their assent by a prayer rather than a full understanding of becoming a disciple of Christ through baptism and submission to the teaching of the Bible through membership in an orthodox church, has led evangelicals to prioritize the unbeliever over the believer in their church services. 

It was once communicated to me that what is really important is to try and get people saved because every last one of the Christians in the assembly are already saved. If they don't get fed, it's not as bad as someone going to hell, so that must take priority in the message.

Since this is the case, eventually, this led to the removal of anything that might offend the unbeliever, like calling him to repentance and calling out specific sins that seem judgmental by those individuals or our culture at large.

Hence, you get beliefs by people like Andy concerning the unhitching of the Old Testament from the New, or even unhitching all of the Bible from the central message concerning the resurrection of Christ. The point is to try and get assent first and then bring in anything that may trip up the unbeliever later. That way, they can still be Christians even if they reject those other things.

In contrast to this, biblical Christianity views salvation as a salvation, not just from hell or a bad life, but from sin. To make someone a Christian is to make them a disciple of Christ, baptizing and teaching them all that Christ has commanded, which includes the Old Testament and the New. In other words, someone who becomes a believer should be told what he is being commanded to submit to when we say to him that Jesus is Lord. This means that whatever he will hear from the Word of God is taught by the Lord and he is giving his life over to submit to that joyfully. 

This means that the church is for believers. It exists to make them disciples by teaching them all that Christ commanded, but what is taught there is not in conflict with someone who might have the need to be saved, as the teaching of the Word of God is a part of what he must submit to. If he is offended and won't become a Christian because of what the Word of God says then he is not becoming a Christian simply because he prays a prayer and is ignorant of what it says. The Word of God is simply exposing that he is still not a Christian. 

2. Since it is mainly about getting people out of hell by getting them to assent to the basics, churches have largely reduced Christianity to the assent of one or just a few creeds. As long as they accept Jesus or as long as they accept these five fundamentals/essentials, they're good to go, so there is no reason to divide over other issues by offending other people. Hence, there is no need to teach on anything that might be offensive in the Bible, like hell or specific sins, unless the culture also thinks those things are sin (like racism or not being kind) or those offensive things are taught in a very non-offensive way, like teaching them as personal opinions with which one can disagree or walking on eggshells and being very apologetic while one is teaching them.

In contrast to this, God causes the sinner to repent of his sin by convicting him of his sin by the preaching of the whole counsel of God, whether believer or unbeliever alike. There is no need to reduce the offense because it is through the offense that a man is saved. But repentance is often not a part of the evangelical message above, and if it is, it is often just reduced itself by telling the sinner that he merely needs to think differently about Jesus rather than actually turn from specific sins in his life. 

Evangelicalism's desire to have unity at the expense of truth and good is rooted in the misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. There are essentials and non-essentials but they are not shelters in which the rebellious unbeliever or complacent believer can find comfort. The distinction exists so that we may love one another and tolerate other views while we continue to grow and critique anything that is not under the submission of Christ.

3. The distortion of the purpose of the church and the reduction of Christianity to simple messages and doctrines that are meant to get the unbelieving or "unchurched" people "saved" through non-offensive persuasion has led to the tendency in evangelicalism to seek after good speakers who are charismatic, i.e., likeable personalities, who keep people's attention and seem more like life coaches over actually qualified teachers who can teach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict, i.e. theologians and biblical scholars. 

This compromise simply multiplies the problem because our churches are now filled with pastors who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to theological or biblical issues, and yet, they set the tone for the entirety of evangelicalism. "My pastor said" now becomes the hallmark for every bad idea and wicked practice because people think their pastors are authorities who know when they are simply glorified laymen who have read a few books, have hyped up degrees, are worldly famous, and/or are simply able to turn a phrase to thunderous applause. 

This has led to the fact that the average evangelical pastor cannot discern what is true and what isn't in the midst of so many arguments concerning biblical texts and theological/ethical issues. He's just guessing like any layman who reads a commentary or a book, and his conclusions are largely based on his personal opinions shaped by his culture, religious or secular rather than exegesis and sacred logic.

4. Modern evangelicalism's adoption of the teleology of sex born out of the paganism of the sexual revolution, and apostasy from the Christian teleology taught by the Bible and the church for thousands of years has confused the modern pastor who is incapable of discerning who is right concerning issues like homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, etc. 

If the primary purpose of sex can be non-procreative in marriage then why is homosexual marriage wrong? If marriage between a man and a woman existed in the past to raise children, and children are not a necessary component of why we have sex then why exactly does one need to be married to have sex today? If sexual immorality is not any worse than other sins, and maybe a lesser evil than the horrible sins of being mean or judgmental, then it seems tolerable to suggest that homosexuals be allowed to be in good standing in the church and even let them partake in ministries, even if their lifestyles are not ideal. Afterall, evangelical churches let divorced and remarried people exist in the church without a word of condemnation, so the law of finding hypocrisy in others dictates that when we do something wrong it allows us to do more wrong. But most evangelicals don't even know why homosexuality is wrong, and that is because they practice the very things they condemn and don't know why their own practices are wrong. Hence, if someone like Andy Stanley approves of non-procreative sex and disordered relationships on a heterosexual scale why would he condemn other sexual activity that has the same end?

Couple all of this with the view that none of it is essential anyway and the foremost purpose of the church is to save unbelievers by coercing them to believe in some way, and offensive teaching has this opposite effect, then we can see why Andy Stanley's church and teaching looks the way it does. He is simply breathing out what he has been breathing in. 

But Andy Stanley is a warning, one of many. God keeps giving this warning to evangelicalism and it keeps missing it. Numerous examples can be cited. The compromise keeps getting further and further, and yet, its leaders still seem to be incapable of identifying the roots of it.