On Saturday I was at my old roommates place and we decided to watch a pilot of a Netflix original program. We decided on Jessica Jones. It only took 20 minutes for the homosexual propaganda to come full force. There were these two homosexual women who were together. One was a lawyer named Jeri and she and her secretary named Pam show a homosexual “love” interest in each other.
I was mad but I wasn’t that shocked. After all, Netflix is known for promoting this kind of garbage. Choosing to look beyond this propaganda and one other defect which I won’t mention here, the pilot was pretty good. The series is dark, mysterious, and has a good main character. My kind of show. I suppose that the goal of any pilot is to get the viewer to watch the second episode. It worked with me. I continued watching the series.
On Wednesday evening I was watching the series when I saw something extremely scandalous. I was in such a state of shock when I heard this that I immediately hit the 10 second rewind button found on the iPad app and turned on the English subtitles so I could see if I really heard what I thought I did. It was exactly what I had heard the first time. Yesterday morning when I got up, the first thing I did was re-watch that scene to make sure it wasn’t a dream. It wasn’t.
Here’s what happened in the scene. Jeri is about to propose to Pam to “marry” her. However, she’s still in the middle of completing her divorce with her first wife. Jeri proposes and presents a box with a ring in it to Pam.
Pam is in shock and is super happy. She then calms down and says:
“I want to. I really really want to. But first, the divorce.”
She starts to walk away then turns around in an attempt to justify her actions. She flashes a friendly smile then says: “I’m Catholic.”
There you have it. I don’t know where to start with this one. If she’s Catholic, what is she doing pursuing a homosexual relationship? What about the fact that this woman will soon be divorced and the Catholic Church forbids marrying a divorced person? Of course I wouldn’t call it a divorce since it’s not a true marriage that she’s in. Pam doesn’t think that though. She acknowledges that it’s a divorce so then why is she pursuing her? How about the fact that it’s a homosexual relationship?
If I had to guess, the whole Catholic comment was to show strict monogamy. That would be my best guess. I’m still perplexed at the comment. Such absurdity. Ironically the same episode had an abortion in it. While I believe abortion is evil, I wasn’t shocked since I expect Netflix to promote this stuff. This new tactic is so clever and devious. Also, anyone with a Netflix account can verify this. Just go to episode six of the first season of Jessica Jones and it’s about 20 minutes in.
I think that I know what the left has done here. It’s extremely clever. A little over a decade ago, the left was promoting atheism. They were piggybacking on the bestselling New Atheist books by Dawkins, Hitchens and others. When Hitchens died in 2011, this movement fizzled out. Atheism just doesn’t seem to sell. While Canada and America are certainly secular countries, atheism doesn’t seem to be a big thing. I would say that only a small minority of people are atheist. Even most secular people that I meet say that they believe in God or some sort of force.
Back in the day, it was atheism vs religion. Since atheism doesn’t sell well, the left has shifted ground. The new tactic is to completely compromise religion. Apart from certain traditional factions, Judaism and Protestantism have been completely compromised. Catholicism is next on the list. They think that with Pope Francis they have their shot.
Their goal is to make it so that you can be Catholic and still support homosexuality and divorce and remarriage and recognize that it’s simply an opinion within Catholicism. The liberal has their Catholic opinion and the traditionalist has his. After all, as long as you believe in monogamy and commitment, all is well, right?
Attacking Christianity directly is not going to work, especially crude and unsophisticated polemicist.
I wonder if philosophy is one good way of undermining religion, since the early modern philosophers tend to undermine orthodox Christianity, particularly Catholicism. (And I would say that my affinity towards the Humean strain of philosophy is why I did not find Catholicism intellectually appealing.)
I don’t know though. If you look at Jonathan Edwards, the theologian’s wikipedia article, it said that he read Locke’s An Essay on Human Understanding and it actually affirmed his religious faith (as a Reformed theologian).
I am saying this because next semester the philosophy department is losing two wonderful professors who are transferring to a different university. They are married and have their offices across each other. One is interested in early modern philosophy and the philosophy of religion and the other is interested in ethics. They both expressed contempt for mainstream theistic religion (a more generalized disdain for religion, as oppose to a particular antipathy towards Islam or Christianity). The woman said something to the effect to me that religion is mostly what a few ignorant people said about the world and reflected the values in that cultural milieu. The man said to me that any logic book would disprove religious claims. They really don’t think about revealed religion that much, although the early modern philosopher would be interested in it because the intellectual milieu of that time was influenced by Christianity. The guy was the person who encouraged me to read Bart Ehrman when I showed him Forgery and Counterforgery that I had borrowed from the library. [He was into that in the early 2000s at his leisure, but has little interest in it now. He was able to read the NT in Greek, at one point.] I was comfortable telling them that I was a Muslim, and they they really didn’t insult me about it.
Still, early modern philosophy seems to be a good way to undermine contemporary religion intellectually, but if one claims that this age is currently secular, then the current religious indifferent is not due to people reading David Hume and Thomas Hobbes (or Rene Descartes) or being directly exposed to their ideas. Those men certainly weren’t “New Atheists” who were trying to shove it down your throat, but their philosophy is against Catholic theology. Hobbes was an explicit anti-Catholic, but since most of that material is in parts three and four of Leviathan, it is not often read and my professor did not assign much of it.
The issue is that, while I am sad that they are leaving, they would have to be replaced so they there can be classes being offered and professors to advice students for writing theses, but due to funding issues, the liberal arts dean does not seem to be willing to extend a tenure track line to the Philosophy Department. In a conversation with another professor, I wondered if the university had a vision for funding business and science as being more practical than the liberal arts, but it was the liberal arts dean that was distributing the funding, and the Philosophy Department, which is decently ranked, has been relatively neglected. (I had immense barakah [blessing] while being in that program, and I want future philosophy students to be able to have a similar experience.) The professor that I was discussing this, who is most likely left-wing, said that the liberal arts dean favors “social justice warrior” type of departments. [If I can recollect accurately, the professor likely used the initials “SJW”.]
If you want to undermine religion, philosophy not SJW stuff is the way to go!
Hi Latias,
Thank you for sharing your opinion. While what you say is true, that philosphy is better than SJW identity politics, it’ll never be used. The only people fluent in that kind of philosopher are graduate students and profs. About 99% of people walking out there on the street aren’t versed in Hume, Hobbes, Locke or any of the others. However, probably 50% of them or more have been influenced by SJW and leftist identity politics.
Speaking of philosophy, my goal is to promote the great philosophers of the counter-enlightenment. Philosophers such as Louis de Bonald, Rene de Chateaubriand, Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes and others. If more people read these works, they’ll be in a better position to counter enlightenment philosophers. The next book on my list is “The Genius of Christianity” by Rene de Chateaubriand. Apparently he responds to a lot of Voltaire’s arguments against Christianity. I don’t think Christianity is as hung out to dry in philosophy as you think. It’s just that no one has heard of our best counter-enlightenment philosophers. I suppose that its good on the modern philosophy profs who airbrush these people from history. It helps their case I guess. Have you read any of these counter-enlightenment philosophers Latias? Also, had you heard about them before I had mentioned them on this website?
Either way, I don’t think philosophy will be the weapon that the left uses since the average leftist knows nothing about philosophy, similar to the average Catholic.
God Bless,
Allan
as salaamu alaykum,
I haven’t read the counter-enlightenment philosophers though. I most likely haven’t heard of them elsewhere, or if I did, I didn’t remember them. I heard of Bonald before, but to reiterate, I heard of him.
I honestly believe that Hume’s critique on “vulgar superstition” has the quality of irrefutable wisdom, but I do not perceive it to be entirely opposed to religion. In the end, I interpret Hume to be more of humanist who had antipathy towards popular religion, than as a New Atheist who wanted to extirpate it.
A footnote in Chapter 26 in Volume I of Capital illustrates Hume hostility towards religion that concern a letter from Hume’s friend Adam Smith.
I did feel that my heart was more inclined to oriental* conservatism (i.e Confucianism) if I really did want a conservative flavor of ethics/political theory. A World without Islam said that throughout Chinese history (with a few exceptions) Islam was respected in their Confucian culture. I read a translation of the Analects and it was very sensible.
The male professor said [something to the effect of] that any book on critical thinking would disprove religion if you apply its principles on religion. Saying “any logic book ” would convey something different.
You said something that Protestantism is compromised. I actually think Reformed Theology is theological robust enough since it is systematic and based on Christian scripture; I don’t think Bart Ehrman has undermined its appeal though. I liked Reformed theology AFTER I became a Muslim since its depiction of the deity and soteriology is quite similar to orthodox Islam (more precisely my understanding of the Ash’ari aqueeda [creed]). I suppose that Reformed theology does not give people a positive first impression since it posits that God did not decree for people be saved since the atonement was only for his elect. (I phrased it that way since I heard someone mention that Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion did not expound in a literal hellfire; he interpreted it metaphorically.)
Reformed theology may not be “philosophical” enough since it uses little external knowledge to justify it. Catholicism is more philosophical.
* I still use that word, without negative connotation. Apparently, it is politically incorrect. I thought that usually refers to Eastern Asia, not the Middle East.
Hi Latias,
Thanks for sharing. The fact that you haven’t heard of most of these counter enlightenment philosophers is telling since you’re a philosophy expert. It just shows that they’ve been airbrushed from history. It’s a shame since they’re the antidote to the chaos in the modern world.
“You said something that Protestantism is compromised. I actually think Reformed Theology is theological robust enough since it is systematic and based on Christian scripture; I don’t think Bart Ehrman has undermined its appeal though.”
What I meant by compromised was that most mainline Protestant denominations have accepted cultural liberalism. Most of them see divorce and remarriage as okay, allow contraception, have openly and practicing homosexual clergy, female clergy, etc. Certain camps of reformed theology such as the OPC and some reformed Baptist Churches have stayed traditional but they are a small minority within Protestantism. So I was talking about culturally. I honestly think that the context of that paragraph was quite clear on that.
So you don’t believe that Catholicism is Systematic or based on Scripture? I wonder how much Catholic writings you’ve read, especially from 1000 to 1300 AD. Have you read the writings of the great counter-Reformation theologians such as St. Francis de Sales or St. Robert Bellarmine?
“Reformed theology may not be “philosophical” enough since it uses little external knowledge to justify it. Catholicism is more philosophical.”
I personally don’t use Philosophy in determining truth. I use Scripture, Tradition and history. Scripture and Tradition is the reason that I’m not a Calvinist. History is the reason that I’m not a Muslim. I don’t use philosophy although I admit that you’ve inspired me to read Hume. I’m going to order a book or two of his on my next Amazon order. If you could recommend to me where to start with Hume, I’d be grateful.
God Bless,
Allan
Allan,
as salaamu alaykum,
I was pointing out how evangelical culture is “weak” and I thought it was due to “weak” theology, while in contrast, I have listened to James White, and he is quite “strong” in his exegesis. However. I believe that I can appreciate James White because I am fairly knowledgeable in the Bible and perhaps I am also committed to the notion of a sovereign God (and therefore don’t have much use for “free will”).
I talked to a sister who converted from Christianity (she had a Catholic aunt but her parents were evangelical). She is not as theologically or philosophically sophisticated as I am when it concerns Christianity. I asked her what the Gospel was, and she didn’t give the answer I was looking for (she said something that “it was Jesus’ teachings”). I said that it is the message that Jesus had died for your sins and you would be forgiven. I was asking whether Islam also had a “Gospel”, and my answer was that its theology did not have something similar to Christianity where on is forgiven of there sins and that their sins would not be counted against them because Jesus would be their advocate. (One of James White’s splendid presentations of Calvinist theology is his exegesis on the blessed man of Romans 4:8 whose sins will not be counted against him.) In effect, (non-Catholic) Christians do not have fear judgment from God, since the sins are already forgiven and atoned for. The sister also said that she thought Catholicism was a little better, but she did not want to confess sins to priests. She liked the notion that on the day of judgment, no one’s sins would be ascribed to someone else (which is against the soteriological theory of Jesus assuming the sins of others).
The sister mentioned that in Christianity Jesus accepts you for who you are. While that does sound anodyne, it does not cause people to change their behavior and lead to a personal transformation.
I suppose evangelical intellectual culture is too “weak”. Theologically, it seems to be based on the Gospel of Jesus dying for your sins, along with a few Bible verses such as verses in John (e.g 3:16, 1:12, 3:3, 5:24, 6:40, 20:29) that emphasize faith (intellectual assent) being key to salvation, and Romans showing that we need a savior due to our sins (e.g. 5:8, 6:23), transgression against the law (3:23), and inability to be righteous by our works (4:5). There neither seem to be any ritual nor common culture between. (I don’t know what to say about Islam in my locality.
I know a few Catholics who have some interest in philosophy, but there are a few imams that know Quran and hadith, at least enough to teach in Islamic schools, dispense Islamic advise based on fiqh, and give khutbas [homilies]. I don’t know any Muslim who has an interest in philosophy personally, except a grad student from Saudi Arabia who does attend MSA meetings. I suppose that there are enough Muslims that have mastery over the relevant literature to be authorities to other Muslims and preserve their beliefs. I am only concerned that they cannot engage other religions and secular ideas since a few of them study the liberal arts.)
I was actually contrasting Reformed theology with the greater evangelical culture. Roman Catholicism certainly is systematic. The female professor gave me two thick books about Aquinas and a translated edition of Summa Theologica she does not want to pay to move (and hadn’t read at all). Aquinas definitely is systematic and through.
I simply don’t think evangelicals could critique culture or have something intellectually or morally substantial to offer. I proffered Reformed theology as a possible exception.
What are you interested in Hume? I don’t think you would be that interested in his epistemology. Were you interested in his moral theory or remarks towards religion (what he calls “vulgar superstition”). To be honest, I haven’t read much on his historical work, where he had also a had great reputation as a historian, but Hume is more well-known for his philosophy today.
Hi Latias,
I recommend that you watch the debate between James White and Robert Sungenis on Justification. He dismantles the blessed man argument. I would also recommend that you read “Not By Faith Alone” which was written by Sungenis. It’s 775 pages. Also his books “Not by Scripture Alone” and “Not By Bread Alone” are excellent and provide a good antidote to White’s arguments in favor of Reformed Theology. They’re all very well researched.
“I simply don’t think evangelicals could critique culture or have something intellectually or morally substantial to offer. I proffered Reformed theology as a possible exception.”
I think it really depends. There are some smart Evangelicals but sadly the average Evangelical is as clueless as the average Catholic in this regard.
Regarding Hume, definitely his work on moral theory and religion. That would mesh with my interests quite a bit.
God Bless,
Allan
* The grad student does *not* attend MSA meetings.