Wolfmen
Another pundit from Talk2Action has chimed in on the Prescott discussion. Mr. Jonathan Huston takes issue with my condemnation of Bruce Prescott's call for Christians to have little or no children because he thinks the world is over-populated.
Huston claims I referred to Mr. Prescott as satanic. I did not. His view is satanic. If God commands that one of the ways His Kingdom be expanded is with the birth of children then it is a demonic wisdom that suggests otherwise. James 3:15 clearly teaches that ideas can be demonic. I never referred to Prescott as a satanist. Only his idea.
Huston accuses me of engaging in "rhetoric that contradicts the teaching and example of Jesus." I think he's implying that I am the wolf here:
Huston is establishing the "wolf" as one who is ferocious. By this he means someone who refers to Prescott's views in harsh terms. Of that I am guilty. But, that's not the wolf Christ is referring to, nor is it the definition of a false prophet. False prophets and teachers are deceivers and preachers of false doctrine. They lead God's people astray from orthodoxy. That seems to be Prescott's life mission. It surely isn't mine.
Huston continues on with much about love, community, and tolerance. His tent is a bit too broad for me, but I respect his sense of community. He claims to be a devout Christian. I'll have to take his word for it. If he espouses Prescott's views of the fallibility of the Bible then I don't understand why he bothers.
What I am clear on is that the progressives are committed to the twisting of words and meaning. In both Huston and Clarkson's case they are taking my condemnation of Prescott's views as a call for theocrats to harm, kill, or eliminate liberals. That confirms my suspicions about the anti-theocratic conspiracy theory. Their goal is to create outrage.
I condemn the ideas of Mr. Prescott regarding Christian progeny. But I see this is a conflict of ideas. Clarkson and Huston keep making it about persons and bodily harm. Who's the violent one, here?
Huston then takes issue with my describing "liberal Christians" as "oxymoronic." Well, Mr. Huston, this might be my fault for not clarifying my definition. For my audience, when saying someone is a "liberal" that typically refers to a secularist, left-leaning, unbeliever. When referring to someone as a "liberal Christian" it usually means someone who denies biblical innerrancy yet espouses a Christian faith. For instance, there are numerous Southern Baptists what are democrats yet don't question the validity of the Bible. That is not a liberal Christian.
Prescott denies the veracity of Scripture, as does his constituency. That's why the SBC split. Not over Clinton and Gore, but over the authenticity of the Bible. Those who deny are the liberal Christians, and those who don't are the conservatives. Comprende?
We practice what we practice because the Bible tells us so. If you deny the veracity of that Bible then why put so much effort into the Christian faith? Huston speaks much about "love." He could get that from buddhism. Why choose Christianity? Buddhism is a philosophy. It promises peace, love, tolerance, and community. If Huston chooses Christianity because of what the Bible says, then let's talk about what the Bible teaches.
God wants kids! Lots of them. The solution is not the "eliminationist rhetoric" of the abortionist, but the creative resources of gifted people who can solve problems. Why do progressives always see the stifling of the unborn as a solution? Shall I spin their statements now and refer to Prescott's call as "eliminationist?" Are Prescott and the progressives hell-bent on killing the unborn? All the while talking about love, tolerance, and community? Is that their only solution to the world's problems, death to children?
That would be no different than the way they've portrayed me.
Huston claims I referred to Mr. Prescott as satanic. I did not. His view is satanic. If God commands that one of the ways His Kingdom be expanded is with the birth of children then it is a demonic wisdom that suggests otherwise. James 3:15 clearly teaches that ideas can be demonic. I never referred to Prescott as a satanist. Only his idea.
Huston accuses me of engaging in "rhetoric that contradicts the teaching and example of Jesus." I think he's implying that I am the wolf here:
Wolves you say, Brother Ortiz? Let's examine what Jesus had to say about wolves. As we've noted earlier in this Cross Examination series, Jesus warned that the real wolf to watch out for is the false prophet who puts on religious robes, or "sheep's clothing," but displays ferocity (Matthew 7:15).
Huston is establishing the "wolf" as one who is ferocious. By this he means someone who refers to Prescott's views in harsh terms. Of that I am guilty. But, that's not the wolf Christ is referring to, nor is it the definition of a false prophet. False prophets and teachers are deceivers and preachers of false doctrine. They lead God's people astray from orthodoxy. That seems to be Prescott's life mission. It surely isn't mine.
Huston continues on with much about love, community, and tolerance. His tent is a bit too broad for me, but I respect his sense of community. He claims to be a devout Christian. I'll have to take his word for it. If he espouses Prescott's views of the fallibility of the Bible then I don't understand why he bothers.
What I am clear on is that the progressives are committed to the twisting of words and meaning. In both Huston and Clarkson's case they are taking my condemnation of Prescott's views as a call for theocrats to harm, kill, or eliminate liberals. That confirms my suspicions about the anti-theocratic conspiracy theory. Their goal is to create outrage.
I condemn the ideas of Mr. Prescott regarding Christian progeny. But I see this is a conflict of ideas. Clarkson and Huston keep making it about persons and bodily harm. Who's the violent one, here?
Huston then takes issue with my describing "liberal Christians" as "oxymoronic." Well, Mr. Huston, this might be my fault for not clarifying my definition. For my audience, when saying someone is a "liberal" that typically refers to a secularist, left-leaning, unbeliever. When referring to someone as a "liberal Christian" it usually means someone who denies biblical innerrancy yet espouses a Christian faith. For instance, there are numerous Southern Baptists what are democrats yet don't question the validity of the Bible. That is not a liberal Christian.
Prescott denies the veracity of Scripture, as does his constituency. That's why the SBC split. Not over Clinton and Gore, but over the authenticity of the Bible. Those who deny are the liberal Christians, and those who don't are the conservatives. Comprende?
We practice what we practice because the Bible tells us so. If you deny the veracity of that Bible then why put so much effort into the Christian faith? Huston speaks much about "love." He could get that from buddhism. Why choose Christianity? Buddhism is a philosophy. It promises peace, love, tolerance, and community. If Huston chooses Christianity because of what the Bible says, then let's talk about what the Bible teaches.
God wants kids! Lots of them. The solution is not the "eliminationist rhetoric" of the abortionist, but the creative resources of gifted people who can solve problems. Why do progressives always see the stifling of the unborn as a solution? Shall I spin their statements now and refer to Prescott's call as "eliminationist?" Are Prescott and the progressives hell-bent on killing the unborn? All the while talking about love, tolerance, and community? Is that their only solution to the world's problems, death to children?
That would be no different than the way they've portrayed me.
