Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Why Critical Race Theory Should Be Taught In Schools - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------

As is typical for this garrulous author, he employs 8184 words in pursuit of a point. We shall not attempt to comment on all of it, since the author becomes pedantic, making the same point over and over again.
--------------------

Monday, August 9, 2021

BSD7 Equity Talking Points - July, 2021 - Bozeman School District

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

The Bozeman School district published these "talking points" in an effort to diffuse opposition to their proposed equity plan. They make it a particular point to dismiss Critical Race Theory, telling us that CRT is not being proposed. That of course does not mean things couldn't change later, especially considering how the political Left pushes their agenda unceasingly.

We wish to address one thing in particular, the cartoon drawing of how equity works, see below. This has been around a long time in different forms, but previously was used to describe sameness versus equality. In either case, the cartoon is troubling.

Notice three children, all standing on boxes. One cannot see over the fence. In the second panel the tall child no longer has a box, but the short child has two boxes. This is "equity," according to the Bozeman School district.

However, the obvious problem not explained by the school district is, who took the box from the tall child? How was it decided that the tall child should have his box taken away and given to the short child? How does this manifest in real life? Would a gifted student be denied advanced placement courses because educational resources would be diverted to special education, for example? What exactly is the resource (box) being denied the tall child and given to the short child?

The cartoon is not actually about giving slower students or disadvantaged students more attention, as indicated by the talking point. The cartoon has nothing to do with educational resources. Rather, it is wealth redistribution, which justifies the taking of a rich person's "extra" money and giving it to someone more worthy of it.

Like so much of what the Left does, this cartoon example is indicative of how little the Left thinks about what they're doing, or what the implications of their actions will be.

Or maybe they just don't care. This could be why they were shocked by the extent of the opposition.

--------------------

Friday, August 6, 2021

Bad Worship Songs - Worthy, by Mack Brock, Chris Brown, and Steven Furtick - Elevation Music

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:
  • A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
  • A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
  • A focus on God, not us
  • A certain amount of profundity
  • A singable, interesting melody
  • Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
  • Doctrinal soundness
Further, a worship song should not:
  • contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
  • be excessively metaphorical
  • be excessively repetitive
  • imply that Jesus is your boyfriend 
It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song "Worthy" (audio link.). To be clear, there are some very good parts. In fact, there are no egregiously offensive aspects at all. 

But it just doesn't measure up to its potential in terms of lyrical content. The verses seem like a series of random phrases cobbled together. On the whole there's just not enough here for us to consider it a good worship song.

Ok, Let's quote the lyrics:

Thursday, August 5, 2021

Republicans Hate Voting Rights Because They Threaten White Power - By Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

Mr. Mystal will trot out every single leftist talking point in a vain effort to make a coherent argument. In fact, he's not making an argument at all, he's bomb throwing.
------------------

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Forced Vaccination Court Case: HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

Given recent claims that the Supreme court authorized forced vaccinations in the below case, upon reading it we discover that the defendant was not forced to receive the vaccine, he was forced to pay the fine.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed, which was:
The case was then continued for the opinion of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, the exceptions, sustained the action of the trial court, and thereafter, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $5. And the court ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid.
There is nothing in the ruling that states the man must receive the vaccination.
------------------

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Demas and Judas and Simon Magus looked like the real thing - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

Happily, Ms. Prata manages to quote some relevant verses. We mention this because it is so rare that the Doctrinal Police quotes Scripture that its presence is stark when it appears.

Like many who are Doctrinal Police, Ms. Prata makes correct doctrine the baseline for salvation. Thus anyone who deviates from here version of correct doctrine is a wolf, a false teacher, or a heretic.
-------------------

Monday, August 2, 2021

Letter to the editor: Feds need to protect us from junk insurance plans Billy McWilliams

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

This fellow is the owner of a sex shop in Bozeman, Erotique, and former chair of the Gallatin County Democratic Party. And, he gave out free vibrators to persuade women to vote. 

This is the man who is going to lecture us on doing the right thing. Apparently he is so proud of his writing that he submitted his letter to the Billings Gazette and the Missoulian as well.
---------------------

Though our ongoing pandemic recovery is progressing with nearly 50% of Montanans fully vaccinated, the last 16 months have exposed gaps in our health care system. ("Our" recovery. "Our" health care system. Mr. McWilliams, a far left activist, chooses his words purposefully. "Our" is never "you and me," it is always government. 

As a collectivist, Mr. McWilliams can only think in terms of groups as opposed to individuals. This means that every problem is a group problem which requires "our" [government] action to solve. 

The reader will see how this plays out.)

At the forefront are issues in our ("Our.") 

health insurance industry, especially when it came to the expansion of short-term, limited-duration insurance plans (STLDIs), also known as “junk plans.” (Are STLDIs really at the "forefront?" It is certainly an issue being trumpeted by a few far-left websites and blogs. And Mr. McWilliams is clearly trying to make an issue of them, as we have just documented. But this problem is hardly at the forefront.

A STLDI is a temporary health insurance contract, designed to provide coverage for people who are in transition between health plans, or have lost their plan due to an employment change, or want to have coverage while waiting for the next ACA enrollment date.

Some people have been buying them because the duration of the insurance has been expanded to up to 364 days, plus the option to renew two times. Thus a person can buy a STLDI that will last for up to three years.

This was made possible by the elimination of the "shared responsibility payment" [the ACA penalty for not buying approved coverage] to zero. That means a person is no longer penalized by purchasing a plan that doesn't conform to the ACA coverage requirements, or by going uninsured.

This opened up alternative ways of obtaining coverage outside the grasp of regulators. The Left calls these "junk plans," not because they are worthless, but rather because they don't comply with ACA requirements. The authoritarian Left doesn't like it when they can't control peoples' choices or the contents of contracts like insurance plans.)

Before the pandemic, the Trump administration took action that allowed STDLI junk plans to proliferate. They (The Trump administration would be an "it," not a "they.")

not only expanded the time plans could be utilized, from less than a year to three years, but encouraged the public to adopt them as an “affordable” coverage option. During the pandemic, many that lost their employer-sponsored insurance turned to these barebones plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions, covered services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or preventive services. (Ok, follow the logic. A "junk plan" doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, which means these plans are medically underwritten. Since it is unlikely a STDLI insurance company would issue a policy to a person with a serious medical condition, this means that if you qualify for a plan you don't have a pre-existing condition, or you have a condition that the STDLI insurance company would accept, or possibly exclude. So they will make you a conditional offer, excluding a particular condition. You then make your choice to buy the plan knowing this. 

This means the "problem" of not covering pre-existing conditions doesn't exist.

Further, the real problem Mr. McWilliams has is with peoples' choices. He doesn't like the fact that people are doing "unapproved" things. He doesn't think people should be able to buy the health insurance of their own choice.)

The affordability of these junk insurance plans on the front end is what makes them appealing for Americans across the country. (Of course. People will often make choices based on price vs. coverage. Mr. McWilliams want to take away this choice and force people to spend more money on coverage they don't want.)

But for the 150,000+ Montanans that suffer from a pre-existing condition, these plans can be of much lower quality than they appear and result in higher out-of-pocket costs. (Again, a person with a pre-existing condition likely would not be able to buy one of these plans. Plus we can be sure that 150,000+ Montanans are not in this position at all, where they are making this choice. Certainly no one is forcing them to buy a STDLI plan.)

Fortunately, the Biden administration has pushed for policies that help make coverage more affordable, including through the American Rescue Plan, (Interesting. After acknowledging that ACA insurance is too expensive, and decrying those who try to get around it, Mr. McWilliams finally admits that there is something else in the equation.)

which boosted subsidies for marketplace plans, lowered the cap on monthly payments, and expanded free and low-cost options to the uninsured. (So, if the ACA plans are now price-competitive with "junk" plans, where is the money coming from to make this so? What is funding the American Rescue Plan?)

I applaud Sen. Jon Tester for his role in opposing these plans, including through his co-sponsorship of the No Junk Plans Act, which would overturn the Trump-era rule. The federal government needs to work overtime to protect Montanans and Americans from these harmful plans. (Then what is the purpose of Mr. McWilliams' letter? The Democrats have majorities in both Houses plus they have the presidency. If the No Junk Plans Act is on the table, they just need to pass it. 

So, Mr. McWilliams presumes that people who buy these plans are stupid. Certainly they should not have this choice. They should be forced to buy coverage he approves of. 

He believes government should implement laws that prevent people from making unapproved decisions. He thinks there needs to be a law that forces people to buy what the government considers good insurance coverage.

And for some reason there are 150,000 Montanans who are going to buy a junk insurance plan, but actually they couldn't because they wouldn't qualify for it.)

Friday, July 30, 2021

Why Pastors Have a Unique Responsibility to Counsel - By David Powlison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

The author does absolutely nothing to explain a pastor's "unique responsibility." 
-----------------------

Thursday, July 29, 2021

The Mailbag: Nursing Home Ministry Questions - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

It's unfortunate that Ms. Lesley is becoming a frequent guest on our blog. She has frequently written about what women aren't allowed to do in Church, so much so that she has created dozens of micro-doctrines to cover every possible circumstance.

Today's post is another example, this time to discuss women teaching in a nursing home. 
-----------------

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

He is worthy - what does "worthy" mean?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Am I Responsible for My Husband’s Sexual Sin? - By Darby Strickland

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

**Update**

Apparently Beth Moore thinks that not only is ok that a wife deny her husband sex, she should be able to divorce him.
----------------

At first this seemed to us to contain some good principles about sex and marriage. But we soon realized that the author is manipulating the situation. She engages in term-switching, neglects to mention other relevant Scriptures, and makes pronouncements that she does not document. Further, she has an ultimate agenda, to excuse the wife and blame the husband.

The author manages to quote only a single Scripture. Happily it is a relevant one, but its presence only serves the author's agenda. The author has nothing at all to say about other Scriptures that may come to bear, like
1Cor. 7:3-5 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Both the husband and the wife have a duty to satisfy one another. One of the reasons is to avoid the potential for temptation. The mutual decision to deprive is only for a time, and specifically to pray.

"Duty" is a specific (applied) kind of indebtedness, implying an "applied obligation" due to the debt (what is owed). The husband and wife owe a debt to each other that must be paid.

Now it seems generally true that the wife is the one who does more of the depriving than the husband, and often it is unilaterally implemented. This is a violation of the Scriptural command. We need to be clear about this. If the decision isn't mutual, if the one is depriving the other in an unholy way, this is sin. There is sin already present. When sin is present, other sins are tempting. 

The husband and wife must avoid the presence of sin so as to avoid the possibility of temptation.
------------------------

Monday, July 26, 2021

Spiritual Schizophrenia At Bethel - Multiple Prophetic Personality Disorder - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------

We have refrained from posting about the Reverend lately, because he has been incessantly repeating himself regarding his distaste for the anti-lockdown churches protesting COVID restrictions.  Now he has finally he changed subjects, but he's just gone back to his Bethel/NAR fixation. 

Rev. Wade's articles are invariably incendiary and sisyphean, adding much heat but absolutely no light. Today's article is 1781 words (not including quotes) and not a single solitary Scripture is cited aside from the opening verse. No Scriptural principle is explained, no claim is documented, and no effort was expended to edify the reader.

This is typical of Rev. Wade.

And we note we are not here to defend Bethel or its people. We intend only to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.
---------------------------

Friday, July 23, 2021

2 Chronicles 7:14 - Is it misapplied to the Church?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Thursday, July 22, 2021

The Mailbag: Potpourri… Couple teaching at marriage conference - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

Having firmly ensconced herself in our blog as a questionable teacher of the Bible, we now award Ms. Lesley her own tag. We do this by virtue of her often thoughtless examinations of Bible doctrine, her parsing of doctrines in order to create micro-doctrines filled with rules and provisos, and her general failure to bring edification to the reader.

It is with some sadness we do this, but in service to the reader we feel burdened to somehow help the honest inquirer avoid the pain of believing falsehoods. And in so many cases, Ms. Lesley teaches falsehoods.

We have covered the subject matter of today's post in prior posts.

----------------

Monday, July 19, 2021

Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others - Barbara Ehrenreich - FB meme

A leftist Faceborg friend posted this:




Transcript:

"Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you. The working poor are the major philanthropists of our society."

These pronouncements require several assumptions:

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Spirit of Light - by Sinclair Ferguson

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

Astonishingly, the author, a supposed Bible teacher, doesn't quote a single Scripture. And he creates a contradiction by affirming the Spirit's revelatory nature while simultaneously denying it. Further, he makes several undocumented claims and inferences that cannot be supported by Scripture.

A truly disappointing presentation.
------------------

Monday, July 12, 2021

Letter to the editor: Electoral College system is the real election issue - by Jerry W. Calvert

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

The letter writer is a retired Montana State University political science professor, which would be an indicator of why colleges are largely leftist indoctrination centers.
--------------

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

Rock Your Role FAQs - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

Since Ms. Lesley frequently links us to her other writings, it seemed better to us to comment on those referrals, such as the below article. However, it has has even more links. And each link is a variant of a theme: If the Bible prohibits women teaching or having authority over men, then a variety what-ifs arise regarding every conceivable application of the principle.

This is parsing of a Bible-based concept taken to the nth degree. But that's where this leads when perfect doctrine is one's highest value. The author herself summarizes the problem unawares: There are thousands of practical scenarios we could go through about women teaching men... This means that every scenario comes with a rulebook to consult. 

All this based on a single misinterpreted verse, 1Ti. 2:12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
There are at least five false inferences Ms. Lesley makes in order to derive a thousand scenarios:
  1. This is talking about what happens in a church service or church ministry 
  2. "A woman" actually means "women," and "a man" actually means "men"
  3. "A man" does not mean "a boy," so a woman can teach boys
  4. "Teach" means a giving a Bible lesson, speaking a public prayer, or leading from the stage in some other way
  5. "Authority" means being a pastor, or leading in a church activity
We would briefly respond:
  1. There is no indication in the verse that it is about what happens in church
  2. "Man" is androsa male human being; a man, husband, whereas the plural form is andres. 1Ti. 2:12 reads andros, not andres
  3. If we really want to split doctrinal hairs, a woman cannot teach a boy, who is a male human being. 
  4. The Scripture verse does not tell us this is about teaching the Bible. This would mean ANY instance of a woman teaching a man is forbidden.
  5. There is no Scripture that indicates a pastor is the leader of a church, or that the verse is teaching about leading a church activity
The problem here is that Ms. Lesley has uncritically accepted the teaching of certain people who have expanded, modified, and morphed the verse into something it does not teach. She then runs with the concept, instituting a plethora of rules regulating what women can and cannot do.

Sadly, Ms. Lesley fails to quote a single Scripture in the entire Q&A. It mystifies us how a supposed Bible teacher can write 4435 words about the Bible without quoting it.

-------------

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

Letter to the editor: Equity under arrest as code for critical race theory - by Stephani Lourie

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------

Ms. Lourie employs a classic diversionary technique by claiming something isn't something because it's really something else. She writes, Equity is the moral responsibility of public schools, but is under arrest as code for CRT. Well, this is is actually backwards. "Equity" is code for Critical Race Theory (CRT.) 

CRT doesn't appear in the school district's plan because of the protests. And these protests are notable to Ms. Lourie because of the conduct of the participants. Apparently there is something unseemly about clapping and cheering (things that have never, ever happened in a school board meeting before...), but I doubt she had any concern about the school board meeting where four students complained about the Fellowship of Christian Athletes school club. And that incident resulted in a lawsuit by the school district.

CRT is controversial, so much so that the Bozeman plan doesn't include the term, instead referring to it as something more innocuous: "Multicultural education." Who can be opposed to that? Why would anyone be opposed to critical thinking? Therefore, opposing "multicultural education" is the same thing as denying there is racism, you see. It means "shielding white children" from fact and history. 

Again, classic diversionary techniques.

And she keeps going. She writes of the opposition: A crowded bandwagon is accusing schools of indoctrinating students that our country is pluralistic, complex and not without injustice. No, ma'am. A group of concerned citizens is protesting the indoctrination students into cultural Marxism masquerading as education. And that's what it is, Marxism disguised. 

Ms. Lourie twice mentions a moral obligation, but never mentions what morality that would be. Is it her morality? The school district's morality? Her church's morality? The use of the word "moral" conveys a weightiness of duty far beyond a simple teaching process. This is a "moral" thing, so important, so critical, that to deny her the ability to teach "multicultural education" causes her to violate her moral duty. 

The last thing to note is that Ms. Lourie dutifully parrots the National Education Association talking points about CRT:




She is an NEA member, so it seems likely she is read in on what her union is proposing for all 50 states.
--------------

Friday, July 2, 2021

False Teacher of the Day #28: Billy Graham - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

The author's baseline is doctrine determines salvation. There is no Bible verse that says this, but it gives the author the excuse to level accusations at a man who has done more for the Kingdom than the author ever will.

And we note that as is typical for the Doctrinal Police, very little Scripture appears in this screed.
----------------------