Brake failure

It's revealing to see how progressives and/or Democrats are led by the nose. They rubber-stamp the progressive cause du jour. When critics point out the consequences of that position, they dismiss the critics as alarmists. When the warnings of the critics come true, the progressives/Democrats don't balk. They don't reconsider their original position. They just do a reset for the latest stage of the progressive cause. They have no brakes. They just go along with whatever the culture elite mandates. They passionately defend whatever the progressive cause du jour happens to be. They are incensed if you predict the consequences. They vehemently deny the consequences. Then when that happens, they instantly adjust to the outcome they angrily denied would eventuate. Two examples:

1. Remember when "marriage equality" was sold on the grounds that it would have no impact on heterosexuals? "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one!"

But the homosexual lobby didn't stop with "marriage equality" That was just a wedge tac tic. They want gov't to fine Christian business to shut them down.

And when that happens, how do the voters who used to spout the "marriage equality" propaganda react? Do they reverse position now that they were proven wrong? No. They practice amnesia. They act like that development is consistent with their original position. It doesn't even register that they are contradicting their original position. They erase the old line and draw a new line. 

2. When critics of "marriage equality" asked proponents where they draw the line, using pedophilia and pederasty as comparisons, proponents became incensed at the comparison. They said consent was a key difference.

But now the cultural elites are promoting boy drag queens. And the constituency for boy drag queens consists of adult sodomites. That's the leading edge of pedophilia and pederasty. Sexualize young boys to make them erotic objects for gay men. That's the spearpoint of pedophilia and pederasty. 

Are the voters who supported "marriage equality" protesting this development? Not that I'm aware of. Once again, they practice amnesia. Like sleepwalkers who erase the old line and drew a new line. They aren't even conscious of how quickly they shift positions. What they deny and denounce yesterday, they defend and celebrate today. They have absolutely no moral or intellectual independence or guiding principles. 

The Vatican brothel

Although this article is five years old, it provides some useful background to the current situation:

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/12/gay-clergy-catholic-church-vatican

Quisling for pederasts

Because the LGBT "community" is so small, it has no direct political clout. Its power derives from heterosexuals who enable it. 

A case in point is Arminian theologian Randal Rauser. Rather that protecting underage boys from pederasts, his aim is protect pederasts by refusing to acknowledge the manifest connection between homosexuality and the Catholic abuse scandal:

https://randalrauser.com/2018/08/catholics-are-now-trying-to-link-the-problem-of-child-molesting-priests-to-same-sex-attraction-dont-let-them/

https://randalrauser.com/2018/08/are-gay-people-more-likely-to-be-pedophiles/

It tells you something about the administration of Taylor Seminary, as well as the North American Baptist denomination, that they sanction his position. 

Ecclesiastical crimes

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/advice-for-the-future-should-come-from-people-with-knowledge-of-the-present-and-the-past/

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/brief-comments-on-msgr-guarinos-response-to-me/

Aisha

1. I believe White is responding to Steve Camp. It's my impression that Camp engages in virtue-signaling rather than serious apologetics or evangelistic outreach. This is just sending a message to other people that he's tough on Islam.

2. In addition, I agree with White that there are many other issues we can bring up besides Aisha. Islam is a target-rich environment.

3. Likewise, leading with Aisha can shut down discussion before discussion ever gets underground. A conversation-stopper rather than an opening.

4. That said, is White suggesting that Muhammed didn't have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl? When he makes dismissive comments about "ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks" on Muhammad in reference to Aisha, that seems to be what he means.

5. Moreover, White seems to be suggesting that Christian apologists should never bring up the issue of Muhammad's pederastic marriage. Yet this isn't just ad hominem. Muhammad is the role model for Muslims. And they consider unfitting behavior to discredit prophetic or messianic claimants.

Are we not supposed to talk about child rape in relation to Muhammad? What about cult leaders who practice child rape on the compound? Is that verboten?

White appears to be saying that Muhammad's sex life is offlimits in Christian apologetics and countercult ministry. That there's absolutely no circumstances under which a Christian can legitimately raise that issue. Does White think it's always wrong to "attack" Muhammad's character?

What about the moral credibility of Joseph Smith? Are Christian apologists not allowed to point to evidence that Joseph Smith was a con man? What about Benny Hinn? Does White have a consistent standard in countercult ministry?

What about the subculture of pederasty in the Catholic priesthood and episcopate? Are Christian apologists permitted to raise that issue?

Further, do you really, really think Dr. Yasir Qadhi has never heard surface-level, ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks upon Muhammad in reference to Aisha? Seriously? You think you have something to tell him on the matter? I can assure you, you don’t.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

If he had equal time he could bury you under references from historical sources off the top of his head that you wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, let alone access, let alone understand. 4) There is more than sufficient reason to discuss the Islamic claims concerning the role

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

of Muhammad as an example, as THE example, upon which morals and ethics in sharia are to be based. I have repeatedly asserted that I believe a significantly better, less emotional, and more profitable discussion is to be had regarding Zaynab bint-Jash,

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

for this allows one to go directly into the text of the Qur’an and make direct application to key apologetic issues—issues that, Steve, I do not believe you to be proficient in even outlining, let alone pursuing in such a conversation. But even here we have gone outside the

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

parameters of the intended focus and topic of discussion, and again, I will honor the person with whom I am speaking, I will honor my word, and I will honor the audience, by not engaging in such grand-standing. 5) Finally, the only way to honestly approach the Aisha issue is

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

with a broad and firm historical foundation. One must be prepared to answer such obvious questions as, “If your accusation is true, why are there not other examples alongside Aisha? Why are all of Muhammad’s other wives not only older, but had already been married?

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

And why does it seem that, aside from Kadijah, Aisha was the closest to Muhammad throughout the rest of his life (not the norm for such relationships)?” There is no question that the example Muhammad established has been destructive to many young women down through the centuries,

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

but you are actually *distracting* from that serious and real issue by using Aisha as a brickbat without fairness and accuracy as your goal. Muslim apologists are often unfair with Christian history (look at what many of them do to Paul, for example), but we as Christians

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018

do not have the right to turn around and return the favor. It is far better to be cautious and careful than it is to be bombastic and in the process profane the truth.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018