The Wittenberg Trail | 2-10-11 | Bill Randles

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

Currently, there is an alternative to the judeo christian concept of love for our fellow-man, which is called tolerance. It looks like love and perhaps more importantly to many it actually feels like love, but it’s not love at all.

In fact though it is called tolerance, it’s not even tolerance in the traditional sense of the word. A better expression would perhaps be fawning accommodation, but tolerance is what they are calling it these days.

In this post christian era, the highest ideal is that we in the majority bend over backwards to be tolerant of every deviance from society. We are to be tolerant and accepting of foreigners and their customs, of other religions, cultures and practices.

Of course credit is never given to the fact that the most tolerant place on the planet has always been the christian west. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to life on your own terms have been the hallmark of places like America and Britain. But that definition of tolerance has recently been upgraded.

The new tolerance doesn’t simply mean that you must allow for differences among people or society without castigation or persecution. We are now required by the Orwellian definition of tolerance. to positively promote such lifestyles, customs and deviance (moral or otherwise), almost to the point of the denigration of the majority culture.

We should be tolerant of differences, indeed, we should ever be hospitable to the stranger, allow for religious differences, celebrate the fact that there is freedom of speech and of thought , traces of the formerly christian culture. This comes from Moses and of course Jesus and the prophets, and seeped its way into western society.

But the new tolerance goes beyond that and is actually quite cruel.

For example, take the new toleration of Islam. When there is something toxic about a culture, an inherent flaw in it, to “tolerate it” almost to the point of admiringly upholding it almost as a model “religion of peace” does no service to the people in it. Our own Government practiced this after 9-11, 2001.

The Muslim people desperately need to be confronted as human beings with the serious flaws of their own false religion, and 9-11 was an ideal ‘teachable moment’, but the new tolerance made it impossible to do on a large-scale. I believe this new non judgmental tolerance is cruel because it is both artificial and it is patronizing.

Muslims are human beings also, and in spite of the teachings of Mohammed they still have a conscience and know very well that what happened on 9-11 was an act of criminal barbarity. As human beings none of them would want that to happen to them or any people they know. But the new tolerance “runs interference” on any real soul-searching.

The rush to justify Islam, and to appease the “hurt feelings ‘ of Muslims in America and elsewhere actually hurts Muslims, because it denies them full responsibility as moral agents. Islam and it’s adherents have committed 16,000 acts of terror since 9-11, but in the new tolerance, they are mere victims to be pitied.

I have been seeing the destruction of this cruel, new tolerance in the area of homosexuality as well. Those who try to point out that homosexuality is a destructive, literally damning way to live, are shut down by the new tolerance as “Haters”, of the homosexual.(I am trying to break the habit of calling them “Gay”, I don’t accept the premise, they aren’t “gay” they are miserable and drug, alcohol, suicide statistics bear this out.)

But who really “hates” the homosexual, and who truly “Loves ” them? Those who practice the new tolerance actually hate the homosexual, by condemning them to this “Lifestyle”, affirming them in that which is sterile, deadly, filthy and which debases and kills the conscience. This kind of “acceptance” is deadly.

Those who truly love the homosexuals are the ones who tell them in the name of the Lord, that God has something better for them than that, and that they are responsible beings who must give account for this distortion of God’s prophetic institution of marriage, and that change is entirely possible and so is forgiveness.

This new toxic tolerance has even seeped into the evangelical christian church. There are those who have been embarrassed by the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets of the Bible against Sodomy. They would gain cheap points with the world for being “compassionate” over against those “judgmental religious hypocrites” who dare to speak truth in love to this generation.

This is how Christians are consistently betraying one another and their Lord, by posing as the “tolerant loving christians”, over against the faithful witnesses to truth in our time.

We must ruthlessly call this heresy out for what it is, a perversion of the Biblical teaching of love which is based on truth and a revelation of the Holy God. Real Love isn’t humanistic “tolerance” , it is Holy, and upholds the Truth of God. Love hates evil and rejoices in the Truth.

The ironic thing about the new tolerance, is that it only runs one way. Be aware that those who once pleaded for “tolerance” for homosexuals, Islam, atheism,abortion and pornography, etc, will prove to be so intolerable of christians that they will one day soon persecute us without mercy .

I close with a beautiful quote from Dorothy Sayers, which is linked to a good article on a blog called

In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” (Dorothy Sayers)

Views: 1399

Comment by James Robertson on August 27, 2012 at 6:41am

If not Islam, then what?
Exclusive: Barbara Simpson warns, 'The progressives among us are working overtime'
26 Aug 12 - WND

If you want to know one of the reasons why free American citizens resent Muslims, it’s because people of their beliefs have invaded our individual privacy and freedoms, to say nothing of their militancy to further their goals of Islamization of the world, which essentially means outright war against the free world of Western civilization.

If that offends you, tough.

Like it or not, it’s a fact, and Americans and others in the West deal with it on a daily basis. If it were just inconvenience, that would be one thing, but it isn’t.

It boils down to the real fact that there are Muslims out there who are bound and determined to kill every westerner they encounter and to put an end to Christianity, Judaism and other religions – essentially, anything that is not Islamic.

Does that bother you? Tough.

Ever since 9/11, American citizens have been subjected to a virtual onslaught of Islam.

On the one hand, we’re instructed – no, actually lectured – how to behave in the face of Islamic practices and how to accept Islam as simply just another culture.

That is true. Islam is another culture and not a Western one at that.

On the other hand, we’re subjected to the horrific means they’ve devised to trap and kill our military and innocent civilians.

Some westerners are so brainwashed into the mentality of not recognizing what is clearly in front of their eyes, that they have trouble even calling such vicious confrontations “war” – whether terrorists destroy civilians, as in 9/11, or blow up U.S. and NATO forces wearing military uniforms in Afghanistan.

It is also true that all Muslims are not terrorists but unfortunately, those who are, regardless of which country they come from, have made an indelible impression on Western countries and peoples, an impression that is outlined in blood – the blood of innocents.

So where do we draw the line on the supposed safety of our own country?

How do we know who is next to us and what devious scheme they may have in mind?

We are made to feel guilty even to think such things.

It’s bad enough that we have to be concerned with pickpockets and muggers, but when the issue is that we might find ourselves blown to bits by someone who finds explosives a satisfactory way to right their view of historic wrongs – so say nothing of doing that to find their own way to their version of heaven, populated or not by 72 virgins.

Personally, I don’t care about their reasons for threats against the West. I want free Americans, in fact, free people everywhere to be able to live their lives in their countries without the threat from individuals from other cultures who hold a very long-standing grudge.

The progressives among us are working overtime, trying to beat us into submission under the guise of toleration.

We must be polite and most of all, we must be nonjudgmental and, above all, quiet. It is simply not acceptable to be critical of anything Islamic.

We must tolerate. If we don’t, then any resulting anger from Muslims becomes our fault.

Have you noticed that nowhere do you read or hear of Muslims in Western countries being counseled or advised or – bite your tongue – ordered to be tolerant of us?

No, don’t hold your breath waiting; it hasn’t happened, and it won’t.

The reason is that the West, and the do-gooders who are more than willing to sacrifice freedom for what they perceive as safety, are quite simply, afraid.

They know, because they’ve seen examples of it across the world, that when militant Muslims don’t get what they want, or perceive any word or action as an insult to their religion and beliefs, the results are threats and mobs and violence and death to anyone they perceive as being the “enemy.”

When innocent people capitulate to such examples and even unspoken threats of violence, you don’t need an overt war.

The other side has already won.

Back in the days of the Cold War, there was a mantra in this country by those who didn’t have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and for freedom. Do you remember it?

Better Red than dead.

To clarify: they’re rather be a communist than fight for freedom.

What’s the slogan now?

How about Shariah or bust.

It’s as good as any, and just as cowardly.

Comment by Dave Gosse on November 8, 2012 at 7:27pm

Brethren denied charity status over communion

The right of churches to decide for themselves who may attend Holy Communion is being challenged by the Charity Commission.

The Commission has refused to register a Plymouth Brethren group because its Holy Communion services are for members only.

This would have a huge impact on the group’s tax relief and would also have other implications.


Elders from the Plymouth Brethren gave evidence on the matter to a parliamentary select committee last week.

During the evidence a letter from the Commission’s head of legal services emerged claiming that churches cannot be assumed to be acting for the public good.

It said: “This decision makes it clear that there was no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England.”


The row, which has been going on for seven years, began after the Commission denied charitable status to one of the Brethren group’s churches in Devon.

The Christian Institute is intervening in the case in a bid to protect religious liberty for all churches.

A spokeswoman for the Commission said: “The application [by the brethren] was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant law.”


During last week’s hearing Charlie Elphicke, a Conservative MP, asked the Plymouth Brethren if they thought the Commission was “actively trying to suppress religion in the UK, particularly the Christian religion”.

The MP for Dover added: “I think they (the Commission) are committed to the suppression of religion and you are the little guys being picked on to start off a whole series of other churches who will follow you there.”

Comment by James Robertson on December 2, 2012 at 10:36am

December 2, 2012 - AmericanThinker
The Asymmetry of Intolerance
By Tom Trinko

A group of Christians have just filed a lawsuit to have a statue of Nietzsche on Federal land near a Montana ski slope removed because they found a single person who says she's offended.

The vast majority of conservatives, including Christians, would find that lawsuit to be bizarre. Of course Christians, being tolerant, have done no such thing. Atheists, however, have sued to have a statue of Jesus on Federal land near to a ski slope, placed there at the request of WWII veterans back in 1955, removed. At first the litigants, a bigoted group of haters who have no tolerance for the personal beliefs of others, didn't bother to produce anyone who was in fact bothered by the statue. When forced to, the bigots managed to dig up one person who was bothered.

Some might question the use of "bigoted haters" to describe an organization which exists to drive the free speech expression of religious people off public property. However given that many atheists who support anti-Christian crusades also believe it's fine for the government to fund "Piss Christ", a crucifix in a jar of the "artists" urine, and a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary covered in cow dung it's clear that these atheist extremists do not believe in the free speech rights of Christians; one cannot declare Federal funding of religious statues so long as they are designed to attack faith to be okay while declaring that the same statues -- minus feces -- are prohibited on Federal land.

The simple fact is that people of faith, and good people in general, are not offended by the symbols of other faiths. No Catholic has called for removing a statue of Buddha from a public spot in any major city's Chinatown. Similarly no Protestant has ever called for the removal of a crucifix from the outside of a Catholic church. Islamic symbols aren't common in the U.S. but Christians haven't filed suit to make Muslims remove minarets from their mosques. In fact, Christians have been effusive in their support for Jewish religious symbols right next to Christian ones on public property.

Finally people of faith haven't sued to remove statues of atheists from public property. The only group in America today which has no tolerance for the symbols which represent the heartfelt belief of others are atheists. They believe that all others should tolerate atheist symbols and anti-religious art but that atheists can have a zero tolerance policy for religious expression.

This latest atheist lawsuit is one in a long stream of such suits aimed at eliminating the free speech rights of Americans of faith. The Constitution says that the Federal, government -- not state governments -- is prohibited from establishing a religion. The Founders' writings make clear that the intent was not to prevent any expression of religious belief on public property but rather to avoid a situation where the government endorsed one specific brand of Christianity, a la the Church of England.

In fact the Founders were very clear in the First Amendment that religious speech and actions were very highly protected. The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the First Amendment protects all aspects of an individual exercising their religion, not just an individual's right to go to church.

Clearly then, as Americans we have the right to have religious statues on public land, which is an exercise of our faiths, so long as we don't restrict which religions can have statues. By supporting a diversity of statues, artwork, or tablets on public property Americans are rejecting the right of the government to pick one faith and elevate it above all others while endorsing the rights of all Americans, no matter what their faith, to have their views memorialized on public land when appropriate.

The atheist perspective is that only atheists have First Amendment rights on public land. They base their reasoning on the dubious proposition that atheism is not a religion and that the Constitution is restricting religious liberty rather than defending it.

The thought of atheism being a religion may sound a bit odd to most. All the same, it's clear that atheism is in fact a full-blown religion identical in nature to any other faith.

First note that since science cannot prove that there is no God and science cannot explain everything that goes on in the universe -- it may be able to someday, but that day is far in the future if ever -- atheists have to reject God based on faith; their faith that God is implausible. Atheists tend to confuse their belief that God is unlikely with fact and declare that they don't have to defend their beliefs.

Second while Atheists don't have a god, neither do Buddhists, yet who would question that Buddhism is a religion? While there are dictionary definitions of religion that do seem to require a god there is also this one which is actually more accurate in that it covers Buddhism:

...a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This brings up a key point. Given that people of faith do not summon lightning to smite their foes and that Heaven isn't visible, what is religion in a purely worldly light?

The answer is that religion, in a purely worldly way, consists of the moral principles of an individual irrespective of their source.

Therefore, from a general diversity and tolerance based perspective, the religion of an individual consists of the moral perspectives that guide her actions in society. Everyone has moral beliefs -- even serial killers, although clearly few of us would agree with a serial killer's moral compass -- so everyone has "religion".

Atheists attempt to introduce an artificial dichotomy based on the source of a person's moral principles. Atheist extremists say that you can quote Nietzsche on morality but not Jesus at a public school graduation. Why? If Jesus is God then it would be smart to quote Him, and if he is not God then he's a man, and hence no different from Nietzsche. The inconsistency in atheistic reasoning can be seen in that if one could show that Jesus was not God it would be okay to quote him at a graduation and have a statue of him on public land. Clearly saying we should honor a man more than we should honor God is a somewhat odd perspective.

In reality, atheist extremists are attempting to do what the Constitution expressly forbids: have the Federal government endorse one particular faith above all others. Atheists wish to allow symbols of the atheist faith -- that there is no god -- and sayings to be allowed on public lands, in public speeches, and in government documents while banning the symbols of all other faiths. This is nothing less than having the Federal government endorse one faith, Atheism, above all others.

In an America where we're informed that the most vile exploitive types of pornography are protected as free speech, where it's legal to erect a statue of a Meso-American god on public land, where it's perfectly legitimate to erect a statue of Nietzsche on public land, we must stop tolerating the attempts by atheists to establish their faith as the one and only faith favored by the government.

Comment by Dave Gosse on January 1, 2013 at 3:12pm

A judge rules Sunday is not important to Christians

By Cristina Odone, Religion, Last updated: December 31st, 2012

I'm scared that was the last Christmas we celebrated with a church service. The High Court ruled last week that Sunday is not a core part of a Christian's belief; next, they'll decide that Christmas is not, either. Mr Justice Langstaff has decided that a Baptist who works in a care home can be forced by her employers to work through Sunday too. This, even though her colleagues were happy to take Celestina Mba's Sunday shift so she could do what all devout Christians do on a Sunday – go to church.

It didn't matter that no one was complaining about Celestina Mba's Sunday observance; her employers, Labour-led Merton Council, wanted her to drop her religious obligations. They'd decide what she was to do on the Sabbath day – not some dusty Bible. God? Who's He? The Fourth Commandment? What's that?

Christians like Celestina Mba had better take note: they live in an environment so hostile to Christians that any show of allegiance to this religion will get them into trouble. Don't wear crucifixes, don't pray for a patient, don't try to foster a child: practising Christians are now barred from any of these activities. This, even though the majority of Britons still count themselves as Christians.

The clash of Christians and a newly strident secular establishment has become an everyday story: a cultural civil war that constantly claims Christian victims. Lawyers, and judges like Mr Justice Langstaff, have shown themselves, again and again, to stand on the side of the secularists. I still smart at the memory of the Law Society refusing to host a conference on the virtues of heterosexual marriage. Incredibly, this kind of censorship is allowed to go on under a Tory PM who himself claims allegiance to the majority Church.

Mr Justice Langstaff has ruled. Sunday is not special, even if you're a Christian. He'll ban Christmas next.


Comment by James Robertson on February 7, 2013 at 10:15am

The new left’s doctrine of “repressive tolerance”

It has long been observed that advocates of tolerance can be quite  intolerant when it comes to those who do not share their beliefs.  But I stumbled upon these quotations from Herbert Marcuse, hailed as “the Father of the New Left,” who was the author of “Repressive Tolerance” (1965).  He teaches that the establishment of a “liberating tolerance” will require the repression of certain people and points of view.

From “Repressive Tolerance“:

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

“Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

This pretty much explains the Left’s practice to this day.  It also accounts for why Marcuse’s fellow Marxists, when they would come into power in the name of liberation,  felt no qualms in setting up Secret Police and Gulags.

Comment by James Robertson on March 22, 2013 at 11:38am

Comment by James Robertson on March 29, 2013 at 8:46am

March 29, 2013 - AmericanThinker
'Agree to Disagree?' Not Any More
Simon de Hundehutte

I work at an opinion polling company. Men and woman of all ages, races, creeds, and lifestyle choices come into our conference rooms to give their opinions on various products, services, and ideas. Do you prefer Bounty paper towels or Brawny paper towels? What's your favorite TV show and why does it appeal to you? Is gun control a good thing or a bad thing? These are the kinds of interviews we conduct for various clients who are interested in finding out how to improve their products or address public opinion. And even though people in these groups can have different opinions about the subject matter, they are allowed to voice their viewpoint and give their reasons. As I said, it's important for our clients to find out why people choose one product over another, or think one idea is more worthy than another.

And even though a client personally may not think and choose the way the person being interviewed thinks and chooses, by listening to their responses, the client finds out how to better improve their product or service. In other words, they have to keep an open mind, but also accept the thought-pattern of the respondent. They are not there to change their thinking, but to simply hear it and understand why they think the way they do.

In society today, however, when it comes to the big issues, that is not the case.

My boss and a fellow employee were discussing gay marriage and how wonderful it would be for the Supreme Court to legitimize it. Many in my office have been caught up in this wave of "making history" -- the excitement, the drama. And they believe one hundred percent that they are right and those who oppose them and their idea of "marriage" are wrong.

Now, I've known the opinions of my boss and many of my other fellow employees since I started this job several months back. I have never told them this, but I am one hundred percent opposed to their way of thinking. However, I understand why they feel the way they do and know that nothing I can say to them will get them to change their point of view. So, I don't discuss the topic at all.

Knowing this about them does not stop me from liking any of them or working enthusiastically with the team. Even though I know that their beliefs are wrong-headed, I feel that in a free country with free speech, they can certainly hold onto those beliefs. However, I also know that in America today, my opposing viewpoint will not be accepted in a "let's agree to disagree" manner. In fact, I know that there is a good chance that if they found out my view on gay "marriage" in particular, I would not only lose their friendship, but could quite easily lose my job (I work, after all, in fair, balanced, and open-minded New York City). I would not be granted the same respect and live-and-let-live attitude I afford them.

There was a book out in the late 60s called I'm Okay, You're Okay. A modern-day version of that book would be, I'm Okay, You're a Hater. No longer is a conservative's viewpoint "different" -- it's hateful.

Growing up in the suburbs, my parents used to host barbecues, with a backyard filled with their friends. Some were Democrats, some Republicans. Sometimes they would discuss the issues of the day, but even though they'd disagree, they'd still respect each other's opinions. At the end of the day, everyone would leave the party still friends.

By the time I graduated from college in the mid-1970s, I was thinking, "The number one thing that liberals hate is free speech." Liberals/Progressives know that in a "marketplace of ideas," people with common sense would never buy what they're peddling. So, their ideas need to be forced upon the masses.

Nowadays, we all know friends who have lost friends simply because they honestly shared their opinions on matters of current events and politics. Unless you're part of the popular viewpoint, the current wave of excitement or new wave of "making history," you're a hater and fit to be shunned.

So, where does that get us as a nation? There will be those who set the agenda with loud voices and intimidation tactics, and those who keep their mouths shut -- if they know what's good for them. There's almost a Germany-of-the-1930s feel in the air. It seems, America is spiraling downward and we all need to be concerned that there aren't enough Dietrich Bonhoeffers to stop the momentum.

St. James tells us that "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." If there are any righteous people left, well, it's high time to pray.

Comment by James Robertson on May 1, 2013 at 9:37am

TheWittenbergDoor - May 01, 2013


Classical tolerance was birthed by a Christian worldview. It’s founded upon the notion that man is created in God’s image. As His image bearer, man is expected to act in accordance with God’s moral standards. Man is also expected to treat his fellows with respect, since they too bear God’s image.

Modern tolerance has no such foundation. Consequently, it’s very fickle, changing from person to person. Because of this, you can never tell how it’s going to cash out—it’s like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey with a living, highly agitated animal.

In the classical view, one shows tolerance even if the object of the tolerance is himself intolerant: I don’t have to tolerate someone who agrees with me. It’s only those with whom I don’t agree that I can show tolerance—this, of course, includes the intolerant.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

If I were to create a bumper sticker for the new-tolerance crowd it would read, “We don’t tolerate intolerance around here!” Reason being, those holding to modern tolerance have a tendency to vilify their detractors. For example, if you question the morality of homosexual behavior you run risk being labeled a “homophobe” or being accused of hating homosexuals.

True tolerance doesn’t name call, and it doesn’t cast aspersions upon the character of those on the other side. Even if the person is prejudiced in a bad way, or has an irrational hatred towards a person or group, the truly tolerant would respond with a well-reasoned argument, presented in a gracious, respectful manor. Of course, this is the difference between the classic definition and the new: the former, being founded upon a Christian ethic, has substance, while the later, having no foundation at all, is vacuous.

--The Catechizer

Comment by James Robertson on May 2, 2013 at 1:44pm

Comment by James Robertson on May 11, 2013 at 5:13am

Symposium: Cult of acceptance
Exclusive: Ellis Washington shares otherworldly examination of 'paradox of the ages'
11 May 13 - WND

Socrates (470-399 B.C.) was a famous Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a simple but cleverly profound method of teaching by asking revelatory, piercing questions. The Greeks called this form “dialectic” – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review, with the ultimate principle of the dialogue being veritas – truth.

Note: This symposium is based on the biblical passages 1 Kings 22: 1-24 and 1 John 2:16. (For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.)



Jesus Christ


Demon No. 1 (Beelzebub, the chief demon)

Demon No. 2 (Hedonism = lust of the flesh)

Demon No. 3 (Evolution Atheism = lust of the eyes)

Demon No. 4 (Cult of Acceptance = the pride of life)

(Setting: Symposium of Socrates, inside the abode of hell)

Socrates: In this my blackest, diabolical symposium, we are gathered this dark night in Satan’s abode of hell to discuss a paradox of the ages: Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to embrace the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

Satan: (meeting with his chief demons) For millennia we have plagued the children of men by setting at war of children against parents, husbands against wives, race against race, religion against religion, nation against nations. Forty years ago, I even raised up Justice William Blackmun to perform my will in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade (1973). In a single generation, I resurrected the Doctrine of Molech, which had been dormant since the Dark Ages. I compelled humanity to commit global genocide against humanity. Nevertheless, the children of men have still multiplied upon Earth.

Demon No. 1 (Beelzebub): What can be done to destroy the sons of Adam so that the underworld and Earth can be brought together as thy united kingdom of evil, oh Satan? An empire to rival that of the God of heaven who in ages past cast us out down to Earth and imprisoned us in hell because there was sin found in thee – and in We.

Satan: Who will go to Earth to do my will? Who will go to avenge my evil against God, His Christ and the sons of Adam?

Demon No. 2: I will go! I am the Spirit of Hedonism. I will entangle the sons of Adam into the five “P”s: pleasure, porn, perversity, pedophilia, prostitution.

Satan: Have you ever heard of Hollywood? Next!

Demon No. 3: I will go! I am the Spirit of Evolution. Mankind prides itself on skepticism, naturalism, materialism, progressivism and science. Therefore, I will take a nobody atheist son of a Christian minister, send him on a long voyage to the remote islands of the Galapagos and fill his naive mind with scientific mythology of evolutionary atheism, kill truth and damn the world.

Satan: We tried scientific atheism in 1859 when Charles Darwin published the first edition of his “Origins of Species.” It kept many out of God’s kingdom, but I demand more souls!

Demon 4 (Cult of Acceptance): May I have a word?

Demons 1, 2, 3: (in unison) Who are thee?

Cult of Acceptance: I am the Spirit of the Cult of Acceptance. My techniques are so simple, my tactics so sublime, my strategies so effective that the sons of Adam have followed my primrose path to hell for millennia but never realized the error of their ways until it was too late!

Satan: What malevolent plan do you have to forever turn the heart of God against the children of men?

Cult of Acceptance: My plan is deviously simple. I will put a little thought into the mind of men. We call it “society.” With time, the sons of Adam will become obsessed with the idea of “fitting in” with society and its numerous institutions. It will dominate his worldview. It will cause him to curse God, neglect his family, truth, realism and let his Bible gather dust on his bookshelf – all for the fool’s hope of being accepted by some person, some prestigious institution, some group of people he doesn’t even know or care about.

Satan: Tell me more about this philosophy of worldview and fitting in.

Cult of Acceptance: My evil scheme isn’t original. I actually borrowed it from you, oh Lord Satan. It was you who gave these evil tactics and strategies to our good friends Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They called it worldview (Weltanschauung) and coordination or bring into line (Gleichschaltung).

Satan: Yes! Yes! Now I remember. Oh, the devilish times we had killing those 6 million Jews during the Holocaust in addition to tens of millions of souls during World War II.

Cult of Acceptance: Yes, Lord Satan, but before we have a bringing together, we need a new worldview, and before we have a new worldview, we must have a paradigm shift, a game changer. We need humanity to first change its worldview from biblical theism to evolution atheism. Our useful idiot in England, Charles Darwin, achieved this for us. In 40 years, with the help of our dutiful foot soldiers, the college professors of the academy spread the lies of evolution, atheism, dialectical materialism, social Darwinism, including natural selection, survival of the fittest, the world over.

With this atheist worldview established throughout the Earth, it was easy to establish what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung, or bringing into line, which quickly morphed into forcing into line (at threat of death). Pick any cataclysmic event in the history of the world – paganism, slavery, abortion, the rise of Islam, the Crusades, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, World War I and II. It all followed the same diabolical pattern, the same two simple techniques and strategies, Weltanschauung and Gleichschaltung. We murdered billions and billions and billions of people over thousands of years, which combined to form the Cult of Acceptance.

Socrates: Let us now hear the conclusion of this matter. Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to join the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

Cowardice, fear, taking the easy road over the road less traveled, the praise of men are all good reasons, but I think it is an existential curse of human nature for the children of Adam to always want what they can’t have. It goes back to the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It goes further back with Lucifer, the archangel of God who was above even archangels Gabriel and Michael, whose visage illuminated the kingdom of heaven, yet he convinced one-third of all the angels to become allied with him in his maniacal war against God.

Jesus Christ: At the start of my earthly ministry, I was in the wilderness fasting for 40 days and 40 nights when Satan, tempting me, took me to a very high precipice atop the mountain and in an instant showed me all the kingdoms of this world with its riches, fame, pleasures, power including the Cult of Acceptance. I told him, “Get thee behind me, Satan, for it is written thou shall have no other gods before me.”

What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul? And what would a man give in exchange for his soul?

Socrates: Answer: The Cult of Acceptance.


You need to be a member of The Wittenberg Trail to add comments!

Join The Wittenberg Trail



Looking for a Liturgical Church near you?



Help us maintain the Trail on the web:

Add an item to the
Lutheran Calendar





© 2016   Created by Norm Fisher.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue to the WT Admin  |  Terms of Service