https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2031518440914075878?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"A Science Teacher's Field Guide to Spotting a False Prophet in Campaign Clothing-Step in James Talarico
There is an old theological warning so obvious that most people have forgotten it matters. Jesus did not say, "Beware of obvious wolves." He said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15, LSB). The entire point of the warning is the DISGUISE. If the wolf just walked in as a wolf, you would not need the warning.
I am not in the habit of calling politicians false prophets. Politicians lie, distort, and spin. That is almost a job requirement at this point. But when a politician wraps himself in scripture, claims the mantle of Christian faith as a campaign strategy, and then systematically inverts every foundational teaching of that faith while demanding you APPLAUD him for his Christianity — that crosses into territory the Apostle Peter described in 2 Peter 2:1: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies."
Meet James Talarico. The Texas Democratic candidate for United States Senate. The man who just defeated Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. The media's new exhibit A for "authentic Christian in politics." A Presbyterian seminarian, they keep telling us — as though that credential alone settles the matter.
It does not settle the matter. It actually makes it worse.
1 — WHAT A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent years dissecting Matthew 7:15-20 in his landmark series on the Sermon on the Mount. His conclusion is worth sitting with: the false prophet is not the person who says obviously wrong things. If he said obviously wrong things, detection would be trivial. No, the false prophet is subtle. He USES the right vocabulary. He mentions God, Jesus, the cross. He speaks of love, community, inclusion. The undiscerning listener nods along because everything SOUNDS like Christianity...right up until you notice what he is not saying and what he is actively contradicting.
The false prophet, Lloyd-Jones observed, does not like to discuss the holiness of God. He does not like to dwell on sin. He absolutely avoids the final judgment. He preaches a Christianity that never makes anyone uncomfortable, never confronts anyone with hard truths, and conveniently aligns with whatever the progressive consensus happens to be that week. And then, critically, he uses Jesus as the endorsement stamp for that agenda.
That is Talarico to a tee.
2 — "GOD IS NON-BINARY" — A SEMINARY STUDENT SAID THIS
Let us start where Talarico himself chose to start — on the floor of the Texas House, no less. He stood before his colleagues and announced, with apparent confidence, that the first two lines of Genesis use different Hebrew words for God: one masculine, one feminine. His conclusion? "God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary."
I want to give this the full weight of academic scrutiny it deserves from a science teacher who actually assigns primary source reading.
The words Talarico referenced are Elohim (the Hebrew noun for the divine, grammatically plural, used for the God of Israel throughout the Old Testament) and ruach (spirit — yes, a grammatically feminine noun in Hebrew). What Talarico somehow neglected to mention is that grammatical gender in Hebrew, just like in Spanish or French, does not describe biological or ontological gender. The word for "war" in Hebrew is grammatically feminine. Nobody concludes war is a woman. The word for the Holy Spirit (ruach ha-Kodesh) is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek, and masculine in Latin. The Holy Spirit is still the Holy Spirit across all three languages.
Talarico went to seminary. He studied Hebrew. He knows this. He is counting on his audience NOT knowing it.
Genesis 1:27 — the very chapter he cited — states with absolute clarity: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The binary is right there in the text he is supposedly interpreting. The distinction between male and female is presented not as a social construct but as the definitive creative act of God.
Genesis 2:21-24 continues the thought with the creation of woman from man and the institution of marriage between them. These are not ambiguous passages requiring advanced seminarian decoding. They are foundational.
What Talarico did with the Hebrew gendered nouns is the exegetical equivalent of concluding that because we call a ship "she," naval engineers are confused about the gender binary. The wheel is spinning but the hamster has clearly relocated.
3 — GALATIANS 3:28 AND THE ART OF YANKING VERSES FROM CONTEXT
Talarico also went to Galatians 3:28 — "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" — and summarized it as "pretty woke for the first century."
Let us do what a science teacher does and read the surrounding context.
Galatians chapter 3 is Paul's argument that justification — being made right before God — comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ethnic heritage, legal status, or gender. Paul is making the point that the PATHWAY TO GOD is equally available to all people regardless of those categories. He is NOT saying those categories cease to exist. He is NOT saying biology is irrelevant. He is NOT endorsing gender theory.
Paul addresses gender directly elsewhere and at length. 1 Corinthians 11:3 establishes the headship structure. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 states that woman was made from man and for man. Ephesians 5:22-25 gives husbands and wives distinct complementary roles. These passages exist in the SAME CORPUS as Galatians 3:28. A seminarian who selectively reads one verse while pretending the others do not exist is not doing theology. He is doing opposition research on the text.
The technical term for what Talarico is doing is prooftexting. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. The solution, apparently, is to use the same verse over and over while the rest of the canon sits unread.
4 — THE MOST SPECTACULAR ABUSE OF THE ANNUNCIATION IN RECORDED HISTORY
This is where the sheep's clothing really comes off. In multiple interviews — Joe Rogan, Ezra Klein, Stephen Colbert — Talarico argued that the story of Mary's annunciation in Luke 1 constitutes biblical support for abortion.
His logic: the angel came to Mary and asked for her consent. Mary gave consent. Therefore, creation requires consent. Therefore, abortion is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
I teach science. I require my students to actually read the source material. So let us read Luke 1:26-38 as written.
The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and announces that she WILL conceive and bear a son. This is not a proposal. He does not say, "Would you be open to having God's child?" He says, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus." That is a declarative statement of what is going to happen. Mary's response — "Behold, the slave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" — is a statement of SUBMISSION TO GOD'S WILL, not a negotiated contract giving her the right to terminate the pregnancy if she changed her mind.
To use Mary's humble submission to God as a proof text for abortion is one of the most theologically inverted readings of scripture I have encountered. It does not merely miss the point. It reverses it entirely. Mary is the model of faithful obedience. Talarico has transformed her into a spokeswoman for reproductive autonomy.
Then there is what the text ACTUALLY says about life in the womb. Luke 1:41-44 records that Elizabeth's unborn son John "leaped in her womb" when Mary (pregnant with Jesus) arrived. The Greek word used for unborn John is brephos — infant — the same word used for the newborn Jesus in Luke 2:12. The Holy Spirit moves through an unborn child to recognize the presence of the unborn Christ. The text makes no distinction in personhood between the born and the unborn.
Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Psalm 139:13-16 uses the most intimate language of divine relationship for the child being woven together in the womb. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion. Talarico has read all of this. His silence on it is not ignorance. It is selection.
5 — "ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE AREN'T IN THE BIBLE" — LET ME CORRECT THE RECORD
Talarico has stated repeatedly that abortion and homosexuality "aren't mentioned in the Bible" and are "two issues that Jesus never talked about." He went further in a podcast interview to say consensual same-sex relationships are "never mentioned" in scripture.
First: I just demonstrated that the biblical witness on life in the womb is extensive and explicit.
Second: the claim that homosexuality is not addressed in scripture is not a serious argument from someone who has read it. Leviticus 18:22. Leviticus 20:13. Romans 1:26-27. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. 1 Timothy 1:10. These passages are explicit, consistent, and span both Testaments. Talarico might argue for alternative interpretations — that is a legitimate theological debate. But to stand before audiences and claim the Bible says NOTHING on the subject is a factual error that a first-year seminarian would not make.
Third: the argument "Jesus never personally mentioned it" is not a hermeneutical principle any credible seminary endorses. Jesus never personally condemned child sacrifice. He never personally addressed Roman gladiatorial combat. The whole canon is scripture, not just the words printed in red ink. Paul wrote Romans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To say "Jesus never mentioned it" while ignoring Paul is not careful biblical scholarship. It is cherry-picking with a seminary degree attached.
6 — "GOD IS NOT A NOUN. GOD IS A VERB."
Talarico stated in a recorded speech: "God is not a Presbyterian. God is not a Christian. God is not a noun at all. God is a verb. God is not a being. God is being itself."
This is not progressive Christianity. This is not even Christianity. What Talarico is describing is a version of panentheism or process theology — frameworks that have existed on the fringes of academic theological discourse for generations and have been consistently rejected by orthodox Christianity because they contradict the explicit testimony of scripture.
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.'" The divine name YHWH is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" — but it describes God's SELF-EXISTENCE as a personal being, not a force or abstract process. The God of the Bible has a name. He speaks. He acts. He makes covenants. He gets angry. He forgives. He loves. Personal beings do these things. Verbs do not.
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That Word became flesh in John 1:14. God incarnated in a specific human body at a specific point in history. A verb cannot become flesh. An abstract cosmic force does not have a resurrection. Christianity's entire historical claim rests on a God who is a PERSONAL BEING who entered His creation.
To say "God is not a being, God is being itself" is to deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection simultaneously. These are not peripheral doctrines. They are the load-bearing walls of the entire Christian structure. You can discard them if you want. But you cannot discard them and call the result Christianity.
7 — A HISTORY LESSON FOR THE SEMINARIAN
In his "sermon against Christian nationalism," Talarico stated that "300 years after Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of that very same empire. Constantine was the first Christian nationalist."
This is factually wrong. Not debatable. Wrong.
Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He made it a LEGAL religion. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD ended state persecution of Christians and granted religious tolerance broadly. That is importantly different from establishment. Christianity became the official state religion under Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD, with the Edict of Thessalonica — approximately 44 years after Constantine's death.
A man studying to be a minister who is delivering sermons about church history to Texas legislators should know this. I teach this in high school. It is in every introductory church history text. This is not an obscure detail. It is a foundational date every seminary curriculum covers in the first semester.
When the foundational historical claim in your argument is incorrect, everything built on top of it collapses. But a man this media-savvy almost certainly knows the claim is wrong. Which means he is counting on his audience not knowing it.
8 — THREE FALSE PREMISES IN ONE OPENING PARAGRAPH — A PERSONAL BEST
Let me quote Talarico's "Christian nationalism is on the rise" speech verbatim, because reading it carefully is the whole assignment: "Three years ago, Christian nationalists stormed the US Capitol, killing police officers while carrying crosses and signs reading 'Jesus Saves.' Two years ago, Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states like ours to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. And as we speak, Christian nationalist billionaires are attempting to dismantle public education in the state of Texas and therefore dismantle democracy."
I count three distinct factual problems in a single opening paragraph. That is actually impressive in a specific way that I am not able to compliment.
FALSE CLAIM ONE: Police officers were killed by Christian nationalists on January 6.
No police officer was killed by rioters on January 6, 2021. Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death was originally reported in connection with that day, died of natural causes — specifically strokes — on January 7, 2021. The Washington, D.C., Medical Examiner officially ruled his death natural. He was not beaten, stabbed, or bludgeoned by rioters. This is documented. It is in the public record. It has been confirmed by the same investigative apparatus that prosecuted hundreds of January 6 participants.
Yet Talarico is standing on a stage — describing himself as a truth-teller, as someone who holds scripture to account — and opening with a statement that medical examiners have already disproven.
FALSE CLAIM TWO: "Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court" overturned Roe v. Wade.
This is not a description of what happened. The Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization did not overturn Roe v. Wade because the justices were "Christian nationalists." They overturned it because the Court found — correctly, as even many liberal legal scholars have acknowledged — that Roe was constitutionally indefensible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, not exactly a right-wing ideologue, repeatedly criticized Roe's constitutional reasoning during her lifetime, calling it a decision that "moved too fast" and lacked a proper legal foundation. The Dobbs majority did not impose Christianity on the nation. It returned the question of abortion regulation to the democratic processes of individual states — which is precisely what the Constitution contemplates when a right is not enumerated in its text. You may disagree with the outcome. But "Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court did this" is not a legal analysis. It is a political slogan wearing a robe.
FALSE CLAIM THREE: Dismantling public education = dismantling democracy.
I teach in a high-need career tech district. I actually assigned homework last Tuesday. So I want to be precise here. School choice, education savings accounts, and charter schools — whatever one thinks of the policy arguments — are not the same as "dismantling democracy." They are policy disagreements about how best to educate children. The conflation of "a policy I disagree with" and "the destruction of democracy itself" is a rhetorical technique, not an argument. It is designed to make ordinary political opposition sound like an existential threat, which is useful if you need emotional urgency but not useful if you care about accuracy.
Democracy, as even Talarico seems to understand given that he just won a primary, involves voters making decisions. Voters in Texas electing representatives who favor school choice is democracy. Labeling the outcome of that democratic process as "dismantling democracy" is the kind of sentence construction that sounds profound until you read it twice.
Three claims. Three factual problems. And all of this in the setup. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. When the facts do not support the conclusion, apparently you state the false version with enough confidence that nobody checks.
A seminarian who cares about truth — who routinely invokes Jesus and honesty and authentic Christianity — should not be comfortable building his signature speech on claims that medical records, legal history, and basic definitional clarity have already dismantled.
9 — "JESUS NEVER ASKED US TO..." — A MASTERCLASS IN WHAT TO LEAVE OUT
In that same speech, Talarico offers a list. "Jesus never asked us to kill police officers. Jesus never asked us to ban books, silence teachers, or defund schools. Jesus never asked us to control women's bodies. Jesus never asked us to establish a Christian theocracy."
These statements are, technically, all true. They are also profoundly unserious as theological arguments, and here is why: I can construct the same kind of list about nearly any position while leaving out everything inconvenient.
Jesus never asked us to perform late-term abortions. Also true. Jesus never asked us to chemically castrate children in the name of gender affirmation. Also true. Jesus never asked us to make the federal government the primary vehicle for wealth redistribution. Also true. Jesus never asked men to marry men. Also true — he actually redefined marriage explicitly in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis 1 and 2 to define it as one man and one woman.
The "Jesus never explicitly said X" framework is only as useful as the things you choose to put in the X. Talarico fills it with conservative positions he opposes. The exercise is not biblical analysis. It is selective indignation dressed in theological robes.
Here is what makes this particularly interesting: Talarico simultaneously argues that Jesus never talked about abortion or gay marriage (implying silence means permission), AND that Jesus DID take positions on things he never explicitly addressed — like carbon emissions (which Talarico has claimed are un-Christian), billionaire wealth accumulation, and school choice policy. The rule appears to be: Jesus's silence condemns conservative positions and endorses progressive ones. Somehow. Every time.
And then comes the part I will credit him for, because intellectual honesty demands it: "All he asked was that we love thy neighbor — not just our Christian neighbors, not just our straight neighbors, not just our male neighbors, not just our white neighbors, not just our rich neighbors. We are called to love all of our neighbors."
He is right that Jesus commanded love of neighbor without exception. Matthew 22:39 is unambiguous. Luke 10:25-37 — the Good Samaritan — extends neighbor to include even sworn enemies. I have no quarrel with any of that.
The quarrel is that Talarico has defined "love" exclusively as political agreement with Democratic policy positions. He has defined "love of neighbor" as supporting abortion access, comprehensive gender ideology in schools, open borders, and Democratic candidates. But 1 Corinthians 13:6 defines love as something that "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth." Biblical love is not the same thing as affirmation of every preference a person holds. A physician who tells a patient the truth about a dangerous diagnosis loves that patient MORE than the physician who says only what the patient wants to hear. A parent who disciplines a child loves that child MORE than one who never says no.
If you truly love your neighbor, you tell them the truth even when it is uncomfortable. That is precisely what Talarico is NOT doing when he systematically removes everything in the biblical text that might make his target audience feel convicted.
10 — THE UNIVERSALISM PROBLEM
In his interview with Ezra Klein, Talarico stated: "I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages...we are all talking about the same reality."
This is a coherent worldview. It is called religious pluralism. It has been advocated by various thinkers throughout history. But it is NOT Christianity, and a seminarian knows the difference.
John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." This is not a suggestion. This is not one road among many. This is Jesus making the most exclusive truth claim in the history of religion. CS Lewis pointed out that this claim admits of only three rational responses: Jesus was lying, Jesus was a lunatic, or Jesus is Lord. A person cannot rationally accept that Jesus "points to the truth" while simultaneously believing that other traditions point to the same truth through different means. Jesus specifically excluded that possibility with his own words.
Acts 4:12: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." This is Peter, speaking under the Holy Spirit, to Jewish leaders who desperately wanted him to soften that claim. He did not soften it.
Talarico has a right to his universalist beliefs. But he should call it what it is — universalism — rather than presenting it as an expression of authentic Christian faith. The two positions are mutually exclusive, and the man attended seminary. He knows they are mutually exclusive.
11 — THE ITCHING EARS DIAGNOSIS
2 Timothy 4:3-4 describes this phenomenon with accuracy that feels prophetic for our present moment: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."
Itching ears theology. Comfort preaching. Christianity with the parts that cost you something carefully excised. Abortion support without engaging Psalm 139. Gender affirmation without engaging Genesis 1. Universalism without engaging John 14. Jesus as a prop for progressive policy goals without engaging the Jesus who said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
The mainline Presbyterian tradition Talarico represents has been hemorrhaging members for decades. If you want progressivism, you can get it from MSNBC or the Democratic Party. You do not need a church for it. The pews are emptying precisely because a gospel that tells you nothing you did not already believe and demands nothing you were not already willing to give is not a gospel. It is an affirmation service with communion crackers.
This is not a coincidence. It is the fruit test playing out in real time.
12 — THE TREE AND THE FRUIT
Jesus gave us the diagnostic tool. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). Not by credentials. Not by a seminary degree. Not by the ability to weave scripture references into a campaign speech on Stephen Colbert's YouTube channel. By FRUITS.
What are the fruits of Talarico's theology?
He defends abortion while remaining conspicuously silent about Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and Luke 1:41-44. He opposes posting the Ten Commandments in schools while claiming to be the Christian standard-bearer in Texas. He announces that God is a verb while scripture presents a God who speaks, acts, forgives, and judges. He claims all religions of love lead to the same destination while calling himself a follower of the One who said, "I am THE way." He states that police officers were killed on January 6 in a speech that is supposed to be about truth-telling. He misquotes Hebrew grammar in a room full of people he assumes will not verify it. He misidentifies the emperor who established Christianity as Rome's state religion by 44 years.
And he has the enthusiastic endorsement of the New York Times, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Ezra Klein's podcast as the authentic Christian voice for Texas politics.
If the New York Times editorial board is excited about your Christianity, pause and ask yourself whether you are preaching the faith or their preferred editorial positions with a cross attached.
13 — A WORD TO THE DISCERNING
None of this means James Talarico is a bad human being. I will not say so because I do not know his heart. God does. What I am saying is that the FRAMEWORK he is operating in — Christianity as a vehicle for progressive policy, scripture as endorsement for Democratic positions, theological credentials as voter reassurance while the actual content of scripture is systematically inverted — is a framework the New Testament identifies with startling directness as dangerous.
Jude verse 3 instructs believers to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Not the faith as currently updated by seminary graduates aligned with party platforms. The faith DELIVERED. The fixed deposit. The thing that does not change with polling data or electoral calculations.
That faith includes the sanctity of unborn life. It includes the public acknowledgment of God's law. It includes the male and female distinction in creation. It includes a God who is a personal being — not a verb. It includes a Jesus who is the exclusive path to the Father, not one language among many for the same divine reality. It includes a judgment none of us will enjoy if we have spent our years calling His name in vain on campaign materials.
The warning in Matthew 7 is serious, and the fact that someone sounds pleasing and religious and educated is not a defense against it. It is, in fact, exactly the condition under which the warning applies.
The wolf does not announce itself.
Test the fruit. Read the whole book, not just the verses that support what you already believe. Read the context of the verses you do quote. Check the historical claims before using them as rhetorical foundations. And when a politician's version of Christianity looks almost exactly like his party's platform with a few verses attached — while simultaneously contradicting the exclusive truth claims, the sexual ethics, the nature of God, and the basic factual record in that same tradition — ask yourself, very carefully, which one is actually doing the driving.
Because wolves do not bark.
They bleat.
But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who still requires his students to read the PRIMARY SOURCE before presenting their conclusions — not just the parts they find politically convenient."
29 comments:
Too many on the LEFT have the same or similar theology. People like Dan who twist the Scripture to fit their personal ideology. They are all pawns of Satan as he uses them to sink the country deeper and deeper into hell.
Yes, there absolutely is a problem with progressive christianity which leads to this theology. To be fair, the tendency to create a god to fit one's personal political bent or worldview seems to be fairly universal, yet it's much more systematic on the progressive side of things.
One quibble. Point eight has double the errors claimed, because each of the three examples of errors fail to address the "Christian nationalist" lie which accompanies them. A small point, but I had to mention it.
I like the "Jesus never said..." counter arguments. The "Jesus/God/Bible never said..." argument appears routinely in Dan's comments.
Craig...
"yet it's much more systematic on the progressive side of things..."
[Rolls eyes]
Bullshit. Prove it.
As with comments here, I (almost always) let things stand. I don't expect 100% agreement on everything, and have no problem with quibbles.
Exhibit A. PCUSA and their seminaries. As exemplified by Talarico, the PCUSA has built an entire denomination and seminary system on this sort of "theology". Ehibits B, C, D, and E, the ELCA, the UMC, Episcopal church, and the last few popes. Exhibit F, is the slow slide of the SBC into the same sort of theology.
For better or worse, the non progressive Christian churches are much more inclined to smaller denominations or affinity groups, with less of the baggage of the mainline protestant churches. Progressives have taken over the Mainline denominations, and stripped them of any of their original theological underpinnings leaving them as mostly hollow shells.
The PCUSA alone has 13 seminaries teaching this sort of progressive dogma, the UMC has 18, and the ECLA has at least 7.
While seminaries like Fuller and others are sliding leftward as well.
Yeah, y'all inherited quite the infrastructure and system to spread your progressive gospel.
Craig...
the slow slide of the SBC into the same sort of theology.
Are you suggesting SNC seminaries are getting more liberal??
And if seminary attendance is your "evidence " that "the tendency to create a god to fit one's personal political bent or worldview seems to be fairly universal..." Well, The ultra conservative SBC seminaries produce WAY more Seminary graduates than the more progressive ones.
But never mind. You've shown your hand. You clearly believe without evidence that liberal Christians and students are more inclined to make a god in their image... even though you clearly have no solid evidence.
Thanks for showing your partisan bigotry.
No, I'm suggesting that the SBC in general is sliding into more progressive theology.
Given the fact that the words "seminary attendance" never appear in any comment I have made, and the fact that I specifically DID NOT reference SBC seminaries, I have no Idea who you are responding to. But I do appreciate the commitment to refusing to read for understanding, and to constructing the flimsiest of straw men so that you can feel great accomplishment is tearing those straw men down. But, you ending with an unproven claim is just icing on the cake in this greatest hits collection of a paragraph. And a short paragraph at that.
But, never mind, you've shown your hand. You clearly believe that you can make shit up and respond to the shit you've made up pretending that your made up shit is something I've said. I'd say that you should read for understanding, but that is clearly off of the table at this point.
I am confused at how you have gotten to accusing me of "partisan bigotry" without actually quoting me, paraphrasing me accurately, or understanding anything that I said. I guess you let your "partisan bigotry" get the better of you. Although your imagination is clearly running wild.
If you're having trouble comprehending what I actually said, ask nicely and I'll repeat in using words of as few syllables as possible.
I have a strong belief that I can predict Dan's response to the above exchange. The problem is that if I post it here, then I run the risk that Dan will adjust his response to "prove me wrong". Although, in the past, I've made predictions about his actions or responses and he's done exactly what I predicted.
As to your source's source's opinions... he begins rationally enough by asking the reasonable question:
WHAT A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
He then cites his source, Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones who cites Matthew 7 as a starting point. Here's what Jesus says about false teachers in Matthew 7:
“Watch out for false prophets.
They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
So, this far, I agree with the source. False teachers, false prophets... they ARE deliberately false, disingenuous, out for their own profit. Other places that speak of false teachers, the biblical text notes that they're doing it to profit themselves.
Thus (and something your sources skip over way too quickly), the first principle we learn when Jesus and others speak of false teachers is that they are NOT the merely mistaken. They are deceitful, deliberately seeking to trick others and profiteer themselves.
But, in spite of how the Bible describes a false teacher, Lloyd-Jones describes them this way:
The false prophet, Lloyd-Jones observed,
does not like to discuss the holiness of God.
He does not like to dwell on sin.
He absolutely avoids the final judgment.
He preaches a Christianity that never makes anyone uncomfortable,
never confronts anyone with hard truths
I. Now, first of all, NONE of that is mentioned in the Bible. THIS is a list he has created from unknown sources, but not the Bible. Just objectively, observably, one can read the Bible and see none of that is mentioned.
II. Secondly, this description does NOT fit Talarico, at least not in full. Talarico IS, of course, speaking words that make people uncomfortable and he IS confronting people with hard truths, including the author of this article.
That your author doesn't agree with his confrontation is irrelevant. IF that made up measure is the measure of a false teacher, then, Talarico is not fitting all the descriptors. AND remember, this is not a biblical description of a false teacher.
As to whether or not Talarico doesn't discuss the "holiness of God," that's not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
As to whether or not Talarico doesn't like to "dwell on sin," that is not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
As to whether or not Talarico "avoids the final judgment," that is not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
I'd be willing to guess that Talarico DOESN'T speak about the human theories of a theoretical "final judgment," probably because he finds that unbiblical, just as I do, at least as evangelicals/calvinists theorize it. So, why WOULD he speak about something he doesn't believe in?
So, right off the bat, your source is not scoring high when it comes to his personal theories about false prophets, as it seems to have nothing to do with what the biblical witness says about false prophets.
More...
Sorry, that was me. I don't know why it doesn't remember who I am!
Continuing with Jesus' teaching on false prophets... what he ACTUALLY says (as opposed to your source's theories):
By their fruit you will recognize them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit,
but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Jesus and other biblical voices make clear that false teachers have "bad fruit," that they are out to deceive and divide and cause harm to enrich and empower themselves. So, we can recognize false teachers NOT by the theories of Lloyd-Jones but by their fruit.
A. Are they people of love, seeking to empower and speak of welcome, grace and forgiveness? OR are they seeking to divide casting accusations at people in the model of the great Accuser?
B. Again, remembering Jesus' teachings, are they ministering/working/allying with the poor and marginalized? THAT is how Jesus said we'd know we're following him. The signs of love, love, love, of care for, allyship with and welcome of the "least of these?"
C. Are they doing this to enrich themselves or to enrich others, especially the poor and marginalized? Remembering that, Biblically, that is where Jesus begins (remembering that when John was asking Jesus if he truly was The One - and not some false teacher - Jesus reminded John of how he preached good news to the poor and helped the sick and marginalized.)
Biblically, Jesus and others repeatedly make clear that we can recognize the bad actors, the accusers, the dividers, the false teachers by their deliberate bad actions and their lack of love. The sincerely mistaken are not deliberately seeking to enrich themselves and are not false teachers. People who merely disagree with other christians in good faith seeking to follow God are not false teachers.
Now, I personally don't know a whole lot about Talarico... maybe he DOES have a lot of hidden baggage, avarice, corruption, greed and power-madness (you know, like certain other politicians favored by evangelicals). Who knows? Maybe something will come out.
BUT, that the many accusers of Talarico are NOT bringing up that kind of thing, but are merely pointing to places where he dares disagree with THEIR human traditions is not a good sign for the accusers and it does make Talarico seem more credible, not less.
Where am I mistaken, from a rational or biblical point of view?
One last thing: The NEXT point that your source accuses Talarico about is that Talarico does not think that God has a penis. That is, that Talarico concludes that God does not have a gender. Well, of course, God doesn't! God has no penis, no testosterone. God is NOT a human man and God is, therefore, NOT A MAN. The various biblical authors DO literally use female and male terms to refer to God and while, in that patriarchal world/time period, YES, God is referred to by those male authors as He, that does not mean that God has a Godly Penis dangling between Their Godly Thighs.
God is NOT a man. Of course.
Then to accuse Talarico of NOT believing that God is a man is an intellectually and biblically lightweight bit of nothingness.
Come on. Be reasonable.
Do you TRULY believe in the Divine Dangler?
As to your unknown source's conclusion:
Test the fruit.
Read the whole book,
not just the verses that support what you already believe.
Read the context of the verses you do quote.
Check the historical claims before using them as rhetorical foundations.
And when a politician's version of Christianity looks
almost exactly like his party's platform with a few verses attached
— while simultaneously contradicting the exclusive truth claims,
the sexual ethics,
the nature of God,
and the basic factual record in that same tradition —
ask yourself, very carefully, which one is actually doing the driving?
...YES! YES, 1000 times, YES! THAT is precisely what I and probably Talarico and progressive Christians in general are saying. Although, one difference is that where he singles out only "sexual ethics" and ignores the economic ethics, the welcoming ethics, the siding with the immigrants, the poor and marginalized ethics, etc, we would include those precisely because we are NOT cherry picking a few verses here and there.
You see, there are ZERO places in the Bible saying we should be opposed to abortion, that we should be opposed to gay guys marrying, to lesbians adopting, to transgender people JUST BEING - ZERO verses! - but there are countless numbers of references to welcoming and loving the immigrants, the poor and marginalized... DOING that is how we recognize the followers of Jesus, according to Jesus!
I agree with his conclusion. I just don't agree that he's living up to it well. He seems to be accusing others of exactly what he is doing himself.
I was wrong, Dan did not act as I predicted. I thought he'd at least have the spine to mention his steaming pile of dung from last night.
Instead, he starts in by lying. There is no "unidentified source", there is a link at the very top of the post which would allow Dan to identify the "source", but he was too lazy to click the link to identify the source.
I do appreciate Dan's commitment to avoiding substance and focusing on his perceptions about others.
You're mistaken in thinking that your subjective, personal, hunches about scripture are objectively "rational or biblical"? "Rational" is not an objective term, and you have not proven either of those claims objectively.
That you've arbitrarily added some additional layers to "false", doesn't mean that Talarico or you are not engaging in false teaching.
Talarico is using his "faith" as a tool to convince people to vote for him for US senate. I'd be willing to bet that a US senator has a salary much higher than Talarico's current position, and that a US senate seat carries many more opportunities to enrich Talarico. But if you want to believe that he's not trying to enrich himself, I can't help you.
FYI, you disagreeing with the author or Loyd-Jones means absolutely nothing.
Excellent job of "missing" the point Talarico is making. Tallarico is misusing scripture to advocate for government policies regarding "trans" people. Despite the mounting evidence that "transing" people is not the panacea it was promoted as, Talarico is pushing for more "transing".
YHWH is spirit, therefore He is neither (physically" male nor female (coming from people who can't define female, this whole conversation is hilarious) male, nor female (biologically). He does, however, refer to Himself in male terms generally. Jesus also referred to Him in male terms (Father, King, etc).
This reality (although I can't believe you'd acknowledge this as reality) does not support Talarico's claims that YHWH is "trans".
No. Yet, I have no reason to doubt that Jesus was physically a human male during His incarnation.
Literally who cares what you think. This notion that the Bible can only address a topic by explicitly stating "Do this or don't do that" is absurd. Coming from someone who dismisses the whole "Bible is a rule book" thing, it's amusing to see you supporting Talarico who's trying to use the Bible as a "rule book" as a means to enrich himself.
The author is correct in that Talarico (and you) tend to cherry pick proof texts to support your worldview/political platform.
Welcome to the pack.
Craig falsely, stupidly falsely, claimed:
The author is correct in that Talarico (and you) tend to cherry pick proof texts to support your worldview/political platform
This is, of course, a stupidly false claim. Of the two of us, WHO knows better how I read the Bible and how I form my opinions/worldview?
Of the two of us, WHO was once deeply ingrained in the conservative worldview and emerged from it BECAUSE I read the Bible and take it seriously?
You can make such arrogant false claims all you want, the real world reality shows that I was conservative, I loved and love the Bible, and I became more progressive in my worldview for two reasons:
1. Reading the Bible and taking it seriously led me there.
2. Observing the actions and reasoning of conservatives pushed me AWAY from their worldview.
That's just the reality of it all, for me. I can't testify for Talarico, and you sure as all that is holy can't.
Shame on you for these ridiculously arrogant accusations. But accusers gonna accuse.
I apologize, I accidentally deleted two of your comments. I carelessly clicked on the wrong button, and I apologize for my carelessness. Please re submit them and I will gladly post them. I believe that I might be able to save you some time by noting that I am well aware of what Talarico is saying and has said. I don't need you to cherry pick and interpret some snippet.
It's strange, you say "Of the two of us, WHO knows better how I read the Bible and how I form my opinions/worldview?", yet you regularly explain to me what I think, how I read the BIble, and how I form my opinions and worldview. It's a double standard that you seem perfectly pleased with.
I know what you've claimed about your past, although you haven't objectively proven this claim. Yet you expect me to accept your claims, while not giving me the same consideration.
This notion of your won little personal "reality" is cute. No wonder you regularly claim to represent "reality".
The problem you have is the you've written immense amounts of posts and comments which presumably contain your beliefs, opinions and worldview. We can see what you write and what Talarico says, it's not rocket science to figure out that your version of christianity and your conception of god align almost perfectly with the DFL platform.
Given your penchant for arrogant accusations and claims, this last is pretty damn funny.
Here is, I believe, the crux of the matter.
Talarico claims that YHWH is "trans" based on the fact that YHWH has no sex because He is spirit. "Trans" is the notion that ones mind/spirit/thoughts are at odds with the reality of one's physical body. Hence the push for large amounts of hormones, drugs, and surgical removal of functioning body parts.
The claim that this describes YHWH is absurd. This alone, and his use of Scripture to push this political agenda, is the problem.
Surely you do not agree with him that YHWH is "trans". do you?
Craig...
Talarico claims that YHWH is "trans" based on the fact that YHWH has no sex because He is spirit.
If you read his comments for understanding, you'll see that Talarico is clearly making the points that...
A. God is genderless, a genderless Holy They.
B. And yet, y'all are fine with God. You don't attack, malign or slander Them.
C. And so, WHY in the name of all that is holy and loving do you endlessly malign transgender people?
Do you understand that this is Talaricos point?
D. I ask again, Do you agree the Holy They have no penis and that God IS non-binary?
Craig...
Surely you do not agree with him that YHWH is "trans". do you?
God was not born with male parts and changed to female parts because God is, by all evidence, non-binary and that is perfectly fine! DO YOU AGREE?
Do you understand that this is the point Talarico is making?
Sorry, I didn't fully complete my thought...
God was not born with male parts and changed to female parts because God is, by all evidence, non-binary and that is perfectly fine! And so, God is not transgender in the sense that They changed from one gender to another, but They are BEYOND gender, Trans-gender in that sense. They are non-binary. And that is okay. They are God. And this is what Talarico is getting at.
Do you understand?
Do you AGREE?
Again, I've read and heard his actual comments, I don't need or want your interpretation of his comments.
A. Then, by your own definition, YHWH is not and cannot be "trans".
B. Well, YHWH is YHWY, why wouldn't I be fine with Him? I'm curious. Does this mean that you actually accept the fact that YHWH is one being who exists in 3 distinct persons?
C. I don't. This is one more example you you lying.
D. I've answered the first idiotic question. As to the second, the answer is clearly no. Certainly by the political and social meaning of "non binary".
No.
No. If, as scripture indicates YHWH is one essence and 3 distinct persons, then "non binary" (as it's defined by the ASPL) does not apply.
You are making a point and claiming that your point is Talaricos.
Craig...
As to the second, the answer is clearly no. Certainly by the political and social meaning of "non binary".
Non binary:
Non-binary is an umbrella term for gender identities that fall outside the male/female binary, representing a gender that is not exclusively man or woman.
Once again, given the definition of non binary, "falling outside the male/female binary,"
DO YOU AGREE THAT GOD IS NON BINARY?
The answer can only be Yes, unless you're fantasizing about God packing a penis (or vagina), reasonably speaking.
Before you continue with this foolishness, please provide an objective, definitive, scientific, precise definition of "non binary".
Craig...
Before you continue with this foolishness, please provide an objective, definitive, scientific, precise definition of "non binary".
Sigh.
Non: NOT
Non binary: NOT binary, not of one of two options.
Merriam Webster:
trans-
3 of 3
prefix
1: on or to the other side of : across : beyond
Do you agree that God is neither male nor female?
Do you agree that God is beyond gender?
Do you agree there is no biblical or rational argument that God is be-penised?
I understand your fairy tale, but I don't agree. If your point is that YHWH transcends biological sex, then I would agree. Yet, He is consistently referred to throughout Scripture (most notably by Jesus Himself) with terminology used for males (King, Father, etc).
The problem is that you are conflating the nature of YHWH (non physical being, 3 persons of one essence) with the socio/political notion of "non binary".
It's bizarre that you seem to have absolutely no problem with Talarico using "scripture" to advance an entirely secular political agenda.
What exactly are these mystery gender identities? Talarico says there are 6. Please identify them. How does one objectively prove the existence of these "gender identities"?
I can understand why you want to continue to move further and further away from biology and genetics in this discussion. As far as I'm aware when we talk about "transing" someone there are only two options to choose from, am I wrong?
No.
Speaking of arrogance and hubris, insisting that you have the one and only True answer is the height of both. I get the playing fast and loose with the terminology, but seriously...
My bad, I was imprecise in my request and you took advantage.
YHWH is wholly other. He transcends the biological differentiations of His Creation, yet He is always referred to as male (King, Father, etc) including by Jesus. The problem is that "non binary" in the political/social sense is not "beyond gender". It might be a claim that there are more than two genders (^ according to Talarico), or it might simply claim to be a new gender. It's another term that means everything and nothing at the same time. You say the YHWH is "beyond gender" (I'd say that He transcends both gender and biological sex) yet no one is claiming that "trans" or "non binary" are "beyond gender". Strangely enough, you've moved the goalposts from "trans" (which is a binary choice) to "non binary" in your feeble attempt to put YHWH in your political box.
As NO ONE has made the argument that YHWH is a physical being with physical secondary sex characteristics, I fail to see the relevance. You're arguing about "gender identity" using the language of biological sex to do so.
But I admire, your obsession with penises.
Post a Comment