Drinking Kool-Aide in the New Jonestown

I saw where Tony Jones recently bragged on his weblog about changing his title to Ecclesiologist. Why not? He’s a poor theologian.

While reading “The New Kierkegaardians Christians”, I am reminded of Jim Jones. He was a church leader too. Jim Jones was a sweaty, lecherous, megalomaniac who led his flock to their deaths in a sweaty place called Jonestown. They killed themselves drinking Kool-Aide which Pastor Jones served to them. It was a case of murder by bad theology.

Whenever someone talks about Kool-Aide in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a reference to Jonestown. And by the way, the Kool-Aide in Jonestown was poisoned. The poison was the lethal part.

Is Tony’s theology poisoned? I think it is.

Having arrived at Chapter 4 – “The Theology Stupid”, I wonder about the people who choose to swallow this drivel. Why don’t they see the flaw in Tony’s theology when he says; “And finally, the world, to which the gospel would be preached was not the planet Earth. The only world known to Jesus was the Roman Empire…” (pg. 98)? Either Tony Jones thinks God is very limited in His knowledge, or he doesn’t think Jesus was God.

Seeing what Mr. Jones says about postmodernism as the ingredient to liberate theology, I have to wonder if Emergers will swallow anything and everything with a “new” label slapped on it.  How can they not perceive his subterfuge when he ties “foundationalism” to biblical faith and declares both wrong (pg. 19 & 103)?  According to Tony, there isn’t an “indubitable foundation” in the Bible, or for knowing God (pg. 19). Tony Jones replaces the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) with existentialism when he speaks about “conceiving” of  being a follower Christ (pg. 103). Tony says his Kierkegaardian theology begets a new way of life!

I‘ve highlighted many such flaws and poisonous contradictions in my copy of the book. I could go on and on, but reading this book is tiresome! Tony and I are worlds apart in what we believe. 

Tony says that theology is defined as "words about God" (pg. 47). How is it that Tony’s three pillars of Emergent theology; it should be local, conversational, and temporary -- are considered by anyone as being consistent with the Holy Bible? Is God not omnipresent, all-knowing, and eternal? Tony Jones doesn’t seem to think so, and his Emergent brethren seem to agree. According to Emergent theology, their words about God don’t have to agree with the Word of God.

How is it that such a man as Tony Jones can be considered fit to define what a church should be?

Watch out for the poison in the theological Kool-aide Mr. Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

The Emerging Arrogance (Building the Kingdom) - Part 1

Let's look at what Emergers are saying about building God's kingdom.

"Our dream is to join in the activity of God in the world wherever we are able, partnering with God as God’s dreams for our world come true. In the process, the world can be healed and changed, and so can we." -- Emergent Village

That seems kind of harmless on the surface. Many Christians probably won't object to that. Some may think it is a poorly constructed way of saying that the Emergers plan to serve God until Christ returns. I submit that is a not so subtle way of saying that they believe they will usher in the kingdom of God through their efforts.

The best way to understand a system of thought is to get to the root of it. When it comes to getting to the root of a crime or conspiracy, the current trend is to 'follow the money'. We need to 'follow the theology' to understand the statements made by these Emergers.

When we look at who is behind Emergent Village we find a fellow by the name of Brian McLaren. This is great, because I happen to remember that name from Phil Perkins' weblog. This is like striking gold, because McLaren is an outspoken Emerger. He is well published and we'll have no trouble finding out what McLaren thinks.

On that note, let's examine a short quote on McLaren's thoughts concerning the correct exegesis of the Holy Bible. The following quote comes from a 'fictional' presentation of McLaren's views of postmodernity and Christianity.

"Our interpretations reveal less about God or the Bible than they do about ourselves. They reveal what we want to defend, what we want to attack, what we want to ignore, what we're unwilling to question..." (A New Kind of Christian, 50)

McLaren essentially says that the reader of the Bible gets to decide what the text means to him or her. McLaren thinks you'll understand the Bible better if you forget about trying to understand God or the Bible itself. His view is that you should just allow it to say whatever you want it to say. McLaren rejects the notion that there is a correct way to understand the Bible.

So the root of Emergent theology is relativism, according to the movement's most prominent speaker, Brian McLaren.

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

Now I expect some reader to accuse me of jumping to conclusions here. Relativism is slippery, and McLaren is the Bill Clinton of theology. Some are going to read that quote and think that McLaren is referring to a reasonably orthodox understanding of scripture. Christians are supposed to learn a lot about themselves from the Bible, right?. But that is not what McLaren means, he wants you to reject the notion that you will find absolute truth in the Bible.

Let's look at how McLaren embraces postmodernism and apologizes for having renounced it. The following is from an interview McLaren has on his web site.

Q: I found your piece uncharacteristic. You are normally careful not to use inflammatory language, but you called talk about the “postmodern church” ridiculous. Wasn’t that kind of harsh?
A. I regret using that word. I’m sorry for offending or hurting people.

Q: You put people like me in a really tough situation. On our website, we refer to ourselves as a postmodern church, so now we have been judged by you as ridiculous.
A: Again, I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have said that. I’m sure you have good reasons for using that terminology on your website, and I don’t criticize you at all.

Q: I thought you were all about the postmodern church. Why would you say there aren’t any?
A: I guess I was having a bad day. I think everyone can relate to having a bad day.

Postmodernism requires the rejection of any claims to absolute truth. A postmodernist interpretation requires the reader of the Gospel to think like Pilate.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
(Joh 18:37-38 KJV)

Postmodernism says Jesus Christ was either ignorant, crazy, or a liar when He speaks about truth.

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
(Joh 14:5-7 KJV)

Postmodernism is the doctrine of the Serpent, friends. "God didn't really tell you the truth. For he knows that when you interpret the Bible the way you want to read it, you'll be as gods and be wise." Brian McLaren is subtle, because his only conviction is that truth is relative. The way of the Emergents is the way of subtlety.

We'll take a look at what the King had to say about the Kingdom in the next post.

The Emergent Confusion

I constantly find myself astonished at the heresies being proclaimed by so-called Christians. I'm beginning to think we could study a different popular heresy every day for the next year and not run out of them. The Emergent Church is the Al-Queda of Christianity. It's an infestation that seems to have the marks of an Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ cult.

A brother by the name of Phil Perkins has been blogging on the Emergent church for some time. I must admit that I had heard the term 'emergent church' many months ago. I didn't pay enough attention then to even find out what the term meant. I first heard of it from a very liberal fellow who claims to be Christian. He is a rather undiscriminating critic of Christianity in general, so I took it as undeserved epithet.

But I ran smack up against an Emergent web site tonight while looking at tools for Bible blogging. I could not believe what they were saying about making God's dreams come true. How arrogant can they be? Gee, aren't you glad that somebody has figured out that God is too puny to make his own dreams come true?

Notice that these people fancy themselves as 'kingdom builders'. Osama and Mahmoud are kingdom builders too. They don't like the current order of things either. Emergers have the notion that they are going to evangelize the world through good works while purposely down-playing the Gospel. Their gospel is a social message. They claim that the Church has alienated the rest of the world by proclaiming the message of sin, righteousness, and judgement. Emergers hope to restore Christianity to its 'authentic' form.

I found that Emergent web site through a blog about a new bible translation, The Books of the Bible. It seems to be a version tailored for Emergers. The following bullet points are very interesting;

• chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text (a chapter-and-verse range is at the bottom of each page)
• individual books are presented with the literary divisions that their authors have indicated
• footnotes, section headings and other supplementary materials have been removed from the text (translators’ notes are available at the back of each book)
• the books of the Bible have been placed in an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition
• single books that later translations or tradition divided
  into two or more books are made whole again
  (example: Luke-Acts)
• single-column setting that clearly and naturally presents the
  literary forms of the Bible’s books

Ah how refreshing! Yes, nominal Christians aren't reading their Bibles, so we have a few tricks to fool them into thinking it's just another book. Who knew that footnotes, verse numbers, and chapters were hindering Christians all along? This will fix everything that is wrong with the church!

It's late and I need to call it a day. There are so many things wrong with this movement that I can't hope to scratch the surface tonight.

Stupidity in the Information Age

I marvel at the gross stupidity of my people in an age where so many of us have information available at our finger tips.  When I say 'my people', I mean that in the biblical sense.  As a son of God in Christ, all people are my people until the day when the LORD of the Harvest will separate the wheat and tares.

I've blogged elsewhere about Kersey Graves' book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". I've been reading the book, but I've not gotten very far through it, because I've got several fires burning at once. I also constructed a mind-map for an outline to use as an exploration tool as I keep notes.  I can read Graves' book on the Internet and check his information as I go along. This is great!

So I start my research in earnest by trying to dig up information on 'Hindoo Sakia", one of the savior that Graves cites in the book as being a forerunner  of Christ. I put 'Hindoo Sakia" into a Wikipedia and I draw a blank. I turn to Google for a search on the same name, and I get several web hits that cite Graves' list of phony saviors verbatim. But I don't find any solid information on 'Hindoo Sakia'.

The astonishing thing about this is that I find basically two groups of people quoting Graves' list, atheists and pagans. It's no secret that atheists and pagans regard Christians as stupid. It is amazing to me that people who claim that logic and knowledge trump faith and 'superstition' are so quick to lean on something that they're too lazy to hold up to light.  But that is what they do, friends.

I would think, after all, that those who claim to have a superior intellect would have made my job easier! They only make it harder, because I can waste hours going down blind alleys looking for solid information. Regurgitated lists don't help at all!

Now having said all of that, I'd much rather be researching my way through Higgins' book, "Anacalypsis". Debunking Graves' book is already like shooting fish in a barrel, though I still have much to do in that endeavor.

Please take a look at my results so far.

God must have a sense of humor.

I have been considering something I read in Chapter 2 of Dowling's heretic gospel. Dowling claimed to have received his false gospel from the Akashic Records. That non-existent "book" is supposed to be in Sanskrit. But when Dowling mimics the Gospel of Luke, he stupidly calls Jesus by the Greek name "Jesus".

I would think that someone translating from Sanskrit to English would not lean on Greek for words to express the original language. Obviously, I don't know Sanskrit, and I don't know any Greek apart from my Bible and Concordance. But I know enough to ask these questions. Isn't there a word in Sanskrit for savior? Why not use that in stead of a Greek word?

Perhaps it is to fool stupid people who don't want to receive the the true Gospel anyway?

Well, the reason I think it's strangely funny is that the fake "book of life", the Akashic Record, is supposed to be in Sanskrit. This book that Dowling's fake gospel claims to have come from does not exist! There are no manuscripts of it. It is supposed to be a book that you read out of thin air through ESP. That alone is quite funny, but the kicker is that it is supposed to be in Sanskrit!

Sanskrit means 'self-made', or 'made up' if you please. How's that for a punch line?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to take that made-up hogwash over the Holy Bible. Even many of the Gospel-mocking liberals recognize that we have ancient manuscripts of the Bible.

Somebody is going to ask, Do you really think that God would laugh at someone being fooled? Why not? He says that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Jesus said that we can't do anything without Him (John 15:5). Everybody gets to choose, and if they insist on choosing foolishly, He won't stop them. Friend, you prove God right when you reject Jesus Christ and then want to complain that he allowed you to do it. By doing that you prove yourself to by your own problem. He says you're a problem for yourself. Why don't you listen to Him?

'Self-made'. Get it?

The only trouble is that in proving God right you prove yourself to be wrong. I'll agree, that isn't so good. That's a bitter pill to swallow!

PS: There is a concept of salvation, in the general sense, in Hinduism. Sanskrit words exist to describe it. It's nothing like the concept of salvation in Christianity or Judaism, but it's there nevertheless. So there is good reason to believe that Dowling could have provided a name for Jesus (Savior) from Sanskrit.  It's funny how the simplest things tend to betray a lie for what it is. That is certainly the case for Dowling's phony Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The False Aquarian Gospel

It has been said that Satan has entered the church through the side door. Jesus taught the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables, and He painted pictures of the church being influenced by the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. If you don't agree, friends, then just read Matthew 13 very carefully. The LORD gave the keys of correct interpretation to his disciples. Use those keys to gain understanding, friends!

Jesus taught that apostasy would enter the church. Matthew 13 is all about the work of the Church, the efforts of Satan to hinder the work, and of coming judgment. The tree that grows from a mustard seed (Mat 13:31-32) is a picture of the organized church. Mustard is an herb. It doesn't grow on trees. The tree Jesus is speaking of is a new creation, supernatural if you please. The birds of the air are a picture of Satan's disciples (Mat 13:19) . What are they doing in Matthew 13:32? They are lodging in the tree. Satan's disciples are in the organized church, and they've been there from very early in the history of the church. Eusebius and others wrote about them. They were busy in the early church teaching heresy.

They've been busy in recent times too. The Aquarian Gospel Of Jesus The Christ is an excellent example of syncretism and idolatry. It was written by a very religious fellow by the name of Levi H. Dowling. Dowling (1844-1911) was a publisher of Sunday school materials. He was a Chaplin in the US Army. Dowling preached and pastored a small church. He was involved in the prohibition movement. Many of his time would consider Dowling to have been an outstanding Christian. But his driving goal was to "build a white city", a task which he claimed to have received in a series of visions. Dowling interpreted the "white city" to be the false gospel he was to write.

Levi H. Dowling was a fraud as a Christian worker. He claimed to have received the vision of the "white city" early in life. He rejected the notion of Hell as a child. Despite whatever he taught or professed as an active church member and worker, Dowling culminated his life by publishing a work that denies all of the essential doctrines of the Holy Bible and of the Church. His book preaches a created Christ, not divine, who did not die for the sins of anyone. The Christ that Dowling's gospel proclaims is merely an avatar. Men who trust in such things worship several of the kind. Dowling's bible was a pagan "book of life" intended to supplant the Lamb's Book of Life (Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27). The Aquarian Gospel comes from that false book, according to Dowling.

As one who trust's in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, I say it comes from the pit of Hell!

But someone is going to say; That was a long time ago, what about now? Let me ask you a question; What are liberals preaching today? The Jesus Seminar boys preach a Christ that was merely human. Their Jesus did not have the power to work miracles, die for the sins of the world, or rise from the tomb. Their Christ is not virgin-born, nor is he God. They say that the Gospels are full of false information. Liberals say that the Holy Bible is rife with error. They say that we can't rely on the Bible. Folks, biblical errancy is a cornerstone of the movement to legitimize open homosexuality in churches!

The only difference I see between liberalism in the church and Levi Dowling is that the fruit of his work has already gone to seed. The fruit of Gospel-mocking liberalism is still hanging on the tree.

Kugel, a tasty desert or a nauseating stew?

You can read about Kugel as a desert or you can read a little about James Kugel's new book. I prefer the desert.

I don't mean to pick on this guy, but I thought I'd try to find out what he's selling in more detail.  Going by his "Appendix 1: Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite”, he doesn't offer much in the way of scholarship.  I grabbed a portion from that appendix wherein he discusses Isaiah's Servant Song prophecies.  This is 'scholarship lite' folks.  I'll defend that comment below.  In the meantime please read what Kugel says...

From a relatively early time, some researchers suggested that the Deutero-Isaiah’s references to the suffering “servant of the Lord” cannot reasonably be taken as prophecies about Jesus (even though they are explained as such in the Gospels). But this was a hard pill for many Christian commentators to swallow. So, while not arguing the Jesus connection directly, many sought to assert that these passage were somehow special, different from the rest of the book of Isaiah. Christened the “Servant Songs” (though truly, there was nothing songlike about them!), they were alleged to have been composed quite separately from their surrounding texts:[14]

The[se] songs represent a special strand within the book of Deutero-Isaiah, and therefore they did not come into being at the same time as their contexts. Nevertheless, they owe their origin to Deutero-Isaiah.[15]

They are marked out not only by a special theme, independent from that of the rest of the work, but also but the fact that they have evidently been interpolated in their present context, from which they can be removed without any resultant damage or interruption.[16]

The text itself offers no real support for such assertions, and most scholars have now come to reject them.[17] Understandably, however, it is still hard for some to let go completely. Thus, even while denying any specific connection to Jesus, commentators have continued to see the “servant of the Lord” as a messianic figure[18] – though again, the text offers no support for this – or at least to evoke the suffering of Jesus and his crucifixion in the process of commenting on Isa. 52:13-53:12.[19] As the very last of apologetic options, the identity of the “servant of the Lord” is alleged to be one of Scripture’s great mysteries:

The reason I say this is 'scholarship lite' is that I expect a lot more from a Harvard Hebrew professor. Kugel leads the reader to think that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah's suffering servant prophecy (52 & 53) is a Christian invention.  I'd expect a Hebrew scholar to acknowledge the rabbinic writings on this matter and deal with them.  The Babylonian Talmud tells us that rabbis interpreted these passages as being about the Messiah.  There is no excuse for a  biblically literate Jew to say it is a mystery, particularly one who promotes himself as a Hebrew scholar.  I find the man to be a liar on this point.

Permit me to share two snippets from rabbinic sources below.  Bear in mind that these are translations from Hebrew sources, and they are widely available.

The first:

Rab said: The world was created only on David's account (for Psalms).  Samuel said: On Moses account (for Torah);  R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? -- The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come (Gen_49:10).  The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever (Psa_72:17):  e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon.  The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah (Jer_16:13).  Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far (Lam_1:16).  The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isa_53:4). -- [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (Rodkinson; Sanhedrin, ch 11, p 311)]

Epstein , Rabbi Dr. I. (Ed.) - Babylonian Talmud, (The Soncino Press, London, 1934)

Rodkinson, Rabbi Michael L. - New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, (Boston New Talmud Publishing Co., Boston, 1903)

 The second:

The fourteenth verse in the second chapter of Ruth is thus explained. 'Come thou hither' is the prediction of Messiah's kingdom. 'Dip the morsel in the vinegar,'  (Rth_2:14) foretells the agony through which Messiah will pass, as it is written in Isaiah (cap. 51), 'He was wounded for our sins, He was bruised for our transgressions.' 'And she set herself beside the reapers' predicts the temporary departure of Messiah's kingdom. 'And he reached her a parched corn' means the restoration of His kingdom.--Midrash Ruth 5.

Rapaport, Samuel - Tales And Maxims From The Midrash, (George Routledge & Sons Limited, London, 1907), p. 44

 Friends, why doesn't Kugel deal with all of the Hebrew sources? 

Funny note on the second quote, Samuel Rapaport complained about Christians finding support in the rabbinic writings.  He wrote about this in his introduction to Tales And Maxims From The Midrash. He didn't give any compelling reason other than to imply that it made it hard for him to respect Christians. I'll leave it to the interested reader to look that up.

One Kugel makes me hungry.  The other makes me sick, because his work stinks.

This just in....We've been reading the Bible wrong!

(Harvard Genius Decodes the Bible)...according to his publisher.

In How to Read the Bible, Harvard professor James Kugel leads the reader chapter by chapter through the "quiet revolution" of recent biblical scholarship, showing time and again how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Such findings pose a serious problem for adherents of traditional, Bible-based faiths. Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God. What to do? In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period. Far from naïve, these interpreters consciously set out to depart from the original meaning of the Bible's various stories, laws, and prophecies -- and they, Kugel argues, hold the key to solving the dilemma of reading the Bible today.

How to Read the Bible is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades. It offers an unflinching, insider's look at the work of today's scholars, together with a sustained consideration of what the Bible was for most of its history -- before the rise of modern scholarship. Readable, clear, often funny but deeply serious in its purpose, this is a book for Christians and Jews, believers and secularists alike. It offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

Apparently the poor soul who wrote this blurb has never heard of the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the Jesus Seminar. The book will appeal to liberals and posers who think it is better to just throw in the proverbial towel on inerrancy. It's "dishonest" not to cave into this so-called scholarship?

The guy who wrote this must be one of Kugel's underlings, or perhaps he is the shoeshine boy who grovels at Kugel's feet. Why he talks like they recently dug up a witness from Shechem to interview about the whole Genesis 34 incident. Dinah never raped? Really? Being scholars they must have video tape or something solid, don't you think so? Well, I'd better chuck my theology! This changes everything!

It changes nothing. This is older than Moses. This goes back to Eden. Hunter-gatherers indeed!

Crazy Feminism

I lean on Dr. Albert Mohler to keep me informed of cultural phenomena of interest to Christians. His web log is invaluable to me. I recommend it highly to all.

Dr. Mohler's July 23rd blog entry deals with some nutty commentary by Nona Willis-Aronowitz. She rejoices over the her observation that casual sex is "certifiably pop culture". Willis-Aronowitz suggest that one of the goals of feminism is to empower women by enabling them to feel good about themselves via taking the guilt out of "nonmarital sex". It's almost laughable, if not for the fact that it is tragically sad, how feminism has sown the rotten seeds of fatherlessness and marital dysfunction that seem to plague our nation today. Is feminism entirely to blame for the harvest of bastardization and sexual immorality in America? Perhaps not entirely, but it certainly led the way.

On May 31st, Mohler wrote about a UK study done on teenage boys from fatherless households. It turns out that boys without fathers generally grow to be men who have a low regard for women. They become users and fixers in there relationships with women, and develop a penchant for petty crime. It seems that single mothers stand a greater chance of raising males to be abusers and deadbeat dads, than they do in raising men who will love women and care for children. According to another article by Mohler, medical researchers are helping to further this Orwellian madness by developing sperm from bone marrow. What, we don't have enough already?

Another notable blog post from Dr. Mohler deals with insane logic used by loony liberals at the United Nations. The killing of baby girls is apparently a serious problem in some parts of the world. Some leaders are concerned that perhaps as many as 100-million baby girls have been killed through practices like sex-selective abortion. The United States introduced a resolution calling for condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, but liberals in the European Union blocked the measure. Our EU friends say that it would be wrong of us to tell women not to kill their baby girls, because we'd be intruding on the reproductive rights of those women. How ridiculous its that? It goes against the feminist ideology to protect the lives of girls if it means taking a stand against abortion!

The movement that is supposed to advance the cause of women is the worst thing for them.  Feminists want to turn women into soulless sluts who raise up men that abuse women. They think it is better to decimate the female population of the world than preserve the lives of girls. It's not a liberation movement after all.  Feminism is an experiment in eugenics, Nazi style.

Ye blind guides!