"SELL IT LIKE CEREAL!" The Tactics & Astonishing Success of LGBTQ+

 

The Sinister Tactics and Astonishing Success of LGBTQ:

“SELL IT LIKE CEREAL!”

by Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC, Armagh, PA (9/23/23)

 

With remarkable skill & dexterity, LGBTQ activists and their fellow travelers, the progressive elites, have revolutionized modern society and permanently modified ages-old societal customs and institutions within the course of only a few decades. As advocated and predicted by neuro-psychologist Marshall Kirk and advertising executive Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s (1989), the mind-altering tactics of mass-marketing, propaganda, and large-scale societal brainwashing would effectively serve to rapidly change the mores & values of the prevailing culture.

  

I. The Tactics of Brainwashing & Propaganda.

The 3-steps of brainwashing allowed the LGBTQ+ agenda to be sold like cereal—employing mass-marketing tactics:

 

1.    desensitizing (i.e., getting us “used to” homosexuality through a sea of inundation; a form of “softening us up”); for example, every TV show would now feature a “normal” and positive LGBTQ character (e.g., Billy Crystal's character "Jody Dallas" on Soap--an intelligent, witty, and sensitive homosexual contemplating a sex change).  A quotation from After the Ball: 

 

      "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal." 

                                                                                                                                                           Recall Crassus in Kubrick’s Spartacus (1960), to the slave Antoninus:

      “Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?... “Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?”... “And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.”                                                                                                                                                  

2.    jamming the opposition (i.e., anti-gay forces would be portrayed as ignorant, hateful, and villainous; cf., Norman Lear's "Archie Bunker")…

3.    conversion (the majority understands that it must positively embrace the “gay” and his lifestyle--or face societal censure).

 

This ultimately leads to coercion—everyone must obey!

 

II. The progressively evolving public embrace of same-sex-attraction, as witnessed by its changing terminologies…

1.    Originally called Sodomy—an act; potentially criminal in nature!

2.    Then, the term Homosexuality was coined in the late 19^th century—a condition (thus provoking sympathy).

3.    Finally, "Gay:" an identity—a legitimate minority—that deserves and demands wholehearted public acceptance.

 

Result: Such means have served to normalize sin, thus rapidly transforming what was once perceived as a crime against nature into a legitimate co-equal civil identity. All of this was achieved within a relatively brief span by a minority that didn’t even formally exist a century ago. Astonishing!

III. An organized agenda?

Regardless of how much of this agenda was or was not consciously planned and organized on the human level, we do know this: there is a behind-the-scenes, unseen, invisible source of organization at work here!

As always, the Enemy—the behind the scenes organizer—is spiritual in nature!

Eph 6:12 NAS95  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

 

All of this is part of a battle of the MIND… Our minds are the battlefield, targeted by the Evil One…

 

John 8:44 NAS95  "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

 

Without the objective written Word of God, we are sunk--open to all manner of deception. Rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, and traditionalism will always fail you as sources of Truth! JESUS (the living Word) is Truth (John 14:6), and so is Holy Scripture (the written Word).

 

John 8:31-32 NAS95  So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

 

           John 17:17  "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” 

Ketanji Brown Jackson to Marsha Blackburn: "I CAN'T."

 

Justice Jackson (March, 2022): “I CAN’T.”

Pastor Terry Reese, Valley Grace Brethren Church of Armagh, PA; 9/17/23

“A man’s chromosomes cannot be engineered into female chromosomes. Altering one’s appearance cosmetically or surgically cannot change the underlying reality of a person’s biological make-up.”—Andrew T. Walker

A picture of our societal confusion with regard to the matter of gender and its alleged fluidity and subjective nature was on full display at last year’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, when Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was questioned by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on the basic issue of gender:

 Blackburn: Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?

Jackson: Um, Senator. Respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether…

Blackburn: Okay… Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of “men” and “women” as male and female?

Jackson: Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I’d interpret it. I need to read the whole…

Blackburn: Okay. Can you provide a definition for the word woman?

Jackson: Can I provide a definition?

Blackburn: Yeah.

Jackson: I can’t.

Blackburn: You can’t?

Jackson: Mm. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

 

Ultimately, Sen. Blackburn offered her assessment:

"…the fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about."

 

Thus, Federal District & Appellate Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Harvard Law School grad and former editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review—who was praised by former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan for her vast intellect—cannot provide us with a working definition of what a woman is. Her stated reason? Because she’s not a biologist. Following this line of reasoning, one must suppose that we cannot define what a dog or a cat is—unless, of course, you are a professional veterinarian!

 

Let us consider the grim irony of all this: Justice Jackson was appointed by Joe Biden precisely because she IS a woman, in accordance with the Left’s penchant for identity politics—and yet, she professes not to even know what a woman is!

 

Blackburn’s opinion is correct: the goal of postmodern education is to teach young minds that truth is something unreal or inscrutable. The irony is that the motto of Jackson’s alma mater, Harvard, is VERITAS: TRUTH! But we can know the Truth: JESUS (John 14:6)!

A Biblical Response to Tyranny

 

A Biblical Response to Tyranny

by Pastor Terry Reese, Valley GBC of Armagh, PA; 8/23/23

 

Political Tyranny: a persistent problem that has always been with us—even from the early Cradles of Civilization that emerged out of Babel…

 

I. Human government and the will of God.

A. Human government is a necessity and is ordained of God (Rm. 13:4).

 

B. But exploitative, oppressive tyranny is not God’s will (Prov. 16:12). Like every other institution ordained of God (e.g., the home, the church), human government has been corrupted (1 Sam. 8:10-18).

 

C. Particularly obnoxious is the totalitarian state’s attempts to regulate and control the free expression of man’s spiritual life (e.g., Dan. 3 & 6, Rv.13:15). Jesus says some things do NOT belong to Caesar (Mtt.22:21)!

 

II. What can the Christian DO about it? What should he NOT do?

A. Negatively, things that believers are NOT called to engage in:

1. Pietistic indifference to temporal human affairs.

2. Lawless anarchy (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Pet. 2:13-15) or unnatural rebellion.

3. Promote a state-church/theocracy or worldly “social gospel.”

4. Total blind submission to Caesar; ultimate loyalty belongs to God.

 

B. Positively, those things that Christians ARE called to observe:

1. Recognize the identity of the real & ultimate enemy (Eph 6:11-12).

 

2. Do good in all things, spiritual & temporal (Matt. 22:39; Acts 10:38, Gal. 6:9-10), including recognizing our civic responsibilities (Jer. 29:7) and employing those resources and lawful opportunities that God has made available to us (note: millions of evangelicals don’t even vote!).

 

3. Resist evil in a biblical manner, practicing civil nonconformity (e.g., Ex. 1:15-21; Heb. 11:23-27, 31; 1 Kings 18:3-4; Dan. 3:15-18, 6:10; Acts 4:19-20, 5:28-29). Christians can and should employ godly means to resist a regime that commands or encourages evil & debases human dignity. But if a Christian does disobey Caesar, he must be prepared to accept the attending consequences—perhaps even the martyr’s path!

 

4. Obey the cultural mandate to serve as Salt & Light (Matt. 5:13-16). Stay informed, and inform others; preserve & enlighten the culture.

 

5. Uphold & maintain our personal testimony (1Pet. 2:15, Rom. 12:21)!

 

6. Fulfill the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20)—our chief expression of “doing good”—which involves not only basic evangelism, but also teaching everything that Jesus taught & commanded (Acts 20:20, 27)!

 

7. Pray (1Tim. 2:1-2). God has power even over a king’s heart (Prov. 21:1)!

Canadian Euthanasia: The Slippery Slope to Hell

 

Canada and Euthanasia: the Slippery Slope

by Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC of Armagh, PA; 7/16/23

 

Various nations in today’s world (including some regions of the United States) allow for the terrible assault upon human dignity know as euthanasia (“good death”)—but none more controversially than Canada, our neighbor in the Great White North. In a mere seven years since the implementation of its euthanasia policy, Canada’s socialistic government has unleashed a national catastrophe of the highest magnitude. Let the tragic Canadian experience serve as a sober warning unto others: the threat of the “slippery slope” is not an exercise in vain alarmism; rather, it is a very REAL concern!

 

1.     2015: Siding with “civil liberties” groups, Canada’s Supreme Court declares that prohibiting assisted suicide/euthanasia deprives citizens of their freedom, dignity, and autonomy— and gives Parliament a year to draft appropriate legislation.

 

2.     2016: Canadian law legalizes euthanasia for adults (18+), provided that certain criteria are met: candidates must have a serious and advanced physical condition causing intense suffering, leading to an anticipated impending death.

 

3.     2021: The law was amended, allowing those who are NOT considered terminal to be euthanized, permitting the murder of individuals who have decades of potential-life left within them. Under today’s law, any adult with some sort of serious physical illness or disability can apply for euthanization.

 

4.     2024: Legislators are presently working to establish and implement guidelines for next year to allow people to be killed for mental health reasons. They are also further considering extending euthanasia “treatment” to include “mature” minor children who meet the same requirements as adult applicants.

 

The human cost: The number of Canadians euthanized has risen steadily (1/3 increase each year since implementation; in 2022 some 13,500 (est.) were killed. Common concerns: lack of accountability to the public; coercion by healthcare managers pressuring patients to choose death; a disproportionate threat to the vulnerable (e.g., the poor & those with mental health issues); a promotion of the terrible message that the disabled are living lives “not worth living” and are thus “better-off DEAD”...

Some Facts on the Sins of Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide

 

EUTHANASIA:

Definitions regarding our rising Culture of Death

(Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC, Armagh, PA; 6/18/23)

 

In today’s world, in which medical ethics have been corrupted by the abortion culture, the matter of euthanasia has become an increasingly contentious and disturbing topic. Today, a variety of nations (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, Columbia, Spain, and Portugal) legally allow for active, voluntary euthanasia (defined below). In the U.S., assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, as well as the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, & Washington.

 

I. Euthanasia Defined (Gk.: εὐθανασία, lit. ”good death”): the practice of deliberate intervention with the express intent of terminating a human life in order to eliminate pain and suffering.

 

II. Categories of Euthanasia.

a. Relative to a patient’s consent:

1) Voluntary: The patient freely gives their open consent, requesting death.

2) Non-voluntary: The patient is unable to give open consent due to some incapacity (e.g., a comatose state), or else due to their status as a minor (allowed in some western countries).

3) Involuntary: The patient expressly denies or consciously withholds consent—but is still euthanized (e.g., Nazi Germany)!!!

 

b. Relative to the activity involved:

1) Active: directly causing a person’s death through the active administration of some lethal means (e.g., a lethal injection); sometimes referred to as “aggressive” euthanasia.

 

2) Passive: death is deliberately brought about through the withholding of “common treatment” (e.g., the withholding of food & fluids, thereby resulting in death-by-starvation).

 

NOTE: Passive Euthanasia should be differentiated from simply “allowing nature to take its course,” in which some extraordinary treatment that is no longer of any benefit to the patient (and thus only serves to increase their agony) is suspended. Unlike Passive Euthanasia, the latter course does NOT involve a deliberate act of homicide or suicide, and is thus is not necessarily sinful.

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

The Dark Legacy of Euthanasia & the Perversion of Medicine

A Brief Chronology

(Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC, Armagh, PA; 6/23/23)

 

o   Doctors of pagan antiquity routinely practiced euthanasia and performed abortions as part of their “services.”

 

o   Hippocrates of Kos (460-370 BC), a Greek doctor, founded a new school of medicine that opposed & disapproved of both abortion and euthanasia. His ethical medical code (“FIRST, do no harm!”) ultimately came to predominate in the western Christian world.

 

o   With the rise of the Gilded Age & Progressive Eras, euthanasia seriously entered U.S. public discourse in the late 19^th & early 20^th centuries, sharply questioning the traditional sanctity-of-life ethic of historic western Christian civilization.

 

o   In 1870, Samuel Williams proposed the use of a cocktail of anesthetics & morphine to intentionally end a suffering patient's life.

 

o   The notorious atheist lecturer Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) called for euthanasia to end the suffering of terminally ill patients.

 

o   Felix Adler, a prominent educator, called in 1891 for the use of lethal drugs on terminally ill patients upon their voluntary request.

 

o   While much of the Progressive Era debate focused on voluntary euthanasia, calls for involuntary euthanasia were also vocalized. 

 

o   1900: W. Duncan McKim, a prominent NY physician (as well as Doctor of Philosophy), published “Heredity & Human Progress,” suggesting that those with severe inherited defects & mental issues, as well as epileptics, drunkards, and criminals, should be “humanely” killed with carbonic gas.

 “The surest, the simplest, the kindest, and most humane means for preventing reproduction among those whom we deem unworthy of this high privilege, is a gentle, painless death; and this should be administered not as a punishment, but as an expression of enlightened pity for the victims—too defective by nature to find true happiness in life—and as a duty toward the community and toward our own offspring.”--W. Duncan McKim

o   In 1906, the Ohio legislature seriously considered the legalization of voluntary euthanasia—but the bill failed to make it out of committee.

 

o   The 1930’s saw a strong revival of interest & support for euthanasia.

 

o   1938: The Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) was formed, which lobbied for both the voluntary and involuntary euthanasia of people with severe disabilities, as well as for forced sterilization.

 

o   1939-45: Adolf Hitler & his SS doctors euthanize some 300,000 people against their will (physically & mentally handicapped, elderly, mentally ill, terminally ill, etc.)—including many children.

 

o   The immediate postwar era saw a decline in public support for euthanasia following the criminal abuses of the Third Reich.

 

o   Interest revives in the 60’s & 70’s with the rise of the “right-to-die” movement, and with subsequent high-profile cases—e.g., Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schaivo, Roswell Gilbert, Dr. Kevorkian. Various nations now allow physician-assisted-suicide & other forms of euthanasia.

Daniel Speaks! (Dan. 5:17a)

 

Dan. 5:17a: “Let your gifts remain with you…”

 

o   These words should not be viewed as a crude, impudent, and injudicious expression of open contempt for the King—which would justly carry with it an expectation of regal fury and well-merited vengeance. We strongly resist the idea that Daniel was being “saucy” or “cheeky” in his manner and conduct.

 

Prov. 20:2: The terror of a king is like the roar of a lion; he who provokes him to anger sins against his own soul.

 

1Pet. 2:13:  Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority…

 

Rom. 13:7: Pay everyone whatever you owe them—taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

1Pet. 2:17: Honor all people, love the brethren, fear God, honor the king.

 

o   There are four factors that bear our consideration, with reference to Daniel’s opening comments.

 

o   First, this statement serves as a prologue for all that follows, starkly defining Daniel’s role as a forthright and incorruptible Divine messenger.

 

Daniel is, from the very onset of his discourse, establishing the fact that he is not merely a “hired gun” whose services are for rent (in stark contrast to the Babylon’s professional caste spiritual “experts”). Rather, he is a prophet of the Living God who must speak the truth.

 

The Scripture contains various negative examples of those “professionals” and “hirelings” (John 10:12-13) who, motivated by self-interest, prophesize or serve for money, such as Balaam, the son of Beor (who was outsourced to Balak, King of Moab, in Num. 22), or the young Levite Jonathan (Judges 17-18) who sold himself out to the idolatrous Micah of Ephraim for “ten shekels and a shirt”[1] (Judges 17:10), and who subsequently hired himself out to the men of Dan (Judges 18) for similar reasons.[2]

 

In contrast to such men as these are those like Abraham (who would not accept enrichment from the hand of the King of Sodom; cf., Gen. 14:21-24), Elisha (cf., 2 Kings 5:15-16, who would accept no “fee” for the cure of Naaman), Peter (who could not be “bought” by Simon Magus in Acts 8:18-20), or Paul (who could truthfully state unto the Ephesian elders “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes;” cf. Acts 20:33-35).

 

To be sure, the laborer is due his well-earned wages (1 Tim. 5:17-18), but we are dealing here with the question of motivation.

 

Matt. 6:24: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

 

o   Second, these words must be understood in a manner that is consistent with the context that is established by Daniel’s ensuing testimony as a faithful and accurate interpreter. The grim report that Daniel will subsequently convey unto the Royal House is that Babylon’s doom is immediate in its proximity—thereby rendering Belshazzar’s promised lavish rewards both imminently and utterly worthless!  

 

o   Third, Daniel’s discomfort in accepting royal favors may also stem from the fact that he has been made aware of Belshazzar’s desecration of the sacred Temple objects (v. 23).

 

o   Fourth, Daniel utters these words in faith and trust. Well aware that he was walking the “thin line” (i.e., faithfully serving the Living God in relating and interpreting a Divine message that would most assuredly be disagreeable unto the ears of the Royal Court—and thus potentially incur the King’s wrath and violent displeasure), Daniel nonetheless places his destiny in the Hands of God, boldly serving the Lord in total obedience and leaving the consequences and results with Him.

 

o   This is an important example for believers to take note of, as all of us called upon by our Divine Master to fulfil the demands of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) within “hostile territory.”

 

o   While it is true that the Royal Honors are ultimately presented by Belshazzar and accepted by Daniel (cf., 5:29), it is essential to note that this occurs only after the message is interpreted—underlining with clarity the fact that Daniel did not exercise his prophetic gifts in a mercenary fashion. He accepts the gifts only after establishing the foundational principle and condition that the King’s offer of reward would in no wise affect the outcome of the interpretation.

 

Also, we would note the thought offered by Lange’s commentary on this matter: namely, that Daniel ultimately accepted the King’s gifts in the spirit of regarding them “as a recognition of his God.” In other words, Belshazzar’s rewards represented a public acknowledgement of the veracity of Daniel’s interpretation.

 

We would further add these significant points from Barnes with reference to the discussion: 1) Belshazzar was presenting Daniel with an honor that he did not seek, and 2) Belshazzar was, à la Don Corleone, making Daniel an offer that “he couldn’t refuse!”

 

“It may seem somewhat strange that Daniel, who here disclaimed all desire of office or reward, should so soon (Dan. 5:29) have submitted to be clothed in this manner, and to receive the insignia of office. But, it may be remarked, that when the offer was proposed to him he stated his wishes, and declared that he did not desire to be honored in that way; when he had performed the duty, however, of making known the writing, he could scarcely feel at liberty to resist a command of the king to be clothed in that manner, and to be regarded as an officer in the kingdom. His intention, in the verse before us, was modestly to decline the honors proposed, and to intimate that he was not influenced by a desire of such honors in what he would do; yet to the king’s command afterward that he should be clothed in robes of office, he could not with propriety make resistance. There is no evidence that he took these honors voluntarily, or that he would not have continued to decline them if he could have done it with propriety.”

---

[1] Note the missionary Paris Reidhead’s classic 1965 sermon “Ten Shekels and a Shirt,” which can be found on Sermon Audio.com (https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180222445).

[2] This episode is held up as a prime example of what happens to a nation that is not under authority (Judges 18:1).