Friday, April 1, 2022

Murder and Culture

https://pastorjameshein.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/abortion-then-now-what-we-can-learn-from-how-the-early-church-dealt-with-abortion-infanticide/

A good article discussing a bit of the history of abortion and it's logical link to infanticide. 

If you believe abortion is fine,  then "morality" has been replaced by "practicality / individual choice / the search for pleasure / convenience / etc in your mind. 
 
As Nietzsche observed, "without God, all things are permissible". 

Crenshaw Future Of Republican Party

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/02/is-dan-crenshaw-the-future-of-the-gop-225257

Just go read the article, 

The weekend before the 2018 midterm elections, “Saturday Night Live” comedian Pete Davidson mocked Crenshaw’s physical appearance, saying the wounded veteran’s eye patch made him look like a “hitman in a porno movie.” When “SNL” invited Crenshaw on the show the next week, he agreed and, after ribbing Davidson, provided a rare moment of political unity. “Americans can forgive one another. We can remember what brings us together,” Crenshaw said, before telling viewers to “never forget the sacrifices of veterans past and present, and never forget those we lost on 9/11, heroes like Pete’s father,” a firefighter who died trying to save those trapped in the World Trade Center.

And while you are at it, read his book. 

Dirty Democrats Defeated At Great Cost

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/kavanaugh-confirmed.php

America was a Christian nation with values like the Golden Rule, and some attempt to treat even those who "hate you" with comity. (loving them being a command for which Christ died to save us, as our ability to follow it is pitiful)

It was a nation where huge super-majoirities understood and supported principles like "innocent until proven guilty", "the burden of PROOF is on the accuser", the redemptive effects of time with life well lived, and even the concept of "redemption and forgivnness" -- even for criminals.

Today, not being 100% in lock step with the dogma of "The Party" (TP-D) is the "unforgiveable sin" for the left. Abortion on demand in all 50 states is their greatest sacrament, and thou shalt not make believe that people in states should be able to decide which states and how late a baby may be murdered! As we see with Kavenaugh, their "morality" is a throw back to the 30 years war in Europe or the Salem Witch Trials -- being ACCUSED by there cabal means certain guilt and you must pay for not kneeling before their power!

So Kavenaugh has been confirmed, as Thomas was before him, and Bork was not -- no left wing nominee, not matter how in your fact political and far left has suffered the treatment of the now triumvirate of Kavenaugh, Thomas and Bork. As Kavenaugh correctly stated, most likely, "what goes around will at least EVENTUALLY come around". It hasn't yet, it would be wonderful if it didn't , but the "standard", slimey though it may be, has been absolutely set!

Pure unsubstantiated calumny against a nominee not far to the left is that standard at this point. Will the right now march to that standard? Human nature says they eventually will -- holding on to morality when your opposition makes it clear they have none is a very high bar.

Yes, we are all Tribal now, but as I pointed out after the Trump rally in Rochester, the Tribes are not yet equivalent, and the behavior of the Democrats in the Senate and the anti-Trump protestors this past Thursday night proves it.


Being: The Rashomon Effect

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-different-kind-of-theory-of-everything

Being is a slippery yet important thing.

The Rashomon Effect is how things look different from different perspectives -- often REALLY different when the things are complex, people with different perspectives are looking at them, etc. A simple way to get an idea of it is to stare at this Necker cube and Rubin vase a bit.  Both the interpretations of each are "real".


We might think of physics as "cut and dried", however there are many mysteries, one of which is this.

“One of the amazing characteristics of nature is this variety of interpretational schemes,”  ( Feynman). What’s more, this multifariousness applies only to the true laws of nature—it doesn’t work if the laws are misstated. “If you modify the laws much, you find you can only write them in fewer ways,”. Feynman again: . “I always found that mysterious, and I do not know the reason why it is that the correct laws of physics are expressible in such a tremendous variety of ways. They seem to be able to get through several wickets at the same time.”

Even as physicists work to understand the material content of the universe—the properties of particles, the nature of the big bang, the origins of dark matter and dark energy—their work is shadowed by this Rashomon effect, which raises metaphysical questions about the meaning of physics and the nature of reality. Nima Arkani-Hamed, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study, is one of today’s leading theoreticians. “The miraculous shape-shifting property of the laws is the single most amazing thing I know about them,” he told me, this past fall. It “must be a huge clue to the nature of the ultimate truth.”
"They seem to be able to get through several wickets at the same time" where "wicket" is a small gate. One of my favorite ways of thinking about this is the "Many Worlds" interpretation. In this view, each "observation" results in a "fork" of the universe the observation is made in where that universe now takes two paths that have the same history up to the observation, but in one (in the common wave/particle example) a wave is observed, in the other a particle is observed. This is one way to get to the 1010 universes.

The two universes vary by only that observation to begin the "fork" -- however the level of "observation", or "decision" that might cause a fork is unknown.

Monday, May 11, 2020

Dreher -- Christians Still Losing

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/drowning-cultural-conservatism-benedict-option/

A good article that also links to other good articles .. largely just "keeping it around", well worth the time to read! 

Note well: normalizing homosexuality is not causing this, exactly, but normalizing homosexuality does require institutionalizing the Sexual Revolution, which negates what traditional Christianity teaches about sexual morality. People who think they can have Christianity and the Sexual Revolution are surrendering Christianity, whether they realize it or not. 
"Trads" are traditional Christians: "So, to return to the point of this post: not only are we Trads losing ground, the culture in which we are embedded both actively and passively trains young people to reject their religion," 

Lots of Christians, (sometimes including me) want to believe that "the courts will save us if we just get a conservative majority". There is always hope ... however:

In a society in which we cannot agree on what is good, how can we agree on what is a compelling interest?

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Robert Kraft, Why Are There Prostitutes In The Bible?

https://nypost.com/2019/04/21/why-bob-krafts-ordeal-should-alarm-us-all/

The NY Post is not my usual sort of source, however, in this case, they might be the only one that will touch this sort of story.

Clearly the MSM elite desires Robert Kraft to be crucified -- He has remained friendly to Trump just because Trump was kind to him when his wife died. That kind of "misplaced loyalty"  is naturally something that needs to be purged from society! Thou shalt be loyal ONLY to "The Party" (D) and the elites which it serves!

So Kraft appears to have been paying for sex -- and apparently NOT paying for sex from some sort of "sex slaves" as we have been told. In these days of complete lack of "prudishness" relative to sexual urges in the case of out of wedlock sex (unless the person is a Republican), gay sex, or various confusions on gender, what is the "appropriate attitude" relative to the ancient practice of males paying for sex?

As a Christian, the list of prohibitions relative to sex is quite long, however the Bible is WAY SHORT of being "prudish" in the least. We aren't going to give chapter and verse here, but incest, bestiality, sending your daughters out for gang rape, rape unto death, taking a prostitute as a wife, father and son "sharing" a woman ... all are covered, including some rather beautiful "near porn" in Song of Solomon. "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."

Prostitution is almost certainly the oldest profession, a basic exchange of quid quo pro. Certainly it is a Biblical sin, however it is merely one form of "lust/act", of which there are MANY, given:

1 John 2:15-17 "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."

The left has declared Biblical sin to be not be sin at all, but in fact to be admired -- consumerism, envy, pride, homosexuality, infant sacrifice to the god of convenience, adultery, etc are all generally to be celebrated as long as they are committed by liberals. 

For the left, those who refuse to bow at the altar of "progressivism" (whatever the left declares right TODAY) have  committed their original sin, and are therefore "condemned sinners" -- any act by those so condemned is judged as "filthy rags" -- clearly, including such formerly natural acts as seeking sexual gratification from a prostitute. 

There are prostitutes in the Bible because they are real -- reality is in the Bible. In the universe of "progressivism", reality is exactly what they say it is at any moment, and there is absolutely no requirement for it to be universally applied, or consistent in any manner.  

Monday, October 14, 2019

Fauxahontis On "Marriage"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warrens-same-sex-marriage-quip-captures-what-some-find-exciting--and-others-distressing--about-her/2019/10/11/f3e15a14-ec34-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Much like Hillary (irredeemable deploreables), Fauxahontis seems determined to give up the moderate vote in order to cater to the bulk of what the Democrat party has become.

At least she and Beto are being honest ... collect all the guns, drop tax exempt status to organizations that don't bow at the altar of gay "marriage" (soon / currently? to be any combination of 57 "genders")  ... and then? Well "progress" would require the next step because it is ALWAYS moving "forward" ... my guess us legalization of sex with minors. If they are mature enough to change their sex, how can they not be mature enough to consent to sex?

How long before anyone that doesn't follow their agenda must be "re-educated"?




Sunday, October 13, 2019

Gays For Biology

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-nature-of-sex.html

The level of confusion engendered by the insistence that gayness is immutable and gender is fluid is impossible to overstate. The linked article really just expands on the confusion.

If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
Under the sought after definition, apparently "sex" as in Male or Female would essentially cease to exist -- "nature" as in what sexual parts you happen to have is not a factor. It is ALL about how you "identify".  Needless to say, this offends homosexuals -- they are really attached to immutably being attracted to their own biological sex! 

So, here we see a gay man defending biology. 

The Leftist Media Drumbeat

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/the-media-factor.php

Just a better than average example of how the leftist media acts as full time unpaid Democrat propaganda. When people talk about "getting big money out of politics", what they are really advocating is total surrender to the left.

They already have the bulk of the media, the universities, and the administrative state.

The Mueller debacle showed us that Democrats and their allies the Deep State worked to interfere with the 2016 election, and then -- starting with the day after the election, have ceaselessly worked to overturn it.

Naturally, any investigation of their activities is at least impeachable in their eyes, and extremism in the defense of leftism is to duty of all non deplorables! 

Friday, October 11, 2019

Trump Turns Down Mud Wrestling Invite

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/trump-refuses-to-participate-in-impeachment-farce.php

Good summary if the "impeachment" version of the witch hunt (the sequel to Russiagate). The Ds pushed to have Trump nominated because they were certain that having him as the nominee would be the end of the Republican party. They expected total control of all branches of government in addition to the all powerful Deep State and a soon to be leftist packed SCOTUS. Lefty heaven!

Since they were as sure of this plan as they are of global warming, a semi-conscious person would wonder just a bit how competent they are.

What us clear at this point is that they are not willing to allow the duly elected president to govern unless he is a de-facto Democrat like W!

They may still get to their objective, it is likely only a matter of time. At least some of their cards are more visible now -- Beto made it clear that they WILL collect the guns as soon as they have enough power. If they can get a majority on the SCOTUS, the Electoral College is history, and likely the two senators per state as well -- in which case, why bother with a Senate at all ? ND, SD,WY, MT,NB would maybe get ONE!

America died with the election of BO -- Trump has at least slowed the rotting of the corpse!

Monday, October 7, 2019

A Thousand Small Sanities

https://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Small-Sanities-Adventure-Liberalism/dp/154169936X

I was recommended this book by a friend associated with a small left Lutheran (ELCA) college. I wasn't very far into it before I thought of Bill Buckley's "God and Man at Yale" .. I imagine unsuspecting parents sending youth off to a school that they think is "Christian" only to find them returning as godless atheists worshipping pleasure and self -- the book puts up as "heroic"  adultery, cohabitation, atheism, and homosexuality ... or anything new that comes along that trips their trigger.

I'm a traditional liberal -- certainly people have a right to any manner of idea they want to have, and even to proselytize such beliefs. I just fervently wish that anyone who even marginally maintains any sort of even remotely Christian belief would realize that there is no need to waste time at a supposedly faith based university exposing them to more atheist, relativist, materialist, hedonist, etc views. They get LOTS of that from the general culture!

The title and subtitle tell your this is not in any way an objective book  -- if "liberalism" is "sane", then conservatism must be "insane", and if "liberalism" is "moral" ... (in it's own estimation of course), than those who are not of the "liberal faith" are "immoral".

On page 232 we find: "Liberal tolerance includes tolerance of non-liberals and anti-liberals as long as they accept the rules of pluralism." (as the book clearly states, those are admittedly muddled "rules" that are ever changing, so beware! -- one best stay very current on what is "sane", lest you be declared insane.

Your only defense is to bow at the "liberal" altar de jour -- Trump was fine for the left as long as he was one of their team! Oh, the book is a reaction to Trump, seeded with the standard gratuitous criticisms. In the universe inhabited by this author, the thought that there might be a "sane" other side just as disgusted with Obama would be impossible -- certainly, by definition, those people would be INSANE!

So why were the adulterous lovers Mill and Taylor "moral"? On page 12 we read:" What they were is realists - radicals of the real, determined to live in the world even as they altered it". In simpler terms. the "liberal" form of "morality" ... "If it feels good, do it" -- and as it becomes more "advanced", force others to celebrate the "morality" which you feel.

The main point of the book is that "liberalism" is a forever changing, but always the best "muddle" -- his "aways true/just/factual/moral" and ever "advancing" defense of liberalism reminded me of the movie "The Blob", or very much like "The Borg" on STNG -- you WILL be assimilated!

Reagan said it best: "A liberal will defend your right to agree with them to your dying breath".

So how are we to begin to "know" what the ever changing "liberal rules" are? On page 27 we see: "And that (Montaigne quote) meant we had to base our social behavior on compassion, skepticism, and uncertainty rather than on dogma, justice and utopianism." Got that? -- in short, no fixed rules.

The "compassion" is interesting -- based on the actions of today's "liberals", that means forcing other people to transfer their earnings to the "less fortunate" -- or just less successful relative to the liberal ever evolving standard of "enough", which conveniently is never reached.

"Compassion" and "sympathy" are themes of the book. On page 37, we see of Hume -- "He saw, and showed the sharp limits of reason--and the power of sympathy, rather than either reason or faith, to make humankind one".  Later on that page, "Sympathy lets us turn ideas into emotion".

On page 39 we see why Hume is especially dear to the author -- "have little patience only till I have the pleasure of seeing the churches shut up, and the clergy sent about their business".

"Sympathy" for me, but not for thee.

On page 51, we see the attempted cleavage of "liberals" from "left activism" (although the "heroes" of the author are the radicals) -- so allowing freedom of speech by purchasing ads, and the electoral college are declared "not worth saving" by the hard left, the authors unicorn "liberals" think it is acceptable to "get there slowly" ... but nevertheless, inevitably!

Page 72, "Where conservatives believe in the renewal of traditional community, liberals believe in the flight from family and tradition into new kinds of communal order" ... a Montaigne type skeptic might ask, "and how is that working out?" We see rising suicide rates, declining lifespans, addiction, hopelessness and mass shootings, all of which were declining or non-existent under tired old Christian culture as late as "1960".

On page 238, "Liberalism isn't a political theory applied to life. It's what we know about life applied to political theory." Nice claim, however given the previous discussion of page 72, is that a truthful claim? Eric Fromm says in "The Sane Society":
"We find then that the countries in Europe which are among the most democratic, peaceful and prosperous ones, and the United States, the most prosperous country in the world, show the most severe symptoms of mental disturbance."
And this was in 1956! Fromm for one would say that we "know" very little about "life". Wikipedia says: There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms that maintain homeostasis are composed of cells, have a life cycle, metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.
Given that, how can one claim to "know about life"? I'd assume, in the same way as pretty much all "liberalism" posits, it is "whatever the most "powerful" (most votes, most scientists polled, etc) think, or even feel it is -- and thus "know".

Page 81, we see a core of the liberal faith -- "These values are rooted in a simple idea about human capacity - a moral idea about the source of meaning in the human imagination. This just means that people make up their values, they aren't handed down from the past or on high. This humanist ideal is what inspects and animates liberalism with moral energy."

Translation -- man makes it up his own morality as he goes along, and he declares it to be "very good". Niche figured this out long ago -- God is dead, so might is right.

From 184-190, Gopnik goes from the Mill definition of free speech. -- "unless the speaker is actually ready to cut your throat, you have to let him work his jaw". To applauding a Canadian court ruling preventing a Christian from passing out pamphlets critical of homosexuality, to saying that while "suppression of free speech on campus is alarming to "liberals"", to "real though the problem of civil liberties on campuses might be, it is infinitely less concerning than the power of corporate speech or the daily presence of hate speech from the highest source of power directed against threatened groups".

My "highest source of power is God". The Bible says; "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." ... or Rom 1:22-32. Both God and Nature abhor homosexuality (it isn't adaptive ... doesn't reproduce, the holy grail of evolution).

So clearly, although I'm sure he meant Trump, and recognizes not at all my higher power, Gopnik would seem required to see the Bible as "hate speech" -- and the definition of what "hate speech" would be whatever he sees "liberal" orthodoxy saying it is at this "advanced time". (stay tuned ... no doubt it will "advance")

I love his heartfelt defense of one of his huge heroes, Red Emma Goldman, on page 160; "Throughout her life she never compromised either the purity of her anarchist, sensualist and libertarian principles in the face of left-wing totalitarianism". So much for the "reality based" theme of supposed "liberalism" -- what it really means is "my view wins" ... always, no matter what it actually turns out to result in.

p 319, "But few ideas could be more fatuous than that secular ideals are really just as religious as religious ideals.". hmm other than the idea that "religion" is what you hold to be the highest value, and secularism holds itself to be "the highest value". Or maybe he just doesn't understand the definition of "fatuous"?

And on what basis would that statement have merit? Well, the same basis as all metaphysical claims -- "belief". At the base, one either believes that there is some metaphysical standard, or there isn't. If God exists, and he has declared standards for us to follow, then there IS a standard. If not, then NO STANDARDS beyond might is right! For a more complete discussion of what is "fatuous".

There has been a lot of ink wasted on trying to "prove" the "liberal / progressive / humanist" faith (of any given moment -- it's "strong point" is it's constant "evolution". What used to be Western civilization was based on Christianity. The fervent hope of the left was that you can just pull the foundation of Christianity out from under it and things would still be fine. (so why don't they look "fine"?)

Nietzsche covered this topic very well -- and seeing this shallow book being proffered for review by impressionable youth with little comprehension of the depth of the danger, it is good to be living deep in fly over country!

Friday, September 27, 2019

Branding -- Whistleblower Vs Leaker

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/was-the-whistleblower-part-of-a-plan.php

The branding is so obvious as to be funny. Information illegally made public about a Republican? "Whistleblower" ... often "courageous whistleblower"!

Information illegally made public about a Democrat? LEAK! Often "criminal leak" very possibly treasonous!

Just as "Russiagate" turned out to be nothing, "Ukrainegate" is the same -- but of course that doesn't matter. The purpose is to deny Trump re-election by any means possible.

The purpose of the multiple “inquiries” through which we are about to suffer is not, of course, to learn anything about events in Ukraine. It is, rather, to generate as many headlines as possible from friendly newspapers (i.e., all of them) that pair the words “Trump” and “impeachment.” If the Steele dossier couldn’t stop Trump from being elected in 2016, the Democrats are hopeful that the equally baseless Ukraine complaint will prevent him from being re-elected in 2020.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Ukraine Transcript

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-ukraine-transcript-not-damning-and-not-as-advertised.php

Ho hum ...  he asked the Ukraine president to ask his people to cooperate with the US justice department.

Well, that is the view from the "moderate right". How about the "as moderate as the left gets" ...

Naturally, they don't mention exactly WHAT is "impeachable" ... I think we already know that! Being a Republican, a Christian, not worshiping at the Climate Change altar ... all are both deplorable and impeachable.

I love the mention of CLINTON'S "balanced budget" ... he did sign the budgets, and the Republican congress that actually balanced the budgets got no credit at all.

So now we have TWO parties that don't care about a balanced budget! I really don't think that much of anyone outside of the press when a Republican is in office actually cares -- Oh, and a press that apparently does not know who it is that does appropriations ... hint, "Congress Shall Appropriate"!

The WaPo does keep some irredeemables on staff ... one can only hope!

Democrat Takeover Strategy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-democratic-strategy/?sfns=mo&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=continetti&utm_content=kavanaugh

The SCOTUS is the last backstop to prevent a possible return to Constitutional government if Trump is re-elected. The Democrats love to have strategies to de-legitimize any sort of conservative move to weaken the Deep State and follow the Constitution. (see "Russiagate", "impeachment", etc)

The Kavanaugh controversy is not, as one reporter for the Washington Post described it, a “journalistic mishap.” It is a case of Democratic activists and lawmakers using journalists precisely as intended: as instruments of a political agenda. Democrats are much more aware than Republicans that the very survival of their party depends on the maintenance of the “living Constitution,” as opposed to the Constitution as written and subsequently amended. The courts have been the Democrats’ backstop. If Donald Trump transforms them, liberals would have to reckon with the voting public. Things could get ugly.
Well, "ugly" for the left, the Deep State, and continuation of totalitarian control by "The Party" ... Dems, media, Deep State, universities, elites, etc.

Ukraine Frenzy Explained

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-whistleblower-claim-congress-should-investigate/?sfns=mo&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mccarthy&utm_content=whistleblower

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Clinton News Network Becomes FNN

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/cnn-trump-derangement-everything-but-news/?sfns=mo

When Slick Willie was in office I renamed CNN (Cable News Network) to Clinton News Network --- It's now clearly the FAKE News Network. It's one thing to be totally tilted in one direction about what stories you decide to report.

Making things up in a vendetta against a president you happen not to like is crossing into a whole other level of disservice!

CNN has now lost so much of its prior viewership and its reputation for global reportage that it would be wise for the network to shut down, fire its entire management and most of its journalists, and reboot in a year or so with an entirely new name, team, and a code of ethics.
Isn't "cable" a bit outdated anyway? 

Always Certain, Frequently Wrong

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions?sfns=mo#.XYN9tOCh7wA.facebook

The linked article goes through a long list of certain predictions that turned out to be wrong -- worth a scan for perspective.

My conversion to being a skeptic in pretty much everything  began with the Carter "malaise" speech. It is worth going back and reading it -- who would have thought that the main problem was Carter and the Deep State? Reagan came as close to "proving" that was the case as it is possible to do by 1984.
"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.
It is a crisis of confidence.
It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.
The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America."
It's interesting to note that Carter, then a practicing Southern Baptist, came close, but only sideways mentioned the cause of the "loss of confidence".
In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.
Today, Carter has left the Biblical faith ... you know, the kind of faith that believes the Bible. Carter feels it needs to be "updated" ... and interestingly, since his famous speech, more and more people have left Christianity because it is not "accommodating" enough. In the words of Christ ...
John 14:6 Jesus said unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.
"Faith" means you need to BELIEVE in something that is transcendent (not scientifically "provable") The time tested and extremely successful up to the late 20th century belief was Christianity. America was founded on the totally unproven belief that there were unalienable rights given by a sovereign God -- and up until the mid 20th century, we were held together by that common belief.

Lose your faith in the transcendent, and you are just a meaningless cosmic accident -- and "malaise" is virtually guaranteed. Just look at the rising depression and suicide statistics in the unlikely case that you don't have personal experience with yourself or loved ones.

We are natural believers -- and we WILL believe in something. We have to fill that hole with SOMETHING, and today one of the attempts is "Climate Change" ... which, like all idolatry, is a complete failure. You can "believe" that "saving the planet" is your "mission", but of course it isn't "personal" in the least, and it doesn't "save" YOU at all!

Ironically, in order to accept the climate change faith, you have to give up reason -- just as you always have to do to some extent to accept any faith. Either we have been created by a loving God with a built in need to seek his divine solution to that existential need in the person of Jesus Christ, or, a random universe has randomly put this unquenchable lust for faith in our hearts by pure accident.

You have a choice! Oh, and if you refuse to believe that climate change is not "proven", consider this.

Outside of mathematics, certainty is metaphysical -- so the "experts" that are "certain" are very frequently wrong. -


Sunday, September 8, 2019

Raising Hell

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12280528-raising-hell

It took a bit after I was challenged to read this book to get back to a book that I HIGHLY recommend for anyone that is truthfully seeking the eternal historical God of the Bible and salvation in Christ "The Reason For God".

Here is my review of that book.

What Keller does, and I have a HARD time doing is to RESPECTFULLY answer common objections to Christianity. Chapter 5 is devoted to answering the objections to Hell. Essentially they all boil down to rejecting the sovereignty of God. Julie is a classic modern "liberal" -- her god is individuality (Julie), so SHE can judge ANYTHING -- including God, historical scholarship. etc.. The book would be better titled "Razing Christianity" ... with the definition of Christianity being  people who can truthfully confess the Creeds  ...  Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians all confess the creeds of the first thousand+ years of church history. (eg the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds. Being able to truly confess these creeds is what it means to be Christian, and has been so for over a thousand years.

The the Athanasian Creed begins:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal)  faith. Which faith unless everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
The faith of this book is totally opposed to Christianity. The entry to Christianity is Holy Baptism, the practice is joining in confession of the creeds, Holy Communion and Holy Preaching with fellow Christians. Julie rejects that, so whatever she is, she is not a confessional Christian.
"There came a time when I left the faith. This was not because of what I learned through historical criticisms, but because I could no longer reconcile my faith in God with the state of the world that I saw all around me. There is so much senseless pain and misery in the world that I came to find it impossible to believe there is a good and loving God who is in control, despite my knowing all the standard rejoinders that people give.[21] I believe mainly what Bart is getting at is that, in light of most people “going to hell,” their suffering in this world makes no sense."
When you reject the faith, it indeed makes "no sense" (1 Cor 1:22-24) "

"Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

The people who might really enjoy this book are those who have been damaged by Pharisaic "works based" and overly Hell focused (vs Grace focused)  church experiences and are desperate for a god of their own desires.  Atheists might like it if they are still just "hoping" there is no god, rather than completely convinced of his nonexistence.

 Although we certainly live in a universe with consequences (ever have a hangover?), projecting a metaphysical afterlife with no consequences might be "comforting"  to some (sorta like heroin).

Unless you have firmly made up your mind that Orthodox Christianity is completely wrong, Jesus doesn't matter (nothing to be "saved" from), and "history is bunk", JUST STAY AWAY! RUN! Don't walk!

I've commented extensively on Goodreads -- go there for more detail.

No matter how far you have strayed from the Christian faith, as long as you draw breath, Grace can be yours!

Murder and Culture

https://pastorjameshein.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/abortion-then-now-what-we-can-learn-from-how-the-early-church-dealt-with-abortion-infantici...