Posts Tagged ‘Darwinism’

Ten Reasons Why Everyone Who Is NOT A Fool Believes In The Reality Of A Creator God

December 27, 2016

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” — Psalm 14:1; 53:1

I came across something rather odd while I was hiking out in the desert a day or so ago.  And then I came upon another thing, and then another, and another.  I’ll post what I saw:

20161221_134531

20161221_134633

20161221_134715

20161221_135943

20161221_140121

20161221_150105

20161221_150055

20161221_150115

20161221_150158

20161222_195859

So I came upon – one after another – what turns out to be ten objects remarkably shaped like hearts.

How did these hearts happen to come to be?

How did they “evolve”???  I only know that I neither made them, saw them made, or had anything to do with them other than I happened to see them in the desert, one after another.

Well, being a thoughtful man I thought about it.

Did they just happen by purely random natural evolutionary forces?  The wind and/or the water carried each component and just happened to deposit each piece without relocating the pieces that nature had already placed there until we had our “hearts”???

You can believe that.  And I can properly label you as a fool.

Of COURSE that didn’t happen.  Only a truly indoctrinated ideologue would ever believe an asinine story like that.  No, somebody – and I would guess the same somebody – made all ten of these hearts.  A MIND designed them and arranged the pieces just so according to a plan to bring about a purposeful result.

You can believe otherwise.  But you’re wrong.  And what’s more, you are a fool.  It doesn’t matter what your IQ is: you are a moral idiot who has committed your intellect to idiocy.  You have committed yourself to being wrong, and you have used every resource you have – your mind included – to justify your stupidity.  And you can have a dozen PhDs and you can have a buttload of money and you can have all sorts of prestigious titles and accolades and, yes, you can be a morally and therefore intellectual stupid person; a fool.

It may not have been a coincidence that whoever made ten hearts seems to have stopped at that number.

As I reflected on this “intelligent creative designer’s” work, I immediately thought of an analogy: the major systems of the human body.

It turns out that there are TEN such systems:

  1. Circulatory System: This system is made up of the heart, blood, blood vessels, and lymphatics. It is the body’s delivery system, concerned with circulating blood to deliver oxygen and nutrients to every part of the body.
  2. Digestive System: The purpose of the digestive system is to turn the food you eat into something useful for the body. When you eat, your body uses this system to digest food so your cells can use it to make energy. The organs involved in this system include the mouth, stomach, and intestines.
  3. Endocrine System: This system is made up of a collection of glands, including the pituitary and thyroid glands, as well as the ovaries and testes. It regulates, coordinates, and controls a number of body functions by secreting chemicals into the bloodstream. These secretions help control moods, growth and development, and metabolism.
  4. Integumentary System: This system consists of the skin, hair, nails, and sweat glands. Its main function is to act as a barrier to protect the body from the outside world. It also functions to retain body fluids, protect against disease, eliminate waste products, and regulate body temperature.
  5. Muscular System: This system is made up of muscle tissue that helps move the body and move materials through the body. Quite simply, muscles move you. Muscles are bundles of cells and fibers that work in a simple way: they tighten up and relax.
  6. Nervous System: The nervous system is the control center of the human body. It is made up of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. It receives and interprets stimuli and transmits impulses to organs. Your brain uses the information it receives to coordinate all of your actions and reactions.
  7. Reproductive System: The human reproductive system ensures that humans are able to reproduce and survive as a species. It is made up of organs such as the uterus, penis, ovaries, and testes.
  8. Respiratory System: The primary function of the respiratory system is to supply the blood with oxygen in order for the blood to deliver oxygen to all parts of the body. The respiratory system does this through breathing. It consists of the nose, larynx, trachea, diaphragm, bronchi, and lungs.
  9. Skeletal System: The skeletal system provides the shape and form for our bodies in addition to supporting and protecting our bodies, allowing bodily movement, producing blood cells, and storing minerals. This system consists of bones, cartilage, and joints.
  10. Urinary System: The purpose of the urinary system is to filter out excess fluid and other substances from your bloodstream. Some fluid gets reabsorbed by your body but most gets expelled as urine. The organs found in this system are the kidneys, ureters, urinary bladder, and urethra.

Ten hearts.  Ten organ systems.  How fitting!!!

Now, it’s not merely ten systems versus ten systems.  We’ll get to the vastly – INFINITELY – more complicated nature of the ten organ systems of the human body shortly, but let’s consider the fact that, unlike the hearts, each of the ten organ systems of the human body must already be present all at once for the rest of the systems to function.

Again, you can be a good Darwinist and claim that the skeletal system somehow evolved with all 206 individual bones (which actually starts with 270 bones at birth, with some of the bones being programmed to fuse together as the child develops) just somehow “assembled themselves” the same way the fool would claim the individual components of the hearts somehow assembled themselves.  But to what telos?  To what end?  For what purpose?  A skeleton would be a pretty amazing feat for natural forces to assemble – FAR MORE SO than the pieces of any of those hearts! – but it’s not like it’s alive or anything.

As it turns out, you need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF ALL TEN OF THESE SYSTEMS ALL FUNCTIONING SIMULTANEOUSLY for the organism to live or do a damn thing.  Just imagine you had the other nine but couldn’t eliminate: you’d live a very short life and explode in a tremendously icky manner!  But don’t worry, all of your friends would explode the same way and the human species would be extinct.

I’m going to guess that whoever designed and built those hearts with the purpose and plan they had in their minds, they built one at a time and then moved on to the next one.  But that aint the way a living, breathing, eliminating organism works.  All ten systems had to be designed so that they were all perfectly functioning at the exact same moment.  Or nothing.

That fact screams God.  And only the worst, most pitiable kind of unrelenting FOOL doesn’t comprehend that fact because of a terrible and terrifying moral defect worse even than sociopathy in the heart of that fool.

Evolutionists are a particular species of fool who believe that time solves everything.  If you were to stare at a rock for a long enough period of time, why, that rock would eventually come alive, and then it would eventually sprout wings and begin to fly.  Then it would talk and mock the atheist for being deluded enough to believe in flying, talking rocks.  And of course, given enough time, another rock of the opposite gender would similarly arise.  And then it would only be a matter of time before the two flying rocks evolved near enough the same place and the same time over the potential span of billions of years and they would fine one another and reproduce and … and.. build a monument of rocks in the shape of a heart in the California desert so that I could eventually find them and ponder the meaning.

How about “not.”

Let’s examine the “time problem,” not just from the standpoint of all of those ten incredibly and yes, infinitely complex organ systems.  Let’s consider the problem of time just for the very simplest living cell:

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

Now, I wrote about this before (when I came upon a similar phenomenon out in the desert that prompted me to think).  And here’s what I just pointed out about the above SCIENTIFIC FACTS:

“Time-consuming.”  There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you.  Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it.  That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison.  And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it.  That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes.  We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

And that 10^450  years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins.  That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450  years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one.  Each one is going to take you about another 10^450  years’ worth of random trials to generate!  And finally after 10^450  a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later???  Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe just to form a stupid bacterial cell, let along a human being with those ten amazing organ systems.  Do you get this blatantly obvious scientific fact???

How long did it take for the intelligent, creative designer to build each of those hearts?  Half an hour, maybe?  Maybe a little longer?  But without that intelligent, creative designer building those hearts out of the plan of an intelligent mind, those individual components of each of those hearts would have sat wherever they originally were for all eternity and nothing would have ever happened.

And you have to be a particular type of fool not to comprehend that.

Atheists/secular humanists/evolutionists tell us that time is their best friend in the world and that time can do ANYTHING.  Well, I’ve got news for you: time actually CAN’T DO ANYTHING: it just sits there, doing nothing except ticking moments away.  Anyone who has ever had a deadline and not intelligently worked on producing whatever was necessary to accomplish that deadline surely understands that time doesn’t solve anything.  In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (popularly known as entropy) actually guarantees that, far from being the best friend, time is in actual scientific fact our worst enemy:

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The more expansive definition of the law of entropy doesn’t make it any better.  Evolutionists are not only wrong; they are laughingstock wrong.  Because things DON’T become more ordered over time; they become more DISORDERED.  If you tell your kids, “Don’t worry, your room will clean itself,” you’re a perfect candidate for atheistic evolution.

So, scientifically – let’s NOT be fool enough to think that actual, legitimate SCIENCE actually in any way, shape or form supports godless evolution – there simply scientifically isn’t enough time in the universe for even the most simple possible cell to evolve.  And if you believe in the miraculous nature of time to achieve anything rather than accepting the legitimate science that says the opposite, well, the biblical term “fool” most certainly applies to you.

One other factoid to prove what FOOLS those who embrace godless evolution truly are: there are 100 TRILLION cells in the human body that are more complex than that simple bacterium that even all the time in the universe couldn’t produce.

And not only are there one hundred trillion cells in the human body, but it gets WORSE for you godless fools: because there are 200 different kinds of cells in the human body — in the brain, liver, bone, heart and many other structures — must somehow those 200 different kinds of cells must be read off a different set of the hereditary instructions written into the DNA.  Or else nothing happens.

Scientist Michael Behe describes what he labelled “irreducible complexity.”  He’s entirely right.  You must have the entire living system present all at once or nothing will happen.  His opponents are driven entirely by atheism and ideology that has perverted their “science.”

Some of the “greatest” evolutionary minds, such as Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, believe in something called “panspermia,” which is the recognition of the obvious REALITY that evolution is completely impossible and therefore punting to a belief that life was seeded here from “somewhere else” that is of course scientifically impossible to prove (or disprove).  This becomes an anti-scientific religious faith offered in the name of “science.”  But it is nothing short of “junk science” that the most brilliant so-called “scientists” acceptThe same way that Darwin’s “falsifiability” is a totally bogus joke that any but the most ardent propagandist ought to recognize:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In other words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to disprove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

You go down the list of “human evolution proofs” that the entire “scientific community” swallowed much the way restaurant pond goldfish or koi that greedily swallow children’s lougies because they stupidly think it’s food: Piltdown Man.  Nebraska Man.  Peking Man.  Java Man.  Not only did all of these “fossil finds” turn out to be hoaxes, but they were entirely obvious hoaxes right from the get go.  But science had already become a philosophy, and an idiotic philosophy at that.  And so “scientists” not only accepted these “evidences” but embellished upon them, creating entire worlds out of their moral idiocy that were as false as the fake proofs of evolution upon which they depended in the first place.

The evolutionary “scientists” disallowed any theory of origin that could in ANY way, ANY shape or ANY form depend on a Creator God because they claimed it wasn’t “scientifically falsifiable” and therefore not a legitimate scientific theory.  But they have broken their own rule over and over again in their rabid determination to impose their philosophical atheism onto science.  Science that ONLY formed as a result of Christian premises that the universe was NOT random, but was ordered, and which came as a result of a Creator’s Mind, which in turn formed the mind of man in His own image; such that human beings could explore God’s creation and think His thoughts that He formed us to think AFTER HIM.

Let me continue.

There are 100 trillion cells in the human body and there are 200 different kinds of cells in the human body.  And those 200 different cells combining for a total of 100 trillion cells must all somehow precisely correct form at the precisely correct time according to an incredibly complex and complicated plan with virtually no room for error whatsoever.  Or nothing happens.

Further, we talk about DNA.  Well, DNA is an alphabet of three letters which combine to form “words,” not a language.  And even if it WAS a language it would STILL require an intelligent communicator to use words in the proper order at the proper time such as not to result in gibberish.  I know that for a fact because I’ve repeated what Google translated my English sentence into, and my Spanish-speaking friends started laughing.

I’ve described it as “the marching band argument.”  Let’s say you are part of a marching band, and you want to form the words, “Go Trojans!” on the playing field.  Do you just count on that to happen all by itself, do you?  Do you think if you just randomly have the individuals march around and form the letters all by themselves – especially if you don’t even tell them they’re supposed to form anything or tell them what letters they are supposed to form – that will somehow happen, do you?  If so, congratulations!  You ARE fool enough to believe in evolution, after all!  Rather, no!  There must be an intelligent designer issuing commands and sequences that the band members follow at the appropriate times.

It also turns out that DNA – even when the entire code is there and is correct in every way (which obviously to anyone with common sense doesn’t happen without an intelligent programmer) – needs a driver, the way a computer program needs a driver to install it.  Again, maybe you have DNA; so what?  How does it DO anything?  Something must be present to communicate the incredibly sophisticated instructions of the DNA to the incredibly sophisticated physical body so that the entire sequence installs correctly.  DNA demands a driver, and personally, I believe that driver is the soul of the organism.  God creates the soul in the womb at conception, and the soul drives the installation of what that body will become.  In a fallen, sin-tainted, imperfect, degraded world, that process doesn’t always unfold as it was designed to unfold, but something like this God-ordered and God-ordained system far more accurately describes the procedure of life than any other even comes close to.

Allow me to offer a theory from “science” to prove my case: recapitulation.  Because these people will believe ANYTHING rather than face the truth, according to Colossians 2:8; according to Romans 1:22; according to 2 Thessalonians 2:11.  Because they are ultimately fools, and it is the nature of the fool to believe lies and reject reality.

And so, continuing, just as the individual members of the marching band “install” themselves at a particular location at a particular moment even as all the other individual members of the band are swirling around him, and so on and so forth until the living letters are formed with all the individual band members having precisely arranged themselves to form those letters, so also the soul serves as the driver of the body around it, driving the DNA and unfolding the installation sequence at a marvelously precise symphony of order.  As the Scriptures say, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (Psalm 139:14).

And the ONLY reason the so-called “scientific community” will not accept this is because it would then point out the godless EVIL of abortion.  The scientific method was formulated by a publicly confessing Christian in the heart of Christendom out of uniquely Christian presuppositions.  Every single major branch of science was discovered by publicly confessing Christians.  But just as every single Ivy-League university was formed out of evangelical Christian presuppositions but BETRAYED those values, so also modern “science” has betrayed the very noble system that it once was.

And so I look at those hearts that are composed from a tiny number of components by comparison, I look at the heart-shape they were arranged in BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER; and I am not a fool.  And all I can do is fall on my knees and thank the Living God who created me in His image (and that’s a whole other issue that screams for the reality of God as a moral fact) that I am not a fool.

We talked about the ten systems of the human body.  We have not yet discussed the human mind.  Let’s examine the problem of mind from mindlessness:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

If you are an atheist, mindlessness is what you proudly assert that you came from – and mindlessness is what you ARE.  An orderly, rational mind – even MORE than those ten amazing organ systems in the human body – CANNOT be a disordered product of disorder, a random result of randomness.  And so if you are an atheist, you are not only a fool, you are a MINDLESS fool.  Because you stand on an altar of random, disorganized mindlessness and pronounce yourself brilliant.

The Book of Romans starts out this way:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

That last verse, verse 23, is especially interesting to me in this context, because it so directly applies to the atheist, the evolutionist.  The primitive peoples practice something called “ancestor worship.”  And why SHOULDN’T they worship their ancestors?  That is where they came from!  And what does the evolutionist claim he or she comes from?  From “birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”  And so just as the modern-day man hordes money and buys things with it and by any theological standard worships these things as “idols” yet denies his idolatry, the evolutionist is an “ancestor worshiper” who denies his ancestor worship.  But it’s there, every bit as much as the primitive aboriginal, squatting in front of his hut in the mud.  And these fools actually call US “backward”!!!

We have not advanced as a species; we have degenerated and become worse and worse according to 2 Timothy 3:1-7.  According to the Book of Revelation which prophetically describes the depths of depravity that modern man is well on his way to degenerating into.  And the only things that have “improved” merely speak of our idolatrous nature and our determination to have “things” as part of our modern version of “the rat race” otherwise known as “keeping up with the Joneses.”

Now, I am an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian.  And I am such FOR A REASON.  And that reason is because the world conforms to the Word of the Creator God who clearly made it all.

Isaiah 40:8 states, “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”  But contrast that with evolution and the bait-and-switch pile of garbage that it is.  Think of how toxic cultures and societies twist and distort reality.  Think of Stalinism: the entire culture – science, academia media, you name it – was profoundly perverted into an instrument of deception and even terror.  Oh, yes, you can rightly believe this officially State Atheist regime taught Darwinism and evolution as part of THEIR indoctrination propaganda.  And the same thing is happening here.

I look at the world around me and recognize the profound reality of the formulation as expressed by theologian D.A. Carson:

“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, He would have sent an economist. If He had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, He would have sent us a comedian or an artist. If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, He would have sent us a politician. If He had perceived that our greatest need was health, He would have sent us a doctor. But He perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death; and He sent us a Savior. ”

And the basic fact is that all of these leaders of our culture that Carson’s quote finds lacking have directed their middle finger at God and screamed NO!  WE are the solutions to all the problems plaguing the world that we re-formed in OUR image!

I reject them and those who share their worldview.  And I embrace the God who fearfully and wonderfully formed me in His image; and who created me in His image so that one day, in the fullness of time, He could assume my image.  And live a perfect life in my place, representing me, representing all humanity.  And then, because He was God and death can’t hold God in the ground, rose again bodily from death as remarkably testified to by modern science to offer eternal life to any who would just believe in Him and follow Him.

Oh, yes, we went from easily disproving Richard Dawkins’ “Infinite Monkey Theorem” – that is easily falsifiable in its argument that a monkey randomly typing letters for an infinite period of time could reproduce the works of Shakespeare; to manufacturing an incredibly loaded and contrived “experiment” to prove lunacy really IS evolutionary reality, after all (that and the belief that there is no difference between a human-programmed virtual monkey which performs as programmed to perform VERSUS AN ACTUAL MONKEY); to deciding to banish Shakespeare from our universities (see also here and here to note that this is a widespread phenomenon on American college campuses) because apparently Stalin was right all along.  Because rabid intolerance is clearly our direction.

The Bible said this day would happen.  It told us the last days would happen.  They are happening today just as the God who declares the end from the beginning declared in His Word.  But the same fools who deny God to begin with refuse to accept plain reality.

God created the actual human heart, a heart capable of beating more than 100,000 times a day and more than 3 billion times as a machine the size of a fist pumps 3 supertankers (a million barrels!) worth of blood.  And I assure you that that was FAR more marvelous than the creator of the ten hearts the pictures of which I posted.

And I believe and declare that God is the LORD, and that His ways are superior to any scientist, or any rock star, or any movie actor, or any politician, or any other imposter offering himself or herself or any rival thing or idea in the place of God.  And I declare that His Word stands as true forever.  And I declare that in accordance with prophecies offered centuries in advance by a God who declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done (Isaiah 46:10), God sent His Son to live and to die in my place for my sin, and to rise gloriously again so that I can be with my Creator forever and ever.  And that every rival to that truth is a lie from the devil and from hell.

Advertisements

What REALLY Matters And How Should We Decide What Really Matters? Ask The Right Questions And Pursue The Answers With Passion!!!

September 30, 2016

How should you live your life?  What should you believe and why should you believe it?  What values should you cherish and why should you cherish them?  Is there a God, to give life meaning, or is it all just random and therefore ultimately all meaningless and purposeless and valueless?

Do you ever think about that?  You know, for longer than the commercial break at some point during your favorite television program?

So many people just never bother.

It’s kind of interesting, the question-the-Bible thing: there comes a point where someone OUGHT to have questions: giving your life to Someone Else is not an easy proposition. Even Jesus told us we need to count the cost. But there comes that point when you ask your questions and you have an open heart to an ANSWER and you have your greatest questions ANSWERED. And you decide to take your stand on what you believe, what you have come to believe is true based on your own investigation.

That’s exactly what I did.  I was raised in a Christian home, but when I was in the Army, my faith was eroded by the life I was living and then it was ultimately mangled. I got out of the Army spiritually broken. And I lived my life like a pagan for YEARS.

But the backslidden Christian is the most miserable person on the face of the earth, because on the one hand you can’t enjoy sin (because you’ve got the Holy Spirit in you constantly comparing your thoughts, words and actions to the Truth as you keep hearing a voice that says, “This is the way, walk in it“); and at the same time you aren’t living a pure, righteous life that honors God and cannot enjoy any of the benefits of the Christian life.  And so you are “double-minded, unstable in all your ways” (James 1:8); you are wavering between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21) – and you need to make up your mind and decide who or what you will follow.

I came to realize that the person who follows himself and his own path and his own way is a selfish, self-centered narcissist: let’s talk about me for a while. And let’s KEEP talking about me; in fact let’s ALWAYS talk about me and NOTHING BUT me, because that is ultimately all that is important in this universe.   Is that seriously all there is to life?  Is there nothing more?  Is there nothing beyond me that is more important than me that ought to shape who I am and who and what I become?  And I came to a point where I needed to live for something beyond me, something greater than me. Something I could marvel at.

Another thing that came to me was a simple question: if there is no God, if the evolution that I always hear about is true, then what is right and wrong, and who decides? Another way to put it is, “How can you be a bad atheist?” Now, the ONLY way you can be a “bad atheist” is to believe in God; there ARE no moral requirements to being an atheist and no possibility for any moral requirement. You are nothing but the product of your DNA and your experiences that were outside of your control; more, you think whatever the hell you think merely because the atoms in your brain randomly happened to arrange themselves however the hell they arranged themselves.

I want you to understand very clearly where I am going here: I am making the point that when you consider the Bible, or Christianity, or religion, you are NOT doing so in a vacuum.  No, you are considering one alternative from the rest of the alternatives.  And so if religion is wrong, then embrace the alternative and embrace its consequences.  And understand what those consequences are.

There IS no “right” or “wrong.”  Not if Darwinian evolution has any credibility.  And it turns out the consequences of that alternative truly matters.

Now, SOMEBODY – you know, like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or somebody like that – manufactured some rules for the entire herd to follow.  And the herd has to follow these rules.  And if you don’t follow the rules of the herd, you don’t get to be in the herd.  Or at least the herd frowns on you and says you aren’t a very good herd member.  But there are HERD animals and there are PREDATOR animals that HUNT and KILL and EAT the herd animals and do so without any shame or regret or guilt whatsoever.  And you can alter or edit or change this morality willy-nilly, it turns out – such as when Obama was opposed to gay marriage but then was suddenly for what he’d been against – his contortions are actually even worse than that – but now it is incumbent upon all humanity to get in line with Obama or else be deemed “intolerant” and “bigoted” and “hateful.”

Because whatever is deemed “politically correct” is whatever the hell somebody else says it is until it isn’t that any more.

Now, I reject Obama and his bullcrap-bogus-pseudo morality and I reject political correctness and there had BETTER be some better reason why I ought to be “moral” – whatever the hell “morality” even is – or else in the words of that song, “Let the bodies hit the floor…”

And let it be YOUR body, or the body of your wife or your kid.  Because nobody and nothing matters.  This whole universe is nothing more than something that accidentally exploded into existence and will ultimately be swallowed up by the same meaningless process of nihilism that spat it out in the first place.

Me personally, I’ve always most identified with the predatory animals. Ask me what all my favorite animals are and you won’t hear me telling you, “Well, I like sheep and cows…” Nope. I favor the wolves and the lions that chase down and kill and eat their fill and are content and happy with a lifestyle that really kills the buzz of those helpless herd animals.

So start running, herd animals.  Because we’re hot on your heels and we mean to chase you down and drag you down and end you and your morally idiotic evolution only justifies our doing it to you.

Rape.  Burn.  Slaughter.  Loot.  It matters not.  For the madman who rips out your still beating heart with his bare fingernails is no morally different than the firemen who went up the stairs to their deaths during the hell of 9/11 when everybody else was fleeing as fast as they could.

I recall the line from the movie Alien:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

Lambert: You admire it.

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

Why not be that way? Be pure, be a survivor, unclouded by bogus conscience, remorse, delusions of morality that have nothing to do with the real essence of human existence if evolution has any validity whatsoever.

Dylan Klebold, one of the infamous Columbine killers, wrote in his journal that he and his accomplice Eric Harris were “god-like” and more highly evolved than every other human being. I remember hearing one of their quotes: “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”

They wrote in their journals (and pardon the language but it is theirs and not mine): “Why give a fuck what Jesus would do?” And, “I blew off his head with one shot. I am god. He died.”

And why, indeed?  I mean, other than the fact that WWJD is a much better acronym than WGAFWJWD.

And I demand the evolutionist give me a detailed scientific answer based on a chemical analysis of our damn brain cells that definitively proves that we should not all go thou and do likewise.

Show me how the sociopath is NOT the most evolved life form.

And evolution is a farce, or you prove they HADN’T evolved beyond human morality. Because evolution teaches me why I should murder and rape and steal to get whatever I want; and it does NOT teach me why I should love or cherish or give my what is mine for the good of someone who doesn’t even share my DNA.

I could on that simple evolutionary level be very content being a serial killer, a serial rapist, tracking down, stalking and HUNTING my human prey and satiating my own lusts, my own desires, doing my own thing my own way. If I want something, I ought to steal it. I have a lust for someone, I ought to kidnap and rape. If I don’t like somebody, I ought to hunt down and kill that somebody.

I can show you scholarly articles from evolutionists talking about rape as a simple adaptation to the requirements of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Because evolution is all about spreading your DNA to the next generation – THAT’S WHAT MAKES YOU “THE FITTEST” BABY – and evolution doesn’t have any stipulations on how to do that. If it works, do it.

Last night I discovered and called in a bunch of stolen copper wire that somebody had stripped and sold. Why not?

At some point, I realized that if evolution were actually true, if there is no God who holds me accountable for my works, then anything is equally permissible. Not only is the torture-rapist-murderer no morally different from the Mother Teresa, but in fact the former is actually SUPERIOR to the latter; because the torture-rapist-murderer GOT IT and grasped the essence and the sheer absurdity of human existence and Mother Teresa was a stupid fool who made the wrong bet stupidly thinking there was some God at the end of the picture when there wasn’t. And now both people get the same dirt nap, only one of them lived their lives realizing all along that they would get that same dirt nap and lived their life consistently by that plan in a completely self-centered manner.

The sociopath is the true moral hero of Darwinism. Go thou and do likewise.

I always laugh when I hear the secular humanist and the atheist claim that religion is intolerance and mass murder.  Because they are the worst kind of ignorant fools and because the simple fact of the matter is that State Atheism has been responsible for the brutal murder of one hundred million just of their OWN people and JUST during PEACETIME alone.  Hey, you go ahead and add up the Crusades and the Inquisition and the witch burnings – which were all actually all more secular than truly coming from the Church, but that’s an argument for another day – and whatever you want – and you won’t even scratch the surface of what Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and the Kims in North Korea did in their official state atheism.  And you can really and truly rack up a giant death toll when you add in the fact that according to the members of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle, he was a self-revealed atheist as well – and he started World War II and bears the guilt of the 60 million casualties from that war.  Then add to that terrible death toll another sixty million murdered innocent human beings just in the United States alone at the hands of secular humanists in their abortion mills.  And don’t even TRY to imagine what would happen if the secular humanists truly took power, because they would deliberately wipe out the vast majority of humanity in order to achieve their insane and evil environmentalist goals.

Jesus actually taught Christians to put away their swords, to turn the other cheek, to live in peace.  Because His Way was the anathema of the Way of evolution and natural selection and survival of the fittest.

And so, confronted with a very stark choice, something in me with every fiber of my being said NO this crap that I’ve been force-fed is NOT the TRUTH. There IS a way that we should live, a right way and a WRONG way. And each must have CONSEQUENCES. And if that ISN’T so, then don’t you DARE look down and judge the torture-murder-rapist who enjoys his “work” with that screaming woman or that terrorized little child.  Because he is only doing what is in him to do. If it feels good, do it, right?  Just like the homosexuals and the abortionists and the dope users say to justify their “choices” that fly in the face of everything every culture before them previously ever believed.   There is no more wrong with what they do than what the heyena does when they chase an exhausted animal down and start literally eating it alive.  And who the hell are YOU who DON’T have that person’s DNA and DIDN’T live his life and have his however-twisted experiences to judge that person???

Because either God created me in His divine image or I am no different from all the other animals that are the same mindless product of the exact same mindless evolution.  Human beings are either the one or they are the other.  Period.

Now, I want you to realize that this wasn’t just an intellectual game for me: I got out of the Army a trained killer, a highly trained expert stalker of human beings, a soldier thoroughly trained to deploy weapons specifically engineered to exterminate human beings like bugs – and more than a little bit bitter besides – and I was at that point where I could have gone either way.  And why NOT go to the dark side unless there was a genuine, profound difference between the two sides???

Unless there is a God who truly stands above ALL of us as our Creator and has the RIGHT to make the rules for ALL of us and hold ALL of us accountable to His rules that emerge from HIS character and nature and purpose for creating us in the first place.  And I was accountable to that Creator and no eternal dirt nap: the choice is either everlasting heavenly reward or everlasting hellish suffering.  And you get to choose which.

I mean, just so you know, I was trained by my own government how to kill my fellow genus homo and species sapiens with my bare hands, with a knife, with the bayonet, with pistols, with rifles, with machine guns, with hand grenades, with grenade launchers, with mortars, with rocket launchers, with the M47 Dragon, and even with the M220 Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missle system.  Not that I have most of those things now.  And I was trained how to parachute out of a perfectly good airplane so I could – on command – kill my fellow human beings like bugs within 18 hours notice anywhere on planet earth.  The question whether I would kill other human beings wasn’t an “academic” one; if and when I was activated, I would accomplish my mission that I was trained and indoctrinated to accomplish.  And by “indoctrinated,” I mean mentally and morally conditioned to sight in on an enemy and gently squeeze the trigger.  So I can state categorically that I was a trained killer; the lion and the wolf have nothing on me.

You have likely heard that slogan, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”  I’m sure that’s not an absolute statement, but it does underscore a very valid point: soldiers are people who for the most part need to believe in absolutes and objective values and transcendence in order to function.  And that’s because, for example, we have to deal with the reality that there is indeed an “absolute” difference between being alive and being a screaming, dismembered, disemboweled pile of bloody, quivering guts.  We believe in objective values because we need to believe that we’re living and dying for some kind of ultimately meaningful purpose; we need to know our sacrifice ultimately means something.  And we tend to believe in transcendence because we are people who may have to go through that moment of knowledge that in a very short time we are going to be in a battle and we may not live through it and we want to be in heaven.  And those three reasons are why there aren’t very many atheists in foxholes.

And so it was on that background that I began my investigation as to whether or not I should believe in God and what God I should believe in if there IS a God.  And also consider the consequences if there is NOT a God.

I mean, how ought a US-government trained super-predator live?

Now, the people who lived half-ass lives, who are afraid one the one hand to be what the Obama’s and the Clinton’s who make up all the politically correct rules for society call “intolerant” or whatever, but who at the same time don’t with any passion follow God or His ways, I GOT NO TIME FOR THEM.

Maybe that disgust at those who won’t get off the fence comes from my experience serving on a team where it was “us” and “them” – and “they” were trying to kill “us” and if “us” had any desire to live whatsoever we better kill “them” first.  That’s certainly one very good way to get at the essence of how black-and-white reality truly is.

Get on one side or get on the other side, choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15). The person sitting on the middle of the teeter totter of life is totally useless. And the people who just can’t sit themselves on the ends just muck up the whole operation of the teeter totter of life.

And that’s exactly the way God designed the world: there is heaven on the one side and there is hell on the other. There isn’t any “middle place” where the useless people who never had the balls to make up their damn useless minds go.

Jesus says that there are the sheep (the righteous) and there are the goats (the wicked). He says He will divide them into two and ONLY two groups, and He will say to one, “Enter into the joy of your Master,” while to the other He will say, “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. I never knew you.”

Jesus says in the Book of Revelation, “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth! You say, ‘I am rich. I have everything I want. I don’t need a thing!’ And you don’t realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” — Revelation 3:15-17.

And yes. That’s the way it works in God’s universe.  And to quote J. Vernon McGee, “you might have a better plan than God, but what you DON’T have is your own universe.”

God wants PASSION in His pursuers. He frankly wants us to follow Him with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength and all our mind (Luke 10:27) or else hey, please don’t bother.

And so it was with that big picture – one way or the other, the light side or the dark side – that I began to investigate whether there is a God and which God I should follow if there is.

I actually gave the Darwinists their first shot. I mean, if they could prove their case, then why bother looking at useless religions that talked about fairy-tale gods???

And so I read the hot-off-the-press at-that-time atheist work, “The Blind Watchmaker,” from cover to cover.

Right off the bat, I came across this memorable quote from Dawkins:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. — The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

And Dawkins also said in The Blind Watchmaker:

“Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer…” — (p. 36)

Okay, so I’m hearing the man CONCEDE the major point that HIS SIDE has the BURDEN OF PROOF because he concedes that prima facie – on its face to be accepted as correct until proven otherwise – admission that it DOES in FACT appear self-evident that things were DESIGNED by a creator with a purpose. Just as St. Paul confirmed to believers in Romans chapter one.

And I have two arms with opposable thumbs so that I can open the stupid fridge with my right hand and take out the gallon of milk or the six pack of beer with my left hand. Design and purpose, kids.  As in design WITH a purpose.

So Dawkins told us from the outset that the burden of proof was on his side to PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that there is no Creator God and can be no Creator God. But as I read, do you know what I increasingly began to observe? That this man was an appalling moral idiot, and that what truly set him apart was the gargantuan arrogance of a genuine fool.

I found it interesting to learn that Richard Dawkins was not opposed to the idea of an “intelligent designer.”  Unless that intelligent designer turned out to be God.  Because ultimately the man is a anti-religious bigot and an intellectual hypocrite rather than any kind of scientist.

If the prima facie case rests with design and therefore Creation, then the sensible person believes that unless and until the alternative is PROVEN otherwise. And he proceeded to FAIL spectacularly by any standard outside of his own incredibly narrow-minded presupposed viewpoint that he holds a priori based on his narrow-minded speculations rather than any legitimate science.

Then I read a book that I got from the library called “Darwin’s Enigma” from a man named Luther Sunderland. And what intrigued me about that book was that it was written by a guy who had literally been hired by the state of New York for the purpose of ascertaining whether creationism was an acceptable teaching for public schools. And he talked to the leading evolutionists in the world as he compiled his research from that secular purpose. Some of the curators from the leading museums of natural history on planet earth were literally quoted as saying that evolution was NOT a legitimate scientific theory and should NOT be taught as a fact in the public schools.

So I believe as I ought to believe when I intellectually believe there is a God who intelligently designed us with a plan for His creation. And I believe what I ought to believe when I morally believe that there is a God who holds us accountable for how we live and how we act.

And then from that I began to study the world religions. I examined each one until it disqualified itself. But at the same time I had already determined that ONE of them must be the real McCoy.

I considered Buddhism and Hinduism. I considered Islam. The first two disqualified themselves on the intellectual level because who the heck instituted “reincarnation”??? Who built that thing? Who designed that system? And who made the rest of us that go through these endless cycles of reincarnation? And who was the Big Banger who made it all happen? They also failed on numerous moral grounds. You look at India and see the caste system and you know what I’m talking about; you see the millions of gods and the fact that evil and good are basically viewed as being two sides of the same coin and you see what I’m talking about.

It isn’t rocket science, kiddies.  God is either personal or impersonal: if He is personal, then Buddhism and Hinduism are false; if He is impersonal, then Christianity and Judaism and Islam are false.

And this is critical because it answers a fundamental question about the human race: either WE are personal or impersonal.  If we are personal, where do we get our personhood from?  How is it that we come to have free will?  Genesis 1:27 provides a very clear answer: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Buddhism strictly denies the existence of human beings as “selves.”  This doctrine is literally one of the three marks of existence of Buddhism: Anattā (no-self, without soul, no essence) is the nature of living beings.  The other two are Anicca (impermanence, nothing lasts) and Dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness is innate in birth, aging, death, rebirth, redeath – the Saṃsāra cycle of existence).  And scientific naturalism likewise denies the existence of the self, of the soul, of a “you” that is a permanent you, for what it’s worth.  According to these views, there IS no “you” inside you; there IS no free will; you are a strictly determined and strictly conditioned being with no soul.

Islam is mono-theistic, which is good. But from there it gets very, very bad very, very quickly. And the fact that today 99.99 percent of terrorist attackers are being committed by the most ardent followers of what Muhammad actually taught is kind of icing on that cake.  If you understand the dilemma of violence inherent within Islam – which is NOT shared by Christianity – it is frankly terrifying.  Islam specifically denies that God has a Son, so if Jesus is who the Bible declares He is, Islam is false.  And if Jesus is NOT who the Bible declares Him to be, then Christianity is false.

Each of the great religions of the world teach mutually exclusive truth claims: they can’t all be true or right.  You are a fool according to the rules of logic and reason to believe “all paths lead to the same God.”  Because no, they don’t.

And Jesus Himself ruled that politically-correct cultural relativist view that all religions were equally valid when He said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

There are literally thousands and thousands of teachers and professors with PhDs who are literally presenting their students with intellectual gibberish when they teach the pluralistic universalism that is so common today.

Now, I want you to understand; I’m not micro-nitpicking at this point on ANY of my above investigations. I’m just trying to ascertain whether or not the BIG PICTURE is true. If the big picture is false, then all the tiny little details are false, too. Or, to put it another way: if the big picture is fake, who gives a damn about whether the inconsequential details are true or not?

So when I get to Christianity, it all ends up boiling down to one simple question: did Jesus rise bodily from the dead, as His disciples claimed? What’s the evidence for that central claim of Christianity? And if that big picture claim is false, then I frankly don’t give a flying damn about the Bible. But if it’s true…?

I dedicated myself to a study of the evidence about the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And if you examine that claim with a halfway open mind, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is simply astounding and irrefutable. The bottom line comes down to this: there is simply no reasonable question that Jesus’ disciples believed with ever fiber of their being that they had seen Jesus alive after His crucifixion and death and burial. There isn’t a single New Testament scholar – Christian or secularist alike – who claims the disciples didn’t genuine believe they had seen Jesus alive. Their completely transformed lives and boldness in the face of certain persecution and even death confirms that fact. And in fact it is a historical fact that every single one of the apostles save St. John died as martyrs having traveled the known world to tell people about the Jesus they had personally seen alive after His death in confirmation of all of His claims of His deity and His purpose for coming into the world: to die for our sins and to rise again and take His sheep with Him to the Father in Heaven.

Find me one person who you know to have died for something that they knew for a fact to be false. Yes, we have a lot of Muslim “martyrs” who blow themselves up to kill “infidels” and we probably both agree these people are tragically wrong: but THEY believe what they’re doing is right and THEY believe in Allah. But you need to understand as you read the Gospel accounts: the disciples were in a unique position in human history: they were in the position to absolutely know for certain whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

And every single one of them signed in their own blood their testimony that yes, they had witnessed it with their own eyes and they were willing to therefore lay down their own lives to carry their OWN crosses (literally the instruments of their death penalties) and die for their Lord who had already died for them and given their lives and their deaths meaning.

If Jesus died and rose again from the dead, Christianity is true and everything Jesus said is true and the Christianity that He founded is true and the Bible is true and that’s that. And He did and He did and He WAS true and Christianity IS true and the Bible that He affirmed is true and that’s that.

And to a man like me, that is all I need to tell me what I should live for and how I ought to live.

That’s the big picture. But there is so much confirmation in the little tidbits, too.

Just – and I mean JUST – watched a program called “The Fall of Jericho” on the military history channel I love to watch. And I watched a drama that has been played out over and over again about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Holy Bible. I couldn’t find the transcript of the program, but here’s a link that describes in even more detail what was presented.

So Jericho. Did it happen according to what the Bible claims in the Book of Joshua? Well, you wouldn’t believe how many times “scientists” said hell no. And they said it with no legitimate archaeological basis. An archaeologist named Garstang made it his life’s work to go through the layers of cities that Jericho had been built and rebuilt on in the 1930s. And he found something fascinating in one of those layers: the walls had collapsed in EXACTLY the pattern that the Bible described in the conquest of Jericho. Well, we know that Joshua and the Israelites entered the land in the late Bronze age. In fact we know by other data the actual time of 1406 BC. So Garstang was interested in WHEN the walls had collapsed. And he started collecting and dating pottery. And according to his analysis, the date of the site was 1406BC – EXACTLY WHEN THE BIBLE SAID. So the Bible was established FACT and to the level of amazing scientific verifiability.

But hold on. A different archaeologist showed up named Kathleen Kenyon and “found” that no, the walls of Jericho had been destroyed 150 years earlier. And she used the same pottery as her primary source of dating.

Thirty years pass. For thirty years all the “scholars” and all the “scientists” sneered at the Bible. It had been factually refuted.

But a guy named Dr. Bryant Woods shows up in the 1980s. And he’s doing his PhD on pottery and decides to reopen the case that had been “rock-solid” against the Bible. He decided he was going to evaluate ALL the evidence of the pottery fragments. He tracked them all down. And to his intellectual horror he discovered that this pseudo-scientific fraud Kathleen Kenyon had not even BOTHERED to look at most of the actual evidence before arriving at her sneering bogus conclusion.  Seriously, Woods went to the museums and found that Kenyon hadn’t even examined the evidence.

And Dr. Bryant Woods CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE BIBLE WAS COMPLETELY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE IN EVERY SINGLE DETAIL THAT IT HAD AFFIRMED.

And this sneering arrogant intellectually dishonest fools’ game has been played over and over and over again with the Bible.

But the fact remains that NO archaeological find has EVER controverted a SINGLE fact presented in the Bible. It stands as completely true in all that it affirms.

The Bible remains true as the anvil of history. You can pound on it as you will, but you will die and the Word of the Living God will go on and on and on.

The Bible is beyond any doubt the best seller in the entire history of planet earth: more copies are sold every year, more are sold every single month, every single week, every single DAY, than any other book in the world. Twenty million copies of the Bible are sold each year just in the United States alone.  And that doesn’t even count the millions of copies that are given away by people who have their OWN stories of their OWN encounters with a Jesus who is STILL alive.  As an example, the Gideons alone distributes about 60 million copies of the Bible a year.

The Harry Potter series has collectively sold 500 million copies worldwide, which is truly astounding.  Unless you compare it to the more than six BILLION copies of the Bible.

The Bible is available in over 2,100 languages.  Because humanity has a passion and a hunger for the true Word of the Living God.

Richard Dawkins’ book, for the official record, is not; in fact it’s none of the above at all.

So I read the Bible with that understanding that it is THE most sacred Book in the history of the world. It ought to be given that respect because what I just stated is simply true by any objective measure. But the scoffers continue to abound and they have no respect for anything that is sacred.

But it comes down to this: people who fixate on the most minor details and then say, “See? It’s wrong, it’s ALL wrong!!!” are not wise.

Most of the time, when I hear somebody assert to me that the Bible isn’t accurate or isn’t reliable, and I ask them to give me an example, they literally cannot think of even ONE such example. Somebody at some time said something, and that was all they needed and they never bothered on their own to verify or refute a claim they just took at face value.

I simply marvel at that: your entire ETERNITY hangs on this, and you just yawn and walk away like it’s no big deal when it is the biggest deal of your existence.

My challenge to everyone is to study the questions of eternity as though your soul depends on it: because it DOES.

DON’T be a “Kathleen Kenyon” who doesn’t bother with the facts and arrives at bogus conclusions that are based on lies; be a “Bryant Wood” who carefully examines all the evidence and arrives at the truth.  Be like St. Luke the author of the Gospels and Acts, who stated, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).  Be like the Bereans, who “were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Consider Jesus.  Consider Who He was and whether He Is.

One way or another, you have to answer the ultimate questions. Is there a God? Who is He? What does He expect of us? Or is there NO god? And if not why should I bother living in accordance with a bunch of made-up politically correct gibberish and if I want something that someone else has, why shouldn’t I steal it and if somebody’s bothering me why shouldn’t I kill him or her? And who the hell does any other human being think he or she is to tell me what I should do or how I should live when it’s MY life and it will be MY eternal dirt nap and butt the hell out of my business because I’m not a herd animal, I’m a predator animal.  And your own precious evolution says we predators are every bit as evolutionarily valid as your herd animals.

Or chose Christ and choose life and experience life more abundantly instead.  Because Jesus contrasted the Way of Evolution with His Way when He said:

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” — John 10:10

Stop being double-minded, unstable in all your ways.  Stop wavering between two opinions.  Make up your mind.  Get off the fence.  Choose this day whom you will serve.

Brock Turner, Stanford, College Rape Culture, And The Liberal Progressivism That Is Responsible For All Three

September 2, 2016

So let’s start with the current story of the vile punk rapist who got a joke six-month sentence which was apparently twice as harsh as it should have been given the fact that they released him in three.

And decent people are left saying, “What the hell…?”

And the ONLY reason liberals are angry is because women constitute one of the perennial victim classes that make up the left.  And how dare you prey on one of our victim classes when it is our coalition of victim classes that is supposed to be able to ride political correctness to exploit everyone else instead?

I recently read an LA Times op ed titled, “Understanding the Nate Parker scandal” by Michael Eric Dyson in which the author rehashes every leftist slogan as he tries to swim through the waters of liberal butthurt women and black butthurt activists who both demand that their sacred cows remain sacred.  I mean, gosh, they’re both such victims, and what happens when one liberal protected victim class preys on another liberal victim class?  It’s GOT to be the white man’s fault; it’s just GOT to.  So the conclusion of the article would seem to be that every time a black man rapes a white woman, a white male should do hard, painful time for it.  Because otherwise the piece was a load of patronizing leftist drivel.

Allow me to dive in – since this is a story about a rapist swimmer – and offer my own op ed on the gist of this despicable story.  Brock Turner is an entitled punk who doesn’t believe he should be held responsible for his own actions; Stanford is one of the most leftist liberal progressive major universities in the nation, and “college rape culture” is the inevitable result of leftist Darwinian values, in that order.

We start with this pathetic little worm Brock Turner and the sense of entitlement that permeates his little roach soul.  The view is, “If I want something, someone else should provide it for me.”  You know, like if I want your money, I should vote for the government to confiscate it from hard-working people and redistribute it to me.  As I will say throughout here, it’s just the exact same entitlement worldview on a different entitlement stage.  I want your hard-earned money and you won’t give it up to me unless I redistribute it to myself; I want your sex and you won’t give it to me unless I can redistribute your unconscious body behind a dumpster.  Either way, I’m taking something that isn’t mine, and I ought to be able to do it because after all, I’m entitled and somebody somewhere owes me what I want but can’t obtain the honest way by legitimately working for it.

“Affluenza” is the latest form of stupid entitlement excuses.  It wasn’t Brock Turner’s fault, it was “the whole rotten village,” right?  But ALL of these damn excuses are vile.  “I did it because I’m rich and white” is no more morally shame-worthy of an excuse than “I did it because I’m poor and black.”  And I simply state for the record that accepting the latter entitlement excuse guaranteed that the former one would ultimately succeed, too.  So black writer Michael Eric Dyson, trying to explain or better-yet explain away Nate Parker’s behavior, blames it on “jock culture” and “male privilege.”  How about you did it because you’re a bad person and you’re going to pay the consequences of your depraved actions?

If you live by victim mentality, you ought to die by victim mentality.  Because sooner or later, you whiny victim, there will come a more whiny victim than you.  And so now the feminists who “fundamentally transformed” women into a victim class are aghast and appalled because male rapists are themselves victims.

It’s like liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who falsely claimed special status because she believes that somewhere in her family ancestry going back to the dinosaurs, somebody was a Native American.  It’s like that, because somewhere sometime I was a victim of something.  And I’m not responsible because after all, I’m a victim and I’ve got the entitled whining to prove it.

And thank you, liberalism.  That whole load of crap would have been impossible without the toxic pile of fecal matter that is your worldview.

So our rapist swimmer went to Stanford, of course.  Where else would a whiny liberal puke go?

Now, consider the “college culture” and whose damn culture it is:

Liberal Colleges

That’s political donations.  Now consider the faculties of these indoctrination centers:

If you’ve spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren’t surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.

Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as “moderate” fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of “conservative” and “far-right” professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time.

Let’s put it in terms of the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powel claims he told Bush before he went into Iraq: “You break it, you bought it.”

The college “rape culture” is out of control.  And you’ll find that “over the same period” that liberalism came to so entirely dominate college/university culture, rape culture came right along with it.

On the liberal diatribe, conservatives are warmongers.  How dare we want to fight back against terrorists who want to burn us alive?  Obama’s 1,900 percent increase in terrorism is surely much more peaceful, right?  But by that same diatribe that brought Obama to power, liberals are rapists.  The more liberal you are, the more rapist you are, and vice versa.

This is no accident.  It is literally a scientific progression, as I’ve described before:

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because – and I quote – “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

One incredibly interesting read calls this “Darwin’s Dirty Secret.”

Let’s call it the ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT EXCUSE: “I’m a rapist because I evolved that way.”

And progressive liberals “evolved” to become the most closed-minded, rabidly intolerant fascists there are.

Liberal progressivism is intellectual godlessness, and to put it in terms of Obama’s incredibly hypocritical debt, intellectual godlessness leads to moral godlessness 20 trillion times out of 20 trillion times.

If you can murder a baby, you can certainly whitewash away the act that led to the creation of that baby.

I love the Word of God, which is WHY I so passionately reject liberal progressivism which is so totally the denial of the Word of God and the God of the Bible as it is dominated by secular humanism, atheism, Darwinism, postmodernism, existentialism, behaviorism and every other vile form of “-ism” there is.  God’s Word declares:

  • Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from God – Colossians 2:8
  • Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. – Romans 1:22
  • … always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  – 2 Timothy 3:7

Whatever progressive liberalism touches, it infects with cancer.  It touched Brock Turner, just as it touched our societal acceptance of drugs and alcohol, touched our abandonment of God and His morality in favor of the amoral nihilism of Darwinism, touched the embrace of personal responsibility and replaced it with the denial of the same and the embrace of the entitlement and victimhood mindset.

You “carry your rape genes,” liberal; I’ll carry my Bible.

And the empirical fact of the matter is that the morality that comes from my Bible is so vastly superior to the depraved bile that comes out of your university system that it is far more beyond belief than the belief in God that you so ardently deny.

 

 

 

 

Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?

May 22, 2014

One of the things that makes living a moral life – keeping the 10 commandments – discouraging and disheartening these days is the fact that people all around us are NOT keeping them.  If you’ve been around kids you know how kids invariably look at other kids as the measure of what should and shouldn’t be okay.  When exasperated children say, “But all the other kids are doing it!” parents offer the knee-jerk response: “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”  And that’s a valid point, of course.  But your kid isn’t asking to jump off a cliff; he’s asking to stay out late or he’s asking to go to a concert or something else that he simply doesn’t view as tantamount to leaping off a cliff to his certain death.  What that child sees is a fun thing that the other kids are doing that he can’t do, and as a child who has himself been confronted with “the cliff” question, I can tell you that it might end the argument but it hardly ends a kid’s angst.

It would be a very different world if someone received heavenly electroshocks from God every single time they violated the 10 commandments.  But that isn’t the way it happens.  David and later Jeremiah famously asked the question we’ve all likely asked at one time or another: “Why do the wicked prosper?”

It’s not merely that so many people break God’s laws all around us and seem to get away with it and even seem to get rewarded for it that creates discouragement, however.  It’s also that there is an entire worldview that explains this apparent state in terms of a presentation that God’s laws aren’t really even “laws” at all but merely intolerant edicts written by intolerant, superstitious and frankly bigoted human beings who invented God as a means to control and dominate people.  Sometimes it very much seems like the whole world system has been designed to confuse and discourage God’s people into wondering why we bother to follow God’s commands.  In place of God today we are instead being offered a Darwinian system of evolution that is being held up as “science” and therefore beyond question.

We’ve all heard about the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  And it occurred to me that it would be interesting to explore them from the viewpoint of Darwinian evolution – consistently applied – and see how the results strike your moral intuitions.  I submit to you that sometimes the best way to finally put your trust on God’s system is to consider the results of man’s systems and see their end.  That’s ultimately how David began to receive his answer to his question of why the wicked prosper: in verse 17 of Psalm 73 David said, “then I understood their final destiny.”  We need to be able to do that with Darwinism.

When Jesus Christ and His Word are your source for ideas, you simply do not need to be afraid of the competition.  The best antidote to all the lies that surround us is the truth.  And so I would like to take some time to survey the truth: the truth about science and where it came from; the truth about some very interesting issues in which science is surprisingly ignorant; the truth about a giant flaw in Darwin’s presentation; and finally an examination of what Darwinian “ethics” would look like to show you its end.  And what I want you to see is that God’s law makes absolute sense in light of its vicious Darwinian competition.

So I begin with the origin of science: how did we get science?  Should we view it as incompatible with Christianity?  Well, it turns out that we got science from Christianity.  Here’s an interesting fact I link to in my notes: The scientific method itself and the founder of virtually every single branch of modern science was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian.  Dr. Rodney Stark, a sociologist, “researched the leading scientists from 1543 [– the beginning of the scientific revolution –] to 1680 and found that of the top 52 scientists, one was a skeptic, one was a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.”  We find that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who designed an orderly and law-abiding universe and earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  And that is frankly why 106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions.  My point is this: is Christianity at war with the essence of science?  NO!  Atheism is at war with the essence of science.  It is simply a demonstrable lie that legitimate science is at odds with Christianity; and this lie should not trouble you no matter how often you hear the lie or who repeats it.

There’s another myth that I would like to briefly examine; and that is the myth of science as some monolithic field that has answered all of the profoundly important questions.  That is how it is frequently presented in the media; but when you listen to scientists themselves you get a very different story.  I’ve recently began watching a Science Channel program called “Through the Wormhole.”  And I’ve been shocked at just how little science genuinely knows when the scientists and not the news media discuss science.

For example, take black holes:  We find that “black holes are places where the accepted laws of physics break down.”  Dr. Gabor Kunstatter of the University of Winnipeg physics department, defines black holes as a “a tiny region of space where the known laws of physics break down.”  It turns out that every system of physics known to man – Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory – all are falsified inside black holes.  And by the way, this is kind of a big deal because there are something like 100 million black holes in our galaxy.  It’s simply not true to claim that science accounts for all reality.  It simply doesn’t.

Here’s another one that surprised me.  If you try to reconcile Einstein’s relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a strange thing happens: you’re left with an equation that has no ‘t’ variable for time.  Time gets cancelled out of any equation that tries to harmonize these two widely held theories.  Since this runs counter to observable reality, most scientists rightly believe that quantum physics and relatively theory “don’t play well together.”  In fact, they invalidate one another.  It is rather astonishing that modern physics can’t account for something as basic to human existence as time.  But some physicists are so determined to believe their theories that they literally argue that if their equations says time doesn’t exist, then time doesn’t exist.  I laughed as a Rutgers University philosopher of physics named Tim Madulin explained that these guys are spending way too much time with numbers and not enough time with reality.  But that’s what is going on far too often in what is passing for “science” today – especially evolutionary science.

How about this one: 95% of the universe that physicists depend on for their theories is MISSING.  “An enormous chunk of the Universe seems to be invisible. We can’t see it, hear it, or detect it in any way… To crack the cosmic code that underlies our Universe, we have to understand energy in all its forms. But what if almost 95% of the Universe is made of a form of energy we can’t see and don’t understand?”  The 95% of the universe that they can’t detect in any way is there because it HAS to be there for their theories to hold up.

Here’s another one  – and it’s actually quite a doozy: the Big Bang.  99.9% of working scientists in relevant fields of astronomy accept the Big Bang.  But taking what had to happen into account, what is the likelihood of a life-supporting universe coming into existence by chance?  Think about it: there’s nothing, there’s nothing, there’s nothing.  And then POOF! There’s everything.  Just what are the odds of something like that just happening by chance?  According to the great mathematician Roger Penrose, who calculated the odds of what had to happen for the Big Bang, the odds against such an occurrence happening by chance were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.  How big of a number against the Big Bang happening by chance is that?  I’ll let well-known theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton – who is an atheist, by the way – tell you. From “Through the Wormhole”: “The seed of this idea was planted many years ago when she realized she had a problem with the Universe – a pretty big problem. According to her calculations, the Universe should not exist. “The chances to start the Universe with the high-energy Big Bang are one in 10 with another 10 zeros behind it and another 123 zeros behind it. So, pretty much, zero.”  As a result of these odds, Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper proposing what she acknowledged to be a “highly speculative” theory denying Big Bang cosmology which might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system.

The big problem with the Big Bang is that the Big Bang requires a Big Banger.  All matter, all energy, all space and all time came into existence.  You need somebody to make that “POOF” happen – someone who Himself is not limited by matter, energy, space or time.  Only the Bible identifies Him:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  We need that Guy.  We need God.

The strongest argument against “science” disproving the existence of God is SCIENCE.

Let me leave you with one last example right out of the Bible: Jeremiah 33:22 records a statement by God that the stars in the sky are “countless.”  That may not sound like that big of a deal, but consider: In 128BC Hipparchus claimed to have counted the stars, with their number being 1,026.  That number stood as the official count of the stars of the sky for seventeen hundred years until 1600AD, when Kepler counted the stars and concluded that Hipparchus had double-counted some: and the updated number was 1,005 stars.  Was God wrong?  Well, with the aid of the Hubble telescope scientists now estimate that there are 70 sextillion – that’s a number followed by 21 zeroes – stars in over 1 billion galaxies.  And that number actually exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the seashores on earth, to complete the proof of Jeremiah 33.

We don’t have to be afraid to debate the truth.  We don’t have to be afraid of the facts.  We don’t have to play games with the numbers and the evidence in order to support our faith.  THAT’S WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DO.  Another way to put it is this: don’t let science or anything else tell you how to read your Bible.  Because you are a LOT more warranted to let your Bible tell you how to read everything else.

So with that as a primer, let’s begin to contemplate Charles Darwin and his Darwinian evolution. There is one primary reason that Darwinism is accepted as a “valid scientific theory” and “Creationism” or even “Intelligent Design” is not so accepted: and that is that we’re told that Darwinism passes the bar of being “testable” or “falsifiable” but theories that depend on God in any way are NOT so testable or falsifiable.  We’re told that we can’t put a Creator God under a microscope and observe Him creating.  But let me show you how utterly fallacious that standard is by showing you Darwin’s “test” for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Well, Darwin himself said the eye as a refutation of his theory gave him cold fits.  He wrote in a letter: “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable.  The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  A couple of things leap out of that: the first thing is that Darwin is clearly not an objective scientist who is willing to go wherever the evidence leads; he is passionately determined to get God out of the picture.  It makes him literally “cold” and “sick” to see any evidence of a Designer, doesn’t it?  With that said, let’s talk about Darwin’s own dilemma with the eye.  The thing about an eye is that it doesn’t work unless all the components are properly in place.  It’s not like you can grow an eyeball but not have any optical nerves and still see a little bit.  You’ve either got the whole eye or you’ve got squat.  I read Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker during a period when I was genuinely doubting whether God really existed or not.  And when I saw his account of how the eye developed a little tiny bit at a time, it was a laugher for me, even being the skeptic that I was.  On his account, the first eye began to form from a photoreceptor cell on a depression in some early creature’s body – as though we all need to go home and check our belly buttons every day lest an eye is starting to grow out of it.  And as Dawkins presented this bizarre story of how the eye formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” his story just got worse and worse.  It amounted to a fairy-tale for atheists.  It had to happen this way to keep God out of the picture, so that’s clearly how it happened no matter how implausible or even ridiculous it sounds.

And it actually gets WORSE for Darwinists, because we now know that the cell is filled with incredible tiny machines that all have to be present in a cell in order for that cell to work.  And scientists point out that it would take a good 50 times even the 4.6 billion of years earth has supposedly existed for random chance to manufacture just one useful protein for even the simplest bacteria cell.  That’s not amoeba to man; “numerous, successive, slight modifications” can’t even get Darwinism to a bacteria cell!  We now know a lot more about what the Bible describes: that we are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” just as Psalm 139:14

But there is actually an even more glaring problem with Darwin’s “falsifiability” than most Christian thinkers have attacked.  Let’s look at the Darwin’s falsifiability standard again: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  That is a nearly impossible standard to defeat: we have to prove something is absolutely impossible.  But let me try doing the same thing with my Creationist theory so you can see the bait-and-switch that’s going on here: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly been formed by God, my Creation theory would absolutely break down.”  My point is that Creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out without any consideration by the modern scientific establishment because they are “not falsifiable” when the Darwinism that they want to embrace is actually no more falsifiable than our Creation theories are.  The only difference is that when atheists tell their stories about how time and chance and random mutation managed to pull off one impossible miracle after another, OUR STORIES MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE!  You need to understand that there is a true spirit of delusion and hypocrisy at work in our world.

So science itself originated out of Christian thought on fundamentally Christian precepts of intelligence and design and the science that arose out of and because of Christianity clearly isn’t incompatible with Christianity; so science really truly doesn’t know that much about the ultimate nature of the universe and what it DOES know confirms rather than contradicts that our universe and life itself was the product of supernatural Intelligent Design; and so Darwinism amounts to an atheist polemic that has support merely because it illegitimately rules out its rivals on utterly fraudulent grounds.  Are you with me so far?

With all of that as our backdrop, let us now ponder the implications of Darwinian morality.  As a young man with a mangled faith, wondering if God truly existed and cared about how I lived, I realized something: if evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no such thing as human morality, either.  And I literally not only could but frankly ought to have been utterly amoral if that was the case.  As soon as that thought occurred to me, however, it frightened me far more than it reassured me.  Because I had not been raised to be amoral.  Everything I had been taught in my entire life up to that point had directed me to believing in right and wrong.  And it was a dark thought indeed that there was no God and morality flowed from Darwinism.  Because Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinists want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

I like to watch nature programs on TV, although it is often hard – because the stories end so bleakly.  In one episode, I watched a dominant female baboon whose had baby died because she couldn’t produce milk snatch the baby of a healthy mother.  And of course that baby died because the dominant baboon female couldn’t produce any milk but wouldn’t return it to its mother.  In another program, I watched a lion cub get trampled by buffalo when the herd suddenly changed direction; its pelvis was crushed and it was dragging itself around by its front lets with its hind legs useless.  What happened?  Was there a lion welfare program?  No.  The mother and its siblings and the pride abandoned it after a few days, and it surely died horribly.  Because in nature the weak, the sick and the injured are a liability and even a threat to the rest of society and they should die so the strong can live.  That’s the way the world often is in the aftermath of the Fall.

Have you ever wondered why God allows animal suffering like that?  Let me offer an answer: because God wants us to look at the animals and see that He created us different.  We are NOT animals; we are made in the image of a rational, moral God.  And we should not live or think like beings lacking the Imago Dei.

Now, in the time that I have left, let me finally get to the essence of the 10 Commandments.  God told Israel in Exodus 20:2, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery .“  Allow me to restate that in a slightly different way: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you OUT” of that animal state of bondage.  You will NOT live like animals in some Darwinian state; instead you will live like My people whom I created and whom I love and hold to a higher standard than any beast of the field.

Why is it that the first five commandments focus on man’s relationship to God?  Today, our government schools are trying to abandon the commandments focusing on God but somehow keep the ethics of the last five.  A US District Court Judge actually tried to cut the Ten Commandments down to six.  One pastor recently preached on that and said, “The educators are attempting to enact the ethics of the second half of the Ten Commandments which have to do with not lying, stealing, etc. without taking heed to the first half!  They are trying to teach young men and women how to love their neighbor without first training them to love God!  All such attempts will fall short, because unless you first love God, and have God living in you, it is not possible to live out his character, which is what loving your neighbor is all about.”

In light of what you have just heard on Darwinism, let me sing the same song again: because we are NOT to live like animals; we are NOT to live like a bunch of creatures who invent our own meanings and values for ourselves; instead we ARE to live in the light of our relationship to our Creator from which our love for our neighbor flows.  We are to live up to the image of God in us as humans.  And frankly if we truly love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, and if we truly have the love of God in Christ in our hearts, we cannot help but love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It flows out of us like water flows out of a spring.

There’s a powerful reason for this: it derives from the fact that community is central to the heart of the Trinity.  There’s a theological term in Greek called “Perichoresis.”  It means, “to dance around.” The divine dance within the Trinity.  It derives from passages such as John 14:10, in which Jesus asked, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”  The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.  The Father loves the Son and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit cooperate together to bring joy to the Father.  You have every element within the Trinity that you need to have complete community.  God did not have to invent community the way man invented the wheel; community was central to the heart of God.

You can’t give what you don’t have.  If God were strictly one in the most rigorous sense, as Allah is in Islam, where would we get true, genuine community?  When God created man in His own image, according to Genesis 1:27, how was it that Adam and Eve were relational and communal beings unless community were an essential part of the essence of the God who had created them?  When you love your neighbor as you love yourself, as taught in both the Ten Commandments and by Jesus, what else are you doing but modeling the love that was essential to the “divine dance” of the Godhead before the Creation of the world?

You don’t get that from Darwinism.  In fact, you don’t get anything good from Darwinism at all.

In allowing the demonic doctrine of Darwinism, God allowed a very stark contrast between His way and the way of fallen man.  Joshua told the Israelites in Joshua 24:15, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.”  And like the Israelites of old, we too have a choice to make.  The resurrected Jesus tells the Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!  So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”  We need to stop living with one foot in the “survival of the fittest” world of Darwin and the other foot in the “love your neighbor as yourself” world of Jesus and truly choose this day whom we will serve.  There is a gigantic gulf between the “vicious animal” world of Darwinism and the “image of God” world of Christianity.  There are two natures – the selfish animal nature of Darwinism and the selfless divine nature of God – that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to one another.  And they are at war within you.

The Ten Commandments as Jesus taught were not given to the descendants of animals, as Darwinism teaches; they were given to the children of God who love Him and want His love to flow through them to others.

Let’s pray that we may be radical followers of the Ten Commandments as they were taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  It’s evolution vs. the Ten Commandments; it’s Darwin vs. Jesus.  Who will be the true winner in your life?

False Prophets Of Global Warming Wrong As Their Bogus Pseudo-Science Proves Again

April 30, 2011

Let’s see.  Here’s what the global warming alarmists were saying a few years ago:

Study links more hurricanes, climate change
Updated 7/30/2007 12:12 PM
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

The number of hurricanes that develop each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday.

“We’re seeing a quite substantial increase in hurricanes over the last century, very closely related to increases in sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean,” says study author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Working with hurricane researcher Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, Holland looked at sea records from 1855 to 2005 in a study published in the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase.

The reality can be summed up in a single pithy statement:

Barring a freak storm, on June 10 it will have been 1,000 days since any hurricane struck the US. The longest period since before the Civil War.

This “inconvenient truth” was first raised back in October 2010.

Now the same global warming alarmist industry that said that the reason it was so cold last year was because it is really so hot are saying that the global warming they said meant more hurricanes now means that there will be less hurricanes.

It’s that old story:  This is liberalism.  This is your brain on liberalism:

But hey, global warming is just a fact.  Every rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth liberal and every mainstream-media-propagandist and every government-payrolled-“scientist” will tell you that.

We need to gut our economy and redistribute our wealth and create a Marxist-fascist global tyrant state to solve our global warming agenda.  We need to kill our babies so the global warming bogeyman doesn’t kill the earth.  We need four more years of Obama so he can heal the planet and lower the level of the oceans.

Global warming and Darwinism have a lot in common.  Both have routinely been endlessly adapted to explain everything, and therefore actually can’t legitimately explain anything.  Both have been routinely held up as being beyond the need for proof.  Both would have been thoroughly disproven if “proof” were ever actually an issue.  Adherents of both Darwinism and global warming (and they are to a large extent the same people) have resorted to literally fascist tactics to ridicule, demonize and destroy scientists who have disagreed.  Both are no longer scientific theories as much as they are all-encompassing worldivews, if not religions.  As such, both are seized upon by the left as a guise toward even worse ideologies as they seek to take over society.  The similarities are really quite remarkable.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

March 24, 2011

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

September 27, 2010

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again

November 29, 2009

Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

“For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” [page 175].

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“The war is going to be over.  The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem.  It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” [From Hitler’s Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.