Templestream

Vilenkin's Math Supports Creation Model of Universe

2012-01-24T21:46:00.000-08:00

Ukrainian-born cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has introduced mathematical formulas that basically imply the universe was created ex nihilo. As I've searched the Internet, I haven't found one mainstream news source covering the deeper implications of this story. The mainstream media somehow does not consider this interesting news. But, at least New Scientist is willing to call it what it is, "The Genesis Problem".[1] It may be that mainstream news is so committed to the secular humanist worldview that any discoveries that contradict this position simply are unacceptable.

The occasion for the significant announcement was Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday celebration which was entitled "State of the Universe" and featured a prerecorded message from Stephen Hawking who was too ill to attend a scientific forum in person. If you remember, there was quite a bit of hoopla in the media in 2010 when Hawking declared in his book, The Grand Design, that there was no need for God 'because we have the laws of physics.' But compare a quote from his book in 2010 with his quote from January 11, 2012:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," - Stephen Hawking, 2010.[2]

"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," - Stephen Hawking, 2012.[3]

Hawking's statement on January 11, 2012 implies that the ultimate beginning of the universe was a cosmic singularity. His comment also reveals his commitment to methodological naturalism over math. According to Hawking's logic, if the math shows there must have been a creation event, it must mean that 'science broke down' and is neither reliable nor practical. In reality, it appears it is Hawking's methodological naturalism that "broke down" under the burden of a simple scientific discovery. A truly objective scientist follows the math wherever it may lead, without respect to ideological philosophical commitments. Often a major paradigm shift is required, a 'Copernican revolution' of sorts, when a radical new significant scientific discovery is confirmed.

John Lennox of Oxford University has outlined the obvious: “… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions."[4]

Alexander Vilenkin

Unlike Hawking, Vilenkin was able to swallow some humble pie and admit that his previous estimations regarding the universe were wrong. Vilinken had written numerous papers supporting the possibility of Multiverse and parallel universes, but his new equations refute these theories.

At Vilenkin's profile at Tufts university, hard work and open-mindedness are highlighted as two of his main characteristics:

"I think it's like any job. Most of it is not very glamorous. Much of it is just doing hard calculations. Like any scientist, to be successful you really have to be obsessed with what you're doing; otherwise you wouldn't spend all these hours banging your head against the wall and doing the calculations. But when you really understand something, and you finally see the thing in a different light and you learn something about the universe, it's extremely exciting."[5]

For theists who accept the logic of a Creator, the mathematical evidence of a cosmological singularity is not a surprise. The cone which represents this model is quite easy to understand. Time, space and matter had a beginning. The implications of a 'creation moment' are, of course, that there is a Creator. For those who reject the possibility of God's existence, this is, of course, a very uncomfortable cone. It's like the cone I had to put on my pet dog to keep her from chewing on her stitches. For the atheist this kind of news wounds the proud belief that mankind is self sufficient and in need of no God or a redeemer. The website Creation Evolution Headlines has outlined the refutations Vilenkin has recently offered:

Eternal inflation: Built on Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal, this model imagines bubble universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever. Vilenkin and Guth had debunked this idea as recently as 2003. The equations still require a boundary in the past.
Eternal cycles: A universe that bounces endlessly from expansion to contraction has a certain appeal to some, but it won’t work either. “Disorder increases with time,” Grossman explained. “So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered.” Logically, then, if there had already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe would already been in a state of maximum disorder, even if the universe gets bigger with each bounce. Scratch that model.
Eternal egg: One last holdout was the “cosmic egg” model that has the universe hatching out of some eternally-existing static state. “Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” No way could the egg be eternal.[6]

For more information on this subject, see the following articles:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event.html

Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i15/e151301

References

[1] New Scientist, The Genesis problem, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html
[2] The Guardian, Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator
[3] Uncommon Descent, A real beginning to the universe? Cosmologist Vilenkin didn’t always give “the worst birthday gifts ever” …, http://www.uncommondescent.com/cosmology/a-real-beginning-to-the-universe-cosmologist-vilenkin-didnt-always-give-the-worst-birthday-gifts-ever/
[4] Daily Mail, As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
[5] Tufts University, Alexander Vilenkin's profile, http://www.tufts.edu/home/feature/?p=vilenkin
[6] Creation Evolution Headlines , Cosmologists Forced to “In the Beginning”, http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/

Search terms

Scientific proof of God's existence
Copernican revolution
Paradigm shift
The Genesis problem
Alexander Vilenkin proves universe had a beginning

Banned Christian Billboard Highlights Illogical Legal Decision

2012-01-19T22:12:00.000-08:00

A church in South Africa has had a billboard banned by the government because it is considered 'too offensive' for atheists. What's interesting to me is that the ruling by the authorities is based upon an illogical claim and underscores the truth of- and the need for the billboard.

The ruling stated: 'In essence, the complainant submitted that the billboard offends him as an atheist as he does not consider his existence to be an accident."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087778/Churchs-anti-atheist-billboard-banned-advertising-watchdog.html

Excuse me, but that is what materialist atheists ultimately do believe, that the universe was formed in a completely undirected, purposeless beginning. While some may argue that natural selection is a 'guided process,' this does not account for the beginning of life and the extremely fine-tuned universe.

The complaint filed by the atheist is based on the atheist's being personally offended by what is essentially a true statement, that atheism is ultimately based on the idea of a chance beginning of the universe and life. The universe was designed or it was not. It was intentional or it was accidental. According to Webster's dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary, an accident is an unplanned event:

"a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

"2. something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance. Their early arrival was just an accident."

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accident

There are three possible explanations for our fine-tuned universe:

1. The fine tuned universe happened by necessity.
2. It happened by chance.
3. It happened by design.

1. No one seriously believes the universe had to form together in a life sustaining fashion - meaning that it was impossible for it to form in a non-life sustaining fashion. No serious philosophers defend this position today.

2. Atheists generally propose that it was formed by chance. But is this logical?

Roger Penrose has pointed out that the odds of our universe's initial low entropy condition's existing by chance alone is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (123) power and the odds of our solar system existing by chance is 1 out of 10 to the 10 (60) power.

Some atheists argue that the universe could have formed together in a variety of different combinations with the same elementary particles. But William Lane Crag has explained why this argument is invalid. The elementary particles that comprise our universe aren't composed of matter. That is what quantum physics shows us. When you break matter down you find that energy, not matter, is the smallest common denominator. Therefore, these 'particles' could not have just been rearranged in a different manner. If you want to propose that different kinds of particles could have existed, then a different kind of universe would have emerged. (On Guard - p.61)

So, in review, why was the atheist so offended by the word "accident" in the billboard? According to atheism there is no God and so the universe could not have been planned. And, as we've seen, the evidence shows a chance occurring universe simply isn't the most logical conclusion. So, is this a hateful message in the billboard? No, it's actually one of compassion. When a person is in a state of denial, according to programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the most compassionate act is to patiently confront the person in denial with the truth. But, of course in our politically correct world, this billboard is labelled as the opposite of what it is, it's labelled as "hate speech.."

From a legal perspective, if a legal ruling is based on an illogical claim, then the legal decision itself is illogical. It's a fine day when reality takes a second seat to what a person 'considers' to be true in a legal decision. The atheist does not "consider" his existence to be an accident, but we had better not offend him by allowing a billboard to outline the truth of the matter. It's apparent to the complaining atheist that an accidental origin is somehow not a good or logical basis for the universe and human existence. But instead of considering changing his beliefs, it is the implications of reality that apparently must be censored out of sight and out of mind.

This legal case highlights the fact that the person who did the complaining and the legal authorities who executed the illogical judgment really do need to sit down in front of the billboard and contemplate it until they understand what atheism is and what it implies.

Psalm 14.1 sums it up: ...The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Search terms

Atheist censorship of Christianity

Atheism is illogical

Banned Christian billboard

Blog's Most Encouraging News and Posts of 2011

2012-01-15T09:16:00.000-08:00

With so much uncertainty and negative news in the world today, it's important to take time to focus on uplifting news as well as critical news. The following five stories highlight positive Christian news posted at this blog in 2011:

1. In August 2011, researchers affirmed the serious negative health effects of bitterness. This news helped confirm the previously reported powerful health effects of forgiveness, which in turn helps to confirm the truth of the gospel. The beauty and challenge of forgiveness are highlighted in the Christmas message, article linked.

2. A scientific study published November 23 highlighted how thankfulness leads to significant increases in health and happiness. This discovery runs counter to the evolutionary paradigm and helps support an evidential proof of God's existence, linked.

3. The top atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins, declined to debate the top Christian apologist, William Lane Craig. The debate challenge and reaction are noted in this article, linked. The fallout of the debate dodging is noted in this article, linked.

4. The top 20 atheist bloggers on the Internet declined a friendly challenge to refute a proof of God's existence by critiquing an article. Many atheists have attempted to refute the argument, but no effective challenges have been launched to date. The challenge is outlined in this article, linked.

5. The Bible was a high-trending subject in Google trends in 2011 when lead codices from the first century were discovered which support the historicity of the biblical record of Jesus Christ, in this article, linked.

Search Terms

Encouraging Christian news
Uplifting Christian news
Inspiring Christian news of 2011
Top Christian news of 2011

Top Uncensored News: One and Ten Year Review

2012-01-06T22:08:00.000-08:00

I. No longer just theories: The top 10 conspiracy facts of 2011

(NaturalNews) 2011 was the year in which many conspiracy “theories” became conspiracy FACTS. Articles that used to earn you a tinfoil hat designation suddenly were front-page news stories across the country. The world is stranger than we can imagine, it seems, and 2011 proved it yet again.
Here are the top ten conspiracy facts that emerged over the last year:

#1 – Obama admits U.S. government used Guatemalan prisoners for illegal medical experiments

When we exposed the U.S. government’s long list of medical crimes against humanity back in 2006, the mainstream media was silent (http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html). People insisted the government was ethical and honest, and it could never be involved in crimes against humanity. (ROFL!) When the truth came out about Guatemalan prisoner experiments, however, it went viral so quickly the mainstream media couldn’t whitewash the story.
So now, the whole world knows the U.S. government and its National Institutes of Health (NIH) are medical criminals that murder innocent human beings in order to study new drugs for Big Pharma:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033483_G…

#2 – FDA caught using KGB-style infiltration and spying techniques to entrap raw milk distribution hub

It’s legal to sell unpasteurized orange juice in America as long as you put a label on it, but selling unpasteurized milk earns you the “KGB treatment” from the FDA and the California Dept. of Agriculture, both of which have become criminal gangs running vindictive vengeance campaigns against target innocents. NaturalNews broke the story of how the FDA used spy cameras, secret infiltration techniques and other traps to gather evidence before raiding Rawesome Foods at gunpoint, then destroying $50,000+ in food in front of astonished witnesses.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033428_F…

#3 – Institute of Medicine’s links with military industrial complex exposed by NaturalNews

In yet another investigative story that NaturalNews broke in 2011, we dug into the funding sources of the Institute of Medicine and discovered it receives enormous financial support from the Pentagon, military defense contractors and numerous globalist organizations that profit from war. No wonder the IOM promotes vaccines so aggressively — it’s a war against humanity, waged one syringe at a time. Read more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_I…

#4 – USDA caught running animal mass murder programs to kill birds and mammals

To the shock of many, the USDA was exposed this year for operating mass-murder programs that target animals such as birds, foxes, wild pigs and other creatures. This is primarily accomplished with mass poisoning chemicals that also end up killing other animals such as Bald Eagles.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031076_U…

#5 – Weather control technology confirmed and functional near Abu Dhabi

Mention “weather control technology” to your average fluoride head, and they think you’re some kind of “wingnut” conspiracy theorist. Yet weather control technology is in full operation just outside Abu Dhabi, where a huge array of negative ion generators produce artificial rain storms that dump millions of gallons of fresh water on the desert landscape:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030998_w…

#6 – InfoWars releases hidden camera water fluoridation video

Let there be no doubt about how dangerous, corrosive and even deadly those toxic fluoride chemicals really are. Alex Jones and the InfoWars team grabbed undercover water fluoridation video in Austin, Texas, and posted it on the internet. What’s admitted on the video should be shocking to everyone:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033753_w…

#7 – Documents prove Dr. Wakefield was innocent, BMJ conspired to discredit him

In a turn of events that has yet to be acknowledged by the mainstream media, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was proven innocent of the spurious charges leveled against him. Documents prove that he did not fabricate his research as was claimed by the medical journals and the mainstream media, including CNN. In fact, the accusation itself was the real criminal fabrication.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_D…

#8 – USDA conspires with Monsanto to de-regulate GE alfalfa

There’s nothing quite like GMOs to slow-kill an entire nation. You get increased infertility, organ toxicity and runaway environmental contamination, too. In 2011, the USDA went all out on attacking the world with GMOs, unleashing both GE alfalfa and GE corn on the U.S. public:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031139_G…
GE corn:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031359_G…

#9 – FDA admits factory-produced chicken meat contains arsenic

In 2011, the mainstream media went crazy reporting trace levels of arsenic in apple juice, but it never bothered to report on the much higher concentrations of arsenic found in chicken meat. Our NaturalNews story on arsenic found in chicken meat received a whopping 78,000 Facebook shares in 2011, making it one of our highest-shared stories of the year:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032659_a…

#10 – Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admits vaccines contain cancer-causing viruses

Dr. Maurice Hilleman’s secret vaccine recording emerged in 2011, causing shockwaves of disbelief to spread across the internet as people heard this Merck scientist laughing it up with other scientists as they joked about all the people who would die from cancer tumors after taking vaccine shots. You can hear the recording yourself on NaturalNews.TV. Click this link for details:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D…

II. Top Uncensored News Story in Past Ten Years

One of the most remarkable news stories of the past 10 years has not been on the mainstream news. Why? Because it paints the MSM top six in a very poor light. As reported by Project Uncensored: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."

Two reporters for Fox News, Jane Akre Steve Wilson and Jane Akre had refused to distort information regarding the cancer causing effects of Monstanto's bovine growth hormone added to commercial milk. In an unprecedented court decision, Fox News was granted the right to mislead the public due to a legal technicality regarding the lesser whistleblower's rights versus the greater freedom of speech' granted the mega news corporation. More details are at the Fox BGH Suit website: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

The fact that none of the other top five news agencies made any significant effort to inform the public of this critical news implies their consent with the judgement and it also implies that mainstream news is not as competitive, fair and unbiased as the public is led to believe.

This court decision runs counter to established laws and legal precedents. Firstly, corporations in the past have not enjoyed the rights of personhood. Secondly, free speech is generally limited when it risks public safety. For example, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a public theater when there is no fire because people may be hurt in the resulting panic. Thirdly, cigarette companies are legally required to place warning labels on cigarette boxes and ads because cigarette smoking is known to increase the chance of lung cancer. With this precedent in mind, in the very least, mainstream news companies known to lie about cancer causing products and any other hazards should have a continuous warning label on the screen. For more information on the hazards of genetically modified foods, see article linked here.

III. A Ten Year Update of 9/11 News in 5 Minutes

(The Corbett Report) Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes, documentary: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory.

Note: Photo of audience in 3D glasses courtesy of British National Archives with no copyright restrictions, as posted at Flickr Commons.

Search terms

Top uncensored news stories
Most critical news stories
Top uncensored news of 2011

Obama Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve: Welcome to Prison Fellowship!

2012-01-01T14:53:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul, outlined how the NDAA 'Bill of Wrongs' helps destroy the Bill of Rights. Upon becoming President, Barack Obama had sworn to uphold the US Constitution. There are actual pictures and everything. However, on December 31, Obama officially signed a bill effectively nullifying most of the important constitutional rights of US citizens.[1] So, as free citizens were enjoying the holidays with friends and family, or simply working hard to make ends meet, didn't something extremely serious just occur? Technically speaking, didn't Obama, our president, and our government we've entrusted to 'serve the people' just commit a serious act of tyranny or treason? What is the difference between tyranny and treason?

Tyranny, treason and totalitarianism

Tyranny is when a government's leader and inner circle are vested with absolute power. Treason relates to the overthrow or destruction of an existing government system. From the perspective of political philosophy, many historians have noted that free society requires a morally grounded people in order to function. However, a morally relative society leads to an increasingly corrupt society, which requires increasingly totalitarian control. And it can be a big problem when the leaders attempting to control the corruption are more corrupt than the general population.

Though there have been more subtle actions of tyranny and treason in distant US history, they pale in comparison with actions taken since September 11, 2001. A brief look through the History Commons website data will show that the central tenets of 'The Patriot Act' were conceived as far back as 1996.[2] The civil rights abuses of the Patriot Act plus the abuses of the State Secrets Privilege Act helped destroy the checks and balances of the US government and placed insiders, to a large extent, effectively above the law.[3] In May of 2007, President George W. Bush approved new martial law powers enabling any US president to have dictatorial authority in case of a subjectively defined crisis.[4] President Obama's signing of the NDAA was icing on the cake. Considering all these acts in keeping with the definitions of tyranny and treason, and the totalitarian state they promise, why do I feel as though there should be a bit more of a reaction from people? Unfortunately, for a lot of Americans, as long as Monday Night Football is still on Monday night, then nothing of real importance has changed.

Bungling bipartisan senators have claimed that the language of the NDAA was confusing and they didn't really know what they were approving of. Obama said that he didn't really agree with everything in the bill, but, well, he felt the need to sign it anyway because the military really needed the money badly.

Obama attempted to offer a nuance of democracy, if ever so slight and pathetic, by adding a 'signing statement.' Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research pointed out: "The controversial signing statement (see transcript below) is a smoke-screen. Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law."[5] The NDAA basically authorities the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens.

Some political hope remains

All I can say is RIP 'America the Beautiful' if Ron Paul should not win the next presidential election. He seems to be the only candidate interested in repealing unconstitutional and totalitarian laws It's past time to wake up America. It's now or never. Please vote for Ron Paul while there is still a semblance of a democratic process remaining. Ron Paul enjoys a wide support base because both liberals and conservatives recognize the importance of basic civil rights. People have been lining up to live in the US, to a large extent, because of our excellent constitution. But unjustified and arbitrary armed raids on legal dairy farmers and businesses have increasingly shown that the Federal Government has been exceeding its constitutional authority.[6]

Is America now officially a police state? According to Webster's Dictionary, a police state is noted for "repressive government control" an "arbitrary exercise of power" and the use of "secret police" in place of the "regular operation of administrative and judicial organs" versus "publicly known legal procedures."[7] This new bill could be called a number of things. The NDAA bill could be called The Police State Bill, The Perpetual Martial Law Bill, The Gulag Bill, The Camp FEMA Bill, etc. In any event, when you have to be groped and felt up every time you want to travel, when your passport has a GPS tracking RFID chip, when Internet surveillance, wiretapping and public video cams are the norm, aren't we already living in a prison-like environment?

The hope of Christians always remains

Should Ron Paul not win the 2012 presidential election, all hope is not lost. Ultimately, we Christians do not place our hope in a political system or a political representative, but in the goodness of the living God. We can be encouraged by God's word and God's presence at all times. Our optimism is based on the knowledge that God will bring about His perfect will. And, no matter how grim the situation may appear, God is orchestrating the broad view of history. This is exemplified by the fulfilled prophecies in scripture.[8] In more recent history, God has been preparing Christians for a new kind of ministry. If the United states has already technically become a police state, and you are doing any kind of Christian ministry in the US, then, technically, you are doing a form of prison ministry. I write this tongue in cheek, with a sense of irony, but, the fact is, literal prison ministry may very well become our main ministry by default.

Welcome to Prison Fellowship!

I wrote in a previous article how true Christians are presently defined by the US government as "right-wing extremists" and terrorist threats simply because of what we believe.[9] Simply by speaking up for truth and justice we are considered a political threat. It seems that we may be joining Chuck Colson n in his Prison Fellowship ministry sooner rather than later. Chuck founded the largest prison ministry in the world after he himself had served time for the Watergate scandal. On the bright side, the Apostle Paul enjoyed some of his most effective Christian ministry work while he was a prisoner. In his End of Year Message, Colson reminds us that the light and life of God's Spirit transcends our physical circumstances. His description of his wife is reminiscent of the joy the Apostle Paul described while writing his letter to the Philippians from prison: "When I first met Debbie, I distinctly remember how her face bore the scars from serving time. Yet, I saw a radiant joy in her expression."[10]

A good movie to help prepare for End Times prison ministry is the movie "Six: The Mark Unleashed" (2004) starring Stephen Baldwin. It's somewhat of a low-budget Christian film, but it does offer a biblical perspective of life under the anti-Christ system we are rapidly heading towards. I'm a pre-trib rapture kind of guy, but, just in case you are a skeptical atheist reading this, and you've noticed a lot of people have suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth (and not because of NDAA renditions), then this video maybe helpful for you after you repent and become a Christian. We purchased a copy of this film in Ukraine with Russian translation.

For Christians who are not very interested in prison ministry, you may be wondering, "Do they have TV in prison?" Rest assured, television is presently considered a part of recreation and most prisons offer television. So, when the government arrests you for being a Bible-believing Christian, you will be able to continue watching Monday Night Football, don't worry. If you are not a Christian, you may want to reconsider that moral relativism is not only a bad foundation for society, there are reasons to show why moral relativism is not true and why objective morality does in fact exist.[11]

References

[1] Unelected, Goodbye Bill of Rights, Obama Signs NDAA, http://www.unelected.org/goodbye-bill-of-rights-obama-signs-ndaa
[2] History Commons, Patriot Act, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=civilliberties&civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliberties_patriot_act
[3] The Nation, "Malfeasance in Office", http://www.thenation.com/blog/malfeasance-office-0
[4] Global Research, New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5720
[5] Global Research, THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28441
[6] Templestream, Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/armed-swat-raids-and-news-confirm-911.html
[7] Merriam Webster, definition of Police State, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20state
[8] Templestream, An Open Challenge to Bible Critics, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-challenge-to-bible-critics.html
[9] Templestream, Why Christians Oppose Torture and the NDAA, templestream.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-ethical-christians-oppose-torture.html
[10] Prison Fellowship, A Special Year End message from Chuck Colson,
http://www.prisonfellowship.org/new-this-week/chuck-colson/16150-colson-cye-2011
[11] Templestream, Reasons why Moral Relativism is False, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html

Search terms

Bush and Obama treason and tyranny
Is America now a police state?
Wake up America
Vote for Ron Paul
Christian prison ministry opportunity

Ron Paul on Israel

2011-12-30T09:52:00.000-08:00

Because Ron Paul holds an isolationist foreign policy, many of his political opponents are attempting to smear his campaign by spreading news that he is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. Paul's actions and words, however, say otherwise. Paul supports of Israel's rights and the rights of all countries. And Paul is held in high esteem by Jews in America and in Israel as well. The following links confirm this:

Haaretz, Israeli Daily Newspaper

The truth about Ron Paul - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-truth-about-ron-paul-1.404278

Americans for Israel

Reality Check: Is Ron Paul really anti-Israel? (Video)

Ron Paul: Israel “Our Best Friend” (Video)

Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel

http://www.americansforisrael.com

Search terms

Ron Paul on Israel
Israelis support Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite

Why Christians Oppose Torture and the NDAA

2011-12-28T23:46:00.000-08:00

A majority of US senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which is now just waiting for the blessing of the President before it becomes law. The bill is considered such an affront to civil liberties that the state of Montana is taking measures to recall the two senators who voted to support the law.[1] According to Jonathan Turley, the NDAA gives the US president the authority to indefinitely detain and kill US citizens on US soil without any legal trial.[2] The law also authorizes additional secret torture measures. Turley is one of the top ten most cited law professors in the US and one of the top ten military lawyers as well, so his opinion carries weight.[3] If US citizens find themselves subjectively defined as terrorist threats or terrorist sympathizers, then they lose all their rights under the Constitution. This is, of course, a civil-rights outrage. Even Snopes, which tends to be highly skeptical of news, has not denied what the essence of this law implies by giving the story a "Mixture" rating.[4] I'd like to outline why Christian organizations, such as the Rutherford Institute, are on-target in condemning waterboarding as illegal torture, and why all of us as Christians should be opposed to grievous civil-rights abuses.

I. The Basis of Christian Ethics
II. The Internationally Accepted Definitions and Laws Regarding Torture
III. Why Christian Neoconservatives Tend to Support Torture
IV. Why True Christians are Presently Defined as Terrorist Threats
V. Standing for Truth and Justice in a Dark and Corrupt World

According to a couple of surveys, many Christians do not seem to be aware of what Christianity actually stands for with regard to civil rights issues. Many believers have stated in polls that they support torture under certain circumstances. Jeff Barnes has written an insightful response to the 2009 CNN poll on torture.[5] When it comes to questions of Christian ethics, we have a vast body of knowledge with which to draw accurate conclusions. And when you do accurately assess what the true stance of Christians should be, then you realize the extent to which Christians have been swayed by the culture and clever politicians into adopting beliefs that are actually anti-Christian in nature. Considering what mainstream news has devolved into, it's quite understandable why many Christians have been deceived into supporting anti-Christian ethics and policies.

I. The Basis of Christian Ethics

For the non-Christian, the basis of ethics is usually a form of pragmatism, which is a slippery slope. Concepts such as "Whatever benefits the greater good." and "The end justifies the means." form the basis of moral relativism and pragmatist ethics. The problem with these approaches is that there is no objective basis for determining what is 'right' at a foundational level. Who decides what the 'greater good' is? This is a subjective issue. Hitler believed the promotion of the greater good meant the sterilization of the human race from unwanted Jewish people, which he did not even consider human. Today, we see similar subjective rationalizations for all kinds of abuses. For example, many believe there are too many people in the world, therefore it is considered justified, for the greater good, to secretly add birth control ingredients in vaccines in 3rd world countries. Or, say a terrorist is about to blow up a building, but torturing an informant may reveal where the switch is, therefore, it is somehow OK to torture the informant because the end supposedly justifies the means. I've heard well-respected and sincere Christians passionately defend these types of views. But, according to scripture, they are unethical positions for a Christian to hold.

Conservapedia has outlined Ann Coulter's cynical views on torture. One of the items on her list is a common excuse: It's not torture if, "It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;"[6] First of all, the soldiers in basic training would never undergo a situation wherein they believed they were literally drowning. There is nothing that extreme. Even if a battle-hardened Navy Seal could endure waterboarding under controlled circumstances, why should we expect that it is then ethical for a random and possibly medically weak and vulnerable taxi driver should be subject to this treatment when he believes he is literally being drowned and killed? These are quite different circumstances.

Christian ethics is based upon a number of principles. Firstly, Christian ethics is not based on moral relativism, but, rather, on moral absolutism, as outlined by the Christian Research Institute.[7] You will find many Christians defending relativism and pragmatism without even realizing what they are doing. According to Christian absolutism, it doesn't matter if the entire world may die without torture, it's still ethically wrong to abuse a person to try and gain information. Period. Christian ethics is deontological (duty-centered) not teleological (end-centered) and this should be a primary consideration.[8] Christian ethics is rooted in God's nature, which is transcendent, eternal and unchanging, and, therefore, is an objective basis for ethics. In 2006, Christianity Today published an article explaining "5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong" and that article helped inspire the following list:[9]

7 Reasons why Torture is Wrong from a Christian Perspective

1. Christian ethics is deontological (duty-centered) not teleological (end-centered).
2. According to human exceptionalism, torture violates the dignity of the human being.
3. Torture allows for the abuse of the vulnerable and violates the demands of justice.
4. Authorizing secret torture allocates too much control in the hands of the government.
5. Torture dehumanizes the torturer and all involved.
6. Torture erodes the moral character of the nation that practices it.
7. Jesus, as the highest example of Christianity, taught believers to love their enemies.

Biblical morality is based on moral absolutism. Ultimately, there is one lawgiver who has the final authority on morality, God, as described in the full context of scripture. Romans 13 does give the government the authority to enforce justice with force, but this chapter must be understood in the context of the entire word of God. We are to respect the position of the office, but not the perversion of the office when authority is abused. It is surprising that Christians will defend the sanctity of life for the unborn, but a full grown man created in the image of God supposedly has no sanctity of life or dignity.

The author of the Christianity Today article, David P. Gushee, does not specifically address waterboarding in the Christiany Today article. This subject may have been considered a bit too politically risque for Christianity Today's editors. However, Gushee does make some implications regarding waterboarding. He emphasizes, "Human dignity, value, and worth come as a permanent and ineradicable endowment of the Creator to every person." He condemn the mistreatment of people who may be considered vulnerable, "Primary forms of injustice include violent abuse and domination of the powerless." Gushee also cites the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who described the human tendency to compromise ethically. He specifically referred to the Christian moral code, the "strict laws of duty", that may become twisted out of kilter by relativistic pragmatism: "Hence there arises a natural … disposition to argue against these strict laws of duty and to question their validity, or at least their purity and strictness, and, if possible, to make them more accordant with our wishes and inclinations, that is to say, to corrupt them at their very source, and to entirely destroy their worth."[10] Altogether, Gushees points imply that waterboarding is unethical. This seems to be the unofficial stance of Christianity Today. Gushee has co-authored a book, Religious Faith, Torture and our National Soul, in which he explicitly states why waterboarding may be considered a harmful form of torture: "Some techniques leave physical scars or signs; others, such as rape or waterboarding, may leave no physical scar at all but leave long-term psychological suffering."[11]

II. The Internationally Accepted Definitions and Laws Regarding Torture

Some Christians continue to say that waterboarding is not torture. But when you look up the definition of torture in the dictionary and read internationally accepted laws regarding torture, that argument doesn't seem to pass muster. The International Committee of the Red Cross has offered a short summary:

What is the definition of torture and ill treatment?

International humanitarian law prohibits torture and other forms of ill treatment at all times and demands that detainees be treated according to the rules and principles of IHL and other international standards.

The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary.

International humanitarian law (IHL) differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture.

The ICRC uses the broad term " ill-treatment " to cover both torture and other methods of abuse prohibited by international law, including inhuman, cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and physical or moral coercion.

The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act – to obtain information, for example.

The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:

    Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;

    Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;

    Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.

Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.[12]

- The updated Geneva Convention, also known as "The Convention against Torture", defines international standards, as does an outline of international laws by a Catholic organization, JRS Europe, "Definition of Torture under International Law"[13]

The above referenced internationally recognized definitions of torture imply in no uncertain terms that waterboarding is a form of torture. Prior to the secretive authorization of waterboarding in 2002, waterboarding was also considered illegal in the US. Therefore, those who secretly justified and authorized waterboarding in the US without congressional approval in the past should be tried as war criminals according to these standards. Tortured Law (2010), is a 10-minute award winning documentary by Alliance for Justice, which calls upon Attorney General Holder to conduct a full investigation of those who ordered, designed, and justified torture. Christian organizations that recognize the basis of Christian ethics, such as the Rutherford Institute, have explicitly condemned waterboarding.[14]

III. Why Christian Neoconservatives Tend to Support Torture

It's a sad day when secular organizations, such as the Alliance for Justice, are more in tune with the need for enforcing basic civil rights than many Christians. In accordance with scripture, such as Micah 6.8, Christians are to "Do justice and love mercy." Instead of voting for necoconservative candidates who will endorse atrocities in our name as US citizens, we should, in the very least, vote only for candidates opposed to civil rights atrocities. Why are so many in 'the moral majority' supporting what 20 years ago would have been considered atrocious? To a large extent, the mainstream media has reinforced a notion that questioning US torture or any actions in the 'War on Terror' is unpatriotic. Since 9/11, many Christians have come to adopt anti-Christian values, sometimes called neoconservative values, all based on situational ethics. Because of a supposed pronounced threat of terrorism, the government is somehow justified, for the greater good, in incarcerating people indefinitely, torturing them secretly and even killing them violently, all in the name of 'our safety.' Instead of supporting the destruction of the US Constitution and the annulment of civil of liberties, Christians should be the ones demanding that those who have subverted the Constitution and rule of law be brought to justice. We are to be salt and light standing for truth and justice, not cheerleaders for a mercenary and brutal government system.

Sadly, the Tea Party's Michelle Bachman and neoconservative Mitt Romney both support "enhanced interrogation techniques" and whatever else the CIA may deem to be necessary.[15] Many theists simply don't understand the basis for theistic ethics and need to be informed. Others perhaps are in a state of denial, blindly trusting in an ideal image of an eternally beneficent US government, denying the reality of our corrupt human nature. This type of psychological projection begins at childhood.and is very difficult to come to terms with and question. Michelle Bachmann's blind trust in the secret and unaccountable operations of the CIA is evidenced in her quotes, “I want to save American lives and that’s why I want the CIA to have every interrogation tool available to them so that we can win the war on terror,”[16] What Bachmann and other necons believe is based on a cancerous and damaging lie, as outlined in the nonfiction book, None of Us Were Like This Before. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate taking a stand for basic civil liberties, such as the right not to be illegally detained, tortured and killed with no accountable jurisprudence whatsoever.

IV. Why True Christians are Presently Defined as Terrorist Threats

What many Christians don't seem to realize is that Christians who support the sanctity of life and are against abortion are actually defined as right wing extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats presently in the US. The same goes for someone who believes homosexuality is a sin. This is defined as "hate-oriented" behavior, when, in fact, it is not. Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ had demanded a retraction of this position, but there was no formal written retraction. The indicting language was simply taken down from public government websites:

“Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”[17]

Jesus prophesied that Christians would be increasingly persecuted in the End Times, as outlined in Matthew 24.10. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." By identifying with the righteousness of Christ and moral absolutism, true Christians will be persecuted. Christian persecution has been occurring around the world since Christianity began, and, more recently, has been on the rise in Western culture.[18]

The underlying problem for the government is not a particular issue, such as abortion. But it's the fact that true Christians are moral absolutists who have a basis for morally judging the increasingly corrupt relativist government. When Dick Cheney described US involvement in secret intelligence practices, he made a remarkable admission about delving into "the dark side" of life:

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We’ve got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." (Emphasis in original.)[19]

If you are familiar with the Bible, there are only two sides, the dark side and the light side. If you aren't familiar with the Bible, perhaps you watched one of the Star Wars movies. Darth Vader was on the dark side. A nation is either moving towards the light side, moral righteousness, or it is moving towards the dark side, moral corruption. In the Old Testament, during times of moral corruption, prophets who spoke up for moral righteousness were mainly persecuted. In the New Testament, the early Church represented by the church in Smyrna was mainly persecuted. The reason why the early church was persecuted was well summed up by the late Francis Schaeffer:

"No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions. The Christians had that absolute in God's revelation. Because the Christians had an absolute, universal standard by which to judge not only personal morals but the state, they were counted as enemies of totalitarian Rome and were thrown to the beasts."[20]

V. Standing for Truth and Justice in a Dark and Corrupt World

I don't want to try and sugar-coat the implications of what is occurring today. If the US officially passes the NDAA, then this will mark the country as a totalitarian state. The complete annulment of civil rights will most likely lead to serious human rights abuses. In our increasingly immoral society, true Christians will most likely bear the brunt of those abuses. Christians who were courageous and stood up for truth in the first century were martyred. Ten Roman emperors enacted wave after wave of persecutions attempting to exterminate Christianity. But, despite the Roman persecutions, the church actually grew tremendously during the first century. A courageous Christian willing to stand up for truth and suffer persecution is a lot more convincing than a Christian handing out leaflets on a street corner.

In our day, many Christians don't want to 'rock the boat' by saying anything that is 'politically incorrect.' We should pray for wisdom and discernment for God's people in how to courageously stand for truth. We should try to help inform Christians that we are moral absolutists and waterboarding is not acceptable, and neither are politicians who support it. If Dick Cheney admitted his team entered the "dark side" with the secret interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding secretly signed into US policy in 2002, why on Earth would you want to defend it? There is still a semblance of a democratic process allowing for change. But, unfortunately, many Christians are voting for people who represent their very own future punishment and persecution in the name of neoconservatism. Though there are petitions regarding torture in US politics, they do not seem to be garnering very much interest.[21] If you feel compelled to stand for truth and justice, there are some resources available to encourage you. John W. Whitehead, who founded the Rutherford Institute, has published a new tract, Taking a Stand for Truth and Righteousness, in which he "offers hope and inspiration for the battles that lie before us" offering, "You, that one solitary individual, can make a difference."[22]

A blogger recently asked me if I believed it was possible that the tragedy of 9/11 was assisted by US clandestine forces. If I were to answer that question in the affirmative, "Yes, considering the documented history of Operation Northwoods and other documented historical facts, that is a definite possibility." - then, according to the NDAA, I could be subjectively labelled as a terrorist sympathizer and killed by my own government. Somehow, I believe the Founding Fathers created the system of moral checks and balances so that this type of power abuse would not become legalized policy. My opinion regarding 9/11 is centered on the multiple documented facts that show the official 9/11 report contains blatant errors, omissions and outright fraud, as outlined in one of my articles, Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary.[23] There is no doubt that we live in perilous times, just as Jesus predicted there would be. As sheep among wolves, Jesus advised his disciples to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.[24] May God's will be accomplished in each of our lives as we look to the eventual and sure establishment of His eternal kingdom of love and truth.

References

[1] Montana Senators Who Voted for NDAA Face Recall, http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/montana-senators-who-voted-for-ndaa-face-recall
[2] YouTube, Jonathan Turley CSPAN interview, Obama stated he can kill any American anywhere, December 20, 2011 on C-Span (starting at 15:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unr-hiEmSZs
[3] George Washington University, Faculty Directory, http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738
[4] Snopes, NDAA, http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp
[5] Gospel.org, A Christian's Response to the CNN Poll on Torture, http://www.the-gospel.org/stdy_esxat/torture.php
[6] Conservapedia, Debate: Define Torture, http://conservapedia.com/Debate:Define_torture
[7] Christian Research Institute, Any Absolutes? Absolutely!, http://www.equip.org/articles/any-absolutes-absolutely-
[8] Tough Questions Answered, Waterboarding: Does the End Justify the Means?, Bill Pratt, http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/05/02/waterboarding-does-the-end-justify-the-means/
[9] Christianity Today, 5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html?start=5
[10] Ibid.
Ronald Takaki, Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 113.
[11] David P. Gushee, Jillian Hickman Zimmer, J. Drew, Religious Faith, Torture and our National Soul, (Mercer University Press, Macon, GA) P 55., http://tinyurl.com/brboyyd
[12] ICRC, What is the definition of torture and ill treatment?, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/69mjxc.htm
[13] HRWeb, CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html, DEFINITION OF TORTURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW COMPILATION, JRS Europe, http://www.jrseurope.org/accompanydetainees/docs/Torture%20Definition.doc
[14] Rutherford Institute, Rutherford Institute Joins with Other Human Rights Groups to Challenge Government Secrecy on Waterboarding , https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_joins_with_other_human_rights_groups_to_challenge_gove
[15] Businessweek, Republican Candidates Differ on Waterboarding of Terror Suspects, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-15/republican-candidates-differ-on-waterboarding-of-terror-suspects.html
[16] Ibid.
[17] The Voice Magazine, ACLJ Demands Retraction from DHS on Labelling Pro-Lifers as "Extremists" , http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/culture/society/aclj-demands-retraction-of-dhs-pro-life-rightwing-extremists-label.html
[18] CT, Christian persecution on the rise, http://au.christiantoday.com/article/christian-persecution-on-the-rise/6331.htm
[19] America at War, Cheney’s “dark side” Quote, http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/576
[20] The Shelter, Schaeffer quotes, Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, Ch. 1, http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/live.html
[21] The Petition Site, Tell GOP Contenders: Waterboarding is Torture!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/tell-gop-contenders-waterboarding-is-torture/
[22] The Rutherford Institute, Taking a Stand for Truth and Righteousness, https://www.rutherford.org/product/taking-a-stand-for-truth-and-justice
[23] Templestream, Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/armed-swat-raids-and-news-confirm-911.html
[24] Matthew 10.16, http://bible.oremus.org/?vnum=no&passage=Matthew+10.16-22

Search terms

Christians and torture
Christians and civil rights
Christians and the NDAA
The basis of Christian ethics
Is waterboarding torture?

Christmas: The Beauty and Challenge of Forgiveness

2011-12-24T08:48:00.000-08:00

Rembrandt - Adoration of the Magi

Forgiveness is an incredibly idiosyncratic phenomenon. It is called both a science and an art. It relates to psychology, philosophy and religion. It formed one of the central themes of one of the most famous artists, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn. And, as a key aspect of redemption, forgiveness is central to the Christmas celebration. For both Christians and atheists the subjects of Christmas redemption and forgiveness offer unique challenges and opportunities. As we peer into this subject we can ask, "What does the phenomenon of forgiveness tell us about the nature of the universe?"
At the beginning of the 21st Century, 'the new science of forgiveness' offered test results showing how the process of forgiveness leads to significant mental, physical and spiritual benefits to individuals, communities and nations. In the process of what is called forgiveness intervention, "Sincere apologies helped people forgive and calm down. Getting fair restitution on top of an apology magnified the effect. Insincere or incomplete apologies actually riled people up more."[1] Roy Lloyd, the president at International Forgiveness Institute, remarked that, "Forgiveness education as one path toward peace is catching on worldwide, as seen in the recent requests for our educational materials from educators and psychologists in such areas as Iran, Rwanda, Colombia, Nigeria, Korea, and others."[2]

Forgiveness is both a science and an art.

Many have outlined reasons why forgiveness may be considered both a science and an art. Though there is some overlap, the difference between science and art and is based on the emphasis on objective and subjective phenomena. Science places an emphasis on objectively explaining materialistic phenomena. Art places an emphasis on the significance of beauty, philosophical meaning and subjective impressions. What a person believes about forgiveness is based to a large degree on a person's philosophical beliefs. Traditionally, the subject of forgiveness has been associated strictly with religion. Psychologist Fred Luskin, director of Stanford University's Forgiveness Projects, echoes the dismay of many secular psychologists who increasingly recognize the scientific significance of forgiveness, "Who would have 'thunk' it - that something locked away in religious culture could be turned into a secular training program - It's a skill that can be taught."[3]

Forgiveness offers scientifically proven benefits.


Return of the Prodigal Son

Put bluntly, forgiveness works. Science shows we need to forgive in order to be healthy. This also implies the opposite: we need to be forgiven to be healthy. "While much of the field's early work has focused on forgiveness of others, academic psychologists and clinicians are turning up evidence that forgiving oneself might have a more powerful effect on overall health and well-being."[4] In forgiving yourself you are also being forgiven. It seems it may have twice the impact because it addresses both sides of the issue; forgiving and being forgiven. In August 2011, researchers affirmed the serious negative health effects of bitterness calling for a new diagnosis named PTED, or post-traumatic embitterment disorder.[5] With regard to bitterness, Dr. Charles Raison of Emory University has stated, "The data that negative mental states cause heart problems is just stupendous. The data is just as established as smoking, and the size of the effect is the same."[6]

Unconditional forgiveness meshes well with the Christ-centered creation paradigm.

Now, getting back to the Christmas theme, consider some key aspects of forgiveness. Scientific studies have confirmed that "making a gesture of goodness" to a wrongdoer is one of the most important aspects in the process of forgiveness.[7] The giving of a proactive 'gesture of goodness' is one of the central themes of the Christmas message. A summary of the Christmas message, as offered in Luke 2.14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." This gesture of "good will" that God has offered to mankind was essentially the spiritual redemption attained through Jesus Christ. This act was not a legal obligation but a living attribution of God's nature, for "God is love."[8] Spiritual redemption is the central theme of scripture, and forgiveness is the central theme of spiritual redemption. From a biblical perspective, grace and forgiveness have a spiritual source. The apostle Peter implied that the angels were filled with a sense of wonder at the beauty of God's grace given through Christ Christmas morning. In 1 Peter 1.12, while referring to the gospel, Peter wrote, " Even angels long to look into these things." Throughout the New Testament accounts, there is an emphasis to forgive others unconditionally. Christ's examples were always pro-active, not passive, exemplifying God's superabundant grace. In Ephesians 4.26 we are advised to forgive immediately, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger." God's forgiveness is unconditional in that we don't work for it, but we do have to repent and confess our sins by faith in order to receive it.

Rembrandt as the prodigal

Rembrandt produced several works of art depicting the beauty of God's forgiveness. The Return of the Prodigal Son (from Luke 15:11-32) is Rembrandt's most famous version, and is located in the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg Russia. In another version, The Prodigal Son in the Brothel, Rembrandt depicted himself as the prodigal and his wife as a bar maid. When taken together in the context of Rembrandt's work and writings, it seems that Rembrandt recognized he and his wife, and all people, are sinners in need of God's grace, as outlined by the late Arthur L. Farstad in his article, Grace in the Arts.[9]

The essence of salvation by faith and grace is the understanding that we receive a complete cleansing and moral restitution not because we deserve it, can earn it or can repay it, but simply by God's unmerited favor. According to the scientific studies, this compete moral forgiveness and restitution represents the best of all possible worlds. In a very real and practical sense, the day that Christ was born on Earth was the beginning of The First Global Christmas Forgiveness Intervention Session.

Unconditional forgiveness does not mesh well with atheism and the evolutionary paradigm.

According to many naturalist theorists, vengeance and forgiveness are natural instincts that are both desirable and morally valid in everyday life today:

"Because we are cultural learners, we can learn valuable lessons about where and when to seek revenge, and about where and when to forgive, simply by observing our parents, siblings, friends, associates, teachers, and mentors."[10]

This view is not strange or a fringe view, but the 'eye for an eye' concept of justice has been shared by most cultures in history. No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable. Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it. We as Christians are free to love unconditionally because we understand God will judge righteously in the final analysis and it is not up to us to make sure justice will be enforced on this Earth. For the Buddhist the concept of eternal justice is ultimately a non-issue. But we as humans do have a sense that the question of justice is important one and not a philosophical concept that deserves to be ignored.

If vengeance and forgiveness are both desirable and valid today, as theorists claim, then why do they offer opposing health effects? The forgiveness instinct supposedly developed due to "complex networks of cooperative relationships", but, according to a 10 year study in Uganda, primates generally only socialize with their own immediate families. And the typical relationship between two different chimp groups is called, "lethal inter-group aggression" - not exactly a community fostering goodwill and deep-rooted forgiveness instincts.[11] The same study concluded that the ability to cooperate with strangers is a defining human trait.

According the evolutionary paradigm, we should remember every wrong ever committed against us so that we can avoid the same circumstances again in the future. But this is not how we are wired. We are created so that the healthiest approach to life is to unconditionally forgive and forget when we are wronged. This does not mean a person should stay in a relationship that is continuously abusive physically. There is a difference between forgiveness and permissiveness. This simply implies it is healthiest not to hold grudges and retain bitterness.

This is a challenge I would like to respectfully ask any atheist to answer, "Why should non-forgiveness produce extremely negative patterns and unhealthy stress when simply 'keeping a record of wrongs' has, in keeping with evolutionary theory, a utilitarian function of avoiding future pain and harm?" I'll offer an illustration. If I knew someone who decided to become my enemy, for whatever reason, and harmed me intentionally and frequently, would it not be in my best interest, from a strictly Darwinian perspective, to 'keep accounts' and try to harm this person back? Darwinism seems to operate based on the logic of the old law, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Jesus, however, reverses this old law and admonished us to forgive our enemies and actually to demonstrate good will towards them, exactly what psychologists say is the most healthy approach.

Personhood and God's nature

Philosophers who study ethics recognize that the subjects of ethics and personhood are interconnected. For example, atheists may treat an unborn child or an elderly person quite differently than a person who believes in the universal sanctity of human life. Though male-dominated research programs tend to deny that Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is real, women in politically neutral organizations tend to propose it is a very real condition.[12] One of the healthy choices of addressing post-abortion denial and depression is to take time to grieve the loss of the child in order to allow for psychological closure. Many women choose to name the aborted child in this process for a more tangible sense of closure.[13]

Rembrandt's eyes

The fact that forgiveness is such a powerful phenomenon reveals an idiosyncrasy of our universe that did not have to exist in this way at all. The universe has distinct characteristics and an open-mined person can see that these characteristics are in keeping with the creation paradigm. An example would be the manner in which an artists personality is manifested in his or her artwork. Over the years researchers have come to be able to decide which paintings are official Rembrandt originals and which were painted by his students because of key techniques and details. Firstly, Rembrandt had mastered the use of light in creating a sense of space. In an authentic Rembrandt, "The light is typically Rembrandt in that it is so totally convincing: you perceive it as if you are looking at reality and not at a painting,"[14] Secondly, Rembrandt had developed a technique for highlighting the faces and eyes of his subjects in order to draw the attention of the viewer into the emotional states of his painted scenarios. Thus, the paintings of this Dutch master encourage a unique emotional connection. These are just two examples of how Rembrandt's own brush stroke can be detected in his created works.

As with Rembrandt's personal technique in his paintings, the Creator's signature of grace is embedded in the workings of human relationships. Unconditional forgiveness isn't true because it's healthy, it's healthy because it's true and meshes perfectly with God's nature and the redemption paradigm. God is the ultimate reference point of truth, and because "God is love," living in harmony with the principles of the universe entails living in harmony with God's nature and character. God's existence and His nature make up the central fact, not the attributes of forgiveness. Other studies have shown that giving thanks offers dramatic health benefits,[15] as does living a life of regular religious worship.[16] Like unconditional forgiveness, neither of these other two practices has any rational or objective basis in an evolutionary or atheistic paradigm. But they make complete sense in a God-centered, creation paradigm.

Basic outline: How the Science of Forgiveness Proves God's Existence

P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests.
P2 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness meshes well with a Christ-centered paradigm.
P3 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness does not mesh well with atheism and the evolutionary paradigm.
C - Therefore, Theism offers a better explanation for the notable health benefits of practicing unconditional forgiveness.

P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.
P2. 'Remembering wrongs' would be a 'survival quality' that offers a great advantage.
C. Therefore, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'

P1. According to evolution, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'
P2. 'Remembering wrongs' is associated with an unhealthy physiology.
C. Therefore, evolutionary theory is incorrect with regard to 'remembering wrongs.'

P1. Evolutionists claim that vengeance and forgiveness are both equally valid cultural traits.
P2. Vengeance and forgiveness produce opposite physiological health results.
C. Therefore, evolutionists are mistaken with regard to the validity of vengeance and forgiveness.

P1. Christ claimed that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a central moral ideal.
P2. A lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness produces the best noted health results.
C. Therefore, the Christian moral ideal and paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.

P1. A paradigm based on true premises produces healthier results than a paradigm based on false ones.
P2. The Christian paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.
C. Therefore, the Christian paradigm is most likely based on truth.

Authenticity, harmony and beauty

When a logical proof has a valid form and true premises, we can assume that the conclusion is true. There is harmony between the premises, the form and the conclusion. There are many clues in creation to demonstrate the harmony between nature, the human condition and God's existence. Ecclessiastes 3.11 states, "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." (NIV)

Artists express the truth of human personhood through the 'pathos' of artistic expression. Rembrandt expressed the truth and beauty of forgiveness and his artwork is very encouraging for this reason. It is believed that Rembrandt was an authentic Christian believer for a number of reasons. Arthur L. Farstad has noted, "....Reformed churches did not give commissions. Hence, a Dutch artist who did religious paintings did so because he wanted to."[17] Secondly, Rembrandt displayed Christ as the humble servant described in Isaiah 53, a chapter that emphasizes God's grace. Thirdly, his portrayal of Mary was humble, not idolatrous, and so it was in keeping with the biblical description of Christ's mother. These points underscore that Rembrandt was a sincere believer in touch with the grace of God. Perhaps this is why his painting, The Adoration of the Magi, is considered perhaps the best rendition of Christ's birth and reception. Both scientists and artists alike have confirmed that the birth of Christ nearly 2000 years ago ushered in The First Global Christmas Forgiveness Intervention Session. For the Christian, the challenge is to forgive others immediately, before the sun goes down. And the challenge is also share the good news of the gospel as a central aspect of our lives, though this should be seen not merely as a challenge but as a great opportunity and privilege. For the atheist the challenge is to explain why the phenomenon of forgiveness operates the way in which it does, underscoring the reality of God's grace as a signature in the human condition.

In Simferopol, we had an enjoyable Christmas celebration and discussed this theme as well as others. The greatest gift of all is to experience the beauty of God's grace and presence together. In giving gifts we are reminded of Christ's act of good will in giving His life in atonement for our sins. When Christ is in the center and we are abiding in Christ's presence, there's a peace-centered life. Imagine leaders from Iran and Israel meeting not to exchange words of hatred and threats of nuclear war, but simply to share communion in an an atmosphere of peace and joy. The magi mentioned in Matthew 2.1 at the time of Christ's coming were wise men from "the East," referring most likely to Persia, or modern-day Iran.[18]

References

[1] Greater Good, Berkeley, The New Science of Forgiveness,
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_new_science_of_forgiveness/
[2] Huffington Post, The Science of Forgiveness, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-lloyd/the-science-of-forgivenes_b_613138.html
[3] LA Times, Forgive and be well? http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/31/health/he-forgiveness31
[4] LJ World, The science of forgiveness, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/06/science_forgiveness/
[5] CNN, Blaming others can ruin your health, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/17/bitter.resentful.ep/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
[6] Ibid.
[7] LJ World, The science of forgiveness, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/06/science_forgiveness/
[8] 1 John 4.6-17, God is love - love comes from God, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=NIV
[9] Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Grace in the Arts: REMBRANDT VAN RYN:
A PROTESTANT ARTIST, http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Farstad.htm
[10] Greater Good, The Forgiveness Instinct, http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/forgiveness_instinct/
[11] Buffalo News, Ability to cooperate with strangers is defining human trait, http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article650199.ece
[12] After Abortion, Symptoms and Frequently Asked Questions About Post Abortion Stress Syndrome
http://www.afterabortion.com/faq.html
[13] Ibid, webpage - Recognizing the loss of your potential baby
[14] MSNBC, Experts reclassify painting as real Rembrandt, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45526070/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/experts-reclassify-painting-real-rembrandt/#.TvlRKoG2tA8
[15] Templestream, The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html
[16] Templestream, Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality , http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html
[17] Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Grace in the Arts: REMBRANDT VAN RYN:
A PROTESTANT ARTIST, http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Farstad.htm
[18] Got Questions, What does the Bible say about the three wise men (Magi)?, http://www.gotquestions.org/three-wise-men.html

Images:

Rembrandt images are public domain.
Photo of Simferopol Christmas celebration - Victor Goldobin

Search Terms

The science and art of forgiveness
Forgiveness as proof of God's existence
Forgiveness intervention sessions
God's superabundant grace
God's grace and Rembrandt
Ethics and personhood
Rembrandt's religious paintings

Related

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality
How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence

A Good Example of Staying on the Right Path

2011-12-22T22:59:00.000-08:00

A Russian commenter at my blog recently stated, "No one gets to run and win who will not play the game", referring to Ron Paul's run for the office of the US presidency. People in former Soviet countries don't realize that government without deep-seated corruption is possible, though rare, as was exemplified historically in the life of Abraham Lincoln, also known as "Honest Abe." Today, testimonies about Ron Paul's life echo Lincoln's life-long testimony of honesty and integrity, as outlined in the embedded video: "Ron did not let Washington change him." And, "It's not hard for someone is a Christian who truly believes to stay on the right path."

The pressure to conform to the corruption in the world is nothing new. The Apostle Paul wrote "Do not be conformed to this world" (Romans 12:1-2) but, rather, he said, offer your lives to God in submission to the truth of God's ways. Though none of us is perfect, as believers with God's Spirit dwelling in us we have a 'higher power' which is greater than the power of sin. Ron Paul is a good example of this higher power seen in a practical sense as a positive influence in the world.

As Christians we are called to be salt and light in the world. Sometimes in our politically-correct society we can succumb to the pressure to be silenced as a positive influence, whether it be as a blogger in fear of supporting a politically-incorrect position, or speaking about an injustice we may see in the daily routine of our lives. We can each ask ourselves, "Am I living as salt and light in the sphere God has called me into? Am I open to taking risks, or am I living in the fear of man?" The US is presently on a wide path of destruction and only one candidate seems to be interested in addressing the deeper issues of corruption that need to be addressed. Any candidate who represents serious change is aggressively opposed by the establishment. This has been demonstrated by the MSM's treatment of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a good example we can be encouraged by. His courageous determination not to conform to the corruption in Washington and to stand up to establishment icons involves great risk and we as Christians can assist him with our manifold support and prayers

Search terms:

Living as salt and light
Not conforming to the world
Staying on the right path
Ron Paul is a good example

Related:

The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide

The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide

2011-12-16T21:59:00.000-08:00

This is an uncensored, politically-incorrect Christian voters guide.

If you are a liberal, hedonist atheist you can read this also. Actually, I hope you do because I believe the US is in such critical condition politically that practically everyone should recognize that survival is better than non-survival, and there is only one candidate seriously addressing the deeper issues that need to be addressed. This presidential election may literally be 'the last chance to save America' politically. The mainstream media has been so biased in their portrayal of the 2012 presidential candidates that it has been food for fodder for Jon Stewart who has been a beacon of honest journalism, albeit humorous and entertaining journalism, as shown in the linked video clips:

Ron Paul 2012: Why the media ignores Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7oBdgazJI

Ron Paul Still Ignored - Jon Stewart Daily Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B0QPcoTZg8&feature=related

Terms

globalist - Motivated towards replacing US sovereignty with global governance.
neoconservative - Presented as a conservative, but does not really represent traditional and fundamental conservative political values.
paleoconservative -Supports civil liberties and the Constitution, as well as other traditional and fundamental political values.
sock puppet - Will serve special interest groups over citizens, including bankers and other lobbyists.
cult member - Is presently in a cult or has not renounced past cult involvement.
flip-flopper - Tends to blatantly change opinions, smacking of dishonesty.

Current Viable Presidential Candidates

President Barack Obama - Globalist, anti-civil-liberties, flip-flopping sock puppet.
Ron Paul - Paleoconservative, anti-globalist, ant-sock puppet, committed Christian.
Mitt Romney - Flip-flopping, neoconservative, sock puppet, cult member.
Newt Gingrich - Globalist, neoconservative, sock puppet, flip-flopper with cult involvement.
Michelle Bachmann - Committed Christian, neoconservative.

President Barack Obama - He won his presidential election with a promise of "change" but has basically been furthering the same globalist, neoconservative, sock puppet agenda of the Bush administration. His latest acts are so blatantly anti-civil liberties that his liberal followers are still reeling in a state of shock. Jaws dropped when President Obama stood before the historical U.S. Constitution and declared he would circumvent the U.S. Constitution and legalize indefinite detention without a trial (nullifying habeas corpus).[1] But then to affirm his support for the blatantly anti-civil liberty National Defense Authorization Act (NDA Act), which he had said he would veto, on December 15, the very day the historic Bill of Rights was first approved (December 15 1791) lies beyond political moral reprehension.[2] The ambiguous language in this law creates a loop-hole allowing for a subjective definition of 'terrorist' to be applied to any US citizen on US soil which trumps any personal civil-rights. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, stated “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."[3] This law is reminiscent of the 1936 "Gestapo Law"which authorized Nazis to sweep anyone (Jews or otherwise) up off the street without a legal trial and ship them off to concentration camps. This law began the time-line of the Holocaust.[4] As an added bonus the new US NDA law authorizes additional secret torture methods, in addition to the standard water-boarding that was outlawed in 2005.

Ron Paul - He is a paleoconservative who sees the need to restore basic habeas corpus rights (the right to a legal trial) as a top priority. How can you not agree with this? After the adoption of NDA Act, we will essentially be living in a police state. If you are happy with that, then vote for someone else. The other candidates are basically silent on this issue. Paul is against torture and he's for the sovereignty of the United States.[5] He's against the entrenched corruption in the US and therefore a lot of money is being spent to oppose him. Most of the special interest money (Goldman Sachs, etc.) is going to Mitt Romney, which should tell you something. Paul has been married to his wife for over 50 years, which shows he knows what commitment means and he knows how to keep a promise.[6] Paul has been criticized for not being outspoken about his Christian faith. But Jesus showed that actions speak louder than words in Matthew 7. "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."(Matt. 7.16-17, NIV). Paul has been criticized for not supporting a preemptive strike on Iran. But this may be wise considering a recent statement by Major General Zhang Zhaozhong of China who recently said, “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War.”[7] This attitude is endorsed by Russia as well.

Mitt Romney - His main trait seems to be flip-flopping on many of his statements. There are so many flip-flops there is a website dedicated to just that, Mitt Romney Flip-flops.com.[8] This is a bad sign for a number of reasons. It means he is a politician's politician willing to say anything at anytime to please anyone. Though he is generally non-committal on important issues, Romney has recast himself as a neoconservative supporting the recent preemptive wars of aggression[9] who does not view water-boarding as torture.[10] This is quite a contrast from his 2002 campaign wherein he stated, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone that is moderate, and my views are progressive.”[11] The hefty lobbying he receives from bankers[12] plus his flip-flopping ways together reveal that the major monetary corruption in government probably won't be addressed. He claims to be a morally clean, 'non-smelly' sock-puppet, but do we really need a pretty-faced, smooth talking Ken-doll Republican sock-puppet at this juncture? The US is on its death bed and needs to be immediately resuscitated. Lastly, Mitt is a Mormon, which is technically not classified as a Christian denomination. So he's basically a cult member. But that seems to be the smallest concern.

Newt Gingrich - In contrast to Mitt, Newt is a fairly smelly sock-puppet. It seems the only resaon he is running is to make Mitt Romney look good by comparison. Newt is cut from the same cloth as the Bush family. He pretends to be a Christian family man with traditional conservative values but, in reality, his track record shows otherwise. He's a globalist, neoconservative with a lot of blatant moral issues. His three marriages have been undermined by a history of admitted sexual, extra-marital affairs.[13] In 1997, as Speaker of the House he was fined the largest penalty in its history, $300,000. for ethics violations.[14] Newt is a bit of a religious chameleon. He was raised in a Lutheran family but he later chose to be baptized as a Southern Baptist. Then, after 40 years, he chose to become a Catholic.[15] And, to top it off, Gingrich has been featured in the pagan Bohemian Grove annual yearbook and has given speeches there as well.[16] When questioned on this subject by We are Change journalist Luke Rudkowski, Gingrich had no words to say.[17] A newt is a little reptilian amphibian that changes colors with its surroundings when it's not hiding under a rock. If you'd like a newt for president, vote for Newt.

Michelle Bachmann - She is very outspoken about her Christian beliefs and their implications. But, unfortunately, this does not make for a very successful candidate in our post-Christian environment. Bachmann endorses water-boarding and so will likely have no problem with the additional, secret torture methods now authorized in the new NDA Act. She also endorses preemptive, unprovoked and unlimited wars of aggression. When a politician is presented as a 'Christian neoconservative' then there seems to be one of two possibilities. Either there is intentional deception or a gullible naiveté. In Bachmann's case it seems to be the latter. She represents the mindset of many Christians today who haven't come to terms with the fact that Bush, Cheney and their cabinet were serious law breakers that Obama should have investigated.[18] The Christian Necon Quiz posted in this article will hopefully help Christians to see that neocon values are extra-biblical and have nothing in common with true Christianity. The actions promoted are actually anti-Christian in nature. As the Bush-light candidate, there is not much hope in her for serious reform. Conservapedia has defined Bachmann as a "movement conservative", meaning that she "supports all or nearly all conservative principles with a coherent philosophy."[19] Others listed as movement conservatives are the Apostle Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher. While it may seem altruistic to group politicians and pundits together with the Apostle Paul, somehow I don't believe the paleoconservative Paul the Apostle would be in favor of water-boarding, indefinite detention without a trial and preemptive wars of aggression. Based on his own letters, Paul affirmed the value of basic civil liberties as a Roman citizen, the importance of which Bachmann and other neoconservatives don't seem to grasp. "And Paul said, But I was free born...Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." (Acts 22:22-29 KJV). While it may be admirable to support the people of Israel when they face unfair criticism, on the other hand it doesn't help to make unfounded statements, such as this one: "We know without a shadow of a doubt Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map. And they've stated that they will use it against the United States of America."[20] Bachmann is not careful in her thinking, in her research and in her words.

Final thoughts

Even if you are a liberal, hedonist, Christian-hating atheist, hopefully you will be able to see that if we don't have basic civil rights, then we don't have much at all. When the Occupy Wall Street protesters peacefully exercised their rights of free speech and civil disobedience the government called out the Department of Homeland Security, with policies linked to the 'Patriot Act' supposedly for terrorist threats, to help crack-down on innocent civilians. It was the police, not the protesters, who exercised unnecessary and brutal violence.[21]

Christians sometimes stay out of politics because they believe it is 'non-spiritual,' but John Bunyan offered some good advice:

"You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you cannot do more than pray until you have prayed."

Ron Paul is the only candidate seriously defending the most essential civil-rights issues, which are the main 2012 election issues. Therefore, he has widespread bipartisan, grass-roots support from a wide variety of conscientious activists. He's the best Christian candidate and the best candidate over all for 2012. If you agree, pass this Christian voters guide along to a friend. If it's not too late, register to vote as a Republican in the primary election in your state. If Paul does not make it through the primaries, America has no chance for political resuscitation.

References

[1] The Washington Times, 2009 Obama calls for unconstitutional, indefinite Detention Centers; Will he veto NDAA (Video) , http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/nov/30/obama-calls-unconstitutional-indefinite-detention-/
[2] Opposing Views, Obama Will Not Veto Bill That Would Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens,
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/obama-will-not-veto-bill-would-indefinitely-detain-us-citizens
[3] Human Rights Watch, US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights
[4] Never Again, NAAF Holocaust Project Timeline 1936, http://www.neveragain.org/1936.htm
[5] Ron Paul, Ron Paul on the Issues, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/
[6] About.com, Carol and Ron Paul Marriage Profile, http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/ronpaul.htm
[7] Gerald Celente, China Will Not Hesitate To Protect Iran Even With A Third World War, http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/11/china-will-not-hesitate-to-protect-iran.html
[8] Mitt Romney Flip-flops, WHICH MITT ROMNEY ARE WE GETTING THIS YEAR?, http://mittromneyflipflops.com/
[9] Huffington Post, Mitt Romney Recasts Himself as a Neocon,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-morningside-post/mitt-romney-recasts-himse_b_1004479.html
[10] Policy Mic, Mitt Romney's Immoral Acceptance of Torture, http://www.policymic.com/articles/mitt-romney-s-immoral-acceptance-of-torture
[11] Bloomberg Businessweek, Romney, Self-Described "Progressive" http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2011/12/romney_self-described_progressive.html
[12] A) IB Times, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney: Who Funds Them?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264837/20111209/ron-paul-newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-funds.htm
B) Open Secrets, Top Contributors, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00000286
C) Reuters, Top JP Morgan bankers hosting Romney fund-raiser
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-jpmorgan-romney-idUSTRE7AS1UZ20111129
[13] Buffalo News, Gingrich is nothing a leader should be
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/letters-to-the-editor/article668645.ece
[14] Washington Post, House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
[15] The New Republic, Why Are American Politicians Always Switching Religions? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98384/newt-gingrich-religious-conversion-politicians?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=a420660c05-TNR_Daily_121311&utm_medium=email
[16] Daily Paul, Newt Gingrich gave speech at Bohemian Grove - newspapers links etc, http://www.dailypaul.com/189887/newt-gingrich-gave-speech-at-bohemian-grove-newspapers-from-1995-etc
[17] YouTube, WeAreChange Confronts Newt Gingrich, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbM-ItVyDM8
[18] Templestream, Christian Hugs and Handcuffs for George W. Bush, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/02/christian-hugs-and-handcuffs-for.html
[19] Conservapedia, Movement Conservative, http://conservapedia.com/Movement_conservative
[20] Huffington Post, Is Michele Bachmann a Compulsive Liar or Just Clueless?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/michele-bachmann-politifact_b_1153964.html
[21] The Guardian, The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

Search Terms

Best Christian candidate
Christian voters guide
Main 2012 election issues

Help wake up the somewhat 'out of touch' Christian voters.
Christians will be key influences in deciding the next election.
Paste links to articles and free artwork in blogs and emails:

The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/12/other-2012-christian-voters-guide.html

Ron Paul - CPR for Civil Rightshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/6609134445/

Related

Why Christians Oppose Torture and the NDAA
A Good Example of Staying on the Right Path
The Civil Rights Movement in Reverse: Who's Next?

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle

2011-11-29T22:08:00.000-08:00

After the Thanksgiving holiday is over and the peace-inducing triptothane chemicals from the turkey have worn off, hopefully you are reflecting on some heart-warming times with family and friends. Being thankful is good for our bodies and minds, so good that it's worth adopting a thankful lifestyle for health reasons alone. Even so, what the scientific studies reveal are some deeper implications that reality, in all its facets, has an underlying order and that order points to God's existence.

A study by Duke University's Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy has shown a scientific connection between being thankful and enjoying significant mental and physical health benefits.[1] Dr. Doraiswamy, head of the division of biologic psychology at Duke University Medical Center, stated, "If [thankfulness] were a drug, it would be the world's best-selling product with a health maintenance indication for every major organ system." A second study, as published in the Navy Times November 25, 2011, shows that personal guilt from wrong moral choices leads to very serious health problems: "A leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder is guilt that troops experience due to moral dilemmas faced in combat, according to preliminary findings of a study of active-duty Marines."[2] The first study offers evidenced that there are extreme health benefits for something so simple as being thankful. The second study offers that there are serious negative side effects from moral errors, such as serious combat mistakes, that is, killing innocent civilians. In both the positive example and the negative one, there is the implication that an underlying objective moral order exists.The following thanksgiving apologetic is based on evidence showing that a cause-effect relationship exists between moral decisions and health. The simple decision to be thankful has both profound health affects and profound meaning. It underscores the reality of objective morality and God's existence.

A Thanksgiving Apologetic

Part I.
1. In society, not offering thanks when someone does something special for you is considered wrong.
2. Questions of right and wrong are moral questions.
3. Therefore, giving thanks in society generally has a moral basis.

Part II.
1. For atheists, values and moral decisions do not have an absolute, objective basis.
2. Giving thanks and feeling guilt relate to values and moral decisions.
3. Therefore, health effects from values and moral decisions do not have an objective basis for atheists.

Part III.
1. For theists, values and moral decisions have an absolute, objective basis in God's existence.
2. Giving thanks and feeling guilt relate to values and moral decisions.
3. Therefore, health effects from values and moral decisions have an objective basis for theists.

Part IV
1. Proven health benefits for thankfulness and negative results for moral guilt imply a cause-effect relationship exists between moral behavior and health.
2. Theism has an objective basis for values and moral behavior and the positive cause-effect relationship between morality and health, while atheism does not.
3. Therefore, God's existence and Theism as a true condition offer the best explanation for the scientific test results on thankfulness, morality and health.

Part I. In the day-to-day workings of society, people generally expect to hear the words "Thank you" when they do something special for someone else free of charge. This is a question of of politeness and manners, but also a question of morality. We know this because people intuitively sense it is wrong to receive sacrifices from other people without offering a word of thanks. There are different degrees of being thankful. You can have a general thankful attitude about life and you can offer specific thanks to specific people for specific reasons. The more specific you are, the more meaningful your expression of thankfulness is. If someone gives a gift and there is no sign of thankfulness whatsoever, this would register at the bottom end of the scale. If someone received a gift and the person was thankful, but did not express thanks specifically to the giver, this would be in the middle of the scale. If a person received a gift and expressed thanks to the giver for that specific gift, even describing how it helped him or her and the feelings it gave, this would be the highest expression of thanks. By simply being thankful for your existence you are mildly participating in the divine moral order of the universe and you will reap some health benefits.

Part II. Most atheist philosophers believe there is no universal objective basis for morality. Those who have attempted to prove that there is an objective basis without God's existence have not presented any notable examples that have held up to the scrutiny of debate. After I critiqued Erik Wielenberg's argument for atheistic objective morality, one of the atheists who debates at my blog seemed to abandon the possibility of objective atheist morality altogether. Wielenberg has not responded to my requests to address that critique.[3]

A note of personal thanks.*

As the atheist philosopher Nietzsche has shown, there is really no compelling objective basis for altruism in atheism. Quite the opposite, there is an excuse to be selfish and harsh as a means for pursuing selfish goals. A combination of atheism and evolution suggests that we are no more than animals and getting ahead in the world is more important than being polite. Politeness and being thankful are counter-intuitive to social Darwinism. In our day, the prominent Richard Dawkins has verified his own commitment to moral relativism and his "Selfish Gene", as I documented in a previous article.[4]

Secondly, people who meditate on the idea of thankfulness as a New Age technique imply that there may be a certain mystical reciprocity in the Universe. But is this mystical sense logical? Does it really make sense to thank abstract forces and laws that cannot acknowledge our thanks? Would you thank a wall each day for holding up your house?

Thirdly, to simply be thankful for life, without thanking a force or anyone or anything in particular, becomes a bit self-centered after a while. For example, a person could mediate and think, "I am thankful for life...I am thankful for love...I am thankful for the snow, and so on." But because there is no personal focus or object to give thanks to, the focus automatically shifts back to the subject, which is the continuous "I" who becomes the main emphasis simply by default.

While at first thought it may seem that selfishness brings happiness, the opposite is shown to be true. There have been studies showing people with a lot of money tend to be happier, but the studies generally don't ask what the people actually do with their large incomes. A study that was more specific showed that people who are generous and not selfish with their money are much more likely to be happy.[5] Again, these types of results help to show that an atheism-evolution paradigm is out of sinc with reality. These results support the principle outlined by Christ: "It's better to give than to receive." According to these examples there is no compelling reason why being thankful should have exceeding and significant health benefits for atheists. Though there is no objective, logical basis for practicing this lifestyle for atheists, in participating in thankful meditations atheists can participate somewhat in the spiritual principles of life outlined by Christ and the scriptures.

Part III. In accordance with Theism, there is a logical sense of duty to acknowledge and thank the Creator for the incredible world we live in. Imagine an architect designing a house and managing the construction only to find the client move in and say. "I'm not going to pay you because you did not do any real work, you just had some ideas and that's about it. The construction workers did all the work." Under the circumstances, there would probably be a lawsuit. In a similar manner, people tend to short-change the greatest designer of all. People see and acknowledge the incredible designs in nature and the fine tuning of the universe perfectly suited for life and yet say "There is no reason for a designer, the laws of physics and natural selection have done all the work." Atheists will acknowledge, however, that natural selection technically can begin only after biological life has begun, and there is no definitive explanation as to how the complex designs of molecular bonding and the first DNA or RNA-like information units could have possibly come into existence. Nevertheless, there is an insistence that an Intelligent Designer is out of the question.

Good design doesn't 'just happen'.*

In the case of the architectural services I mentioned, there is a legal debt. In the case of thanking God, there is a logical debt. This beautiful home we have called Earth was not created by chance alone. In the case of God's creation, God is not demanding any payment from people but, nevertheless, there is a logical and implied need to thank God for the incredible world and life He has given. Psalm 29.2, states: "Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name; worship the Lord in the splendor of His holiness." Scriptures implore us to be thankful, such as Ephesians 5.20: "And give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." I Thessalonians 5.18 states: "in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." When we live in harmony with the purpose of God's creation and its underlying order, it is logical that we experience greater mental and physical health, even as the noted scientific studies have revealed.

Part IV. Scientific tests show that being thankful is exceedingly healthy and breaking moral principles is exceedingly unhealthy, no matter if the actions are big or small. This implies there is a strong cause-effect relationship that exists between moral behavior and health. Theism offers an objective basis for moral behavior and strong reasons for the positive cause-effect relationship between morality and health, while Atheism does not offer compelling reasons for these benefits. According to these observations, Theism offers a better explanation of reality. Gallup polls have shown that people who are highly religious are the healthiest and happiest people group of all.[6] This tends to confirm the logical argument here.

There is a subtle irony in that objective morality only exists if God exists, yet we can only approach God by faith because God is spiritual and we cannot see God. This principle was exemplified by the account of Cain and Abel. Cain's offering of thanks to God was rejected because he did not offer it by faith. Hebrews 11:4 states, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." The logic of giving thanks is ultimately based on acknowledging that life has meaning and purpose because God exists. Giving thanks with sincerity is ultimately an act of faith. The moral order of the universe is based on the spiritual order of the universe, the spiritual foundation of reality. In a previous article I showed how there is a logical and spiritual order underlying the universe that atheists cannot assume due to discoveries in quantum physics. Theists can assume this logical order because our identities are ultimately spiritual, not physical.[7]

Nature itself testifies of God's existence as the Designer and when we refuse to thank God we are out of step with this obvious reality. If it looks like a design and functions like a design, then it probably is a design. Atheism has to be learned through indoctrination, and, unfortunately, that is precisely what the public schools are doing today. Richard Dawkins acknowledged the obvious appearance of design in the very beginning of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[8] He clarifies this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.”[9] In his book, Dawkins ultimately appeals to "little flights of fancy" for the origin of life, as outlined in a critique by Dallas Willard.[10] In his book, The Origin of the Species, Darwin referred to divine agency for the origin of life: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."[11] and in the 6th edition Darwin specifically referred to the creator as the generator of life: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[12] Though technically he called himself an agnostic due to his wavering faith[13], Darwin apparently did not see a way around divine agency as a means for the first impulse of life. Thus, if Darwin had been feeling a strong period of faith in his life and he happened to have been sitting at your table during the recent Thanksgiving Day celebration, it is highly that Darwin could have said the prayer of thanks for the Thanksgiving meal.

True Thanksgiving history is discussed in a Ukrainian school.*

My wife and I had an opportunity to visit a public school in Ukraine and talk about the holiday of Thanksgiving. The Ukrainian students also gave presentations regarding Thanksgiving's true history. The students noted how the Pilgrims came from Europe seeking freedom of religion and civil rights. Ironically, our discussion about the true meaning of Thanksgiving would not have been permitted in the US public school system today because there were overt references to God. In my presentation I noted how giving thanks is less meaningful unless there is someone to give thanks to. I mentioned how God was a central focus of this holiday in the past and for many families in the present as well. The “First Thanksgiving” was the Pilgrims’ three-day feast celebrated in early November of 1621 which included feasting, sports and time dedicated for prayer.

In my Thanksgiving presentation, I described the optimism of the group that celebrated the Thanksgiving Day holiday in 1621. After 47 people had died from the General Sickness of the first winter (1620-21), the survivors were still thankful to be alive. There can be a sense of optimism and thankfulness in all circumstances because the more we understand who God is and what God has done, the more we understand that we have a good future in our relationship with God. Our ultimate reality, if we repent and receive Christ's atonement, is to experience God's peace and presence for eternity. And we realize that whatever God allows to happen in our lives will ultimately be used for a good purpose. If you meditate upon these things as a believer you will be encouraged. If, however, the underlying truth you base your life upon ultimately rests upon subjective speculation and "little flights of fancy", as is the case with Richard Dawkins, there probably won't be a strong sense of confidence or hope in your life, and quite a bit of logical confusion. The central truth of life is the evidence and logically cohesive truth of God's existence, and this truth will set you free, as outlined in John 8.32.

The ABC News article covering the wonderful health benefits of giving thanks was published on November 23, 2011, the day before the US Thanksgiving holiday. In the entire article there was no mention of the theist God who was the central focus of the first Thanksgiving holiday. Instead, after a brief pause, the article automatically transitioned into into a video clip about meditation techniques. While I appreciate the factual information in Mikaela Conly's ABC News article, it was unnecessary to censor-out the central focus and the primary meaning of giving thanks during the First Thanksgiving celebration. What we choose to focus on in our lives will tend to make a big difference. The philosophical basis of giving thanks is as important, if not more so, as the psychology and physiology of giving thanks. It's never healthy to obsess about food and to eat too much. It's always healthy to focus on the giver of all good things and to be thankful.

References

[1] ABC News, Thankfulness Linked to Positive Changes in Brain and Body
(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/science-thankfulness/story?id=15008148)
[2] Navy Times, Guilt a top cause of PTSD, study shows
(http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/11/gannett-marine-guilt-top-cause-PTSD-112511w/)
[3] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
(http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html)
[4] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine (http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html)
[5] Journal Watch, Giving Brings Happiness, (http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/long/2008/527/4)
[6] Templestream, Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality, (http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html)
[7] Templestream, How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence
(http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html)
[8] Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1 (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/AppearanceOfDesign.htm)
[9] Ibid p. 21. (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/AppearanceOfDesign.htm)
[10] Willard Dallas Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (p. 155 in Watchmaker)
(http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52)
[11] Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, Chapter 14 final paragraph, (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html)
[12] Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, Chapter 15 final paragraph. (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-15.html)
[13] Darwin Correspondence Project, Darwin to John Fordyce (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041) Darwin's letter to John Fordyce, 7 May, 1897: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. ...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Images:

Image of Christ giving thanks is a reinterpretation based on William Kurelek's mural on the wall of the chapel of St. Thomas More College in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. William Kurelek was a self-taught Ukrainian painter of the Canadian prairies.
*Credit for photo of thank-you card to Hellojenuine at Flickr Creative Commons.
*Seattle architecture, sales profile.
*Photo of class by Olga Warden, November 24, 2011.

Related:

Christmas: The Beauty and Challenge of Forgiveness
Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence

Castellucci's Christophobia: Teaching Children the Art of the Antichrist

2011-10-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

When presented in Paris, the new and highly controversial theater piece by Romeo Castellucci drew out many protestors. According to the Associated Press, "The mayor of Paris says the city is filing legal complaints against fundamentalist Christians protesting a play at the municipal theater they claim is blasphemous."[1]

In terms of subject matter, Anti-Christian plays and art have been seen before. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" from 1987 was one of the earlier human-waste-Christ transpositions. Piss Christ, however, was attacked and broken in the Avignon Art Gallery in April 2011. In the case of Castellucci's work, perhaps the most controversial twist is to have children hurling objects at the image of Christ, which then oozes what appears to be fecal matter. It's not clear what the main drama was intended to be, the actions on the stage, or the protests by the largely Catholic public.

The play, "Sur le Concept du Visage du fils de Dieu" ("On the Concept of the Son of God's Face"), includes a very central theme of Christophobia, "in which projectiles are thrown at the face of Christ hanging onstage." It wasn't clear to me at first what the "projectiles" were, but they seem to be amorphous plastic forms, and, in the context of the play, it suggests that the children are (metaphorically somehow) tossing fecal matter at the hanging image. This tossing action helps the children to tangibly interact with the scatological narrative of the play.

The mayor of Paris said the government couldn't tolerate any public demonstrations against the play, "such expressions of fundamentalism and intolerance." But who is really being intolerant here? The Parisian government cannot tolerate public demonstrations by fundamentalist Christians, but this play, funded with public financing, seems quite intolerant of Christians. I doubt the openly gay mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delano, would tolerate a play wherein people threw things at images of homosexuals as a fecal-like substance proceeded to ooze out of the homosexual portraits. A Paris correspondent, Jeanne Smits, described some of the details of the second night of the performance in Paris on October 21:

"A few dozen young French Catholics chained themselves to the railings of the theater under the noses of three vanloads of riot police (“CRS”) who quickly closed in to dislodge them. Heavy-handedly using their bats and teargas, the armored police forces beat up the young people, handcuffed them and forced many of them flat on the ground."[2]

Smits goes on in more detail about the play's narrative: "On the Concept of the Face of the Son of God is a scatological representation of an old man wracked with diarrhea whose son wipes and cleans him repeatedly on stage under a large reproduction of a Face of Christ by Antonello da Messina. Brown feces fill the stage – synthetic odor included -, the two actors leave the stage, then a dozen children carrying schoolbags make their appearance and throw plastic grenades at the image of Christ. The image later appears to crack up and a dark liquid similar to the feces seen earlier invades the face which is then covered with the words, “You are not my shepherd”.[3] The following video shows the children hurling objects at Christ's image.[4]

While blocking the show and pelting people with eggs is not the Christian answer to these types of problems, it's easy to understand why they would be upset. The French government is becoming increasingly hostile towards the Christian community. If the French government has its way, it will imprison Christians who question the moral validity of homosexuality. The French government had in 2004 pushed for a law outlawing any remarks considered offensive to homosexuals. The Independent reported, "France to punish homophobic and sexist remarks with jail sentences"[5] and outlined how the vote failed to pass by a slim margin.

In response to the French Christian protests, Romeo Castellucci stated, "I forgive them for they know not what they do … I forgive them because they are ignorant and their ignorance is much more arrogant and damaging because it involves faith."[6] While Castellucci may feel magnanimous about his forgiving spirit, organizations in Belgium and France are urging people to sign a petition to stop the play.[7]

While causing children to bombard Christ's image may seem harmless to Castellucci and others, Jesus touched on this type of subject and the evil nature of causing children to lose faith in God and to despise Christianity. Ultimately God will judge Castellucci, and he apparently won't judge him lightly:

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."(Mark 9.4, NIV)

The article, Proof Moral Relativism is False, highlights why moral relativism is illogical and tends to create an increasingly totalitarian society. There are two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of antichrist, as shown in 1 John 4:2-6. Which spirit do you follow and serve? For those of us who are Christians, we can pray for the salvation of artists like Romeo Castellucci and for the protection of the children he is attempting to indoctrinate with his art.

References

[1] Mail.com, Fundamentalist Christians protest at Paris theater, (http://www.mail.com/entertainment/lifestyle/802392-fundamentalist-christians-protest-paris-theater.html#.7518-stage-set2-10)
[2] Life Site News, French police brutality against Catholic demonstrators, (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-police-brutality-against-catholic-demonstrators/)
[3] YouTube, Des catholiques contre la pièce de Castellucci, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0U89b76lsQ&feature=player_embedded)
[4] Life Site News
[5] Independent, France to punish homophobic and sexist remarks with jail sentences, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-to-punish-homophobic-and-sexist-remarks-with-jail-sentences-681144.html)
[6] Guardian, Romeo Castellucci 'forgives' Christian protesters for interrupting play (http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/oct/25/romeo-castelluci-christian-protesters-play)
[7] Belgique et Chretiente, Pétition contre deux spectacles christianophobes, (http://belgiqueetchretiente.hautetfort.com/tag/sur%20le%20concept%20du%20visage%20du%20fils%20de%20dieu), France Jeunesse Civitas, Sur le concept du visage du fils de Dieu: deux théâtres assignés, (http://francejeunessecivitas.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/10/14/sur-le-concept-du-visage-du-fils-de-dieu-deux-theatres-assig.html)

Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine

2011-10-28T08:11:00.000-07:00

Packed-in crowd at The Sheldonian.

The Oxford Student newspaper reads, "Christian apologist William Lane Craig addressed a packed Sheldonian theatre this week, in the absence of Richard Dawkins."[1] On a truly historic day, in what may be the biggest news story for Christians in a long time, the leading defender of Atheism, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has declined the most straightforward challenge to debate yet. The leading defender of Theism, Dr. William Lane Craig, has underscored the implications of his challenge by setting out an empty chair in Dr. Dawkins' university town of Oxford England.

Dr. Dawkins has declared that Dr. Craig is below his standards as an intellectual. However, Dr. Craig has two earned doctoral degrees, while Dawkins has one earned doctoral degree. Craig has served as a legitimate professor while Dawkins' service as a legitimate professor of science was questionable with subjects in his resume such as mind reading and Memetics being labeled as pseudo science on numerous fronts.[2] "British author Paul Johnson called it (Dawkins chair as a professor) ‘Oxford’s first Chair of Atheism.’ But true (operational) science involves repeatable, observable experimentation in the present, which includes physics, chemistry, experimental biology and geology, etc. ... Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science."[3] Dr. Craig has 47 books listed as published at Amazon, while Dawkins has 12 published books to date.

Instead of showing up to debate October 25th, some of Dawkins' supporters stood outside and handed out copies of one of his articles, "Why I Won't Debate William Lane Craig." In lieu of a live debate, Craig offered a series of points as to why Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion" doesn't pass muster.

Dawkins had called Craig a "deplorable apologist for Genocide" and Craig discussed how Dawkins misused the word genocide. Dawkins also seems to have a misunderstanding of what his moral relativism implies. For if Dawkins were truly a moral relativist he would rightly understand he has no objective reason to find anyone else's beliefs morally reprehensible. In any event, by highlighting the Israeli conquest of Canaan in approximately 13C BCE, Dawkins is inadvertently supporting Israel's claim to the occupied territories. Since he didn't show up to discuss anything, we'll have to try and interpret the deeper meaning of Dawkins' statements and the fallout of Dawkins' absence.

Dawkins shows up as a leaflet.

I. Dawkins' moral outrage about Canaan is illogical

Dawkins has officially collapsed. Being unable to defend his "God Delusion" in live debate, he and his followers have sunken to the level of handing out sheets of propaganda. In attempting to take the moral high ground he is highlighting his lack of intellectual rigor, for moral relativists have no objective moral ground to stand upon. This lack of intellectual rigor carries over into his misuse of the word genocide in his article. But, again, this brings us a golden opportunity to consider what the historic systematic genocides have looked like by those who support Militant Atheism, the dark brand of Atheism Mr. Dawkins embraces.

First, consider Dawkins' moral relativism:

"So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[4]

"Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan"[5]

Try again..

When Dawkins claims there is "no logical connection between what is and what ought" he's basically admitting he believes there is no objective and logical foundation for his ethics. Does it make sense for someone with no objective basis for ethics to be morally outraged by people's actions from a completely different culture over three thousand years ago? Not likely. Dawkins' logical collapse is coupled with his misuse of the word genocide, as it relates to the land of Canaan. His response to the Craig debate challenge seemed to be an epic fail.

Webster's Dictionary definition of genocide:

"the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this"[6]

Encyclopedia Britannica's summary of Canaan:

"The Israelites occupied and conquered Palestine, or Canaan, beginning in the late 2nd millennium BC, or perhaps earlier; and the Bible justifies such occupation by identifying Canaan with the Promised Land, the land promised to the Israelites by God."[8]

In contrast to genocide, God's commission to the Israelites was not centered on killing certain people due to their nationality, ethnicity or specific religion, but God's commission to the Israelites was based on a certain piece of real estate that had been defiled by wickedness and was to be redeemed for God's purposes. This land was promised to the Israelites long before the name "Palestine" was adopted by the Roman Empire from words "Philistia" and "Philistine" in 1C ACE. By bringing up the subject of Canaan, Dawkins is actually helping to support the case of pro-Israel supporters who believe Israel has a right to the occupied territories. The promise made to Abraham was in approximately 2220 BCE:

"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18-21, NIV)

If the Canaanite people had left these lands, there would have been no battles and no killing, because they were not going on a mission to hunt down a certain people group, as the German Nazis hunted down the Jews. The promise of the land was the main priority and the purity of the land was the second priority, as outlined in later scriptures. The people of the land was only incidental but it was their wickedness that was detestable and could not be allowed to continue there in that place alongside the Israelites.

II. Israel's conquest of Canaan is morally justified

In contrast to Dawkins' moral relativism, the Bible teaches that there are absolute standards of morality, but many people don't understand how this may be exemplified in the case of the Canaanites. The ultimate reference point for moral truth is the person of God who is holy, just and loving. If there is a case in which God is not exemplifying one of these characteristics, it's likely we don't fully understand the situation. When we closely examine how and why the Israelites invaded Canaan, then we can understand its justification.

Long before the invasion of Canaan, God informed Abraham of this event. In Genesis 15, God tells Abraham: "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure. The people of the land of Canaan were apparently immoral, but God would allow them to spiral deeper and deeper into their moral abyss before Joshua would invade 440 years later, at which time the land would be given over to the people of Israel by God.

According to a testimony of Rahab the harlot, the people of Canaan had known that Israel would invade and conquer them, as shown in Joshua 2:9:

Rahab's rehab.

"I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you."

God gave the Canaanites 440 years to repent or to leave the land but they didn't. Even as Joshua conquered each city one by one, the people knew what was happening and had the possibility of fleeing. Jericho was the first Canaanite city the Israelites chose to attack. Rahab the harlot saw her people's fear and heard how God helped Israel leave Egypt. She lived off the grid, so to speak, in between the two outer walls of the city of Jericho. She met the enemy first hand when spies came from Israel to scope out Jericho. Convinced that Israel would win the battle, she decided to put her trust in them and side with them in exchange for her salvation. Rahab was correct in her assessment that God would supernaturally assist the Israelites. Rehab's rehab was both a physical relocation and a spiritual one. Colossians 1.13 speaks of the grace of God, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son."

The writings of Moses describe the Canaan commission:

"Observe, I am going to send an Angel before you, to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Guard yourselves before Him and obey His voice, and do not be rebellious toward Him, for He will not pardon your transgression, since My Name is in Him. But if you truly obey His voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, and I will completely destroy them." (Exodus 23:20–23).

"When Jehovah your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, you will clear away many nations from before you the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when Jehovah your God delivers them before you, and you utterly defeat them, then you will completely destroy them. You will make no covenant with them and you will show no grace to them...And you will consume all the peoples whom Jehovah your God delivers to you. your eye will not pity them, neither will you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you." (Deuteronomy 7:1–2,16).

"Only in the cities of these peoples that Jehovah your god is giving you as an inheritance, you will not leave alive anything that breathes, but you will utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, and Jehovah your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against Jehovah your God." (Deuteronomy 20:16–18).

Is this big enough?

These verses emphasize the wickedness of the people who had given themselves so completely to idolatry that not even the animals could be left alive. If you understand the sexual nature of the Canaanite idolatry and the manner in which this ultimately destroys a society, then you will understand in what respects this would have been necessary. To begin to grasp what the environment would have probably been like, consider a description of Sodom before it was destroyed.

The example of Sodom

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." (Genesis 19.4-9)

These few verses and the words of Lot imply that bisexual relations, pedophilia and brutal gang rape were prevalent and considered normal in the city of Sodom prior to its destruction. According to this scriptural perspective, a society can become so wicked and sick that it is unsafe to visit for just one evening. From a human perspective murder is immoral on all occasions, but from God's perspective morality is weighed against His eternal plan and character. If a society continues to reject God and to choose ever deepening levels of depravity, then it is God's prerogative to end the life He created. This applies whether we are talking about Sodom, Canaan, or the Great Tribulation. Jesus affirmed that God relates to people on different levels, both as individuals and as societies.

In Luke 10.13, Jesus said, "What sorrow awaits you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have repented of their sins long ago, clothing themselves in burlap and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse."

Life is a gift - depravity is a choice - depravity leads to death

Most atheists don't have a moral problem if an earthquake destroys a city because they don't believe in God. But because God in the scriptures specifically called on the Israelites to kill all the living things in Canaan, atheists find that immoral and unforgivable. This contrast of opinion shows a lack of understanding with regard to the nature of God's sovereignty from an eternal perspective. The Rabbi Charles Feinberg helps explain these principles as he describes the Akeda, the Jewish term for the binding of Isaac. In his article, "The Akedah: Feelings and Principle" Feinberg explains the importance of seeing life as a gift from God.[7] When you understand God as creator and Lord, then you are more able to accept, as Job did, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1.21 NIV)

Going from a less personal and spiritual perspective to more a more cultural one, consider the ramifications of a society in a moral free-fall that is gasping for its last breath. Ancient Rome was a society in a downward tailspin until Christ and Christianity helped to resurrect its sick and dying culture. Rome had taken what was secret and sacred and turned it into a public performance of perversion. I don't want to get into too many of the graphic historical details, but consider that bestiality was not only practiced in Rome in secret, it was demonstrated in the colosseums for entertainment. The lowest level of prostitutes in Rome were known to perform sex with animals if requested.

Sacrificing to Molech

As bad as Rome was, there are reasons to believe that Canaan was even more debased than ancient Rome. In Rome human babies weren't sacrificed to the gods, but the gods of the Canaanites, Molech and Baal, were supposedly grateful for such sacrifices. Babies would be placed onto the sizzling hot bronze arms of a standing statue of an idol that had a fire burning inside. As the babies sizzle death the parents weren't to show any signs of remorse because that would supposedly discredit the sacrifice, so the parents rejoiced. This would tend to sear and harden the conscience of the most caring of people.Promiscuous sex with temple prostitutes apparently helped to please the pagan goddess Asherah. The the Canaanites were conquered in 1210 BCE, nevertheless, some of their practices continued and were noted in 6 BCE during the reign of King Jossiah. The king "tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah." (2 Kings 23:7)

The choice of death and the choice of life

What are the consequences of a society that hardens its collective conscience and engages in every possible sick perversion? Children would not likely be raised in a healthy, loving home with a caring mother and father in this environment. They would more likely become the victims of repeated and brutal child molestation. And studies show that children who have been molested carry physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives and are more likely to abuse their own children. These are the types of sins that carry over from one generation to the next.

When you couple zoophilia with pedophilia the problems compound exponentially. There have been at least 41 diseases known to be communicable from animals to people.[9] Children who have been repeatedly molested would likely carry sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases garnered from those practicing zoophilia. This was at a time before helpful medical treatment was available. The killing of all the livestock and animals and all the people would help to ensure that all diseases would be taken care of and this may have been the only way in which to save the entire population from death. Death and peace with God may have been a welcome experience in comparison to living in a sick society where pedophilia, child abuse and broken homes were likely commonplace.

For those who study the scriptures, it helps to remember a simple phrase, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." This picture of Canaan warfare offers a perspective on spiritual warfare, that we are to take no prisoners, so to speak, and that it is a fight to the death. Romans 6.23 in the New Testament teaches that "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life." Rachel the Canaanite harlot was given new life simply by surrendering to Joshua. In a similar manner, the worst of sinners can at any time find life by surrendering his or her life to Jesus Christ.

III. The genocides of militant atheist leaders are not morally justified

How does the territorial conquest of Canaan by Joshua compare with the genocides conducted by famous dictators motivated by Militant Atheism? Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar names names:

"Militant atheism inevitably caused extensive repressions and genocide everywhere - in Hitler's Germany, in Lenin's and Stalin's Russia, in Pol Pot's Cambodia and now in Myanmar,"[10]

Hitler's legacy of Militant Atheism

The Nazi Fascist Darwin connection.

Hitler was responsible for 6 million Jewish deaths and 12 million general concentration camp deaths. Was Hitler a Christian or was he just deceiving people in Germany to gain support? Hitler was highly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, who also promoted the Aryan elite and the Darwinist resolution. Both came from Christian backgrounds with Hitler growing up in a Catholic home and Nietzsche in a Protestant one. But while Nietzsche was more open in his scathing criticism of Christianity, Hitler kept his contempt secret, probably so that he could deceive the many German Christians into following him. Goebbels recorded a conversation with Hitler in his diary 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." This is an idea Nietzsche held, that it would take time for people to ultimately realize "the death of God" and people weren't yet ready.[11]

As a part of Nietzsche's reevaluation of all values, Hitler could justify his own worship. As Nero Claudius Caesar demanded the greeting of "Hail Caesar," the Nazi's "Heil Hitler" was obligatory as well. True Christians were despised by the Nazis because true believers worshiped the true Messiah and Savior, Jesus Christ, and not this false supplanter of values. The militant atheist Adolf Hitler committed the most infamous acts of genocide by singling out the Jews for extermination. The people of Israel under Joshua had no interest in killing any particular people group but were interested in simply occupying the land of Canaan and establishing a righteous society there.

The following quotes underscore that Hitler was a militant atheist in his own right. Anti-Christian Quotes from Hitler's journal, of which there are more, are documented in "The book Hitler's Secret Conversations,"[12]

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease." (p 118 & 119)

Stalin's legacy of Militant Atheism

Militant farming.

Joseph Stalin was a Marxist and therefore a militant atheist. Marx advocated the aggressive extermination of religion, regarded as a tool of bourgeois oppression. Stalin had his own form of repression in mind, as historical posters indicate.

Stalin founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion. Ukrainians In 1929, Joseph Stalin began a campaign of racist oppression against ethnic Ukrainians. Over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia. Between 1932 and 1933 Stalin was believed to have slaughtered 7,000,000 Ukrainians through forced starvation. Unreasonable grain quotas was forcefully taken from the Ukrainian farmers but little, if any, was given back to the local people who produced it. Borders were sealed off essentially making all of Ukraine a concentration death camp. Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.[13]

“I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.” - Joseph Stalin[14]

The Asian legacy of Militant Atheism

Pol pot was an active Marxist as a student in Paris France before returning to Cambodia where he eventually became secretary-general of the underground Cambodian Communist Party in 1962. He desired to live "untainted" by Buddhism and by 1975, he was given authority to carry out "his vision of an agrarian utopia by emptying the cities, abolishing money, private property and religion and setting up rural collectives."[15] Like Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot was an intellectual who then outlawed intellectualism once he gained power. "Anyone thought to be an intellectual of any sort was killed. Often people were condemned for wearing glasses or knowing a foreign language."[16] Pol Pot was known for his desire "not to waste a bullet" but, rather, to fill his killing fields by having people's skulls cracked with the blunt end of a farm instrument or the butt end of a rifle. Dimitry V. Pospielovsky outlined how Marxism encouraged a violent, anti-religious militant atheism.[17] In contrast to the historic Israeli occupation of Canaan, Pol Pot's killings were based on class warfare and anti-religious genocide. Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, and specific ethnic groups were targeted for killings. "Between 1975 and 1979 his regime claimed the lives of more than 1m people - through execution, starvation and disease - as the Khmer Rouge tried to turn Cambodia back to the middle ages."[18] Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million.[19]

When carrying propaganda is the law.

As brutal as Pol Pot was, he doesn't compare with militant atheist Mao Ze-Don. The overall worst genocide of the 20th Century was by Mao Ze-Dong in China and Tibet (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) A staggering estimate of 49 to 78 million people were killed in his genocides. The chart at this link lists Mao Ze-Dong at the top of the list as the greatest perpetrator of genocide in history.[20] "Under this militant atheism espoused by Mao Zedong, houses of worship were shut down; Buddhist pagodas, Daoist temples, Christian churches, and Muslim mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; and sacred texts were burnt. Moreover, it was a criminal offense to even possess a religious artifact or sacred text."[21] Though it was a crime to carry any religious text, it was required by law to carry propaganda booklets, as shown in the Chinese propaganda poster.

Conclusion

Atheism is the denial of god - and thus it is the denial of quite a bit more than God, because everything, all principles, all logic and all truth originate with God. At its root, at its very foundation, the denial of God is illogical, as is the denial of all reality that proceeds from God. And so at every simple step the atheist apologist stumbles in debate. Richard Dawkins' cowardly collapse before the truth of God is reminiscent of the fearful collapse of Canaan before the truth of God. The walls of Jericho collapsed inward before the Isrealites burned the city down, as confirmed by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon:

“The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt, but the collapse of the walls of the eastern rooms seems to have taken place before they were affected by the fire.”[22]

Atheists will comment that "Craig uses a flurry of arguments and overwhelms his opponents, but the atheist has better arguments anyway." No, Craig uses many points and arguments simply because the preponderance of evidence supports the reality of God's existence. Atheist debaters could also use a flurry of arguments if they wanted to, but they simply don't have any to begin with. The fact that Dawkins and his followers have resulted to handing out propaganda in lieu of a live debate is an ominous sign. Looking back in history, atheist totalitarian dictators have always felt the need to marginalize and eventually kill intellectuals because all truth, even as proposed by agnostics, points to God's existence.

Richard Dawkins is showing his stripes as a militant atheist. In refusing to debate William Lane Craig, while at the same time claiming intellectual superiority, he is demonstrating his penchant for atheist hegemony. In attempting to marginalize Christians and anyone who believes the Bible, rather than debate them, Dawkins is utilizing one of the tactics militant atheists have used throughout history. Dawkins is not interested in truth but, rather, his desire for atheist hegemony is one of the first steps towards totalitarianism. His attempts to demonize Jews and Christians with false accusations of genocide is actually helping to pave the way for the future genocide of Christians, as prophesied by Christ in Matthew 24.9:

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

The moral relativism Dawkins espouses is the main cause for the widespread corruption in the world, which leads to unrest, which leads to a loss of civil rights. What will it be like 20 years after the collapse of the United States? If we continue on in the direction we are headed in, we will find ourselves in a militant atheist state. Dawkins' criticisms of Craig and the demonization of theism are reminiscent of comments by Nietzsche. While Nietzsche and Hitler realized the time was not ripe for fully expressing "the Death of God." Dawkins seems to want to promote this view, even if he cannot defend it logically.

By drawing attention to The Israeli conquest of Canaan, Dawkins is underscoring the fact that the name Palestine isn't such an ancient name. It was given by the Romans during the first century ACE as a substitute for the name Philistine. In comparison, the Israeli occupation of the Promised Land dates back to the 13th century BCE and the takeover of Canaan. It should be noted that the Koran and Islam call for the death and genocide of infidels in general and Jews in particular, while Judaism and Christianity have no such mandate.

If you are a Christian, remember the Israelites entered Canaan by following the ark, the symbol of God's presence: " “When you see the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, and the Levitical priests carrying it, you are to move out from your positions and follow it." (Joshua 3.3, NIV) And remember the walls of collapsed as the people simply showed up and lived by faith. Entering Canaan was symbolic of entering into a spiritual life. The Canaanite society was so dedicated to base perversions and was so diseased and corrupted that it was, in a sense, already dead, thus symbolizing the sin nature, as identified in Romans 7.18: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." In contrast, living a spiritual life dedicated to God brings life, as shown in Romans 8.13, "For if you go in the way of the flesh, death will come on you; but if by the Spirit you put to death the works of the body, you will have life."

If you are an atheist or agnostic, consider that Rahab the harlot lived in between the two outer walls of Jericho. In a sense she live in a proverbial place of indecision, "on the fence" so to speak. But as she saw the fear of the Canaanites around her, she recognized that the God of Israel was the true and living God and then she chose to side with the truth and was saved. I would ask you to consider the fear exhibited by "The Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalype" and, especially the lead horseman, Richard Dawkins, and then choose wisely. No matter how base your sins may be or may have been, God's redemption and forgiveness is all-sufficient through Christ.

References

[1] Oxford Student, Craig strikes back at genocide smear
[2] Richard Dawkins' CV lists an article on animal mind reading, "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation", while his book The Selfish Gene proposes Memetics. Both subjects are widely considered pseudo science. James W. Polichak's Memes as Pseudoscience and The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience both outline why Memetics is considered pseudoscience. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience)
[3] Conservapedia, Quote by British author Paul Johnson (http://conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins)
(http://oxfordstudent.com/2011/10/27/craig-strikes-back-at-genocide-smear/)
[4] Dr. Richard Dawkins interviewed by Nick Pollard at New College, published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition (vol 18 no. 3) February 28th, 1995
[5] Ibid.
[6] Merriam Webster, genocide, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide
[7] Encyclopædia Britannica, Canaan, (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/91488/Canaan)
[8] Ada Israel, The Akedah: Feelings and Principle, (http://www.adasisrael.org/upimages/downloads_sermons/AKEDAH-Feelings%20and%20Principles-RH-5771.pdf)
[9] HPA, 41 diseases translated from animals to humans: (http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/Zoonoses/TableZoonoticDiseases/)
[10] Russia - Interfax-Religion, Russian chief rabbi thanks people for saving Jews from Nazi (http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4208)
[11] Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272.
[12] The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States. (http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html)
[13]( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts)
[14] (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm)
[15] BBC News, Pol Pot: Life of a tyrant, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/78988.stm)
[16] Ibid.
[17] Pospielovsky, Dimitry V., A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 1: A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-Religious Policies, St Martin's Press, New York (1987) pg 21
[18] BBC News, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/78988.stm)
[19] Peace Pledge Union Information – Talking about genocides – Cambodia 1975 – the genocide(http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia1.html)
[20] Piero Scaruffi, 1900-2000: A century of genocides (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)
[21] Conservapedia, Militant Atheism, cited The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics). Cambridge University Press. also, Bryan S. Turner. Religion and Modern Society: Citizenship, Secularisation and the State. Cambridge University Press. (http://conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism)
[22] Answers in Genesis, The Walls of Jericho, Archaeology Confirms: They Really Did Come A-tumblin’ Down, (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n2/the-walls-of-jericho#fnList_1_8)

Photos of Sheldonian event from Reasonable Faith forum.

Article revised December 6, 2011.

Fun with Dick and Lane: See Dawkins Run!

2011-10-23T04:02:00.000-07:00

Learning can be fun when the lesson is atheism and the text features quotes from Richard Dawkins. He is the foremost apologist for atheism, but has been dodging debate challenges from the foremost apologist for theism, William Lane Craig, for quite some time. It reminds me of the children's learning book "Fun with Dick and Jane" wherein I remember simple text, such as, "See Dick run! Run, Dick, run!"

Remarkably, in a public statement October 20, 2011, Dawkins states he and his peers have never heard of Craig: “He (Craig) parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either.”[1] All things considered, that’s quite a statement by Dawkins, who is considered one of "The Four Horsemen of the Anit-Apocalype" who represent the New Atheism movement. In a 2007 YouTube video uploaded by richarddawkins.net, The Four Horsemen are seen in a round-table discussion wherein Sam Harris states, "Religion is held off the table of formal criticism" and Richard Dawkins nods his head approvingly. [2] Actually, it seems Dawkins is desperate to keep his atheism "off the table" and out of harms way. Craig has debated the other three horsemen; Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. And now, only Dawkins is left. There's even a Facebook page devoted to The Four Horsemen, so it's not as if they exist in a closet.[3]

Dawkins wrote of Hitchens, “Christopher Hitchens: my hero of 2010" and "A gentleman and a truly formidable debater, Christopher Hitchens is a giant of the mind and a model of courage.”[4] Dawkins’ friend, the “formidalble debator” and “hero,” was soundly thrashed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 2009. A leading atheist blog, Common Sense Atheism, stated “Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”[5]

In April 2011, Craig debated Sam Harris. At the beginning of the debate Harris remarked, "I’m very happy to be debating Dr Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." Atheism defender Jon Loftus, who happens to be a former student of Craig’s, witnessed the debate live and stated, “On a points basis Craig won.”[6] The fun began in earnest May 14, 2011, when a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University (where Dawkins attended) was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[7] Ouch, that smarts.

The Daily Telegraph article outlined Dawkins’ response, “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion”[8] The article further highlighted, “Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.”[9]

Dawkins flip-flops

So, check the logic here. Dawkins said he won’t debate Craig because it won’t help advance Dawkins' own CV and career, yet Dawkins accuses Craig of self-promotion. But it gets better...

In June 2011, Dawkins stated he would never want to go on a show like the O’Reilly Factor because Bill O’Reilly isn’t intellectual enough for Dawkins: "If there are debates between two intelligent people, they are conducted effectively. But if they're conducted between an intelligent and educated person on the one hand and Bill O'Reilly on the other, they're probably not. Perhaps have more intelligent people as interviewers rather than people like Bill O'Reilly for a start. That wouldn't be great for ratings I suppose, but perhaps we should become less influenced by ratings."[10]

Nevertheless, after Fox News ran a story on how atheists were dropping out of professional debates with Craig that had been scheduled in England,[11] can you guess who wanted to appear on Fox News with the dilettante armchair philosopher Bill O’Reilly? As you might have guessed, Richard Dawkins.[12]

The Sheldonian Theatre

By October 5, in keeping with his flip-flopping ways, Dawkins was on the O’Reilly Factor in a tense exchange with Bill, all the while trying to promote his new children’s book, "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True".

When had become apparent Dawkins would rather launch a series of ad hominum attacks against Craig, rather than debate based on logic and reason, Craig issued a press release through his organization Reasonable Faith regarding what will occur at the Sheldonian Theatre. The plan was clarified that an empty chair would be ready for Dawkins, who could show up for a debate at any time up until the last minute. If he doesn't show up, "Craig will lecture on the weakness of Dawkins’ arguments in his book, The God Delusion. A panel of Oxford scholars will respond to his talk, before members of the audience are invited to ask questions from the floor."

Craig says of his debates, “These are academic forums, where one concentrates on the arguments and counter arguments, the truth of the premises in those arguments and objections to them, and not on personality or ad hominem attacks. Atheist Richard Dawkins, who has been publicly accused of cowardice {1} for refusing to debate the arguments he presents in The God Delusion, recently described Craig as a “deeply unimpressive...ponderous buffoon,” who uses logic for “bamboozling his faith-head audience.” Yet he still has not responded to the actual content of the arguments presented by Craig."

Toynbee is President of the British Humanist Association which describes one of its core values as "engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence."

Debates apart from Tonybee and Grayling have been confirmed in Manchester and Birmingham universities, where Craig will engage with Oxford academics, Prof. Peter Atkins (science) and Prof. Peter Millican (philosophy)."[13]

At least some atheists in England are willing to debate. Richard Dawkins may have somehow rationalized that it may look better on his CV to promote a children's book rather than debate the foremost defender of theology, but this choice probably doesn't bode very well for the public's opinion about atheism. Buses in Oxford are plastered with signs calling Dawkins out on the carpet: "There's probably no Dawkins. So stop worrying and enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre." Dawkins has the home-game advantage.

The gauntlet was originally thrown by Dawkins when he wrote "The God Delusion." The fact that he calls belief in God delusional and is unwilling to defend his argument in debate, as Atheism's main front-man, is quite disingenuous. Craig has clarified the cowardice and hypocrisy by taking the gauntlet back and throwing it down at Dawkins' front door in Oxford England.

Dawkins may wear his mantel proudly as the primo "Horseman of the Anti-Apocalypse," but perhaps another horseman should point out that he seems to be charging in the wrong direction. The Sheldonian calls. Is chivalry dead in England? Or is atheism dead? You be the judge.

As noted by Dr. Craig, “Being accused of being self-promoting by Richard Dawkins is, as Sam Harris remarks, sort of like being accused of bad taste by Lady Gaga.”[14] Comments by Dawkins are a great source of comic material for new Christian jokes.

Experts in their fields have commented on Dawkins' refusal to a debate them as well, for example, Michael Behe, a biologist like Dawkins, and Stephen Meyer, a philosopher/scholar, both of whom are published in peer-reviewed articles. But the exchanges between Dawkins and Craig in the news are probably the most amusing. Even Dawkins' fellow atheist Oxford Don, Daniel Came won't let Dawkins off the hook. In an article published October 22, Came states "Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectual." He states "Using William Lane Craig's remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is a typical New Atheist polemic."[15] Ouch, Came is not sparing the rod. Dawkins' latest excuse is that the Bible says horrible things, therefore he won't debate Craig. This is supremely disingenuous because Dawkins has debated plenty of other Christians who have believed the Bible is true.

On October 25th, 7:30pm at the Sheldonian Theatre on Broad Street in Oxford England, there will be an empty chair set out for Mr. Richard Dawkins at the debate, God willing. If Richard isn't out promoting his children's book he may have time to stop by and debate. He's flip-flopped on his opinion regarding Bill O'Reilly's talk program, so maybe he'll flip-flop on his decision not to debate Craig as well. With moral relativists you just never quite know what to expect.

When you watch the video at this embedded link and see Craig dismantle the main arguments in Dawkins' book "The God Delusion", then you'll better understand the reason Dawkins is running from a debate.[16] By dodging debates, Dawkins is underscoring the weakness of atheism as a worldview. Mind if I cheer you on Dawkins? Go, Dawkins, go! See Dawkins go!

As I read the Stand to Reason blog post today posted by Amy Hall, I was reminded we need to pray for Richard Dawkins and other atheists. The scriptures declare "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"[17] And while it is true atheism is quite foolish and at times humorous, its consequences are truly serious.

References

[1] Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig)

[2] Youtube, The Four Horsemen HD: Hour 1 of 2 - Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep 1, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM)

[3] Facebook, Four Horseman, (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6037801975)

[4] Guardian, Christopher Hitchens: my hero of 2010, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/christopher-hitchens-richard-dawkins)

[5] Common Sense Atheism, The Craig-Hitchens Debate, Luke Muehlhauser on April 4, 2009 (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230)

[6] Debunking Christianity, If You Were Scoring Points Craig Won, But Harris Clearly Had the Better Arguments, John W. Loftus, 4/08/2011(http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/04/craigharris-debate-if-you-were-scoring.html)

[7] Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] YouTube, Richard Dawkins Prefers "Unintelligent" debates with Bill O'Reilly over Bill Craig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzEUNUumT3w)

[11] Fox News: Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/#ixzz1bZHCY3Z)

[12] YouTube, Richard Dawkins Prefers "Unintelligent" debates with Bill O'Reill

[13] Reasonable Faith, Press Release, British Humanists Take to the Bunkers Against Reasonable Faith's Dr. William Lane Craig, (Tonybee, Grayling, Peter Atkins, Peter Millican, Manchester, Birmingham, Oxford) (http://www.pr.com/press-release/348093)

[14] YouTube, Richard Dawkins Suffers from Projection while Evading William Lane Craig [mirror]

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5zp76Yj7bo)

[15] Guardian, Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist,

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig)

[16] The Main Argument of the God Delusion Refuted

RICHARD DAWKINS THE GOD DELUSION RESPONSE BY WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-SgDpyiKPc)

[17] Psalm 14.1b

Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False

2011-10-20T06:46:00.000-07:00

The following is an outline of some reasons why moral relativism and relativist ethics are false and destructive. A sub-theme hints at the manner in which moral relativism ultimately leads to a totalitarian state, something not very desirable for most people. But that theme would require an additional article to fully develop. Before reading the meat of the article, consider some logical syllogisms that debunk moral relativism:

I. Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False

P1. Cultural relativists propose moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values.

P2. Nazi henchmen complicit in genocide were obedient to the accepted cultural values of Nazi Germany.

P3. Nazi henchmen were publicly convicted based upon the cultural values of the international community by way of an international trial and codes of the Geneva Convention.
P4. Both Nazi Germany and the international community considered their values to be correct.
P5. The moral opinions of 2 cultural groups to which Germany belonged were contradictory.

C. Therefore, cultural values alone are not enough to determine moral rightness.

P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.

P1. Torturing babies just for fun is always considered immoral by all rational people.
P2. A standard showing what's always immoral by all rational people is an absolute standard.
C. Therefore, an absolute standard of morality exists.

II. Basic Arguments and Premises Supporting Moral Relativism Refuted

A. Values differ from culture to culture, therefore moral relativism is valid.

Cultural relativism at work.

Moral cultural relativism is a subset of plain-old cultural relativism, also known as cultural Marxism. For a look into how this philosophy has been used to influence Western Civilization, research the goals and methods of the Frankfurt school. In terms of moral arguments, Moral cultural relativism is basically an argument for meta-ethical relativism, which offers that moral judgments are true by virtue of their being predominantly accepted in the cultural groups that have created them. Cultures where habitual cannibalism and headhunting have developed over time would be considered morally acceptable in those environments but not in contemporary Western Civilization, which has its own standards. The underlying presumption of this argument is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values and this is always true.[1]

A refutation of this argument is based on historical perspective and international court rulings. Looking back historically, most people today would agree that Hitler's slaughter of innocent Jews was morally wrong. And the international war trials found that Nazis who claimed "I was just following orders" offered an insufficient excuse. The judges basically ruled that you cannot blame your local society, environment or your leaders for crimes you were personally involved in. This leads to the question, "If moral cultural relativism is true, how could these German citizens have been held responsible?" The basic summation is that we all have a conscience that is a moral compass. and that this compass is fixed to a "True North" of absolute morality that has international and universal standards. Some may say the Allies committed crimes also and were not judged. Even if this is true, the Geneva Convention was the international law in force and it condemns these actions. Two wrongs don't make a right.

B. Ethical relativism is the natural (and desirable) result of evolution and social conditioning.

This is similar to the previous argument. Peter Kreeft points out that, though society does condition our opinions about values, it does not change the values themselves. At the heart of the argument is a false assumption that whatever values we learn from society must be subjective values.[2] The study of morality is a metaphysical subject, not a materialistic one. And this evolutionary argument is based on a philosophical presupposition of naturalism. If social Darwinism is the modus operandi of morality, then "might makes right" should probably be a foundational moral code today and political movements such as Fascism should be considered natural and normal. According to an interview with Richard Dawkins July 30, 2005 in Austria, social Darwinism would naturally tend to result in a fascist state: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state."[3]

Dawkins flip-flops on morality.

Though admitting a close relationship between Darwinism and Fascism, in 2008 it seems Dawkins had a change of opinion. According to The New York Times, "People who have seen the movie (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) say it also suggests that there is a link between the theory of evolution and ideas like Nazism, something Dr. Dawkins called 'a major outrage.'"[4] Why does Dawkins declare it is "a major outrage" to correlate Darwinism and Fascist Nazi Germany, when he himself stated a Darwinian society would be a Fascist state? According to common definitions, Nazism is considered a form of Fascism that emphasizes racism.[5] Therefore, because Nazism is a subset of Fascism, his outrage is illogical.

The link between Nazism and Fascism is closer than people may realize. Like Nazi Germany, Italy during WWII was also a fascist state that had aspects of racism. Secret diaries by Mussolini's long-term mistress were quoted in a book entitled "Secret Mussolini" outlining how Mussolini was a fierce anti-Semite who hated the Jews and vowed to "destroy them all."[6] According to historians, "Life in Mussolini's Italy was little different from other dictatorships which existed between 1918 and 1939." Were Italy's Black Shirts much different from Germany's Brown Shirts? In Italy, "One favored way of making people conform was to tie a "troublemaker" to a tree, force a pint or two of castor oil down the victim's throat and force him to eat a live toad/frog, etc."[7] It seems the main difference between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy was that Italy didn't have the resources to commit genocide, as Hitler did.

It seems that Dawkins didn't like the implications of his beliefs and therefore felt the need to deny the Darwinian-Nazi Fascist connection. Not only does Dawkins dislike the correlation, apparently he is willing to flip-flop and back-peddle in order to attempt to persuade us that no such association exists. Friedrich Nietzsche was one who outwardly proposed that Darwinian ethics are better than theist ones and made no excuses. This was, of course, before Hitlers rise and fall.

C. Morality is determined only by situations.

M.C. Escher's "Relativity"

Relativists argue that lying to the Nazis and saying there are no Jews hiding in your walls would be considered moral under those kinds of circumstances, so therefore moral relativism is true. This example, however, does not negate the existence of moral absolutes. Apolonio Latar explained how morality is not determined by situations, but is conditioned by them.[5] There is some truth to situational ethics because each aspect of each situation plays a role and influences the situation partially, but not wholly. Latar elaborates, "There are three things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to situations." An example would be killing in self defence versus cold-blooded murder. In both cases killing is involved, but in the first case the person would be innocent and in the latter case, guilty, according to what seems to be a universal consensus on this issue. In the case of Jew-hunting Nazis, lying to them would not be considered immoral in this situation because the Nazi's were in the process of breaking a fundamental natural law and thus did not have the right to request the truth from anyone who would then become complicit in their immorality. In a similar manner, a Christian soldier would be morally justified in refusing orders by a government authority to shoot an innocent person who is far from a battlefield. The artist M.C. Escher produced an image entitled "Relativity" which sums up the conundrum of creating a system of morality based merely on situational variables with no objective anchoring points.

D. Moral relativism allows for more happiness.

While happiness is a subjective phenomenon, there have been numerous statistical reports that help to discern that psychological happiness decreases for people who live with a philosophy of moral relativism. For example, sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, authors of book, "Premarital Sex in America," have noted a correlation between sexual promiscuity and depression. Quoting a New York Times article, "Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness, and between promiscuity and depression."[6]

Values clarification needed.

Correlation does not necessarily prove causality, but as you examine other related subjects similar negative effects are associated with moral relativism. For example, when the highest value in a woman's life is how thin she is, then eating disorders such as anorexia may result. Certain values are promoted for commercial gain. Thin women sell products and the subtle message is, you've got to be thin. If a person isn't grounded with healthy and true moral values, then he or she may follow along with any of the value systems being promoted, no matter how unhealthy.

Also, consider the negative statistics on pornography. Relying on extensive research from a variety of sources, the testimony of Jill Manning was presented to the US Senate outlining the following results of pornography:

Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce,
Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction,
Infidelity
Increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices,
Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing,
An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behaviour.[7]

E. Moral relativism offers more freedom.

This premise is ill-conceived for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is an implied assumption that pushing the moral envelope will give a person more happiness. This aspect of happiness was addressed in the previous argument but has more specific meaning with regard to the concept of personal freedom. The logic of moral law is predicated on the scientific law of cause and effect. As documented in the prior example, Specific immoral actions produce specific negative results. Actions are not bad because they are forbidden, they are forbidden because they are bad and have devastating consequences. When individuals believe they are not subject to the basic law of cause and effect, they end up living an illusory and destructive life, not a world of true freedom. During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970's, many young people embraced this illusory understanding of freedom and ended up psychologically and emotionally devastated, addicted to drugs and homeless.

Adams warned about it.

Moving from personal experience to societal trends, many scholars have pointed out how the negative effects of moral relativism multiply as entire societies become more and more committed to the ideology. The more people there are seeking illusory freedom in moral relativism, the more likely a brutal totalitarian government system will be the result. Just prior to the time when Rome became an officially a Christian state, the previous emperors were mostly brutal dictators. A well-respected secular historian, Edward Gibbon, outlined that most of the first Roman emperors were homosexuals: "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct".[8] Though he was opposed to Christianity, Gibbon described homosexuality as a morally aberrant behavior that helped bring the Roman Empire to ruin. Immorality was so widespread at the time that Gibbon described marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire as practically nonexistent, and he noted how "The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians."[9]

Lewis warned about it.

The progression from moral relativism to totalitarianism can be outlined as a simple progression. A lack of convicting moral boundaries coupled with an ideal of selfishness encourage an environment of widespread corruption. The corruption leads to disorder and a spirit of anarchy. The vacuum of order is filled by a the forceful rule of a totalitarian leader who promises to bring a new order. If there is no internal self control then external control will be required. People will either end up in prison or as slaves in a politically repressive environment. The US Founding Father John Adams stated, "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."[10] C.S. Lewis warned of the same scenario: "Out of this apparently innocent idea [that values are subjective] comes the disease that will certainly end our species (and, in my view, damn our souls) if it is not crushed; the fatal superstition that men can create values, that a community can choose its ideology as men choose their clothes.[11] George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 how moral relativism can be used against society in order to gradually enslave people, according to this quote:"The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely

Orwell warned about it.

destroy; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?"[12] And this quote shows how civil rights are taken away through relativist conditioning, "Indeed, as long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison they never even become aware that they are oppressed."[13] Michael Novak, a Templeton Prize winner, echoed Orwell's concerns in his award address:"'Believe what seems right to you...Follow your feelings.' Those who speak in this way prepare the jails of the twenty-first century. They do the work of tyrants."[14]

III. Objectively Evaluate any Moral View

Greg Koukl has pointed out, "Given a particular standard of morality, the person who is most moral is the one who practices the specific system's key moral rule consistently."[15] The prime example of any moral philosophy is the person who best represents the ultimate end result by adhering to its principles. Many people hold that there is a valid absolute moral ideal in the person of Jesus Christ. He proposed that an absolute standard of morality does exist and that it is a higher standard than even the most religious people of His day believed. For this reason, God's grace was emphasized by Christ as a means of accepting God's holiness and salvation by faith. Despite God's grace, Jesus stated he came to fulfill the moral law in its entirety.[16] Jesus did not deny the reality of the human conscience but, on the contrary, He affirmed that the conscience, also referred to as "the inner voice" in today's society, would become all the more important. As He stated, "My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."[17] Jesus taught that love and self sacrifice were the highest moral ideals. Jesus exemplified unity with the Father even as he admonished His followers to enjoy unity with Him. This unity is centered in the experience of God's truth and love as the ultimate and supreme goal.

The relativist state.

Now, consider an extreme example of moral relativism, a person who expunges the conscience as a barrier to self gratification and who holds little regard for the feelings and rights of others. This person would be an inverted saint, a stark contrast to the model of Christ. Let's suppose a young man is walking down the street and finds some free porno in the garbage. This supposedly doesn't harm anyone, so the results cannot be too bad, right? Suppose the young man finds more graphic and violent porno images. Well, still, these are just pictures we're talking about, not real people. So a relativist can't really say he is doing something morally wrong. But suppose he becomes addicted to the pornography to the point where he feels the need to act out on what he is seeing, what then? We can better understand the mechanisms of this kind of inner conflict by listening in on an interview:

"JCD: How long did you stay at that point before you actually assaulted someone?

Ted: A couple of years. I was dealing with very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behavior. That had been conditioned and bred into me from my neighborhood, environment, church, and schools.

Porno Product

I knew it was wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

JCD: Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to "go for it"? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?

Ted: It's a very difficult thing to describe - the sensation of reaching that point where I knew I couldn't control it anymore. The barriers I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back from seeking out and harming."[18]

Notice that there were some ethics taught in church and other places that helped to restrain Ted Bundy a bit. But in a perfectly relativist world, there would be no church. On the contrary, relativists are generally intolerant towards church and Christians because objective morals are supported. Bundy ended up brutally raping and killing at least 28 girls. When relativists argue correlation does not prove causality, it may be helpful to point out that the sum-total of activities justified by relativism produce more negative than positive results, including, but not limited to, promiscuity, pornography and drug use.

As bad as Bundy was, he actually knew deep inside what he was doing was morally wrong and had tried to resist his addictions. Bundy represents any weak-willed person in a relativist society who has a difficult time coping with the types of actions and addictions the society promotes. Bundy's tragic story is a product of pornography. To some degree, you could say he was a victim of a relativist society. What if he never found the free porno? His life may have been a lot different. Bundy warned that there will be more of his type in society as relativism continues to ramp up high octane, adrenaline pumping temptations. That was the main reason he wanted to give an interview to James Dobson in 1989 just before his walk to "the chair."[19]

Inverted Morality

What of those who are not necessarily weak-willed, but who fully give themselves over to inverted morality, calling evil good? What of those who aim for a transvaluation of theist ethics, such as Nietzsche? In Nietzsche's, The Anti-Christ, he advocates a morality opposite the merciful and kind nature of Christ. This quote gives an indication of how Hitler was able to justify his actions based on Nietzsche's philosophy, "The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so."[20] Nietzsche's "superman" ideal was a brutal, blond Arian with morals in the basement. If Nietzsche was basing his morality mainly on Darwinism, there would have been no need to title a book, The Anti-Christ. The desire to oppose theist moral principles brings morality to its lowest levels. And the ultimate example of depraved moral relativism may be those who practice satanic ritual abuse.

Satanic ritual abuse as an ultimate relativist code: the inversion of theist values.

Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) has been called a myth by some people but documented cases prove that it is, unfortunately, a very real phenomenon. An autobiography published in 2008 by Anne A Johnson Davis, entitled Hell Minus One, documents an account of a young girl in Utah who experienced SRA by her mother and stepfather from the age of 3 to the time she ran away from home at age 17.[21] By the time she stepped forward to incriminate her parents, they were ready to sign affidavits admitting they performed the horrific acts described. A sibling also corroborated the account, as well as law enforcement officers who were involved throughout the verification process. Essentially, SRA practice involves a mock sacrifice in order to please a satanic spiritual entity. This is extreme moral relativism, so extreme it is basically a kind of inverted morality.

Anne Davis
SRA Survivor

SRA promotes the destruction of what is good and innocent for the supposed pleasure of an evil entity. If moral relativism is true absolutely, then how can SRA perpetrators be judged for what they believe is good, this inverted morality? The reason, apparently, is because society says it's wrong. But, what if the norm in society changes to the point where good is called evil and visa versa? Then, SRA could technically be considered justified according to the "cultural relativism" argument for moral relativism. That doesn't seem very just or logical, does it? But that is precisely what moral relativism suggests when taken to its logical conclusion. In Isaiah 5.20, the prophet described people who practice inverted morality: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." In opposing the traditional standard of morality based on theism, satanists are actually affirming that good and evil do in fact exist, and, thus, they are affirming God's existence. When Anne's mother and stepfather signed affidavits admitting their actions were wrong, they were affirming that their satanic relativist morality was neither rational nor acceptable.

References

[1] Kreeft, Peter, Realtivism Transcript, (http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm#2)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Die Presse, Darwinismus: Rebellen gegen die Gene,(http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/wissenschaft/155678/Darwinismus_Rebellen-gegen-die-Gene)

[4] NY Times, No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html?ref=science)]

[5] Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1997 p. 23.

[6] SFGATE, Mistress' diaries detail Mussolini's racism, (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-29/news/17180223_1_fascist-dictator-mussolini-s-fascist-fascism)

[7] History Learning Site, Life in Fascist Italy, (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/life_in_fascist_italy.htm)

[8] (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm)

[9] Why Monogamy MattersBy ROSS DOUTHAT (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&hp)

[10] The Heritage Foundation, Pornography's Impact on Marriage & The Family (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Pornographys-Impact-on-Marriage-amp-The-Family), TESTIMONY OF JILL C. MANNING, M.S., HEARING ON PORNOGRAPHY’S IMPACT ON MARRIAGE & THE FAMILY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE,

November 10, 2005 http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/ManningTST.pdf

[11] Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, book 1, in connection with Hadrian's love for Antinous, noted in James Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago) 1980:61, (analyzed and quoted Boswell 1980:63ff.) Sourced from Conservapedia, (http://www.conservapedia.com/History_of_homosexuality)

[12] Ibid, p.478

[13] Adams, John, Address to the military, Oct. 11, 1798.

[14] Lewis, C. S. "The Poison of Subjectivism," in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 73.

[15] Orwell's Warning: Relativism, G. Stolyarov II, (http://rationalargumentator.com/Orwells_Warning3.html) (in novel 1984 p. 209)

[16] Ibid, (p. 171)

[17] Awakening from Nihilism: Michael Novak, address presented by Mr. Novak at Westminster Abbey on May 5, 1994.

[18] What Is Moral Relativism? Greg Koukl (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=229)

[19] Matthew 5.17

[20] John 10:27, NIV

[21] Pure Intimacy, Fatal Addiction: Ted Bundy's Final InterviewTed Bundy granted an interview to James Dobson just before he was executed on January 24, 1989.

(http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm)

[22] Ibid.

[23] Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Antichrist, (Franz Overbeck and Heinrich Kˆselitz, 1895) section 2

[24] Davis, Anne A Johnson, Hell Minus One (Transcript Bulletin Publishing, 2008)

Related:

How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html

A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence

2011-10-06T02:37:00.000-07:00

The human conscience bears witness that there are both right and wrong actions. The most renowned Christian apologist of our day, Dr. William Lane Craig, has presented a logical argument in the form of a syllogism that highlights both the existence of objective morality and God's existence, which he has developed into a larger argument. While I agree with Most of Craig's moral argument, I substitute Dispensationalism for his Divine Command Theory as a means of explaining the details.

I. The Basic Moral Dilemma of Atheism
II. A Critique of Wielenberg's Atheist Objective Morality
III. An Objective Moral Ideal in Christ
IV. Sociopolitical Object Lessons
V. Dispensationalism and God's Moral Agency
VI. Common Objections to Theist Morality

The most renowned atheist of our day, Mr. Richard Dawkins, seems to be in a moral dilemma. He is a self-proclaimed Militant Atheist who aggressively judges the beliefs of religious people, saying that these beliefs are basically an intolerable threat to society. And yet at the same time, Dawkins would have us believe that there is no objective basis for making moral judgments. He affirms, “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”[1]

Dawkins doesn't seem to be aware of the basic logical contradictions of his beliefs and statements. He doesn't seem to be aware that the more vehemently he denounces religion, the more positively he is supporting the truth of God's existence, according to the brute logic of Craig's moral argument:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.[2]

Atheists tend to make a variety of moral judgments, such as, “Hitler’s act of genocide against innocent people was immoral." However, if they would take the time to stop and consider the implications of their beliefs and statements, it may prove to be fruitful. If, as most atheists believe, our social moral code is based merely on ever-changing, evolutionary, sociobiological functions, then how can an atheist objectively judge the actions of Hitler? The definition of objective morality is the idea that something can be shown to be right or wrong based on some fixed standard, without regard to relative human feelings and opinions.

If we are all merely animals, on what authority would right and wrong judgments ultimately be based? For example, if a fish randomly kills and eats another fish, it isn't considered morally wrong. Yet, if a human randomly kills and eats another human, we do consider it morally wrong. With his tongue in cheek wit, Craig calls this human moral prejudice speciesism. And he proposes that the human conscience is, in fact, tuned to an objective standard of moral truth and that is why atheists are faced with this dilemma. If you believe that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong without question, then this implies you believe objective morality exists. But if you believe there is a possibility torturing babies for fun may be acceptable morally for certain cultures because evolution and the social indoctrination of those cultures has produced such results, then you are justified in adhering to moral relativism. If you believe objective morality is more in line with your views, then is it a strong reason to believe that naturalism is a false worldview.

Moral Schizophrenia

As Craig has pointed out, Dawkins can't seem to make up his mind whether right and wrong exist. But no matter which view he is supporting at any given moment, he tries hard to sound convincing. In this quote Dawkins says he doesn't believe in evil or good:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[3]

But then in another quote he says doing good or evil or doing the right thing are valid considerations:

"It's been said before but needs to be said again: if you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them.”[4]

As an alternative to the schizophrenia of Dawkins' confused relativism, some atheists have offered arguments for an objective basis for morality without God's existence. For example, Erik Wielenberg has proposed that there is an objective moral realism that simply exists without God. But his argument seems to have many logical problems.

II. A Critique of Wielenberg's Atheist Objective Morality

The core of Erik Wielenberg's argument is based on the idea that “basic ethical facts” exist which have “no foundation outside themselves”.[5] His “brute ethical facts’ correspond to states of affairs which are supposedly true in all possible worlds. Wielneberg’s main premises are, 1) Pain is intrinsically bad. 2) Inflicting pain for fun is morally wrong. 3) It is just to give people what they deserve.

A. Pain is intrinsically bad

In addressing Wielneberg’s first premise, I would offer there are four reasons why pain may not be considered intrinsically “bad” as an objective basis for moral judgments.

1. Firstly, the feeling of pain is based on a complex biological system and is created by a series of impulses. A fire burns the skin. Nerves in the skin connect to nerves in the fingers and arms. These nerve impulses reach the brain. The brain conveys the message to the skin that there is pain in that location. So, when and where is the “bad” pain actually experienced? According to an article in Science Daily, all forms of pain, even emotional feelings, can be traced to specific locations in the human brain.[6]

If pain is based on biological impulses and depends on many functions throughout the human body, it is not likely that this same state of affairs applies in all possible worlds, in accordance with the evolutionary scenario. Possible life forms on other planets would not necessarily experience any pain at all. If pain is the primary "brute fact" basis of moral judgments, as Wielenberg claims, then a planet with no pain would be a planet with no morality. Does that really make sense?

2. Secondly, pain is an inconsistent and is primarily a subjective phenomenon that is experienced on a personal level. For a sensitive person with a low tolerance for pain, a particular experience may be extremely painful. The same exact experience may only be slightly annoying to a person who is extremely callous. How is pain to be considered an objective moral referent if the exact same experience is painful and “immoral” for one person, and only slightly annoying and “moral” for another? For these reasons, pain cannot be considered a consistent moral referent.

3. Thirdly, pain is merely a messenger of information. Pain is merely a signal and a messenger of a prior issue. It is not rational to blame the messenger for the message. All pain has a cause. A lot of pain can be traced back to a bad decision that some person had made. It is not the pain but the person who made the bad decision that caused the pain that should rationally be deemed morally “bad” in this respect. Therefore, pain cannot be considered morally “bad” in and of itself.

4. Fourthly, many people derive real pleasure from receiving and inflicting real pain, and this undermines the belief that pain would be considered intrinsically bad for such people. Sadism and sadomasochism are becoming more socially acceptable, with Diesel brand Jeans actually promoting ads in mainstream fashion magazines glorifying S&M themes. The human body releases endorphins, epinephrine and norepinephrine in accordance with certain levels of pain and these kinds of experiences can become addictive for people who indulge in S&M behavior.[7] If some atheists truly enjoy suffering, then on what basis can other atheists claim that pain is intrinsically and morally bad?

B. Inflicting pain for fun is morally wrong.

1. Moral eclecticism disproves the above premise for reasons noted in the prior point. According to many atheists who practice sadomasochism, inflicting pain for fun is morally acceptable. Wielenberg's one example of torture is not a catch-all for all people and for all behavior regarding pain. He has not given a reason why people who enjoy giving and receiving pain should consider it immoral.

2. Moral speciesism disproves this point. I've seen cats catch mice and play with them, seriously harming them in the process, and I've never heard anyone claim that animal-on-animal abuse is immoral. If people want to claim Inflicting pain for fun is morally wrong for homo sapiens, then to claim it is OK for animals is a form of speciesism. Like racism, speciesism should probably be considered immoral for people who want to make the kinds of moral claims Wielenberg desires to make according to an atheist moral framework, if Wielenberg's claims are to be considered valid.

In a May 21, 2000, the New York Times described some of the values young G.W. Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas. Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"[8] An atheist can say that these acts are a bit cruel and wrong, but without any moral and righteous standard, on what basis would this kind of moral judgment be made?

C. It is just to give people what they deserve.

1. Concepts of justice are extremely relativistic. Wielenberg's sentence sounds nice, "It is just to give people what they deserve." But how exactly are atheists to define the word “just” and the proper enforcement of justice? For example, Marxists have believed it is just to forcibly distribute land and property equally. The statement, "It's just to give people what they deserve" could be used to support Marxists or to protect capitalists who worked very hard for their land.

And consider this example: On May 21, 2009, While standing in front of the glass-encased US Constitution at the National Archives, President Obama gave a speech denouncing the Bush administration's "ad-hock" justice system, while in the very same speech Obama promoted the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo prison who've never been legally tried in court.[9] Obama believes his definition of justice is better than that of the Bush administration's, when. in reality, it seems to be a continuation of the exact same kind of attitude.

In Obama's speech he stated, "In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man."[10] Actually, prolonged and indefinite detention without a trial has no justifiable basis in the US Constitution. In becoming president, President Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution, and yet he apparently doesn't believe it is a valid or healthy legal document. According to Obama, “The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."[11] Within the context of the speech that included that quote, Obama was implying that we need “positive liberties”, that is, the government needs to control society more and more for the so-called greater good. Obama had also said the US Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”[12] What specifically was the “fundamental flaw” he was referring to? It seems it was that the US Constitution does not promote Socialism.

2. Moral obligation is extremely relativistic in politics, especially today. In his book, Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama wrote “It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth..."[13] I would agree that Obama's statements show quite a bit of audacity. But the audacity seems to have more to do with his use of insidious Orwellian Newspeak and Blackwhite-speak, rather than the virtues of hope.

History testifies that The US Founding Fathers were paleoconservatives who viewed civil rights as a necessary result of God's existence. This is evidenced by what they agreed upon in the Declaration of Independence: "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."[14] Believing in God is tantamount to believing in absolute truth. According to the Founding Fathers, the moral obligation of government is based upon the existence of absolute truth.

That one sentence from The Declaration of Independence has been called the best known sentence in the English language.[15] But though it may be memorized by many, in our postmodernist society there is a great discrepancy as to what basic civil rights consist of and if they are truly inalienable as the Declaration of Independence proclaims. We have the Neoconservative George W. Bush and the Socialist Barack Obama telling us that invasive government and the indefinite and prolonged detention of prisoners without a trial are good things. And then on the other hand we have the outspoken testimony of Founding Father Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty, or give me death”[16] These two opposing viewpoints are as different as night and day. And so when you consider Wielenberg's premise, "It's just to give people what they deserve" you need to ask, "On what basis can you decide what people deserve?" Do people deserve to simply surrender their civil rights for the perceived good of the society, as Bush and Obama seem to believe? Or do people deserve inalienable rights and freedoms irrespective of government opinion, as the US Founding Fathers believed?

3. Questions of justice and duty depend on a valid starting point. The starting points for morality that Wielenberg has chosen are not shown to be necessary starting points. If there is no absolute objective reference point for morality, then any system, like Wielenberg's will be subjective, not objective. Wielenberg's attempt to attach moral value to pain and to make moral 'states of affairs' moral starting points is subjective and therefore fraught with problems and contradictions.

For the Christian, the existence of God's good nature as Creator is a truly objective moral starting point because God is transcendent, eternal and unchanging. God's nature and goodness sets a high standard for morality. But for those who believe we are nothing more than animals, then the "rule of the jungle and the “survival of the fittest” would logically follow as the only “brute ethical facts”. If there is no verifiable and objective moral foundation for atheists, then, as Nietzsche pointed out, it’s just a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world where the strongest and most ruthless animals survive. For all these reasons Wielenberg's premise "It's just to give people what they deserve" is shown to be a bit meaningless as a moral starting point. There are more fundamental bedrock issues that need to be addressed before Wielenberg's premise can be established with any kind of moral authority. Without an objective moral starting point, there cannot be objective morality.

III. An Objective Moral Ideal in Christ

A. A moral ideal exists. Another approach to understanding morality is to ask if there is any functional moral ideal. The Beatles, considered the most influential rock groups in history, wrote the song, “All you Need is Love” which has sociopolitical as well as romantic connotations. Though John Lennon seemed to despise Jesus Christ, Lennon was actually affirming Jesus’ central moral thesis with his song. Once Jesus was asked a question, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”[17]

B. Jesus exemplified the moral ideal. Jesus lived without sin as He obeyed the Ten Commandments. He also showed sincere love towards God and His fellow man. In offering Himself as a propitiation for our sins, His love was demonstrated in the most practical and effective manner. At first it may seem this ideal moral code is overly simplistic and overly difficult. But as Chuck Smith has stated, “Difficulty must always be measured by the capacity of the agent doing the work.”[16] And the work of God on the cross has allowed us to partake of God's righteousness simply by receiving God's atonement and righteousness by faith.

C. The moral life is a work in progress. Tangible progress can be observed when holiness is a sincere goal. As wonderful as the born-again salvation experience may be, according to scripture the struggle with sin will not cease until Christians are with God in the afterlife. 1 Corinthians 15.51 and 1 John 3.1 show that we will “be changed” and ‘we will be like him” in our heavenly home. It will only be after this divine, heavenly union with Christ that sin will not be an issue. Only those willing to submit to God in this life will be transformed in the next life. Though we have no chance of achieving this perfect state in this life as a functioning society, communities that have adopted the ideals of goodness that Jesus supported have been for the most part happy, peaceful and prosperous ones.

IV. Sociopolitical Object Lessons

1. When love reigns, laws don't need enforcement. The Apostle Paul highlighted the theme of love and the law. He wrote, “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”[19] Ideally, there is no need to enforce legal statutes when love is supreme because people have a genuine respect and value for each other.

When I bought my first house and moved to Red Hook Brooklyn, I found I had to adjust to the environment. I had to chain and lock my plastic garbage cans otherwise they would be stolen. I also learned I had to lock the door to my grungy dirt-floor basement after a crack-head apparently ripped out the copper pipe with his or her bare hands. When I moved to Southampton, NY, however, I found I could leave home with the front door open all day without needing to be very concerned. The ideal moral condition for the world is for mutual respect and benevolence. When the English Quaker William Penn founded the city of Philadelphia in the US, he chose a name which means “The City of Brotherly Love” based on the root words “adelphos” meaning brotherly and “philos” meaning love. Penn named the city Philadelphia because he envisioned a city where anyone of any color or background could live together in peace and harmony.

2. A free people requires a strong moral basis for democratic government. A US Founding Father, John Adams, once said in a speech, “"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."[20] Adams and other US Founding Fathers recognized that the internal self control and character of the citizens were extremely important for the success of any free country.

3. Relativistic teaching has produced an immoral and unstable society. If there is no internal self control then there would have to be more outside government control. The prison population in the US had been small and steady until the early 1970’s when the prison population began to explode in the US and now it is the largest prison population in the world by percentage and by virtue of the total national head count.[21] This growth in the prison population was likely influenced by the teaching of moral relativism in the public school system, which began before these grave prison statistics began appearing. The historical prison population chart, attached, shows the graphic spike in numbers.

3. Evolution does not appear to be producing wiser people. According to the theory of evolution, homo sapiens should be evolving into a wiser, more sublime and harmonious species. But the opposite is seen to be true in society. There is a lot of hatred in the world, wars continue as usual, while corruption and immorality are on the rise. Jesus predicted in Matthew Chapter 24 that this social devolution would increase in the End Times. Though I believe the theist roots of the United States were the main reason it was a successful and a good society for so long, I don’t entertain any fantasies that the US population at large is interested in returning to these roots. Nevertheless, the principles of God’s Word remain a sure foundation for those who apply them, whether it is a family setting, a church or an entire nation. And those who ignore or oppose these principles will, on the contrary, find themselves in a most unhappy situation.

4. Countries with strong spiritual values have happier and healthier people.[22] The largest county in the world with an atheist sociopolitical foundation is China. It is one of the more repressive countries on the planet, where there is little freedom of expression and a great deal of what we would typically call human rights abuses. Countries of the former Soviet Union, where atheism was heavily promoted, presently retain the highest suicide rates in the world. While countries that are the most religious retain the lowest levels of suicide rates according to Gallup polls.[23] The American Journal of Psychiatry reported “Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.”[24]

The study of nations provides object lessons on the relationships between the underlying philosophies of nations and the relative prosperity and happiness of their citizens. On another level, the study of history as outlined in scripture provides object lessons on God's dealings with people in various epochs of history. This type of study of the epochs is called Theological Dispensationalism.

V. Dispensationalism and God's Moral Agency

A. Theological Dispensationalism helps explain God's moral agency. Dispensationalism is a theological system that interprets God’s relationship to humanity as a series of 7 or so stages in which new and different environments exist and God’s revelation to the people is uniquely specific to each time. It requires separate research to learn the details of Dispensationalism.[25] But It has been described as a method of literally interpreting the Bible towards understanding how God fulfills His will, work, and purposes toward mankind through unique epochs, while emphasizing the uniqueness of Israel throughout. Moral agency is defined as a person's ability to make moral judgments and take actions that conform with moral truth.

B. The manifestation of God's glory is the underlying purpose of the universe. In reviewing history from a spiritual perspective it's possible to see the underlying emphasis of God's plan, as outlined in Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” All creation and all history is ordered by God for God’s ultimate glory. In order to understand the logical and moral basis of the universe, it’s necessary to keep God's perspective in mind. Though I follow William Lane Craig’s moral argument to a certain point, it seems I must part paths at his agreement with Divine Command Theory. As far as I understand it, Command Theory implies that moral absolutes exist independent of God’s existence. Though I find this particular point in conflict with scripture, I do find the rest of Craig’s moral arguments to be perfectly fine.

C. People misunderstand God's actions because they don't consider the big picture in relation to the historical dispensations. Looking into the scriptures, we often don't understand the moral basis for God's actions in history because we don't look into the specific context of the epoch in which a moral problem seems to exist. When history and the entire Bible are viewed through the lens of a Dispensationalist view, however, it all makes sense. There are many variations of Dispensationalism and it should not be assumed that a proponent of a theory adheres to any one specific version. One overall theme of the dispensations is that each epoch plays a role in unveiling and teaching the need for a complete and utter redemption. Theologians typically define seven dispensations, though some propose more and others less.

1. Innocence
2. Conscience or moral responsibility
3. Human Government
4. Promise
5. Law
6. Church
7. Kingdom

D. Each dispensation has a specific purpose. We are presently in the Church age with the next age being the Millennial Kingdom. In this particular list, the Tribulation is not counted as a separate epoch and neither is the final age of perfection, though they could be. A study on the significance of each dispensation would be a lesson in itself. But, as an example, consider the first epoch. In the Garden of Eden there was no suffering, no disease, no injustice or pain and human needs were met fully. Despite all this, Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Today, many people will say, “I don’t believe in God because suffering, disease, injustice and pain exist.” But Adam is an object lesson showing why this is not a valid critique of God’s justice. God had given them an idyllic world. Even without the lusts of the sin nature and a state of moral innocence, yet they disobeyed. Atheists often criticize the Bible because they believe it is self-contradictory. We have nude campsites like the Garden of Eden in one chapter and then clothing is required for moral purposes in the next chapter. Dispensationaism offers an explanation for these types of discrepancies.

C. Complete redemption is the only solution. After Adam and Eve chose sin and disobedience in the Garden of Eden, people were given a moral conscience to discern good and evil and God gave them guidelines on how to live happy and healthy lives. But despite these things society increasingly became corrupt and sinful. This epoch was culminated by the great flood and the next epoch based on human government became another object lesson as Babylon became an object lesson. In a separate study all of these epochs could be analyzed to show how man's only hope is a complete redemption in heaven. The final accounting of God's moral purpose won't be understood until the end of time, however, many atheists attempt to judge God's actions without ever having tried to seriously read through the scriptures and understand them.

D. The final moral accounting is a future event. According to the Dispensationalist view, there are very specific reasons why God allowed history to unfold the way it has and history is based upon a progressive revelation of God's will and ways. Some may wonder, “Is it just for God to treat so many different people in so many different ways?” It’s important to remember that God knows all our thoughts and hidden motives, and He is the one who is qualified to judge us fairly. The accounting of our lives will not occur until after our physical deaths when we are face to face with God. Based on God’s full knowledge and His eternal perspective, His evaluation of us will be true and just, as described in the book of Revelation:

“And I heard the altar respond: ‘Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments.’"[26]

VI. Common Objections to Theist Morality

A. If God were good, no evil would exist.

The mere fact that an atheist would acknowledge that evil exists implies that evil is a real phenomenon and that moral evil is not merely a product of our minds in a sociobiological evolutionary scenario. The logic of good and evil relates to the logic of free choice. In the big picture, it’s better to have free choice in a world where good and evil exist rather than to have no free choice at all. This is true because our personal destinies and mental attitudes of happiness or sadness are largely directed by the choices we make with our free will. It is logical, therefore, to conclude that free-choice is better than a robot-like existence:

Jesus showed that our free choice is such a powerful mechanism that we can choose to love enemies who may actually persecute us. But it is shown in scripture that this ability is based primarily on our willingness to submit to God. Only in submitting to God do we have the spiritual power to actually live-out our choice to genuinely love our enemies with God’s love.

B. Why Would God Send People to Hell?

Another objection to theist morality is the idea that God would send people to an eternal hell for choices they’ve made in this brief life. Jonathan Edwards addressed this in his essay "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners." Edwards argued that because God is "a Being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory," He is therefore "infinitely honorable" and worthy of absolute obedience. Edwards clarified that "Sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and deserving of infinite punishment."[27] In the sermon, Edwards emphasized how God offers salvation by grace and faith to those who would receive God's gift of eternal life simply by repenting and receiving Christ's atonement. Francis Schaeffer agreed with Edwards' theology on hell and said himself the doctrine of hell must be taught "with tears."[28] We as human tend to think of guilt and punishment in terms of our relationships with each other and our own brief lives here on earth. Our laws our based on our perceived civil rights between equals. If we break the law, we are guilty technically until justice is served, or we die, whichever comes first.

But if we look at things in an eternal perspective, we aren’t offending an equal when we sin, we are offending the eternal and holy God. The guilt has no end until it is satisfied with justice. According to God’s infinite justice, we should all be condemned eternally for our sins against our Creator. However, out of mercy God paid the penalty of sin with Jesus’ death on the cross. Christ on the cross was an act of infinite propitiation in answer to our infinite guilt against an infinite and holy God. The reason why someone like Rob Bell would tend to disagree with the concept of hell I believe has to do with an under appreciation of God’s infinite holiness.

References

[1] Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (1976, 2006), xxi.
[2] YouTube, William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins on the Moral Argument for God, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-OjSKr79aQ&feature=player_embedded)
[3] Dawkins, Richard, God's Utility Function," Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85
[4] The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1996), Pg. 4 of transcribed text.
[5] [Philosophy Papers, "IN DEFENSE OF NON-NATURAL, NON-THEISTIC MORAL REALISM", Erik Wielenberg, FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 26 No. 1 January 2009 (http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEIDO.1.pdf)
[6] Science Daily, Where's Your Pain? New Insights Into How The Brain Processes Pain Location
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328073315.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328073315.htm)
[7] Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition: SADOMASOCHISM
[8] New York Times, GEORGE W. BUSH'S JOURNEY A Boy From Midland, A Philosophy With Roots in Conservative Texas Soil, NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, May 21, 2000, 61st through 64th paragraphs (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/052100wh-gop-bush-bio.html)
[9] Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some Now at Guantanamo
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html)
[10] Washington Independent, Boo Bush’s Ad-Hoc-ism! Yay Obama’s Ad-Hoc-ism!
(http://washingtonindependent.com/44093/boo-bushs-ad-hoc-ism-yay-obamas-ad-hoc-ism)
[11] Bottom of Form 1Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded
[12] OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=player_embedded
[13] Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006.
(http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/foundersandabsolutetruth.html)
[14] US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
[15] Lucas, "Justifying America", 85.
[16] Henry, Patrick, Quote from a speech he made to the Virginia Convention. It was given on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia
[17] Matthew 22.36-40, NIV
[18] Blue Letter Bible, Ephesians 6:16, (http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/Chuck_Smith/sn/sermon.cfm?contentID=5554)
[19] Romans 13.10, NIV
[20] Adams, John (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President, Oct. 11, 1798; Address to the military
[21] New York Times, U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations,
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html)
[22] Gallup, Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives, (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx)
[23] Gallup, In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/More-Religious-Countries-Lower-Suicide-Rates.aspx)
[24] Conservapedia, Atheism and Suicide (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide) Original reference, Psychiatry Online, The American Journal of Psychiatry, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt,
(http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303)
[25] Theological Studies, What is Dispensationalism, (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism)
[26] Revelation 16.7, NIV
[27] Edwards, Jonathan, The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners, sermon/essay, 1734
[28] Christian Research Institute, The Doctrine of Hell, (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-doctrine-of-hell?msource=EC091112WKLY&tr=y&auid=5580223)

Philosophical Atheist, Before you Commit Suicide Read Ecclesiastes

2011-09-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

People interested in truth often look to philosophy for answers. However, atheist philosophies offer more questions than answers, and this has serious consequences. Statistics show that atheists end up more prone to suicide than people who have a spiritual foundation.[1] One woman, Sharon Rocha, ended up committing suicide after reading an article at the Raving Atheists blog. In her suicide note, Rocha stated "I have been stripped of my delusions... The universe is a cold, uncaring place in which life is short, meaningless and full of suffering."[2] If you are an atheist thinking of suicide or just seriously interested in the meaning of life, I recommend reading Solomon's book Ecclesiastes. The book outlines the deceptions of a false perception of reality and the delight of knowing the God who created the universe for a good purpose.

The name Ecclesiastes is translated from Latin into The Preacher. So what exactly is the connection between philosophy and a preacher preaching the gospel? Well, as I’ve written various articles on Christianity, I've found that few atheists are interested in reading them. However, when I've pointedly challenged the philosophical roots of atheism, I've found some atheists eager to step up and defend their beliefs through dialogue and debate. Philosophical questions and challenges are at the core of the book of Ecclesiastes and there is an undertone of evangelism. There's a saying “You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.” But, as we'll see in Ecclesiastes, you can attract even more bees by prodding the beehive. But you'd better be prepared for what you're getting into.

Ecclesiastes 12.11 states: “The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd.” (NIV)

Goads are pointed prods that are used to help direct cattle and sheep. Words of truth prick the conscience and help to guide people towards moral and ethical reason. The firmly embedded nails signify the fixed principles of logic and the reality of absolute truth. Words of logic help to pin down people who have developed a false paradigm and a false view of reality. Logic helps people to see that their beliefs are not in harmony with reality.

When you challenge atheists with words of truth and the need to logically defend their beliefs, you are bringing the message close to home; you are prodding their comfortable beehive. Some will fly away and never think twice about it, but many will sense the need to try and defend their beliefs. Of these, some will be sincere seekers of truth.

In the book of Proverbs, Solomon described honey as something good to eat: "Eat honey, my son, for it is good; honey from the comb is sweet to your taste."[3] Many vegans today don't eat honey because they believe it's abusive to bee colonies and it's immoral because it treats bees as slaves. However, the benefits of fresh, raw honey seem to outweigh the offenses that would be suffered by the worker bees in a sustainable bee hive. How can we discern what is actually moral and immoral? Well, for the theist there is a fixed standard in the scriptures and the words and life of Jesus Christ. For the atheist, there is no objective fixed standard for morality and therefore justification for actions is ultimately based on personal opinion or a collective vote. In terms of morality, we theists understand that humans are created in God’s image and this gives human life a more sacred aspect than animal life, though all life has a sacred value in theism. Solomon wrote a proverb outlining this truth. Proverbs 12:10 shows, "The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel." (NLT) The question of morality is a good one and our viewpoint depends on our worldview.

The Absolute Truth of Christ

How can we know if there really are "firmly embedded nails" of absolute truth? In order for objective and absolute truth to exist, there must be a fixed reference point. The centrality of Christ and the crucifixion are a key to understanding the reality of this fixed reference point. Christ lived without sin and was a perfect example of morality. His life and teachings are the touchstone of moral and absolute truth. Physical nails were driven into the person of Christ as a means of bringing redemption to the world and to you personally. This redemptive act transcended the physical realm, having a far-reaching spiritual impact. The fact that the Redeemer is also the Creator shows that objective morality is wholly dependent upon the nature of God. The main message is that God loves you so much that He would be willing to offer his own Son as a sacrifice for your sins so that you could know God personally. Jesus' giving of His own life on the cross exemplifies the ultimate fulfillment of the moral code and justice.

The philosopher Erik Wielenberg is somewhat popular today for attempting to make a case that objective morality exists for atheists. He states "I call such facts basic ethical facts. Such facts are the foundation of (the rest of) objective morality and rest on no foundation themselves."[4] He is correct in stating his atheist ethical facts "rest on no foundation" but incorrect in implying they are resolute, fixed and objective nonetheless. This is noticeable as soon as he attempts to describe specific ethical subjects. He writes, "For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve…"[5] Well, for people who follow Nietzsche and social Darwinism, it may be better to cheat in order to beat out the competition rather than to be just and fair. If it's an atheistic dog-eat-dog world, then who cares about justice? Wielenberg fails here.

Wielenberg states "pain is intrinsically bad" and "not explained in terms of other states of affairs"[6] but he fails to offer concrete examples of how his "brute ethical facts" apply in various cases. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other neoconservatives believe that painful waterboarding is a good thing. I flatly disagree with them. Also, consider the attitude of weight trainers. "No pain, no gain" is a very common and self explanatory mantra. And so pain is not really "intrinsically bad" in the sense that Wielenberg has proposed, void of a "states of affairs."

In a similar vein, you cannot say "all pleasure is morally good." It just doesn't work. Solomon offered that the question of pleasure and satisfaction has deep implications. He pointed out that physical forms of satiation do not satisfy the inner man: "All man's efforts are for his mouth, yet his appetite is never satisfied."[7] This holds true no matter how skillful a gourmet chef may be. And this doesn't just apply to food, it applies to all the physical senses: "the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing."[8]

Meaninglessness and Materialism

There is a wealth of insight in the book of Ecclesiastes, but you can break down the main philosophical aspects into three main points:

1. The Emptiness of Worldly Pre-occupations - Eccl. 2:1-11

2. The Brevity of Life - Eccl. 12:1-8

3. The Only Logical Purpose in Life - Eccl. 12:13-14[9]

Solomon begins Ecclesiastes 1.2-3 announcing "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.' What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun?" How discouraging can you get? The key to understanding the book of Ecclesiastes is to understand that he makes many false statements based upon a materialist perspective, in viewing everything "under the sun” as meaningless. Solomon addresses common materialist idols in society and shows why these are meaningless and empty pursuits. Solomon tries learning, laughter an liquor in an attempt to find satisfaction, but he's left empty.

Solomon was the perfect candidate to dispel the illusion that wealth and physical pleasure can bring the kind of deep fulfillment we're searching for in life. As the wealthiest man in history he had everything available at his fingertips. Whatever he desired, he could have. But time after time he was struck by the emptiness of all these material allurements.

Common folks don’t have the money to be able to fulfill whatever whim we may have. In society we are led to believe that if we just had a bigger house, a better job, a more pleasant husband or wife, or whatever it may be, then we would be happy. For us common folks, happiness may seem as though it’s always just around the corner. If only… then I’d be happy. But Solomon became the ultimate object lesson in this regard because he was able to try anything and everything he wanted and he finding out first-hand that materialism represents a sad and vacuous existence compared to theism.

King Solomon of Israel wrote the book of Ecclesiastes after he had backslidden to a certain degree. He had known what was right, but disobeyed God in his life and took on many wives, horse stables and wealth, though these things were forbidden for a king of Israel. Deuteronomy 17:16-17 outlines:

"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; because Yahweh has said to you, You shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

It seems Solomon allowed his great wisdom get to his head, so to speak, and to fill him with pride. His heart gradually became dulled to God's presence and purpose. But, nevertheless, God disciplined him and allowed him to see his folly. Though he had made mistakes, Solomon offers that truth is still truth and a person should continue to teach the truth as God guides:

“And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.”[10]

Though he learned lessons the hard way, Solomon gave "good heed" to present the truths that he learned and to help teach people his wisdom. It seems he may have been the first "life coach." In the United States the "pursuit of happiness" is considered a fundamental right from the Declaration of Independence. But this pursuit, in and of itself, can become destructive when relativism rules. A 2011 study shows the 10 countries with the highest suicide rates tend to be countries where atheism has predominated. Most on the list are countries of the former Soviet Union where atheism was enforced by the state for over 70 years.[11] Other statistics bear out the fact that atheists are more prone to suicide than theists. The American Journal of Psychiatry published an article December 2004, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, with some basic conclusions:

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."[12]

Two key aspects were cited in the AJP article: less aggressive behavior and a moral objection to suicide. The decrease of aggression in spiritual people may have to do with the knowledge that there is in-fact deep meaning in life. Sometimes intellectuals are prone to suicide. Solomon confirmed that materialist knowledge without spiritual truth brings grief: "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."[13]

Like Solomon, people who have large IQs can tend to have inflated egos. In 2010, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Stephen Hawking declared that heaven is a "fairy tale" for fearful people.[14] He is correct in one sense that Christians are fearful in that we fear God with a sense of awe and wonder at his majestic wisdom and power. In contrast to Hawking, the Jewish physicist Alan Sandage was an atheist most of his life but simply could not dispel all the evidence he had seen in the cosmos pointing to God's necessary existence. He became a Christian at age 60, explaining, "I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me."[15] One of the reasons Sandage believed was the complexity of the universe: "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone."[16]

It doesn't take a great mind to understand what Solomon and Sandage knew, it only takes an open mind. Three decades ago, Stephen Hawking declared humanity was on the verge of discovering the "theory of everything" with a 50 per cent chance of knowing it by 2000. But by 2010 Hawking had given up hope.[17] If only Hawking had read the book of Ecclesiastes, he could have saved a lot of wasted time: "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."[18] Hawking is a good example showing that intelligence and wisdom are two very distinct things.

The "one shepherd" mentioned in Ecclesiastes 12.9 seems to portray Jesus. In John 10.11, Jesus is quoted as saying “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." NIV Jesus is also referred to as the "word made flesh." In this sense Jesus is the source of all truth and spiritual satisfaction, as implied by Psalm 81:16. "I would satisfy you with wild honey from the rock", Jesus being the rock of our salvation.

The Logical Conclusions

One of the conclusions of Ecclesiastes is that we can live a live of true joy when God is the foundation of our lives:

"It is good and fitting for one to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor in which he toils under the sun all the days of his life which God gives him; for it is his heritage. As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor—this is the gift of God. For he will not dwell unduly on the days of his life, because God keeps him busy with the joy of his heart."[19]

Another conclusion is that there is ultimate justice in the world and this knowledge has ramifications for a healthy personal life and for a healthy society:

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."[20]

We will be less prone to bitterness when we realize God will address all injustice in the future. And we understand why corruption is rampant today in society because many people do not believe there is any kind of accountability to our Creator. People assume that they can do anything they can get away with. Hopefully more people will recognize that atheism neither works as a personal philosophy nor as a good basis for society.

Even Communist China sees that theism is pragmatically more effective and beneficial than an atheistic model of society: "The officially atheist Chinese government is surprisingly open to Christianity, at least partially, because it sees a link between the faith and economic success, said a sought after scholar who has relations with governments in Asia."[21] Dr. William Jeynes, senior fellow of The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., outlined this fact. But the truth is a dangerous thing and has a way of shaking up deceptive paradigms: "Jeynes concluded by saying that the key message he wants to convey is that China is both open to Christianity and nervous about the religion because of the potential problems it could bring to the communist government."[22]

References:

[1] American Journal of Psychiatry, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, Kanita Dervic, M.D., Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., et al., Am J Psychiatry 161:2303-2308, December 2004 (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303)
[2] Raving Theist, Peterson Mother Commits Suicide After Reading Atheist Blog, (http://ravingatheist.com/2003/05/peterson-mother-commits-suicide-after-reading-atheist-blog/)
[3] Proverbs 24.13, NIV
[4] IN DEFENSE OF NON-NATURAL, NON-THEISTIC MORAL REALISM" Erik Wielenberg FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 26 No. 1 January 2009 (http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEIDO.1.pdf)
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ecclesiastes 6.7 (NIV)
[8] Ecclesiastes 1.8b, KJV
[9] Ecclesiastes: Guide to Evangelism (http://www.discoveret.org/lcoc/news/01n0606.htm)
[10] Ecclesiastes 12.9, KJV
[11] Top 10 Countries With Highest Suicide Rates – 2011 (http://www.top-10lists.com/2011/05/top-10-countries-with-highest-suicide.html)
[12] See American Journal of Psychiatry
[13] Ecclesiastes 1.18
[14] The Guardian, Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story', (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven)
[15] The Telegraph, Allan Sandage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/8150004/Allan-Sandage.html)
[16] Leadership U, A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html)
[17] New Scientist, Stephen Hawking says there's no theory of everything, September 2, 2010,
(http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html)
[18] Ecclesiastes 3.11b, NIV
[19] Ecclesiastes. 5:18-20
[20] Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, NIV
[21] The Christian Post, Scholar: China Notices Link Between Christianity, U.S. Economic Success (http://www.christianpost.com/news/scholar-china-notices-link-between-christianity-us-economic-success-50287/)
[22] Ibid.

Related:

How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html

Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary

2011-09-05T08:21:00.000-07:00

Fresh evidence regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001 will be presented at the International Hearings on 9/11 in Toronto Canada. But before I address that specifically, I'd like you to consider the implications of the armed SWAT raids that have been occurring. Many of these important stories have been avoided by the mainstream news. One example includes the organic farmers being raided around the U.S. and who are being forced out of business. Rawesome Foods has been raided for the second time. In the first raid, 5 SWAT commandos entered with guns locked and loaded ready to fire. In this second raid on August 3, 2011, two directors were arrested on $123,000 and $121,000 bail. What were some of the violations? Crimes included selling unpasteurized milk and keeping eggs at an improper temperature.[1] A small-time Amish farmer was raided twice and told he violated interstate laws. According to a bizarre FDA definition of interstate commerce, you can violate interstate laws by growing your own food and selling it to your neighbor.[2] These abuses are a result of the open-ended bill from 2010, S510, also known as the Patriot Act for Food. But this is just the beginning.

Locked and loaded, but for whom?

The management of Gibson Guitars is still waiting for the actual criminal charges from the first government raid that occurred approximately 2 years earlier. But that didn't stop another government raid from happening on August 24, 2011. The Gibson CEO stated "They're not accountable for this action and we have not been charged as of today with any specific violation."[3] These types of armed SWAT raids aren't warranted, but criminal hearings regarding the events of 9/11/01 are both warranted and necessary. When the so-called Patriot Act was introduced, the U.S. Federal Government basically severed itself from accountability and the powers that be haven't taken a glance back since. This isn't to say there aren't many sincere and good people working in the Federal Government, but simply to say that the abuses of authority have been increasing. These increasing raids are a confirmation that something is awry at a foundational level.

On the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 catastrophe, the U.S. establishment media will be airing eloquent speeches from New York City about how justice has been served because Osama bin Laden is dead. Meanwhile, The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 will offer hard facts and evidence for the public record. The purpose of the hearings in Toronto is "To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens."[4]

I agree with the premises of the International 9/11 Hearings in Toronto and believe anyone interested in stemming the tide of civil rights abuses over the past ten years should learn the hard facts about 9/11 and help to spread the truth. US mainstream news basically isn't reporting on the Toronto hearings because anyone who questions the events of 9/11 has been labelled a kook or a wacko in order to avoid looking seriously at the facts. Instead of a balanced review, you have the slick National Geographic TV presentations stating they debunk the conspiracy theories. But later I'll show how licensed engineer, Jonathan Cole P.E, completely demolishes all their arguments against thermite.

I've summarized the most critical scientific and forensic evidence proving that explosives were used and I'll contrast that with the main, up-to-date rebuttals of National Geographic and Popular Mechanics that support the official government account. If you have any doubt about these facts, write a note in the comments or send me an email. I'd be happy to elaborate on any points or debate the subject if that seems necessary.

Three Scientific Proofs that the WTC Buildings were Brought Down Through a Controlled Demolition

I. Thermite and Iron Microspheres at the WTC

Yes, it's documented and undeniable.

Five days after the 9/11/01 attack, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) used infrared equipment and detected extremely hot temperatures on the surface of the rubble of the collapsed WTC buildings. The two hottest locations found were the footprints of WTC 2 and WTC 7. The temperatures were 801°F / 427°C at WTC2 and 1341°F / 727°C at WTC7, as shown in the chart on the right.[5] Keep in mind, these were only the surface temperatures. The temperatures of the molten iron buried deep below the surface were much hotter than on the surface. Also, the temperatures 5 days prior would have been even hotter. Nevertheless, even with the USGS 5% error factor, these temperature are much higher than the burning temperature of jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at an uncontrolled open air temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F).[6] The National Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST) estimated the office fire temperature was 560°F but these temperatures are nowhere close to the temperatures found.

USGS also examined the WTC dust and found traces of molybdenum that had been melted. This can occur only at temperatures of 2,623°C (4,753°F) or higher.[7] These kinds of temperatures are explainable through the use of thermetic explosives but not from jet fuel or office fires or any combination thereof. Building 7, the second hottest location, was never hit by a plane. This evidence of extremely high temperatures refutes the official NIST report, which states office fires and jet fuel alone were the primary heat sources.

What about the fires in the towers? In order for fire to heat an object, it must transfer its heat energy to that object through either direct contact, or through thermal radiation. The jet fuel burned at a maximum temperature for only a few minutes and, under the most ideal circumstances, the jet fuel could not have raised the temperature of structural members more than 257° C (495° F), as shown by calculations.[8] But even if you use an open-air burn temperature of 315 C and 599 F, it's not enough to explain the molten iron.

NIST never admitted that a wide variety of explosions were heard by credible eyewitnesses. NIST, however, was forced to release its stash of video evidence to the public after a Freedom of Information legal action.[9] A mountain of new video evidence was released to the public in 2010, but the organization who demanded it just doesn't have the man-power to quickly sift through it all. So, little by little, it is being posted on the Internet. And NIST has confirmed there is still more unreleased evidence. Videos so far show undeniable proof that NIST had been covering up the facts. Videos released include on-site news media coverage of the explosions that ended up censored out of the mainstream prime-time presentations. NIST and those above NIST basically helped to keep the public in the dark. These unreleased videos are truly big news, but, of course, it's not suitable for the status-quo MSM prime-time crowd. Nevertheless, here are some surviving samples for your perusal, as shown in video "The Ultimate Con"[10]:

Barry Jennings was trapped in the WTC7 building after the planes struck the towers and he stated he heard multiple explosions in WTC7 before the towers collapsed. He claimed the explosions occurred below floor 6. He claimed he saw that the lobby of WTC7 had been blown apart before he left the building. In an exclusive interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, Jennings stated “The fire fighter who took us down kept saying, ‘Don’t look down.’ And I said, ‘Why.’ And we were stepping over people– you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.” In the interview, Barry Jennings clarified that he heard explosions inside the building and the official explanation didn't make sense: “I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”[11] Barry Jennings' testimony was problematic for the official report for a number of reasons. Jennings was harassed at work because he spoke up about what he saw and heard. Unfortunately, he died under mysterious circumstances August 19, 2008 at the age of 53.

The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations by the National Fire Protection Association states the protocol for "high-order damage" demands an inquiry into possible use of explosives. The Guide specifically defines a high-order damage: "High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished."[12] So, it's clear that NIST went out of its way to avoid testing for explosives. Their gross negligence and breech of protocol has criminal implications.

Thermite was confirmed in WTC dust.

On April 4, 2009, an international team of professional chemists and researchers produced a scientific article that was published in a peer reviewed journal, the Open Chemical Physics Journal. The article is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and it has been well received around the world as evidence that thermetic explosives were found at the World Trade Center.[13] The thermite explosives were found in dust collected from various locations of the World Trade Center Site. NIST did not collect any dust for physical testing in its reports because NIST had presumed that explosives were not used and therefore there was no need to perform a test.

Iron microspheres found in WTC dust.

Physical evidence of explosives was found inadvertently by Deutsche Bank who commissioned the RJ Lee Group to test WTC dust for insurance purposes simply to prove the dust on their property was from the WTC collapses. RJ Lee Group stated in its findings: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension."[14] The study showed the percentage of iron microsphere particles was 150 times greater than in a normal steel building collapse and the temperature required was 1,749°C (3,180°F). This extremely high temperature cannot be logically explained, other than by the use of thermetic explosives.[15]

A licensed engineer, Jonathan Cole P.E., challenged the National Geographic video presentation on 9/11 thermite and refuted their video presentation with his own video that demonstrated that a small percentage of thermite can in fact cut through thick steel columns and beams in every conceivable manner. He showed how the characteristics of the thermite explosions were identical to the sights and sounds experienced on September 11, 2001. Cole referenced the National Geographic documentary that stated "175 lbs. of thermite didn't harm a small steel column." And "no thermite "of any type" could cut through steel columns." In his demonstration, Cole refuted all the false claims of the National Geographic video.[16]

II. Molten metal at the WTC

Basically top secret.

At least 10 first-hand witnesses reported seeing molten steel during the excavation at the WTC site. There would have likely been lots of photos, but a sign posted at the gate read, "WARNING No cameras or video equipment permitted! VIOLATORS will be prosecuted and equipment seized!" The chief videographer for FEMA, Kurt Sonnenfeld, stated in an interview: "What I saw at certain moments and in certain places ... is very disturbing!" and "I was told it had been agreed that 'the agency had to be protected'..." Sonnenfeld believes his life is unsafe in the U.S. as a whistleblower and lives in Argentina with his family.[17]

The NIST office never acknowledged that molten metal existed, despite all the credible first-hand accounts stating otherwise. William Langewiesche was the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation. In his book he stated “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”[18] Paramedic Lee Turner arrived at the World Trade Center site on September 12. While at Ground Zero, he went “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.”[19] Firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”[20] Vance Delsignore, an OSHA officer at WTC was interviewed September 11, 2002, "He remembers a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the towers collapsed, its metal so hot it looked like a vat of molten steel."[21]

A molten "meteorite" from WTC.

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, said, "The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."[22] Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava.[23] Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health stated, “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,”[24] Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up, stated, "molten steel was also found at WTC 7"[25] Alison Geyh, PhD. reported "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense… In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."[26] Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of "literally molten steel."[27] Dr. Keith

"...like you're in a foundry."

Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event.”[28] Water didn't seem to phase the buried fires: "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, "It was like you were creating a giant lake."[29] It wasn't until December 19, 2001 that the underground fires were officially extinguished. John Gross, one of the chief directors in charge of the NIST reports, denied there were any credible witnesses who saw molten iron, as documented in the following video[30]:

Some ask, "How could the explosives have been planted?" In a video interview, an eyewitness, Scott Forbes, described how the power was shut off for 30 hours at the WTC a week before the 9/11 attacks: “There was a period of probably thirty hours where there was no power. It would have affected camera security and all of the secure systems on doors.”[31] This is a situation we now know about due to an eyewitness interview. It's possible there were more opportunities for planting explosives that we don't know about. A serious, unbiased investigation would help to find out these answers.

III. Scientific fraud in the NIST reports

This is a summary of NIST's final structural theory on how Building Seven Collapsed, as outlined by Popular Mechanics: "After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure."[32] Popular Mechanics supports the official report, and so by refuting the official report, PM is also refuted. In their first reports NIST suggested that diesel fuel fires and damage from falling debris at the North side of WTC7 were instrumental in the collapse of the structure. But in their final report they abandoned these theories. In their 2008 proposal NIST relied heavily on a computer model as support for their theory. However, it is obvious that they changed the information in order to try and make their model work. Chemist and author Kevin Ryan has produced a video documentary outlining many of the engineering data errors, entitled Why The NIST WTC 7 Report is False.

Errors and fraud in the 2008 NIST report are also written down in text form in Ryan's article, "The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak".[33] Key engineering points are listed below.

A typical shear stud.

A. In their report from 2005 NIST stated this: "Most of the beams and girders [in WTC 7] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." (NCSTAR 1-1, p 14) But in their 2008 report NIST stated this: "In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders." (NCSTAR 1-9, p 346) John Salvarinas, the project manager for Building Seven, noted 30 shear studs on that critical girder in a diagram for an academic paper that Salvarinas wrote in 1986. NISTS change of data is inexplicable and appears to be blatant fraud in an attempt to support their computer model of the office fire theory.[34]

B. NIST claimed over 100 high strength bolts were broken due to thermal expansion. The idea is that the steel expanding due to heat was in sharp contrast to the colder concrete slab. NIST did not test their theory but an Australian research team did actually physically test this theory and found that the bolts did not fail, thus disproving the NIST assumptions. Professor David Proe and Director of research Ian Thomas, both of Victoria University of Melbourne, Australia, described their findings in their 2009 report.[35]

Why are 30 shear studs missing?

C. In order for NIST's progressive-collapse chain reaction to begin, the noted girder would have had to have been pushed at least 5 1/2 inches so as to fall off the girder plate. Thermal expansion was the means by which NIST explained this necessary movement. However, in order to meet the movement requirements, they would need to assume that concrete slabs have no thermal expansion. So this is what they did. But this is not science, it's a fantasy because concrete will heat up and expand slightly. That is why those creased lines are found in concrete sidewalks, so the expansion joints can allow the sidewalk to expand and contract as necessary. When the correct numbers are plugged into NISTS computer model, the maximum movement is only 3.3 inches, not enough to begin the NIST collapse scenario.[36]

D. Another problem is that NIST gives the impression fires were very long and very hot when they were shown to be the opposite. For example, in their previous report, NIST stated "Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time." But, in order to make their new theory work, NIST claims that there were very big, very hot fires covering much of the north face of the 12th floor at 5:00 PM. Only if this is true, is there any possible hope in their model that the building would collapse 21 minutes later. NIST admits that its models did not use "the observed fire activities from photos and videos as model input." This is not a very scientific approach.[37]

Pretty. But we need real answers.

E. The juxtaposition of WT7's proven free-fall versus NISTS "progressive collapse" scenario is problematic. In their first report, NIST denied that building 7 went into free-fall. The obvious free-fall was pointed out to NIST by a high-school physics teacher, David Chandler: "Finally, Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying: 'Acknowledgment of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if the NIST is to be taken seriously.'"[38] Chandler and many others recognized Building Seven collapsed in a complete free-fall simply by by observing the videos. On page 607 of the 2008 report NIST did finally admit that "Gravitational acceleration" did occur, which is another name for free-fall. But now NIST was in a quandary. As Chandler pointed out, free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion. In other words, all of the columns must fail in order for there to be a complete free-fall. David Ray Griffin made a stunning observation. The initial NIST report denied that free-fall had occurred at WTC7and NIST continuously stated its finding were "consistent with physical principles." But in the final report, when they admitted that free-fall occurred, they didn't use that phrase once, or any phrase like it. Why? Because they had basically proposed that a miracle had happened. NIST agrees a building went into a symmetrical, fast free-fall, as per video evidence. This means there was no resistance to the falling building. None. Nada. Yet, at the same time, NIST proposes a "progressive collapse," an asymmetrical, gradual chain of events. That's illogical.

Conclusion

So there you have it. What do you think? It appears that NIST reports on the WTC are filled with fraud, junk-science and fuzzy logic. If you'd like to challenge any of the facts and assertions I've represented here, you are welcome to. In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming regarding thermite explosives, molten metal and the fraudulent engineering of the NIST reports. And since 9/11, things like home raids, farm raids and police brutality have been increasing. It is the average citizen who simply seeks truth and legal justice who is most likely to be accused of being an enemy of the state and a terrorist. When, by all accounts, it seems the most serious terrorists have not yet been investigated. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 there are tanks on the streets of New York City, according to CBS News, and this militarization of society seems to be a precursor of martial law.

In light of all these facts, those responsible at NIST for ignoring and breaking inspection protocols in order to deceive the public should probably be tried in a court of law. Any superiors implicated likewise need to be tried. Instead of raids on dairy farms today we should be seeing DOJ raids on the NIST offices and files and the indictment of all those implicated in aiding and abetting acts of terrorism.

The public is being insulted from the critical facts through the censorship of U.S. mainstream media, but, thanks to the Internet and open, international forums like the Toronto Hearings, the word is getting out. Those who've looked into the facts and are ready to assimilate the truth will find it difficult and painful considering the amount of trust that has been broken. I reiterate that there are many sincere people in the Federal Government and in media and and I don't want to try and appear as though I am someone who is without sin and perfect. Not at all. My emphasis is simply that basic governmental accountability is necessary in order for society to function. The food fascism and the fact that growing your own organic food may possibly be listed as a crime should raise alarm bells in people's minds. But many seem to be very apathetic.

People who commit acts of terror are willing to die for hatred but we as Christians should have the same type of passion to live for the truth and love of God. The Christians of ancienct Rome were willing to give up their lives for the truth. All they had to do was to say "Hail Ceasar" but they chose execution rather than to deny the truth of their God. This was perhaps the most powerful testimony of the ancient Church. But today there is not a strong desire in the Church to live by one's convictions and to stand for the truth. The Laeodiciean Church was known for its apathy and this type of apathy can affect all of our lives without us being aware of it. Are we "valiant for the truth", as we are encouraged to be in Jeremiah 9.3?

The facts of 9/11 coincide with the prophecies of the End Times outlining a totalitarian government system. Does that mean we should just let it go? I believe that as long as we have some democratic freedoms left, that wouldn't be an appropriate response. Some Christians may say "You don't need to get too involved in political things, just pray as I Timothy 2.1-2 advises." What does that verse really say? "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone-- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." (I Timothy 2.1-2) While I agree, prayer is good and necessary and we can pray always in the Spirit, this verse doesn't mean that prayer is all that we are supposed to do. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't help to inform people of the truth so corruption may be stayed. We cannot live a peaceful life if we do the former and neglect the latter. I had elaborated on this idea in another article in which I quoted Chuck Smith, "The prayer was not used in lieu of responsible actions. Nor should prayer ever be used in lieu of responsible actions."[39] In the very least we should vote for a presidential candidate open to a new 9/11 investigation, such as Ron Paul. And at best we can share the truth with friends until those who've aided and abetted the crimes of September 11, 2001 are brought to justice. The scriptural maxim holds true today: "Innocent blood cries out for justice."[40] If you've found this article helpful, please consider passing it on.

Endnotes

[1] YouTube, "Rawesome Foods Raided... Again!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MVwdv5HBVQ)
[2] Natural News, "Feds raid Amish dairy and threaten action over raw milk sales" (http://www.naturalnews.com/029322_raw_milk_Amish.html)
[3] YouTube, America's Nightly Scoreboard, USA Gibson Guitar Company Federal SWAT TEAM / NEWS REPORT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP8TgGUmJHo)
[4] Toronto Hearings Organization, International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, February 20, 2011, (http://torontohearings.org/)
[5] 911 Research, "Persisting Heat" WTC2 1377 degrees F at surface, WTC7 1341 degrees F at surface per USGS thermal imaging study. Underground temperatures determined to be greater, perhaps twice as much. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html)
[6] ME Petroleum, "Jet Fuel" (http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm)
[7] David Ray Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False." (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/) Knowledge of their discovery was obtained only by means of a FOIA request. See The Mysterious Collapse, 44-45.
[8] 911 Research, THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm)
[9] 911 Blogger, "International Center for 9/11 Studies - NIST Cumulus Video Database Released" (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/international-center-911-studies-nist-cumulus-video-database-released)
[10] YouTube "The Ultimate Con - 911" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM
[11] Infowars, "Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53" (http://thelasersshadow.com/ajmirror2/www.infowars.com/key-witness-to-wtc-7-explosions/wsdindex.html)
[12] National Fire Protection Association, 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 1998 Edition (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp), Section 18.3.2.
[13] Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 4, 2009. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31 (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM)
[14] History Commons, December 2003-May 2004: Study Indicates Extreme Temperatures Involved in WTC Collapses(http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=rj_lee_group_1)
[15] David Ray Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False." (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/
)[16] YouTube, Proof that Thermite can Cut a vertical column, Jonathan Cole P.E. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00&feature=player_embedded)
[17] Templestream, 9 / 11 at Ground Zero Videographer Goes Public, sourced from Voltaire Network.
(http://templestream.blogspot.com/2009/06/9-11-cover-up-continues-to-unravel.html)
[18] American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center LANGEWIESCHE, 2002, PP. 32 (http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Unbuilding-World-Center/dp/0865476756)
[19] US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, They came to help at Ground Zero. What they experienced they can't forget, 9/12/2002 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm)
[20] KNIGHT RIDDER, Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero 5/29/2002
(http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html)
[21] Post Gazette, Vance Delsignore: OSHA officer at WTC, Wednesday, September 11, 2002
(http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020911designore0911P9.asp)
[22] PBS, America Rebuilds: "The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html)
[23] Ruvolo is quoted in the DVD "Collateral Damages" (http://www.allhandsfire.com/page/AHF/PROD/ISIS-COLL). For just this segment plus discussion, see Steve Watson, "Firefighter Describes 'Molten Metal' at Ground Zero, Like a 'Foundry'" Inforwars.net, November 17, 2006 (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/firefighter_describes_molten_metal_ground_zero_like_foundry.htm)
[24] Quoted in Francesca Lyman, "Messages in the Dust: What Are the Lessons of the Environmental Health Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11?" National Environmental Health Association, September 2003 (http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html).
[25] Quoted in Christopher Bollyn, "Professor Says 'Cutter Charges' Brought Down WTC Buildings," American Free Press.net, May 1 & 8, 2006 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html).

[26] "Mobilizing Public Health: Turning Terror's Tide with Science," Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall 2001 (http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)

[27] 911 Research, "Molten Metal" (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

[28] Quoted from "Dead On Arrival" (http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmpages/911/molten/Moltenmax.html) Originally from The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002, #6.

[29] Quoted from "How Did the WTC Fires Burn for Months?" What Really Happened?, December 19, 2001 (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html) Originally quoted from CBS News.
[30] 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg)
[31] YouTube, The Elephant In The RoomScott Forbes 9/11 power down: T

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSXmZVVCMIII.)

[32] Popular Mechanics, "World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874)

[33] 911 Review, Kevin Ryan, "The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak" (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html)
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Templestream, "Christians are to be Watchmen in the End Times", (http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/06/christians-are-to-be-watchmen-in-end.html)
[40] A paraphrase of a principle found in Genesis 4:10

Related

9/11 and Building 7: Truth Comes Before Healing

On 9/11, Gallup Polls Show People Waking Up

The Civil Rights Movement in Reverse: Who's Next?

Hospitals Using Microchip Electronic Tattoos on Foreheads

2011-08-25T16:36:00.000-07:00

It's perfect for the forehead.

A classic prophecy, Revelation 13.16, outlines a monetary system without cash. One of the distinctions of the prophecy is an identification number on the hand or forehead, also known as the 'mark of the Beast'. When human microchip devices were first introduced, these were designed for use implanted under the skin. Now there is technology for adhering microchips onto the skin's surface in the form of hair-thin tattoos, thus more closely conforming to the prophecy:

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead..."(NIV)

The forehead is well suited for medical applications of this new chipping technology: "While some areas of the body are ill-suited to adhesive electronics, such as the elbow, most regions commonly targeted for medical studies are ideal, including the forehead, extremities and chest."[1]

It will be marketed to gamers.

Implanted microchips were shown to increase cancer risks in the vicinity of the chips in lab rats, but this technology is supposedly harmless. The "tattoos" uses micro-electronics technology called an epidermal electronic system (EES) purported to “transform” medical sensing technology. It is used on patient's foreheads to monitor brain activity in hospitals but, as Vigilant Citizen pointed out, this may be a first step towards monitoring the population: "To get people interested and excited by the electronic skin tattoo, news articles describe its usefulness in health monitoring and…um…video games. What is however not advertised is how easily this device could be used to track, spy and monitor people."[2]

To make the chip more acceptable to the user was one of the main goals of its creators: "Our goal was to develop an electronic technology that could integrate with the skin in a way that is mechanically and physiologically invisible to the user."[3]

"It's a technology that blurs the distinction between electronics and biology," said co-author John Rogers, a professor in materials science and engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[4]

Russo and Rockefeller

The mark of the Beast has to do with control. And this technology would certainly help facilitate the New World Order. No physical passports would be necessary and keeping track of people would be quite easy. The aftermath of 9/11 has shown how people may be manipulated into thinking the loss of all their civil liberties for the sake of "security" is a good thing. The marketing of this trendy tattoo chip for computer gamers may provide a nice touch for the younger generations while a global economic meltdown provides incentives for adults to get chipped towards the creation of a cashless society.

Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo 11 years before 9/11 the attacks that an "event" would help to bring about certain events, including the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the microchipping of the population at large. On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, these words have already partially been fulfilled. The following excerpts from a January 29, 2007 interview with Alex Jones highlight the accounts of 9/11, the New World Order and the plan to have everyone chipped as a part of a world financial system.

Nick Rockefeller apparently was impressed with Russo's films, which have included such notable ones as Trading Places, Wise Guys, The Rose and later films Mad as Hell and Freedom to Fascism. Rockefeller and Russo became friends and Nick invited Aaron to join the elite establishment organization the Counsel on Foreign Relations but Russo was unimpressed by the offer and declined. Russo found Rockefeller's attitude towards humanity a little too chilly.

On a side note, medical chipping and financial chipping merged in 2009:

VeriChip Buys Steel Vault, Creating Micro-Implant Health Record/Credit Score Empire

References

[1] Earth Sky, Electronic tattoos are more than skin deep, http://earthsky.org/human-world/electronic-tattoos-are-more-than-skin-deep
[2] Vigilant Citizen, Electronic Skin Tattoo with RFID Technology to Facilitate Monitoring., http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/electronic-skin-tattoo-with-rfid-technology-to-facilitate-monitoring/ 
[3] Breitbart, Electronic skin tattoo has medical, gaming, spy uses, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6e1e2ad90e2d94b12b6258b7e9c5b33d.611&show_article=1
[4] Ibid.

Search terms

Mark of the Beast
Chips on forehead
World financial system

Related

EUterus and the Rebirth of a Global Dictatorship

An Open Challenge to Bible Critics

9/11 and Building 7: Truth Comes Before Healing

2011-08-18T07:47:00.000-07:00

Upon the 10th anniversary of 9/11, architect Richard Gage has produced a high-quality video showing the overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to take down Building 7 at the World Trade Center. The documentary, Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC Building 7, presents facts not addressed in the official government report and avoided by mainstream news.

According to one of the 9/11 family members, "We were all victims." Another family brought up the issue of national healing. There can be no real resolution, closure and healing as a nation until the truth is investigated. If this type of truth is avoided, then what kind of society are we really living in? What's to prevent the same type of thing from happening on a wider scale?

As Richard Gage put it, "It's distressing to everyone to come to terms with this evidence. But we must pursue the truth wherever it leads. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself."

After viewing the details, you realize the main culprit here probably isn't Islam and religious zealotry. No, it has more to do with the extreme effects of moral relativism and twisted neoconservativism. The main question isn't "Who's been reading the Koran?" but "Who's been reading Nietzsche?" - That's what I want to know.

Atheism and Chinese Dead Baby Pills: Any Connection?

2011-08-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

Imagine no religion.

Just when you thought society couldn't stoop any lower down on the ethical ladder, A South Korean TV documentary team has leaked a story showing that some Chinese hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have teamed up to create a lucrative business selling ground-up aborted human fetuses as stamina-enhancing pills, the International Business Times reported August 5, 2011: "China’s New Lucrative Business: Dead Babies Turn into Stamina Booster Pills"

China Daily reported "It has long been a folk tradition to eat placentas in China." And "A test from the national customs office and institute of scientific investigation in South Korea showed the content of the pills received by the television team was 99.7 percent identical with humans, the program said." The article entitled, "Ministry investigates pills made of 'baby flesh'" of August 10, 2011, has more details.

Imagine this is your vitamin.

The part represents the whole. Is there any ethical problem with dead baby pills in an atheistic society? Whether the story proves to be true or not, there isn't really an ethical problem for atheists here because there is no ultimate standard for ethics. Because the pills seem to pragmatically kill two birds with one stone, helping to resolve overpopulation and the need for more stamina to work in the sweat-shop factories, these pills can be "rationalized"on a certain level, no matter how grotesque it may seem at first. Judging from the philosophical trends in society, high-tech cannibalism seams to be on the menu.

In "Answering Atheists" Dinesh D'Souza noted how atheists sometimes don't want to put two and two together: "Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy.."

Related:

Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary

Why Atheists Fear Debate

Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary

2011-08-08T22:23:00.000-07:00

The God Delusion debate.

Atheists who frequently lose debates, such as Richard Dawkins, often shift criticism from the material itself to the medium and method of debate. They propose that debate is not a valid method for arriving at truth. This is apparently one of the main reasons Dawkins refuses to debate Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer. While there are limitations in the debate process, there are historical and timeless reasons why debate is a valid method for testing ideas, in addition to other methods of analysis. Debate is useful both from a general, secular perspective and from a theist perspective as well. Due to increased academic fraud, discrimination, censorship and non-objective reporting by the media, public debate forums have become critical venues for understanding the evidence of God's existence.

I. Limitations of Interactive Debates

Time limitations
Research limitations
Skill and personality factors

II. General justifications for Debates

Historical need for first principles
Justification is a primary consideration
Science bypasses the deeper “why” questions
Fraud and censorship in academia
Atheist atrocities justified by atheist doctrines
Need for public awareness
Intelligent Design science is pure science
Debate helpful for testing ideas
Debate helpful for gaining knowledge

III. Spiritual Justifications for Debates

Supported by scriptural texts
Debates can be fruitful
Improves theological knowledge

I. Limitations of Interactive Debates

Time and research limitations

Two of the main complaints about debates are the issues of time and research limitations in answering points. While books and research papers are better means for elaborating on the details of a specific subject, debates offer ample opportunity for outlining the main facts of any given subject. In a live debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion was the predetermined subject of debate and the debate points were known in advance based on specific chapters and sentences in the book. This allowed ample time to study and prepare.[1] If a person does not like live debate, online Internet debating offers ample time for research and meditation before answering each point. So these two excuses for not debating are without merit. Some may argue that personality and skill are too much of a factor. While this does have an effect, the people judging the debate may take this into consideration along with the validity of the answers themselves. For example, an individual would probably not be able to win a debate claiming that consciousness does not exist, no matter how charismatic and clever he or she may be. Furthermore, the motive to win a debate, in and of itself, is not enough to change reality and change the facts themselves that are presented and decided on. This objection presupposes that winning is the only reason for debate, which is false.One of the main reasons for debate is simply to bring critical issues to the forefront which the public is not aware of. In this respect, one can "lose" a debate and still be successful in bringing critical issues into public awareness.

II. General Justifications for Debates.

You can't really avoid logic.

Historical need for first principles

Most of the Greek philosophers saw the need for sound "first principles" in order to have sound reasoning. Aristotle discovered and codified the classic laws of logic, which have been relevant for over 2000 years. Socrates developed the "Socratic Method" which calls for the testing of ideas through cross-examination in order to find fault with a person's logic. Socrates and the early philosophers also saw the need for values and the need for justification with regard to these first principles of knowledge: "Socrates' great educational innovation was in ascribing moral worth to the intellectual activity reflectively directed at one's own life."[2] Socrates believed knowing the truth was of utmost importance and showing a person his or her errors in reasoning was a means of freeing the soul of that person from error. Today the tradition of live philosophical debate continues. Common Sense Atheism lists over 500 live debates between atheists and theists in audio and video format that is updated regularly.[3]

Positivism is Dead.

Hawking's philosophy is dead.

Though the first principles of logic and debate are still considered valid by many atheists, some atheists today propose that philosophical debate is altogether irrelevant. In the early writings of Stephen Hawking, he describes how his views of science are based on positivism: “Any sound scientific theory… should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others."[4] Positivism essentially promotes science as the ultimate and final arbiter of truth. His defense of positivism is mentioned in more than one occasion: "If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.”[5] Later in an interview, Hawking declared "Philosophy is dead." The reason he declared philosophy was dead may have been because his philosophy, positivism, was declared to be dead by a majority of secular philosophers. The New World Encyclopedia states “Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes…”[6] It is rather arrogant to propose all philosophy is dead because one's particular philosophy is considered illogical.

The main problem with positivism is that it does not begin at square one, with first principles, but begins with the presupposition that science is the final arbiter of truth. It is ironic that Hawking was wrong about black holes for 30 years[7], but, all of a sudden, he wants to declare that science has overtaken the need for logic and philosophical debate. in his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking criticizes philosophers for failing to keep up with scientific progress.According to Nicholas Blincoe of the Guardian, "Hawking is so evangelical about the notion of progress is he that it might as well be a religion."[8]

Justification requires justification.

Justification is a primary consideration

Webster's Dictionary defines justification first with a theistic definition: "the act, process, or state of being justified by God."[9] The implication is that there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard for morality as found in the theistic God. In setting out to formalize any belief system, one of the primary considerations must be "What justifies my belief system?" If one takes a normative position, then history and convention serve as a basis for justification. In this respect, atheists cannot very well justify the rejection of philosophical debate because it is very much a foundational aspect of civilization. Most secular scholars consider that justification is based on normative values and some believe the principles of logic are important as well. In either case, Hawking and positivists aren't justified in declaring philosophy and philosophical debate are dead issues.

Science bypasses the deeper “why” questions.

Webster’s dictionary defines science as “the state of knowing” and, more specifically, the second definition relates to science as a specific kind of knowledge: “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study.”[10] Even before the “systematized knowledge” is organized, scientific knowledge today is based on certain presuppositions, such as methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism presupposes there are no supernatural phenomena. Therefore, any evidence which may point to the existence of supernatural phenomena will not be acknowledged as such. For such reasons, science cannot be considered philosophically neutral and objective. The scientific method itself has no universally accepted standards and knowledge has no universally accepted definition. Science does not begin at square one but is loaded with subjective presuppositions, and the philosophy of positivism, which is based on the idealization of science, is considered logically inconsistent.

When scientists such as Dawkins and Hawking cross over into the philosophical realm and make statements about the existence of God, they have consistently failed to justify their proclamations philosophically. Because science doesn’t start at square one philosophically, it isn’t adequate to address the deeper questions of existence, such as “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” Science addresses mainly the “what questions” while philosophy mainly addresses the deeper “why questions.” This is another reason why Hawking’s statement “philosophy is dead” is truly an uninformed one.

Atheist regimes tend to repress truth.

Fraud, censorship and discrimination in academia supported by mass media.

Documented cases of fraud continue with regard to the teaching of evolution. Haeckel's fraudulent drawings continue to be used in science textbooks in deceptive presentations though proven to be erroneous in the 19th Century.[11] Though peer-reviewed articles have been published supporting the tenets of Intelligent Design, often these articles are censored from wider circulation and further review due to political censorship. In June 2011, the publisher of Applied Mathematics Letters has agreed to publicly apologize and pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees to Professor Granville Sewell after he won a court case verifying the censorship of one of his peer-reviewed articles.[12] In January 2011, Martin Gaskel received a $125,000 settlement from the University of Kentucky based on discrimination against him as a Christian scientist.[13] Though there is unlawful and unethical fraud and censorship, the secular media rarely if ever reports it. On the contrary, mass media it is known to distort information to present Intelligent Design and Creationism in a negative light. Following the decision by the Kansas state school board to de-emphasize evolution in its curriculum, Time magazine falsely claimed in its Aug. 23, 1999 edition that evolution had been "expunged" from the curriculum, and continued to support the error despite being advised of it.[14]

During international debates regarding climate changes in the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made reports basically for every debate and thus served as a panel of judges for these debates. These reports are documented records outlining key issues. And because these reports exist, people were held accountable and fraud was eventually exposed. In January 2010, the Daily Mail reported on how scientist Dr Murari Lal had bowed to peer pressure in making his claim that "Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035."[15] According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, as outlined in the same article, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’." The "neutral" panel was shown to be in error, and it was the documented records of the debate process that exposed Climategate for what it was.

Atheist atrocities justified by atheist doctrines

No reason for torture.

The desire to close the door on theological debate is one of the first signs of a totalitarian regime. A belief in atheism has been a fundamental justification for censorship, racism, eugenics and genocide. Marx had written, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it." He had developed dialectical materialism as a means to this end.[16]

Atheists sometimes claim horrific things have been done in the name of theism, but the foundational teachings of Christ did not justify the Crusades or the Inquisition. Dinesh D'Souza noted: "Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy.."[17] Vladimir Lenin stated: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[18] Pastor Richard Wurmbrand described his 14 years of torture and imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain in his book Tortured for Christ.

Slavery ended through debate.

Need for public awareness

Public debate has always served as a means of bringing key issues to the forefront, especially when there has been hegemony of one form or another. Take the case of human slavery, which had economic, political and ethical ramifications. Wealthy businessmen opposed the abolition of slavery but certain men, such as William Wilberforce in England, used financial resources and public forums to continuously bring up the issue and debate it until laws were passed against the practice of slavery. Wilberforce began an Anti-Slavery Society for such purposes. In 1791, Wilberforce introduced an Anti-Slavery Bill to the House, which was defeated by a landslide. However, after much debate, Wilberforce’s Slavery Abolition Act was eventually passed a month after his death.[19] In a similar manner, atheist hegemony, both in academia and the mass media, has led to a repression and distortion of facts underscoring the need for public debate and awareness.

Intelligent Design science is pure science.

According to its definition, Intelligent Design science does not make any reference to spiritual texts or deities: “the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence.”[20] Opponents of Intelligent Design, however, frequently state it is Creationism in disguise. It is not. As a theory it makes no references to a creator or any deity and utilizes only scientific evidence to prove that design elements could not have come about by way of natural selection alone. Because it makes no religious claims and is based solely on science, Intelligent Design is a valid theory for academic curriculum. In the Dover case, however,evidence was misrepresented regarding irreducible complexity[21] and the presiding judge was uninformed about the fact that peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design had been published.[22] Thus, justice was not served when Intelligent Design was ruled to be inappropriate for public schools.

III. Spiritual Justifications for Debates

Debate is scriptural and often fruitful.

Who's refusing to reason?

Isaiah 1.18 shows how reason is a gateway to understanding spiritual truth: "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” Richard Dawkins portrays theists as "enemies of reason" in his film by the same name, but, more appropriately, his photo on the cover reminds us who is refusing the discourse.

In Ecclesiastes 1.13a, Solomon describes his philosophical pursuit which became the basis of the book of Ecclesiastes: "I applied my mind to study and explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens."

The Apostle Paul had a maxim he used with regard to his relationships with atheists: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”[23] Paul put this aphorism into practice when he visited Athens Greece. When the Apostle Paul was in Athens, he was inspired to debate with people there: "Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of Idols. So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there."[24] Many people who heard Paul speak had a sincere desire to know truth and continued to listen as he expounded on spiritual truth in the philosophical context of the Areopagus at Mars Hill: “Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)[25]

Paul was able to use his education and knowledge of Greek writers to make parallels with spiritual truths of Christianity: 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'[26] The debates and preaching Paul had engaged in were fruitful and some people believed: “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.”[27] For theists with a sound foundation in God’s word, debates with atheists will lead to a greater understanding of theological truths. Unfortunately, immature Christians sometimes lose faith in God when they debate because they don’t have a firm handle on important scriptural truths and concepts. With Paul, however, it is clear that he was able to hold his own theologically at Mars Hill because some of the people who heard him converted to Christianity. In our postmodern and post-Christian society, there are many parallels with ancient Greece. It may be that there will be some spiritual fruit in returning to the public forum and debating the truth of Christ on a philosophical level.

Endnotes

[1] God Delusion Debate, Lennox and Dawkins, http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate
[2] The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Plato on Education as the Development of Reason, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciScol.htm
[3] Common Sense Atheism, 500+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates, http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50
[4] Wheat and Tares, Stephen Hawking's Defense of Positivism, http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/03/03/stephen-hawkings-defense-of-positivism/ (The Universe In a Nutshell, p. 31)
[5] Wheat and Tares, Computabilit and Comprehension is Science about Prediction, http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/12/23/computability-and-comprehension-is-science-about-prediction/
[6] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
[7] Natural science, STEPHEN HAWKING ADMITS HE WAS WRONG, http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/5886/STEPHEN-HAWKING-ADMITS-HE-WAS-WRONG
[8] The Guardian, Why does Stephen Hawking think science has overtaken philosophy?, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/08/stephen-hawking-philosophy-maths
[9] Webster's Dictionary, justification, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification
[10] Webster's Dictionary, science, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
[11] Evolution News, The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002) (Part 2), http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1003664.html
[12] Evolution News, Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html
[13] The Blaze, Update: Christian Astronomer Settles Lawsuit Over Discrimination Claim, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-christian-astronomer-settles-lawsuit-over-discrimination-claim/
[14] Answers in Genesis, Confusion in Kansas—evolution not outlawed!, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4110.asp, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Suppression of dissent against evolution, http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution
[15] Daily Mail, Mail Online, Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
[16] Quotations Page, Karl Marx (1845), Theses on Feuerbach (Thesis XI), http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33862.html
[17] Church in History, Answering Atheist’s Arguments Regarding Wars, http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.html
[18] Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973,Moscow, Volume 15, pp. 402-413., http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
[19] Great Slavery Debate, www.studyhistory.co.uk/Y8/Great%20slavery%20debate.doc
[20] Webster's Dictionary, Intelligent Design, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary-tb/intelligent%20design
[21] Center for Science and Culture, Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga, http://www.discovery.org/a/14081
[22] Evolution News and Views, Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_2_did_judge001793.html
[23] 1 Corinthians 9.22b, NIV
[24] Acts 17:16-17, RSV
[25] Ibid, 17:19-21, NIV
[26] Ibid, 17.28, NIV
[27] Ibid, 17.32-34, NIV

Revised August 12, 2011