Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Biologos On Combining the “Best of Science” with the Scripture

From a Biologos spin on combining Genesis 1 with science.

http://biologos.org/resources/the-big-story/

“Once upon a time in an act of extravagant expansive love overflowing from that divine community there appeared from nothing a pinpoint of probability smaller than a proton and this was the egg of the universe. In this egg God packed all the potential for the universe He planned, all matter, all energy, all life, all being, and the laws by which it would unfold. The egg exploded. Only God knows how. And the universe expanded a trillion trillion times and it gradually cooled into what we call matter.”

Let’s see if we can look at this up close.

1.) Once upon a time? The famous beginning of fairy tales.

2.) How does a pinpoint of probability appear from nothing? ex nihilo nihil fit

3.) Did the “pinpoint of probability” come from nothing or did it come from the an act of extravagant expansive love?

4.) How does a pinpoint of probability “appear”?

5.) God packed all the potential of the universe in a pinpoint of probability? What does that even mean?

6.) How does anybody know the size (smaller than a proton) of this pinpoint of probability? Would all this be undone if this pinpoint of probability was larger than a size of a proton?

7.) How does matter, energy, life, and being, as well as the laws of the universe get packed in a pinpoint of probability? Again, what does that even mean.

8.) The pinpoint of probability exploded? How does a non material, non energy, non life, non thing explode?

9.) Category error probability is not ontic nor a substance. As such it cannot be put into an egg, or explode.

This is supposed to have more clarity than Genesis 1?

This is irrationality on poetic stilts.

Overall this Biologos account of creation sounds not entirely dissimilar to an ancient Phoenician origins myth. If one reads the two back to back one can certainly her continuities between the two accounts.

In the beginning did Darkness, black as Erebus, inhabit an eternal, infinite void. In the growing confusion of colliding elements, an unconscious Desire emerged, which was the origin of all existence.

Though it knew not itself, Desire formed a union with Darkness and brought forth a great shiny cosmic egg, and when it was broken, it spewed forth a slimy, viscous Mot into the void, out of which came forth the stars and sun.

The air, now heated from the glow of land and sea, formed great lightning and winds, and a vast downpour of heavenly waters mixed with Mot, forming the first simple creatures, both visible and invisible, from which came more complex animals—first those without, and then those with sensation.

By the heat of the sun, things were made to split off and clash with one another, causing thunder and lightning, and thus awoke beings endowed with intelligence who began to stir on the earth and took fright on land and sea as males and females—who could now ponder the heavens: the sun, moon, stars, and planets.

Thus arose consciousness.

Women In Combat … A Natural Law Negative Answer

Someone asked me how I would answer the question that was asked at the Republican debate tonight about whether or not I would support women being registered for the draft. My answer would be quite different from Sen. Rubio, Gov. Bush, and Gov. Christie who all answered that they thought women should be required to register for the draft. The person who asked me to answer this insisted that I not appeal to Scripture for my answer and so I have given an answer that might be considered a “Natural Law” argument.

Candidate McAtee turns to the debate moderator,

Gladys, I’m glad you asked that question.

I esteem the place of women so highly in this culture that I would be opposed to women registering for the draft. Regardless of what our Politically Correct thought masters want to tell us, women, on average, just are not as capable as men are for the rigors of war. This is proven by the simple observation that in the Olympics, for example, women do not compete with men. Everyone knows why. They don’t compete with men in sprints, or pole vault or shot put, or high jump, or distance races because they can not, on average, successfully preform these physical activities to the same level as men. Similarly, you find no women as Linebackers or defensive ends in the NFL. Now, transfer this to our military. When we are in a position where we have to kill the enemy and destroy the infrastructure of a enemy Nation we want those people fighting who are best conditioned and best able to do just that. Statistics, as well as the Olympics as analogy, tell us that those people are men.

Gladys, read about the battle of Stalingrad. Read about the hardships in the Trenches of WW I … or the Battle of Somme. Read about the brutalities of war on the Pacific Islands. Read about all that our POW went through in Vietnam. Talk to a the few remaining veterans who were at Chosin in Korea. Read about all that and then ask yourself again….”Do we really want our daughters, Mothers, wives, and sisters trying to survive those kinds of perils?”

Next, consider what women in combat will do to morale on the battlefield. What will the sight of women soldiers bloodied, raped, and disfigured do to the psyche of our men in combat?  And what of a man’s natural instinct to protect women? Will it not be the case that our male soldiers will begin prioritizing protecting their female comrades above the accomplishing whatever mission they are assigned to accomplish? Do we want our male soldiers to suppress that instinct?

Next, we must consider combat readiness. The Marine Corps, just last September reported on a test comparing the performance of an all-male combat unit with that of a combat unit which included women. The results of the test are unsurprising to sane people whose brains have not been rotted by political correctness. The results demonstrated that all male combat units outperformed the integrated units in more than two-thirds of the areas evaluated, including speed, lethality, and strength, and with 26 percent fewer injuries. Of course, what this means, concretely speaking, is that when we put women in combat units the result is that we make every man and woman in that unit more likely to get their heads blown off their shoulders.

To be honest, Gladys, I don’t want to be the Chief Executive of a Nation that sends it’s Mothers, Wives, Daughters, and Sisters to combat. The immorality of such social policy screams for judgment from the God we politicians are forever invoking to “Bless America.” Let the non-Civilized nations make an offering of their women to the Volcano God of war.

The Feminists who are pushing this agenda just need to be told, “no, we are not going to allow your insane fantasies about equality get sane men and women killed in combat.”

I might lose this election on this issue. I know that the Politically Correct thought control does not allow this to be thought or said. However, in the end, I’d rather lose this election protecting the noble women of this great nation than win by sending them to war to protect men who should be the ones doing the fighting.

The Blood of Christ and Its Work of Erasing Creaturely Distinctions

“You are to be defined as a spiritual family from the world and not by the world — by the World’s distinction. The distinctions the world would put upon us. It is not our definitions. We are not to be known as Male Christians or female Christians… single Christians, Asian Christians, black, white, wealthy or poor. These are worldly distinctions. They don’t belong in the Church. When we consider one another and how we value and how we care for and how we treat one another we are not to see these worldly or these societal distinctions among us. We are to see the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ that has been shed for you, just as shed for you and for you and for you. All without any difference — all of us together. We are to see the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore equally bound together and equally called the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ…. So great care must be taken to prevent that virus of favoritism from finding its way into the body and coursing itself through us.”

As From a Reformed Pulpit during a AM Sermon
Somewhere in these united States

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one.
But yes, I’m still running.

Bono — U2

I often will listen to random sermons from Reformed Churches that style themselves Conservative (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, RPCUS, ARP, RPCGA, UCR, CanRef, OCRC etc.). The purpose is just to keep a finger on the pulse of what is going on in the larger Reformed world.

There are several prisms one can view this quote through. One could view it through the prism of  Dr. Peter Jones’ work at “Truth Exchange.”  Jones has written several books on what he calls “Oneism.” Oneism is the attempt to level all reality to a place where all differences are seen as “maya” (illusion).  One of Jones’ staff saw this quote on social media and commented, “Oneism.”

Another prism to see this through is to see this as an example of Anabaptist leveling. Leveling is just the egalitarian idea that social distinctions should be erased. Historically, Anabaptist theology has been one where social distinctions are far less recognized. It was the Anabaptists who gave us the Levelers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, etc. — all Levelers. It was the Anabaptists who leveled the distinction between minister and laymen in their circles. It was the Anabaptist who called one another “Brother,” so as to flatten any hierarchical distinctions. Anabaptists were strong on erasing the prohibition on Women preachers and this because of their leveling instinct. It is interesting that Satan was the first Leveler, informing Eve, “you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”

Yet another prism to see this through is the “secular” equivalent of Anabaptism and that is Communism. Communism, like the Anabaptists before them has always had the leveling impulse. In the French Revolution everyone was “Citoyen.” In the Communist Revolution in Russia everyone was “Comrade.”

Still, yet another prism could be the influence of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, historically held that the corporeal aspect of man (his materiality) was not really important or was even evil. It was the spiritual realities which were the be all end all of reality. So, in the quote above, it is not who God who has made us as creatures (Husbands, Married, Single, Asian, Black, etc.) which is important. What is important is the spiritual “blood of Christ,” which erases all other creaturely distinctions with which God us been pleased to embody us.

Finally, it just may be the case of a young minister saying things in-artfully.

Very very in-artfully.

The problem here of course is the following,

1.) The young minister might be confusing the fact,  that when it comes to belonging to Christ there are no hierarchical barriers, with the heretical idea that therefore there are no longer proper creaturely distinctions that exist in our embodied existence. It is true that Jesus accepts all those who are weary and heavy laden who come to Him, regardless of lack of status, rank, or position. Spiritually speaking, we are all one in Christ. As it is said, the ground at the Cross is level. Christ does not accept the Black men above the Asian, simply because of race. Christ does not accept the Female over the Male simply because of gender. However, that spiritual truth does not erase our respective ethnicity or our maleness, or femaleness. Being Justified in and united with Christ does not make us interchangeable cogs in a leveled social hierarchy … not even in the context of the Church. The fact that St. Paul repeatedly gave instructions to “slaves,” “masters,” “husbands,” “wives,” “children,” “men,” “women,” “widows,” “families,” proves beyond a scintilla of doubt that social leveling is not a Biblical or Christian idea. Because of that we would have to say that there is more of Robespierre than of Jesus Christ in this quote.

2.) The minister seems to think that hierarchies are something from which we are saved. Hierarchies are “worldly,” and “societal,” and in the Church we are not “worldly,” and “societal” therefore in the Church we don’t do hierarchy. The thought seems present that once one comes into the Church at that point the blood of Christ washes us from our embodied creatureliness so that we are now egalitarian spiritual beings. Hello, “Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité.”

3.) The minister is exegeting from James 2 where favoritism to the wealthy is forsworn. However, teaching that there should not be a unbiblical favoritism does not mean that there is not a biblical favoritism. St. Paul himself advocates for this proper Biblical favoritism when he writes,

“But if any man does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).

Notice that Paul is teaching here a proper Biblical favoritism.  God writes this need for a proper Biblical favoritism again in Galatians 6:10,

As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Note that we are to favor those who of are the household of faith.

4.) Honestly, if we are to abide by this kind of logic then we would should just take down our terribly non-Christian signs that hang over our Church Restrooms. If we are not to be known as Male Christians or Female Christians let’s get serious about implementing this idea and cease with the hateful signage over our bathroom facilities. Also, if we are to take up this idea we Conservative Christians should cease with insisting that boys marry girls. After all, we are not to be known as Male Christians or Female Christians. Our marriage services should end with,

“‘I now pronounce you Christian and Christian. You may kiss the Christian.”

Now, I don’t think this conservative Reformed minister really believes any of the implications of what he said, however, all of this is indeed the implications of what he has said and it is all damn confusing when coming from a pulpit unto a people who are just saturated in this kind of egalitarian nonsense.

Personally, I’m willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Goodness knows, having been in the Pulpit now for over 25 years myself, I have said things that came out different than how I intended. However, for the sake of the laity these in-artful expressions need to be pointed out.

 

 

A Look at Dr. David Wright’s and IWU’s Surrender to the LGBT Religion — Part II

I conclude my fisking of Indian Wesleyan University’s President’s Dr. David Wright’s Testimony in favor of taking away civil rights from many Christian business owners in exchange for IWU’s being allowed to be a marginally “Christian” University.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

They (the LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.   Our love for them means we cannot affirm a pathway that we sincerely believe is mistaken, but neither do we want them to be denied the basic human rights that are their due as fellow citizens.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) What does Dr. Wright mean when he says that “they (LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?” This is such a circumlocution. This could be said of any criminal class.

a.)  Necrophiliacs are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.

b.)  Pedophiliacs and Pederasts are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

c.) Bestialics  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

d.) Kidnappers  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

e.) Rapists  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

The fact that Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University, can speak like this proves that he has accepted the LGBT lifestyle as normative for the public square. He would never utter the counter examples above as an attempt of rational speech and yet here he is trying to make his listeners have sympathy for those involved in the kind of behavior that the men of Christendom have made illegal as  being vile and criminal for thousands of years.

2.) Wright insists he does not desire the “basic human rights” of perverts, which are their due, to be denied. And yet Dr. David Wright has no problem denying the basic human rights of “Freedom of Association,” to Biblical Christians.  Biblical Christians must forgo the basic human right of expecting their daughters to go into public bathrooms that don’t have perverted men dressed as women in those same bathrooms.  IWU President David Wright’s testimony desires the Biblical Christian’s basic human right of being able to honor God in their business denied so that the LGBT can honor their God by forcing Christians to give legitimacy to the God of self that informs the LGBT movement.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

We believe all of us who live together as law-abiding citizens of this state must enjoy the basic protections of the law.  To deny one person the protections of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all persons the protection of law.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) Here Dr. Wright assumes what he has not, and cannot prove and that is that those involved in the LGBT lifestyle are “law abiding citizens.” For millennial LGBT behavior has been criminalized.  Back in 1977- 1982 when I attended Marion College, if it were found out that a student was a sodomite they would have been tossed out of school. So, what has happened between 1982 and 2016 that has changed wherein this behavior has gone from criminal to “law abiding?What has happened wherein we have gone from throwing students out of Marion college who were LGBT to now having a Indiana Wesleyan President now categorize them as “Law abiding citizens?”

2.) Wright, by favoring special rights in the public square for LGBT people has surrendered the basic protections of the law for those who favor “Freedom of Association,” and for those who desire to honor God in their public square business.  What David Wright is actually saying here is that “to deny one criminal LBGT person the protection of their criminal behavior is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all law abiding persons the protection of law.” Wright fails to realize that those who are criminals do not deserve the protection of the law. What Wright should have said, were he operating as a Biblical Christian, is, “To deny one Christian the protection of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all Christians the protection of law.” This is what Wright is doing. Via Wright’s testimony Wright is denying Biblical Christians the protection of the law in favor of providing the color of law’s protection to the LGBT community. Law here, can either protect the Biblical Christian’s Freedom of Association, or it can protect the LGBT in forcing Christians to affirm the LBGT lifestyle by doing business with them. Shame on Dr. David Wright.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

In summary, then, we believe that our laws must honor the fundamental rights of freedom of religion, of conscience, and of peaceful coexistence granted us in the constitutions of our state and our nation.  If we abandon or curtail the right to sincerely held religious convictions, peaceably pursued among fellow citizens, we will in time deny all other rights as well.

Rev. McAtee responds,

But David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of religion as it pertains to freedom of association. David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of conscience for those Biblical Christian’s in the public square whose consciences are being violated in being forced to do business with the LGBT community. President Wright, there can be no peaceful coexistence between the God of the Christian and the God of the LGBT movement. You are kidding yourself Dr. Wright and dishonoring Christ at the same time.

Dr. Wright, you seem to think that we can arrive at some kind of social order neutrality between Biblical Christians and pagans and their Gods. You seem to think that a peaceful co-existence can be attained whereby those who are lovers of Christ and those who are haters of Christ can both pursue their diametrically opposed religions in the public square.  What’s more you seem to think this while you yourself are testifying so as to curtail the civil rights of Biblical Christians in the public square. That you can not see that this is what you are doing is astounding.

By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that the desire of Biblical Christians to live out their faith in peace and liberty is radical. By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that it is Biblical Christians who are the problem in the public square and that they need to be reigned in.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are countenancing men in public bathrooms that our daughters may be using.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are pushing legislation that is, in essence, bigoted against Biblical Christian in the public square.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned Dr. Wright. What you have done is far worse. You have helped set the fire to Rome.

The Wheaton Imbroglio and “Worshiping the Same God.”

The Protestant way of discussing the issue of God and His nature and worship starts with the Bible as determinative in all matters.  Thus biblical theology always trumps philosophical analysis.  Said succinctly and simply put, God and Allah are not the same.  Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.

Rev. Bassam Madnay 
Pioneer of Arabic radio missions over a period from 1958 to 1994

Developer of a Bible-based ministry, which emphasizes the centrality of the Word of God in missions to Muslims.

Author of several books in Arabic for the follow-up ministry that was used in his work for use among Arabic-speaking people.

Wheaton College continues to struggle with what to do with  professor Larycia Hawkins who said that  Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Of course this is all complicated by the racial dynamics as  professor Larycia Hawkins is one of only a few African American professors at Wheaton. Doubtless, were Wheaton to fire  professor Larycia Hawkins, there would be cries of racism and so it is easy to see how wanting to avoid those potential cries of “racism,” might become part of the decision making matrix in this case. To put it bluntly, Wheaton may well be tempted to not stand by its Christian confession so that it can avoid being seen as intolerant, bigoted, and racist by firing  professor Larycia Hawkins.

This debate is muddled up by imprecise thinking.

First, as there is only one God, religions which assert contradictory truths about that one God, as revealed in the OT and NT alone, are therefore not serving any God at all, but a fiction of their imagination. Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God since the “god” Muslims and Jews worship is a no god. The “god” of Jews and Muslims has no being or existence and so cannot be aligned with the the God who has being and existence.

Second, as the essence of Christianity is to affirm, with the Scriptures, that God is plurality in Monotheism,  we see contradiction to the false religions of Judaism and Islam, who worship a god without being or existence, who, nonetheless affirm that their no gods are unitary monotheistic gods who have no plurality.  How can it be the case that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all worship the same God when the true God of Christianity and the false no gods of Judaism and Islam can’t even agree on the nature of God?

Third, the Christian faith affirms that there is no worship of God apart from the Son; The Lord Christ (John 14:6). In contrast Judaism denigrates Christ as can be seen by the Talmud’s affirmation that Christ is in hell boiling in hot semen. In contrast Islam, while esteeming Christ as a great prophet, still denigrates him by refusing to identify Christ as being very God of very God. The fact that Christianity affirms the centrality of Christ in order for worship of God to be possible as contrasted with Islam and Judaism which denigrate Christ proves again that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not and cannot worship the same God.

Fourth, this muddled headed thinking doesn’t understand that words find their meaning dependent upon the plausibility structure wherein they rest. The word “God,” then, like all words, is filled with meaning only as consistent with the paradigmatic contextual web wherein the word exists. It is true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all use the word “God,” but when that word and concept is conditioned by all the rest of their respective contradictory worldviews the end results is a shared word with meaning and referent that has nothing in common except the lexical form and auditory pronunciation.

As we explore this idea that “Christians and Muslims,” worship the same God we butt up against some other difficulties.

Ask yourself whether or not if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God does that mean they all hate the same devil? It would seem to be the case that if the former holds the latter must hold as well. If we all worship the same God then how could we all not hate the same devil since God and the devil are polar opposites. A commitment to worshiping the same God would commit us to agreeing on hating the same devil.

 

Next we might inquire that if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God and they all hate the same devil would that not mean that they all believe that the same God delivers men from the same devil via the same salvation? Here we get perilously close to what I believe the real project of this linguistic subterfuge is all about and that is the collapsing of these contradictory faith systems into one ecumenical miasma.

There are those who serve on the mission field who will insist that saying that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God makes evangelism easier as a place of commonality can be agreed upon so as to facilitate further conversation on the character of this God. However, if we begin in our discussions presupposing a shared God it is hard to envision that we will not end our conversations Islamifying our Christianity or Judaizing our Christianity to one degree or another when all is said and done.

Honestly, this attempt at insisting that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God is just another example of the postmodernism worm eating away at all meta-narratives in favor of its own meta-narrative which teaches that all is social construct and is in favor of a kind of tortured monism.

In all this we must keep in mind that God is not a generic and abstracted philosophic construct that can be divorced from a concrete context. To suggest that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all serve the same God completely eviscerates the Christian religion as Scripturally revealed and as Historically practiced by those who have taken God’s revelation seriously through the centuries.

That Wheaton might ignore all this in order to align themselves with the demands of multiculturalism and political correctness in its demand to protect an errant minority professor is a sad testimony to where Christianity has descended. That this has even become a question that needs to be discussed and debated demonstrates the heights from which muscular Christianity has fallen.