Apologetics – Page 135

1953 Jenner Report

This piece suggests that the Federal Government currently in place is a criminal organization. It is populated by people who embrace a anti-Christ worldview. Forget in this 1953 report the language of “Soviet” and other language that points to official Communist organizations. The fact of the matter is that the FEDS have been run for a very long time by those with a worldview at warfare with Biblical Christianity. Certainly no one believes that since 1953 there has been any kind of worldview purge in the Federal Government so that we are no longer dealing with people who are beholden to one form or another of a Marxism-Corporatism worldview.

We are being ruled (Republican and Democrat alike) by those who are governing against the will of the American people and it is not going to stop until the grass roots stops it. (Which means it is unlikely going to stop since there is little will left in grass roots America.) To think that by electing just the right party in to overturn the previous shenanigans of the previous party is the thinking of a child. They control the whole political process. Thinking that voting will change the situation is like thinking that getting a second job at McDonalds will help you pay off your $250,000.00 credit card debt. It is not going to happen.

The fall of official Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe is irrelevant. You didn’t really think International Communism went away did you? You don’t really believe that organizations like the Council of Foreign Relations or the Bilderberger group or any other of these International controlling organizations went away did you? Come on people, quit drinking the Kool-aide and take the red pill.

Please tell me you don’t think any of what you find below has changed since 1953 in terms of how our Federal Government has become the resident lodge of an International Marxism-Corporatism criminal class?

On July 30, 1953, the famous Jenner Report came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled: “Interlocking Subversion In Government Departments.” This was right at the time the Establishment was trying to hush up or discredit the McCarthy hearings so the Jenner Report was given an extremely cool treatment by the liberal press.

Here are the twelve conclusions of the Jenner Report which carried with them tragic implications in view of what has happened during all the years since:

“1. The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.

“2. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top level policy and operating positions in our Government.

“3. The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.”

4. Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into Government, helped each other to rise in Government and protected each other from exposure.”

5. The general pattern of this penetration was first into agencies concerned with economic recovery, then to war-making agencies, then to agencies concerned with foreign policy and postwar planning, but always moving to the focal point of national concern.”

6. In general, the Communists who infiltrated our Government worked behind the scenes– guiding research and preparing memorandum on which basic American policies were set, writing speeches for Cabinet officers, influencing congressional investigations, drafting laws, manipulating administrative reorganizations — always serving the interest of their Soviet superiors.”

7. Thousands of diplomatic, political, military, scientific, and economic secrets of the United States have been stolen by Soviet agents in our Government and other persons closely connected with the Communists.”

8. Despite the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other security agencies had reported extensive information about this Communist penetration, little was done by the executive branch to interrupt the Soviet operatives in their ascent in Government until congressional committees brought forth to public light the facts of the conspiracy.”

9. Powerful groups and individuals within the executive branch were at work obstructing and weakening the effort to eliminate Soviet agents from positions in Government.”

10. Members of this conspiracy repeatedly swore to oaths denying Communist Party membership when seeking appointments, transfers, and promotions and these falsifications have, in virtually every case, gone unpunished.”

11. The control that the American Communications Association, a Communist-directed union, maintains over communication lines vital to the national defense poses a threat to the security of this country.”

12. Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our Government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security.”

This reviewer talked with Senator Jenner on one occasion following these hearings. He said: “We were accused of seeing Communists under every bed, but that isn’t true. What we saw were Communists IN the bed of nearly every Bureau in Washington.”

Dougherty’s Friendly Words Strains Kindness

http://theweek.com/article/index/256163/in-defense-of-creationists

In the article above you will find about as nice an article that a Theistic Evolutionist can write about those who old to Young Earth theories. And yet for all the politeness and reasonableness that Michael Brendan Dougherty can muster one can still see in his article his presuppositional problems. Really, the article has its strengths and has some useful information but in the end its weaknesses does it in.

Dougherty writes,

My own view is that a literal one-week creation should be ruled out because, combined with the best knowledge we have of science, it would make God into a devil, a trickster. “Haha, mortals, I only buried these dinosaur bones and set the galaxies in explosive motion so the unbelievers would damn themselves to Hell,” doesn’t sound like a great or loving God. It seems to me that the very idea of good, eternal, law-giving God endowing man with rational abilities was the historical prerequisite for scientific exploration.

1.) Note how Dougherty here begins with “science,” as if science has some kind of pride of place over theology. It doesn’t. As authors like Kuhn, Poythress, C. Van Til, G. H. Clark, and even M. Polanyi have all taught us Science is theology dependent. In other words Science isn’t Science unless it is first theology. There is a great deal of leaning on “science” in Dougherty’s piece. I would suggest that everyone give Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolution” a drive or failing that, they might want to test drive Godron H. Clark’s “The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God,” or Vern Poythress’s “Science and Hermeneutics,” or Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge.” All of these works challenge Dougherty’s putative “best knowledge we have of science” It may likely be that the best knowledge we have of science is not very good since the Theology it descends from is rather faulty as well.

It will do us no good to talk about “evidence” and “science” if we don’t agree on what “evidence,” and “science” is. There is no use talking about fact as if our philosophy of fact is not involved as well. Thom Notaro’s “Van Til, And The Use of Evidence” would come in handy here.

The issue that sets us at odds here with Dougherty and people like him, is not the Science or the evidence but the prism (Weltanschauung) through which we read the science, the evidence, Genesis 1, and the rest of Scripture. The issue is how we know what we know (epistemology) before it is what we know. The best knowledge we have of science is tainted because that knowledge presuppose a Worldview grid that is just not so.

2.) Dougherty complains about God “the Trickster,” and faults him as not being loving all because God didn’t preform according to his expectations. Believers for centuries have had little problem looking at the evidence and seeing the handiwork of God. All because someone contends that things aren’t plain enough for them to figure it out, given their Evolutionary presuppositions doesn’t mean that it is hard to figure out for those who do not share in their faulty beginning points.

3.) Also on the same score, God is not beholden to fallen man to sew a “Made by God” tag on every aspect of creation, complete with a full explanation of each wonder in order to help chaps like Dougherty along. It is curious that Dougherty would fault God for not being clear when we know that in the recreation that happened in Christ, God in Christ, spoke in parables “because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” The point is that God in Creation is not a Trickster. The point is that people who find God to be a Trickster are blind.

4.) Unbelievers don’t “damn themselves to hell. God damns unbelievers to hell.”

5.) Dougherty puts God in the dock and judges God by his standards. Dougherty fails to understand that after the Fall God does not owe man anything. God is not obliged to meet any of Dougherty’s “Historical prerequisites.”

6.) Dougherty speaks of man’s rational abilities as if these rational abilities were not affected by the fall so that God can be labeled a unfair “Trickster” by one of the “rational ones.”

Elsewhere Dougherty adds,

“Further, even though they’re wrong on the science, they are right about the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization.”

Throughout this article Dougherty is seeking to straddle the middle between the meaning that Creationism maintains and the “science” that evolution putatively demands. The problem is that Dougherty, and the swelling West with him, can not have it both ways. They can not cherish how creationists maintain “the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization,” while at the same time insisting that they are wrong on the science. If creationists are wrong in supporting a natural reading of Genesis 1-11, then the things that really matter is just a figment of an autonomous imagination desperately looking for a concrete point of reference.

Dougherty is trying to have the ethics of Biblical Christianity while peeling those ethics away from the Theology of Biblical Christianity. Such a move may work for a generation, but eventually given that ideas have consequences, changed theology means changed ethics.

Again Dougherty chips in with,

“So I do not think that Ken Ham–style creationists should get to rewrite biology textbooks according to their very peculiar reading of Scripture.”

1.) Reading the Bible as if God means what he says is hardly a very peculiar reading of Scripture. Indeed, it is the reading of Scripture that insists that Genesis 1-3 isn’t an account of how creation of this physical earth transpired that is the novel and very peculiar reading.

2.) If you want very peculiar biology text books go with the text books that have printed the peppered moth lie for generations. That’s where they glued moths on to trees in order to take photos to prove their peculiar theories. One could also go with the text books that have printed the multi generational lie known as the Recapitulation theory. This was brought to us by Ernest Haeckel and concerns his drawing of embryos in relation to comparison of species. These drawings are now understood as lies to support a peculiar theory.

For our purposes Dougherty finishes up with,

“In protecting that big truth of creation — that we are all made in God’s image and all endowed with supreme dignity — fundamentalists zealously guard things that follow logically from that.”

1.) I want to examine the word “fundamentalist” here. The word “fundamentalist” has become for the Christian world what the word “racist” is for the pagan world. It is a slur that has little or no meaning and is introduced with the purpose of ending the conversation due to the fear that being labeled with it invokes.

Really, what does “fundamentalist” mean, and why is it the case that only some Christians can be “fundamentalists?”

Why isn’t it possible for Theistic Evolutionists to be left wing fundamentalists? After all they are defending the fundamentals of their peculiar religion and are every bit as rabid as young earth creationists in insisting that all must bow to their agenda.

All to often it seems that the “Christian” leftists calling Christians “fundamentalists” is akin to a criminal yelling in a crowded place that the plain clothes cops chasing him are terrorists. What better way to divert attention from their crime by distracting people’s attention from the reality of the situation than by the criminals pointing fingers at the pursuing Cops and shouting that the Cops are criminal-terrorists? It confuses everyone and gives time to the criminals to get away with their crime. In the same way Theistic evolution is a crime against the plain meaning of the text and the cat-call of “fundamentalists” by the enemies of the plain meaning of the text is a good way to confuse matters and end conversations.

As an aside here, we quite agree that Genesis 1 may very well be describing God’s Cosmos Temple Sanctuary. However agreeing that that may be part of what is going on in Genesis 1 does not necessitate giving up on Genesis 1 as God’s explanation of how the material world was created.

Diversity Will Balkanize Us … Regardless of Polytheistic Sentimentalistic Coke Commercials

The NFL rejected this add and the advertising money that accompanied it.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/27/nfl-bans-super-bowl-gun-commercial/

This commercial above promotes what might be called conservative values, those of self defense and an esteeming of the 2nd amendment. This was a “Daniel Defense” ad focusing on personal protection and fundamental rights. It was originally created by Daniel Defense to run on any TV Network at any time. The rejected Commercial did not mention firearms, ammunition or weaponry.

But the NFL had no problem running this piece of propaganda as a add. In a quick rotating series of sentimental feel good images Coke sells, not so much its carbonated sugar water, but rather a vision of multicultural America.

Accompanying the images is the first verse of “America the Beautiful” in several different languages.

First a word about the images. The images start out classic Americana Western cowboy and much of the commercial (about 17 seconds) gives us images of pastoral settings.

The commercial was 60 seconds long. In the longest segment of the commercial (almost 5 seconds) we are treated to a inter-racial sodomite “couple” rollerskating with their “daughter,” giving us the impression of one big well adjusted American “family.” This was the first Super Bowl ad to feature a gay “family,” according to GLAAD, a lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender media advocacy organization. Of course, as that is interspersed with all the classic Americana and pastoral settings, what is being communicated is that sodomy is just as American and just as pastoral as any other of the family images shown. Coke is selling sodomy.

Now a word about the song. The lyrics of the first verse that are sung in the commercial in different languages are below,

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

The different languages in the song are underscored by the different ethnicities in the commercial. The idea clearly is presented is that America is an idea — a propositional nation — and not a nation in the classic sense of a shared lineage, heritage, and culture. One can be Jewish, Muslim, Sodomite, Hispanic, or Polynesian and still be “American.”

But the problem with that is when we get to the words in “America the Beautiful.” that say, “God shed His grace on thee.”

First, we might ask, “Which God shed his grace on America?” Was it Allah? Was it the pagan god of Judaism? Was it the god of the Sodomites? Just which God are we praising here for shedding his grace?

Second, we would observe that only in a Christian worldview does “God shedding His Grace” make any sense. No other religion has a god who sheds grace (unmerited favor).

Third, who is the “Thee” upon whom God has shed his grace? Is the “thee” merely a geographic entity where a bunch of different peoples, religions, and moralities clash? Or is the “thee” those whom the Founders wrote of when they wrote,

” … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

Again, what Coke is selling is the multicultural vision of America as the first International Nation State — a State without borders, definition, creed, ethnicity or unifying cult, culture, morality, language or custom. Coke is selling Marx’s vision of America as the first International State without distinctions and where every value of every people is equally valued. (Except the values of those who don’t value, every value as having equal value.)

One wonders if Coke would air a similar ad in Israel or is it just America and all of Europe that is supposed to be “blessed” by being a polyglot, multi-faith, multi-morality and multi-ethnic nation?

Of course the result of all this glorious “Diversity” is and will continue to be the Balkanization of America. You can not throw together people with contradictory worldviews into one social order and not expect severe social unrest.

If I can avoid it, I’ll never drink another Coke in my life.

Bertrand Russell on Education … McAtee on R2K in Light of Russell Quotes

Remember, as you read these Bertrand Russell quotes, that R2K insists that it is of no concern from a Christian point of view should parents, who confess Christ as individuals, (I don’t say “Christian Parents” because I don’t think R2K believes that Parents can be Christian) place their children in Government schools. After all, education belongs to the common realm and so, can not be Christian.

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”

Bertrand Russell
Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Education in a scientific society may, I think, be best conceived after the analogy of the education provided by the Jesuits. The Jesuits provided one sort of education for the boys who were to become ordinary men of the world, and another for those who were to become members of the Society of Jesus. In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.”

Bertrand Russell
part 3, XIV, Education in a Scientific Society p.251

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte,
Fichte was the head of philosophy & psychology
Influenced Hegel and others
Russell is quoting from a Fichte Lecture, Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

Review Of Rushdoony’s “The American Indian” — Medicine Men

“True medicine men, it was said, had given way to the white man’s doctor because he knew more than the Indian practitioner…. [The older Indian men] had no loyalty to the old ways per se. The white man’s gun was far superior to the bow and arrow. Why not his medicine also?”

R. J. Rushdoony
The American Indian

In this brief chapter RJR gives a few anecdotes about his experience with Indian Medicine men as well as what he learned from Indian elders.

“From their (older Indian men) perspective, there were no medicine men on the reservation — only fakers.”

However, according to Rush’s account there were Indians who were what we would call Natural-paths and homeopaths. Rush mentions one particular gentleman who could identify every plant in the area as well as the medicinal purposes that those plants might have had. This reminds us that allopathic medicine does not have all the answers that it pretends to have. Indeed, there are times I wonder if allopathic medicine shouldn’t be viewed as alternative medicine in favor of a more homeopathic path.

Still, despite this natural-pathic skill RJR reports that the Indian,

“liked modern conveniences and advances, including modern medicine.”

Rush reports this because the Federal Government, during the New Deal, sought to re-Indianize the Indians and as such encouraged the Indians to go back to their ancient ways. Rush writes,

“They [the Indian] had no loyalty to the old ways per se…. they did not identify their Indian-ness in terms of artifacts, and it annoyed them when others did…. They saw nothing exclusive about the benefits of the white man’s civilization …. In brief, these old men liked modern conveniences and advances, including modern medicine…. they recognized and appreciated the advantages of modern medical practice, of nurses and hospitals.”

Rush does not again the failure of the State in terms of medicine,

“They [the Indians] knew that the agency doctors were often inferior to the doctors outside of the reservation….”

The immediately above quote is important because it reminds us again that whenever the State involves itself so that people are required and forced to go to them for any service the consequence is a lowering standard of quality of whatever service the State has seized. The Indians that RJR came in contact with in his Reservation ministry were forced into a governmental health care system and as such the Doctors that they had to deal with were inferior to Doctors operating in the supply and demand market. This is an observation pregnant with meaning as the citizenry today in our country are inching towards the kind of Socialized medicine the Indians had forced upon them. Our quality of medical care will be inferior just as the Reservation’s medical care was of lower quality.

Rushdoony returns to the medicine man issue by noting that what passed as the medicine men, in his observation, were, for the most part, dabblers in peyote.

“What then of the so-called medicine men practicing at that time? Most were peyote leaders. Peyote was administered as a holy, healing medicine. It tended to paralyze the digestive tract, or at least deaden it to pain, I was told. The patient felts no pain and assumed that he was being healed.”

Rush notes that such patients of the peyote practitioners would often finally fail and at the last second would give up on the medicine man and go to the hospital, despite the warnings of the medicine man against the hospital. Often when such people finally went to the hospital they quickly died because of the previous neglect. Upon their death, the peyote medicine men would then claim that the death was the result of giving up on the medicine man and going to the hospital.

RJR ends this chapter by admitting that there were a few other types of medicine men who were not peyote playboys. Rushdoony suggests that these “healers” were in fact, demonically enabled.

“There was another kind of practitioner. How deep his roots were in Indian history, I do not know…. These medicine men, if they could be called such … I would call occultist. They had strange powers I cannot explain. One of them … could pick up a rattlesnake, chant to it, hang it around his neck and not be bitten…. [Medicine] men such as A.C. were Indian in a fanatical way: they sought to blot out the world of the white man.”

RJR notes that as Christianity waned after WWII occultism increased. He notes that only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can counter such occultist practices and muses that,

“When men turn their backs on Christian civilization, see only evil in it, and try to abstract Biblical faith and morals from themselves and the world, are they not courting the demonic.”

This is an important word for our church and culture today. In many many places in the Church today churchmen are turning their back on Christian civilization, and indeed see only evil in the idea of Christian civilization. Indeed we are everywhere seeing the attempt to abstract Biblical faith and moral from silly conceptual paradigms like Natural law. One can only wonder if such churchmen are courting the demonic by turning their backs on Christian civilization.