Category: Uncategorized

Radio Show Hour 3 – 2020/04/11

Wuhan is very much analogous in several respects to “Climate Change”: if the temperature increases, it’s evidence of Climate Change. If the temperature decreases, it’s evidence of Climate Change. If the temperature remains the same (and it never does), that’s evidence of Climate Change too! And we all have to “do our part,” and the government has to spend trillions of our dollars, to prevent Climate Change (just as with Wuhan), or we’re ALL GOING TO DIE!

Donald Wright

If one has any symptom it’s a sure sign you have Wuhan.

If you cough, you have the Wuhan. If you don’t cough, you have the Wuhan. If you have a skin-rash that is a Wuhan symptom. If you don’t have a skin-rash that is a Wuhan symptom. If you lose your sense of smell, you definitely have Wuhan. If you’re hearing improves you have Wuhan. If your wife has suddenly become more attractive to you than she has in decades … yep, sign that you’re infected with Wuhan.

Clearly, the Wuhan virus has become a joke that only cultural Marxists don’t get. It has clearly been established by chaps like Dr. John  Ioannidis of Stanford and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford as well as sundry other academics with copious amount of letters after their names that the Wuhan virus narrative is a hoax.

The fact that the narrative continues thus strongly suggests that the Wuhan has become a political football being used to leverage power and control, just as the Cultural Marxist left has long desired to use anthropogenic climate change as a means unto global power and control.

We have come to the point where the Wuhan virus, in the short term, is just about politics and the 2020 election.

If you’re pro-abortion you vote Democrat.

If you’re pro 2nd Amendment you vote Republican.

If you’re pro “The Wuhan virus is the end of the world as we know it,” you vote Democrat.

If you’re pro legitimate science and know “The Wuhan virus is just another seasonal flu,” you vote Republican.

So… if you’re living in a State that has a Dem. Gov. you’re locked down to the max. If you’re living in a State with a Republican Gov. odds are its not quite as bad.

This is no longer about science in the least. The science has demonstrated authoritatively that the Wuhan should not be a reason to shut States down. The science has demonstrated that the Wuhan virus is just another influenza that might be slightly more virulent and deadly than previous influenza of previous years.

In point of fact what this is about the long articulated and relentlessly pursued New World Order globalist vision to level the economy of these united States so as to be on par with the rest of the world to the end of socializing the globe and so usher in a Globalist one world vision. This is already been pointed at by the recent op-ed writings of people like Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, and Gordon Brown, (two former US Sec. State and one former PM of Britain) as well as sundry United Nations hacks. One simply cannot rationally go on believing that the Wuhan virus narrative is about saving lives when one tracks the doings of Bill and Melinda Gates as well as the WHO. It’s all out there for those who have the time to do the research.

Another way we can know that the Wuhan narrative is phony is to track the recent insertion of Race into the narrative. Below is a portion of a letter under the cover of the Governor of Michigan Letterhead to Michigan medical workers sent 20 April 2020.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has identified alarming racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 cases and deaths. As of April 19, 2020, African American residents comprise 33% of cases and 40% of deaths due to COVID-19 in Michigan, despite comprising only 14% of the state’s population. This is consistent with what has been seen in other states as well…. Based on what we currently know about other health disparities, there are many reasons why we are likely seeing this during the COVID-19 crisis….We all have implicit biases and the difficulty is that we don’t realize that we have them – assumptions about individuals and groups can cause medical providers to not use a patient’s individual circumstances or objective data to guide clinical management. Explicit biases include those that are more explicitly racist, that may also not be fully recognized.

First off we should note in passing that apparently it is perfectly legitimate to cite statistics when it is convenient while it still remains bad form when statistics tell us that the firearm homicide rate in America is 19.8 for every 100,000 for the US Black community while for the US White community the firearm homicide rate is 1.7 for every 100,000.

See the link below for more interesting statistics. (Beware, becoming familiar with the link below finds one guilty of the crime of noticing.)

https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf

Referring back to the quote italicized above we notice that the “Whites are evil people” narrative is being folded into the “the Wuhan virus is the end of the world as we know it” narrative, to yield the, “Evil White people are the reason that the Wuhan is the end of the world as we know it” narrative. Clearly, if white Medical personnel in the State of Michigan were not suffering from Racist inclination fewer folks of color would be dying.

But just in case this is not obvious enough, these things have been said explicitly by opinion shapers as televised on the Lugenpresse,

“One thing I think is really interesting is how these protests have started after all the headlines last week or so about the disproportionate effect the virus is having in communities of color, and so when I look at these protests what I see are a bunch of white people essentially saying ‘oh, it’s affecting those people, so why do I have to change my life for them.'”

Renee Graham
Opinion writer — Boston Globe

Not to be outdone this was soon followed by Senior writer for The Root, Michael Harriot, offering up that those protesting the lock down are saying “quite clearly” that they “want more black and brown people to die.”  Then in order to be clear in his conviction Harriot added, “If you want the government to open up, then you want more black and brown people to die.”

And to think, that I am the one who gets accused of belonging to the “Tin foil hat” brigade.

So, we see here by all this that the Wuhan virus in its political incarnation, is now driving the train.

False premise #1 — Wuhan kills.
True premise #1 — White people increasingly know that Wuhan doesn’t kill and are out protesting unconstitutional action by Governments.
False conclusion from false premise #1 while not accepting true premise #1 — White people want colored folk dead.

It’s all so simple.

So, back to where we started. The Wuhan virus is the new climate change. If you will recall climate change has always had at its center the accusation that rich White people in rich White countries want to harm the poor minorities around the world and need to be stopped by action that will destroy the economies of the first world. This narrative failed and so the Wuhan narrative comes to the fore to fill in the gap and presto change-o the Wuhan virus is also about white people hating minorities and also serves the purpose of destroying first world economies.

“When you’re dealing with apologetics there are three tests for truth normally.

1.) Logical consistency
2.) Empirical adequacy
3.) Experiential relevance

… We’re looking for an Empirical point of reference. The Bible is not a self referencing book. The Bible is a book about geography, history and events that can be tested from outside the Bible itself. Unlike the Koran which is a self-referencing book. What do I mean by that? How do you know that the Koran is the Word of God? Mohammed said so. How do you know Mohammed is right? Because the Koran says so. The Bible is not a self-referencing authority. It has points of verification or the capacity to be falsified if it is not right from sources outside itself.”

Ravi Zacharias
Sermon — When East Meets West

Here we see Zacharias’ evidentialism come shining through. The presuppositionalist would say that geography, history, and events are not self referencing realities that sit in judgment on God’s Word. In order for geography, history, and events to be able to judge the Bible they first, in order to have legitimacy, have to be judged by the Bible and the Christian Worldview that Scripture yields.

Contrary to Zacharias’ assertion the Bible is a self-referencing book. How do I know that the Bible is the Word of God? God says so. How do I know that God is right? Because the Bible says so. Now to be sure, geography, history and events confirm the reliability of God’s Word but since the world is God’s world, just as the Word is God’s Word, all properly understood geography, history, and events can do is confirm what God’s Word states. If geography, history or events were to falsify God’s Word they would only, at that point, be falsifying themselves. To insist that Scripture is falsifiable is to suggest that there is a God outside of God who has the capacity to prove God wrong. If History can prove God wrong than History is a God over God.

Zacharias wants to give independent agency to History, Geography and events as if they have any meaning outside their dependency upon the God of the Bible for meaning. To say that history, geography, and events could possibly falsify the reality of God is to say that God is only possibly true. In order to be certain we have to wait for history, geography, and events to confirm or deny the possibility of God.

Ravi wants to talk about “testing the Bible,” but any test that would test the Bible that isn’t dependent upon the presuppositions of the Bible will always come back testifying that the Bible isn’t reliable.

Ravi is a smooth talker. He is very confident. He speaks at a high velocity tempo. He has that lovely accent that Americans find irresistibly charming. These things don’t allow people to actually think about what the man is saying as he is speaking.

Ravi is just wrong here. He is wrong more often than people would like to admit. What he is saying here is false on a number of different levels, starting with the matter of which piece of evidence would qualify as an objective touchstone against which one could test the objective inspired Word? Even if one did not accept divine inspiration, you’d still be left with why we should believe the Epic of Gilgamesh over the Genesis account of the Flood or why some self-serving Assyrian stele is more reliable than II Kings.

God’s Word is not potentially falsifiable. I mean it is shocking to suggest otherwise. Boiled down what Ravi is saying is that it is possible that God could be lying.

We are dealing this morning with the matter of Epistemology. We have been here before but as repetition bears memory we are not shy about being here again.

Epistemology answers one of the larger questions for Christian. It answers the question of how do we know what we know, or, if you prefer, what is our starting point for knowledge and knowing.

We have three options presented to us.

We know either by

Unaided and autonomous Reason
Intuition
Revelation

Knowing by reason is the idea of the Rationalist who allegedly dismisses all ideas of faith and merely by the power of unaided reason starting from themselves as their own source knows truth either by empirical evidence or by innate ideas.

Eve in the garden is the classic example of the Rationalist. Eve decided that she could know by ignoring God’s revelation and starting from herself she could, on the basis of the empirical evidence

see that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate it.

You see, Eve had a decision to make in terms of Epistemology … in terms of knowing. She could either operate by way of God’s Word Revelation and obey God’s Word Revelation and not eat the fruit of the tree or she could do what she did and employ an Epistemology that insisted that she could know what she knew as depending upon her autonomous reason as a ground for truth and eat the fruit.

The second way of knowing is by intuition and it is the idea of the Mystic who insists that on the basis of some kind of Intuition they can arrive at truth.

Example – Saul and Witch of Endor. Instead of trusting God’s Word that mediums should not be consulted He looked to occultist intuition as a means of knowing… as his Epistemology.

The Christian insists that we know what we know not by unaided autonomous reason reading Natural Law, nor by some mystical intuitive instinct (hello Pentecostalism) but rather the Christian insists that we know what we know by way of divine revelation found in Holy Scripture.

As the Scripture teaches,

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 18:30 – As for God, His way is perfect;
The word of the Lord is proven;
He is a shield to all who trust in Him.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

The classic example of this is Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Note that the writer of Genesis does not offer any proofs of God’s creation but merely states it is an axiom … a presupposition that God created.

For the Christian God’s revelation is truth and so the way we arrive at truth. We take God at His Word and seek to base all our knowing upon God’s Word. So, God’s Word becomes our axiom and we can only prove that axiom as true as by understanding all reality in light of that axiom. We reason from God to God.

So either we reason and know as starting and ending with God’s World or else we start with some form of De Cartes “cogito ergo sum.” (I think therefore I am), thus declaring that man does not need God in order to reason or to know.

Now, keep in mind that the Scripture as some things to say about the fallen mind in its pursuit of truth and knowing. Scripture teaches that the fallen man’s mind

is “futile” and “darkened,” (Rom. 1) “depraved,” “enslaved to the flesh,” “death,” “hostile to God,” “unwilling” and “unable” to submit to him (Rom. 8), and “foolish” and “unspiritual” (1 Cor. 1). None of these characterizations are my own.

Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. 19Having lost all sense of shame, they have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity, with a craving for more.…

This is how the Bible characterizes the fallen human mind. The problem is not so much that people don’t believe in God; it is that they won’t believe in God. It is a mistake to believe that human reasoning capacities are generally amenable to arguments that point in God’s direction.”

We might say that those outside Christ, the more they are consistent with their anti-Christ means of knowing the more the likely they are to become mad Scientists.

Mad Scientists… you do remember of course that etymologically the word Science means ”what is known, knowledge of something.” So there is a snug relationship from where we started “Epistemology” (How do we know what we know”) and Science (“what is known, knowledge of something.”)

So, here we have these people who often have this incredible native intelligence apart from Christ and we can only say that this native IQ employed apart from Christ accounts for the mad Scientists among us. Here they have this native IQ but they are employing it in opposition and defiance of Christ. On the one hand
Scripture teaches

3in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

But the mad Scientists among us want to have wisdom and knowledge apart from Christ and so they become mad Scientists. They are seeking to know apart from Christ and it drives them to madness. They want to have an Epistemology that is based on their ability to know absent of the axiom and presuppositions of Scripture and it drives them mad.

Dr. E. Michael Jones is driving at this when he wrote,

“Imprudent decisions by public officials have unleashed crisis in places like Michigan whose attorney general, just happens to be a lesbian. Lesbians do not make effective leaders because their vice blocks their access to Logos, darkens their minds and renders their decisions either ineffective or or unnecessarily draconian because of the lack of prudence behind them.”

Dr. E Michael Jones

Jones premise here is that the further one removes themselves from from Christ in whom is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge or as Jones puts it “from the logos” structure of the universe due to their aberrant behavior — which ends up working to suppress the truth in unrighteousness — the more they will pursue an anti-logos reality. So, when the electorate (largely due to their own anti-logos thinking) elects anti-logos politicians the consequence is the persecution of logos reality and the corresponding pursuit by the anti-logos politicians of anti-reality.

Thus, people like Michigan’s Lesbian Attorney General by the force of the necessity of her anti-logos disposition will persecute those who are operating as connected to logos in hopes of creation an anti-logos social reality. We have already seen this in Michigan with the Attorney General’s war on Christian adoption agencies in Michigan.

You see here this is a matter of Epistemology. The mad scientists among us insist they can know apart from Christ and His revelation in Scripture and in “knowing” apart from Christ and His revelation they come to truth and truths that are upside down and inside out.

So… what have we learned so far.

We’ve learned the incredible importance of Epistemology. It answers the question “how do we know what we know.” “What is our basis for truth.” We have said that historically our options on this matter reduce to three.

1.) Autonomous reason
2.) Intuition
3.) Revelation

We have seen that for the Biblical Christian we have no choice but to start with God’s Revelation to provide a solid foundation for knowing.

We have seen that if we will not have God’s Revelation as the means of knowing that the only other option left will be putting ourselves in the hands of mad scientists.

We have seen that the idea of science and epistemology are two bed bugs who are as snug as a bug in a rug.

From this we can now say that Science is only as good as the Epistemological basis upon which it is based upon.

This is absolutely important for us to understand because we live in an age which has made Science King.

In the climate we our living in right now how often do we hear about the importance about following the science?

But what we are learning is that if Science is not based upon the proper Epistemology than what we are left with is Mad Scientists. In order to Science to be genuinely Scientific we need to ask which God is Science serving? Is Science serving the God of autonomous reason? Is Science serving the God of intuition? Or is Science in service of the God of the Bible and His revelation?

If we genuflect before a Science that isn’t particularly Scientific precisely because its Epistemology is ruinously errant then we are apt to come to all kinds of silly conclusions and make policy from those conclusions.

We might come to silly scientific conclusions about cosmology and origins. We might come to silly scientific conclusions about punctuated equilibrium. We might come to silly scientific conclusions about the ability to go to the graveyard and stitch body parts together and create life. We might come to silly scientific conclusions based on silly scientific models that claim that 2-4 million Americans will die because of a severe strain of the Wuhan flu. We might come to silly scientific conclusions like abniogensis – something that was long held as being true. We might come to silly scientific conclusions that gender is a social construct. There are all kinds of silly scientific conclusions we might come to if we do not have an Epistemology that is based on God and His revealed Word.

I hope that you see here that you should not be hornswaggled by the claims of Science for it is simply the case that Science is only as good as the Epistemology and Theology that is driving the train. The problem with Science is that often it is not particularly scientific.
Science is like models that predict death totals from the Wuhan virus. Science is only as good as the assumptions you feed it. Feed it lousy Epistemological assumptions and you are going to get loopy belly laugh Science, just as if you feed your Wuhan virus model loopy assumptions it is going to spit out a gazillion deaths.

Let’s take just one concrete example of a Mad Scientist.

Meet Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko was illiterate until he was 13 and because of that bare bones upbringing became known in the USSR as the barefoot scientist. Lysenko rejected Mendelian Genetics in favor of a theory that allowed him to contend he could change winter wheat into spring wheat.

Lysenko promoted the Marxist idea that the environment alone shapes plants and animals even going so far at one point to deny genetic impact completely. Lysenko believed that if your put plant and animals (and human were just animals) in the proper setting and expose them to the right stimuli, and you can remake them to an almost infinite degree.

Of course this line of thinking was following the Darwinian evolutionary idea which is contrary to Scripture’s creation account. Lysenko became a classical mad Scientist in opposition to God’s truth.

Eventually Lysenko gained the approval of Stalin and as a result Soviet scientists who refused to renounce true science in the field of genetics were dismissed from their posts and left destitute. Hundreds if not thousands of others were imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state, Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in the Soviet Union in 1948.

Science was outlawed in the USSR in the name of Science so called. The Science of kind after kind which is found in Scripture

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind , and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:25


was set aside for false science all in the name of Science and the results were catastrophic.

Wheat, rye, potatoes, beets—most everything grown according to Lysenko’s methods died or rotted, records the book “Hungry Ghosts.” The famines resulting from this mad Scientist science killed at least 7 million people. Still Lysenko’s practices prolonged and exacerbated the food shortages. The Soviet Union’s allies suffered under Lysenkoism, too. Communist China adopted his methods in the late 1950s and endured even bigger famines. Peasants were reduced to eating tree bark and bird droppings and the occasional family member. At least 30 million died in this Scientific starvation.

So … all this to say that Science can be based on the premises of Scripture … the uniformity of nature … the idea of kind after kind … the idea that men and women really are different or Science can serve other Gods and so become Mad Science.

When historic Two Kingdom (2K) theology was developed it was developed so as to keep the Pagan state from overstepping their bounds as it pertained to Church matters. So, for example, the Church reminded Charles I (I might have the King wrong… going from memory) that when it came to matters of the Church he was merely a member in the Church like the rest of the members. He had no Jurisdiction over Church affairs as King.

However, what Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) has done is to flip this arrangement. What R2K “theology” does is that it keeps the Church from influencing the pagan State, going so far as to suggest that the Church doesn’t have a role in speaking a “thus saith the Lord,” to the Magistrates in what it calls “the common realm.”

Whereas original 2K was concerned with protecting the Christian Church from pagan influence, R2K is concerned with protecting the pagan State from Christian influence.

I don’t think one needs historic 2k as much when the whole social order is shaped by the Christian ethos. It just wouldn’t be an issue where the State and the Church are both expressly Christian. However, for the times when either Church or State went haywire 2k allows the Christian Church as against the pagan State or the Christian state as against a apostate Church to exercise a godly interposition.