Culture – Page 2 – Divine Council

America

‘American Gospel’ Exposes the Destructive Lies of Prosperity Gospel Hucksters

By Terence Gillespie March 1, 2019

I just finished watching a fantastic documentary, American Gospel – Christ Alone, contrasting the Gospel with its predominant portrayal in American culture, today. The filmmaker, Brandon Kimber, did a masterful and thorough job on this 2 hour and 19-minute film.

The buzz around American Gospel is how it defines and addresses the problems of the prosperity Gospel. While it does accomplish that vital task (something I’d hoped for, but didn’t find in “Blessed”), it does much more than that. It first presents the authentic Gospel (first 40 minutes), contrasts it with faith vs. works fallacies, what the Bible really says about suffering and evil, and highlights some of those associated with the NAR controversy though none of these things are its primary focus.

Some ‘Blessed” Questions Answered

In my review of “Blessed”, I posed questions about prosperity and the Gospel the author did not address:

What is the relationship, if any, between the Gospel and human prosperity? How could salvation of the lost have nothing, whatsoever, to do with human flourishing?Every believer with a heartbeat might have an opinion on such questions. But, what is the truth contained in the Biblical text?

What might a believer seeking the whole counsel of God, conclude? Have some, or all, of these prosperity gospel preachers been fleecing the sheep or does the fulfillment of one or more of the missions of Jesus Christ involve prosperity and believers?

“American Gospel” solidly answers the last question with scriptural references that will leave the viewer inspired yet with no doubts about the spiritual crimes of a half-dozen or so of these gospel hucksters.

Soon to Become a Handy Video Reference

Given its quality and thoroughness, I’ll likely be referring to American Gospel as a resource for illustrating, if not altogether resolving, many of questions and issues that come up on forums and in conversations. Therefore, I’ll need to re-watch this documentary and capture timestamps and summaries of the many problems this film handles and illustrates so well. That will take some time since the work, while quite entertaining, is rather comprehensive in its coverage.

If you’re looking for a one-stop resource to clearly delineate many of the ways the predominant modern portrayal of the Gospel in the American culture differs from the Biblical Text, this film is the best single resource I’ve seen on the subject.

Modern Money Changers

There’s plenty in the film that may have you relating to Christ’s anger at the money changers in the Temple. But it’s the trail of needlessly ruined or impoverished lives and the thwarting of those genuinely seeking God that’s probably the greater cost.

The hoarded and fraudulently gained earthly wealth of these hucksters is the best demonstration and proof of their genuinely held values: that the Gospel is just a mesmerizing tale that keeps the attention of believers long enough to separate them from their wallets and purses.

For the benefit of Benny Hinn’s $20k nightly stays in Dubai, the un-healed believer with cerebral palsy spends a lifetime questioning why his faith is not strong enough to convince God to heal him. Too bad he doesn’t know that Benny’s handlers screen out the hard cases before they get too close to the stage.

Pentecostal Lunacy

Kenneth Copeland plagiarizes his loony mentor (Kenneth Hagin) and takes “Ye shall be as gods” to the next level claiming he has Jesus’ DNA. With such exalted genetic street-cred established, it’s perfectly natural to demand another $60 million for a second jet for his private airport. After all, the contributing believers would be entitled to their own earthly empires if they only had the “wisdom” to ask.

Here’s an episode in Copeland’s apprenticeship with Hagin, his psychopathic mentor:

Passing the Baton

Here’s Copeland “passing the baton” to Todd White. Can we look forward to subsequent references to this episode described as Todd’s “anointing?”

In “American Gospel,” Todd White demonstrates what is apparently his schtick: a super slow manipulation of the ankle to make it look like he’s called the power of the Holy Spirit down to even up the lengths of a seeker’s legs and putting an end to chronic back pain.

The Beginning of the End, Hopefully

Is walking to the head of every line and claiming to be first proof of “God’s plan for your life” or just common lousy behavior? Is a graceful walk through the long process of sanctification only necessary because I don’t understand what my Bible really says, like Copeland or White?

For all “American Gospel” does to clarify the true Gospel and expose the false, it also does a wonderful job in championing God’s word and its role in fostering and deepening a relationship with our Creator. Let’s pray that “American Gospel” is the beginning of the end of the horrible spiritual destruction that follows in the wake of the false prosperity gospel.

Culture

On Appeasing Envy

By Guest Post February 8, 2019

by Henry Hazlitt

Any attempt to equalize wealth or income by forced redistribution must only tend to destroy wealth and income. Historically the best the would-be equalizers have ever succeeded in doing is to equalize downward. This has even been caustically described as their intention. “Your levellers,” said Samuel Johnson in the mid-eighteenth century, “wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves.”

And in our own day we find even an eminent liberal like the late Mr. Justice Holmes writing: “I have no respect for the passion for equality, which seems to me merely idealizing envy.”1

At least a handful of writers have begun to recognize explicitly the all-pervasive role played by envy or the fear of envy in life and in contemporary political thought. In 1966, Helmut Schoeck, professor of sociology at the University of Mainz, devoted a scholarly and penetrating book to the subject, to which most future discussion is likely to be indebted.2

There can be little doubt that many egalitarians are motivated at least partly by envy, while still others are motivated, not so much by any envy of their own, as by the fear of it in others, and the wish to appease or satisfy it. But the latter effort is bound to be futile. Almost no one is completely satisfied with his status in relation to his fellows.

In the envious the thirst for social advancement is insatiable. As soon as they have risen one rung in the social or economic ladder, their eyes are fixed upon the next. They envy those who are higher up, no matter by how little. In fact, they are more likely to envy their immediate friends or neighbors, who are just a little bit better off, than celebrities or millionaires who are incomparably better off. The position of the latter seems unattainable, but of the neighbor who has just a minimal advantage they are tempted to think: “I might almost be in his place.”

Moreover, the envious are more likely to be mollified by seeing others deprived of some advantage than by gaining it for themselves. It is not what they lack that chiefly troubles them, but what others have. The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge. In the French Revolution of 1848, a woman coal-heaver is said to have remarked to a richly dressed lady: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now; I shall go in silks and you’ll carry coal.”

Envy is implacable. Concessions merely whet its appetite for more concessions. As Schoeck writes: “Man’s envy is at its most intense where all are almost equal; his calls for redistribution are loudest when there is virtually nothing to redistribute.”3

(We should, of course, always distinguish that merely negative envy which begrudges others their advantage from the positive ambition that leads men to active emulation, competition, and creative effort of their own.)

But the accusation of envy, or even of the fear of others’ envy, as the dominant motive for any redistribution proposal is a serious one to make and a difficult if not impossible one to prove. Moreover, the motives for making a proposal, even if ascertainable, are irrelevant to its inherent merits.

We can, nonetheless, apply certain objective tests. Sometimes the motive of appeasing other people’s envy is openly avowed. Socialists will often talk as if some form of superbly equalized destitution were preferable to “maldistributed” plenty. A national income that is rapidly growing in absolute terms for practically everyone will be deplored because it is making the rich richer. An implied and sometimes avowed principle of the British Labour Party leaders after World War II was that “Nobody should have what everybody can’t have.”

But the main objective test of a social proposal is not merely whether it emphasizes equality more than abundance, but whether it goes further and attempts to promote equality at the expense of abundance. Is the proposed measure intended primarily to help the poor, or to penalize the rich? And would it in fact punish the rich at the cost of also hurting everyone else?

This is the actual effect of steeply progressive income taxes and confiscatory inheritance taxes. These are not only counterproductive fiscally (bringing in less revenue from the higher brackets than lower rates would have brought), but they discourage or confiscate the capital accumulation and investment that would have increased national productivity and real wages. Most of the confiscated funds are then dissipated by the government in current consumption expenditures. The long-run effect of such tax rates, of course, is to leave the working poor worse off than they would otherwise have been.

How to Bring On a Revolution

There are economists who will admit all this, but will answer that it is nonetheless politically necessary to impose such near-confiscatory taxes, or to enact similar redistributive measures, in order to placate the dissatisfied and the envious — in order, in fact, to prevent actual revolution.

This argument is the reverse of the truth. The effect of trying to appease envy is to provoke more of it.

The most popular theory of the French Revolution is that it came about because the economic condition of the masses was becoming worse and worse, while the king and the aristocracy remained completely blind to it. But de Tocqueville, one of the most penetrating social observers and historians of his or any other time, put forward an exactly opposite explanation. Let me state it first as summarized by an eminent French commentator in 1899:

Here is the theory invented by Tocqueville. … The lighter a yoke, the more it seems insupportable; what exasperates is not the crushing burden but the impediment; what inspires to revolt is not oppression but humiliation. The French of 1789 were incensed against the nobles because they were almost the equals of the nobles; it is the slight difference that can be appreciated, and what can be appreciated that counts. The eighteenth-century middle class was rich, in a position to fill almost any employment, almost as powerful as the nobility. It was exasperated by this “almost” and stimulated by the proximity of its goal; impatience is always provoked by the final strides.4

I have quoted this passage because I do not find the theory stated in quite this condensed form by Tocqueville himself. Yet this is essentially the theme of his L’Ancien Régime et la Revolution, and he presented impressive factual documentation to support it. Here is a typical passage:

It is a singular fact that this steadily increasing prosperity, far from tranquilizing the population, everywhere promoted a spirit of unrest. The general public became more and more hostile to every ancient institution, more and more discontented; indeed, it was increasingly obvious that the nation was heading for a revolution …

Thus it was precisely in those parts of France where there had been most improvement that popular discontent ran highest. This may seem illogical — but history is full of such paradoxes. For it is not always when things are going from bad to worse that revolutions break out. On the contrary, it oftener happens that when a people which has put up with an oppressive rule over a long period without protest suddenly finds the government relaxing its pressure, it takes up arms against it. Thus the social order overthrown by a revolution is almost always better than the one immediately preceding it, and experience teaches us that, generally speaking, the most perilous moment for a bad government is one when it seeks to mend its ways. Only consummate statecraft can enable a King to save his throne when after a long spell of oppressive rule he sets to improving the lot of his subjects. Patiently endured so long as it seemed beyond redress, a grievance comes to appear intolerable once the possibility of removing it crosses men’s minds. For the mere fact that certain abuses have been remedied draws attention to the others and they now appear more galling; people may suffer less, but their sensibility is exacerbated …

In 1780 there could no longer be any talk of France’s being on the downgrade; on the contrary, it seemed that no limit could be set to her advance. And it was now that theories of the perfectibility of man and continuous progress came into fashion. Twenty years earlier there had been no hope for the future; in 1780 no anxiety was felt about it. Dazzled by the prospect of a felicity undreamed of hitherto and now within their grasp, people were blind to the very improvement that had taken place and eager to precipitate events.5

The expressions of sympathy that came from . . .

Read the Whole Article

1. M. de Wolfe Howe, ed., The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Homes and Harold J. Laski, 2 vol., Cambridge, Mass., 1953. From Holmes to Laski, May 12, 1927, p. 942.
2. Helmut Schoeck, Envy, English tr., Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969.
3. _Ibid_., p. 303.
4. Emile Faguet, Politicians and Moralists of the Nineteenth Century, Boston: Little, Brown; 1928, p. 93.
5. Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955, pp. 175-177.
6. _Ibid_., p. 180.

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Culture

Police Threaten to Arrest Mom for ‘Transphobic’ Twitter Comments

By Guest Post February 8, 2019

by Michael Foust

A British stay-at-home mom was threatened with arrest last year after she criticized another mother on Twitter about her stance on teenage sex-reassignment surgery.

The British mom, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, gave details of the incident in a new podcast interview with National Review. Keen-Minshull is well-known in British media for being a social liberal who opposes much of the transgender agenda. She is the founder of the organization Standing for Women and a mother of four.

The controversy began when Keen-Minshull tweeted her thoughts about transgender activist Susie Green, who had taken her 16-year-old biological son to Thailand for a sex-reassignment surgery that is illegal at that age in the United Kingdom. Specifically, Keen-Minshull tweeted that Green had supported castration of her son.

That led Green to report Keen-Minshull to the police, who contacted Keen-Minshull.

Among the potential charges: malicious communication and transphobic hate speech.

Keen-Minshull said she was shocked when first contacted by a policeman from West Yorkshire.

“They texted me, and I just ignored it. … I assumed it was a scam,” she told National Review.

Police then called her on the phone. They wanted to interview her.

“And [the policeman] said, ‘Mrs. Keen-Minshull, if you don’t come to the interview, you’ll be wanted. … And I said, ‘Actually, what does that mean?’ And he said., ‘Well, it means if you try to leave the country, we’ll arrest you. If you get pulled over for speeding, we’ll arrest you. And then he said a couple things that I really don’t remember. And he said, ‘If that takes too long we’ll come and arrest you at your house and then you’ll sit in the cells and wait for me to come’ … which could take a very long time because of the geographical distance between him and [me].”

She agreed to allow the police to come to her town for the interview.

“[They] spent the night in my area in a hotel to interview me about six tweets, which basically criticized a woman who took her son to Thailand and had him castrated,” Keen-Minshull told National Review.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Worldview

The Shamanic Perspective on AI and Transhumanism

By Guest Post February 5, 2019

by Sergey Baranov

In my recent book, The Mescaline Confessions, I wrote a chapter about a stark vision I one day received from the Huachuma cactus, warning of a future in which our own technology will devour us. Huachuma, also known as San Pedro, is a sacred cactus native to the Andes which is shamanically used in Peru and has been for thousands of years. Its active ingredient is the alkaloid mescaline, which was made known to the world by The Doors of Perception.

Technology, the cactus told me, is not our God – it is our servant. Technology itself is a tool that is neither inherently good nor bad, but technology without wisdom is weaponized stupidity. Recently, I stumbled upon a profound essay that echoed these revelations quite closely, Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, published by Bill Joy in Wired magazine way back in April, 2000. Primarily about the potential dangers of giving artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and nanotechnology greater autonomy and control over their given roles, it also critiqued the rabid transhumanist movement, a giddy group, hell-bent on merging our bodies and minds with computer technology in a quest for god-like, never-ending life. What these people fail to realize is that our short time here already can and does lead to immortality of much greater value, that living and dying cannot be easily separated, and that ancient technologies for understanding the absolutely essential nature of life and death have existed for millennia, upon the very ground on which we stand.

Then quite rudimentary, transhumanism has come a long way in 19 years, attracting growing numbers of devotees seeking to “improve humanity” (but really just their own) by embedding and/or replacing their bodies more and more significantly with tech, making us “better” and even – their primary goal – “immortal”. Joy’s piece has only become more relevant as we stampede toward the unknown consequences of bio-technological integration.

An eminent computer scientist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, where he served as chief scientist for over 20 years, Joy is no Luddite and states this very carefully. Indeed, he has contributed over many years to marked increases in the power of software, but this only gives him a more personal sense of responsibility for the darker turns it might take. While expressing deep concern over the development of modern technologies, he raises important ethical questions which we’d be wise to consider today, similar in theme to those the sacred cactus revealed to me that difficult afternoon in The Sacred Valley.

I was far from this subject until that one Huachuma ceremony four years ago, during which a disturbing, dystopian future was shown to me. I was taken by a vision of the future in which humanity was no longer in charge. It was on the verge of collapse. A species which made it through millions of years of evolution, growing and learning, now faced extinction. It was such a dire, seemingly inescapable fate, that all my being yielded to sadness. What can be done? I was silently asking. What was the solution to a big problem we ourselves are inexorably creating? The answer didn’t come that day, but later I came to understand that the answer was already in my hands, body and spirit.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

America

Why is ‘separation of church and state’ so misquoted?

By Guest Post February 5, 2019

After King Henry VIII broke from Rome in 1534, England began enforcing Anglican religious uniformity. Some wanted to purify the Anglican Church from the inside, being given the name “Puritans.” Others separated themselves completely from the Anglican Church as dissenters. Of those were Thomas Helwys, John Murton and John Smyth, who founded the Baptist faith in England.

Thomas Helwys wrote “A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity,” 1612, considered the first English book defending the principle of religious liberty: “Queen Mary … had no power over her subjects consciences … neither hath our Lord the King … power over his subjects consciences. … The King is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them. …”

He continued: “If the King’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane laws made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man.”

Thomas Helwys was arrested and thrown into London’s notorious Newgate Prison, where he died in 1616.

Another Baptist dissenter, John Murton, was locked in Newgate Prison as punishment for spreading politically incorrect religious views. Prisoners were not fed, but instead relied on charity of friends to bring them food, such as bread or bottles of milk.

Roger Williams referred to John Murton in his work, “The Bloody Tenet (Practice) of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience,” 1644: “The author of these arguments against persecution … being committed (a) prisoner to Newgate for the witness of some truths of Jesus … and having not use of pen and ink, wrote these arguments in milk, in sheets of paper brought to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend in London as the stopples (corks) of his milk bottle. … In such paper, written with milk, nothing will appear; but the way of reading by fire being known to this friend who received the papers, he transcribed and kept together the papers, although the author himself could not correct nor view what himself had written. … It was in milk, tending to soul nourishment, even for babes and sucklings in Christ … the word of truth … testify against … slaughtering each other for their several respective religions and consciences.”

Williams wrote: “Persecution for cause of conscience is most contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace. … Enforced uniformity is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants.”

Roger Williams was a contemporary of John Bunyan, who wrote “Pilgrim’s Progress” while in prison for conscience sake. When the government sought to arrest Roger Williams for preaching religious liberty, he fled to Boston, Massachusetts, on Feb. 5, 1631.

To his dismay, Puritans in Massachusetts had begun enforcing Puritan religious uniformity. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in Engel v. Vitale, 1962: “When some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments … they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.”

A controversy raged among inhabitants of Massachusetts, between “a covenant of grace” versus “a covenant of works.” The “covenant of grace” leaders were Sir Henry Vane, Rev. John Cotton, Rev. John Wheelwright, and his sister-in-law, Anne Hutchinson.

Rev. John Wheelwright fled Puritan uniformity in Massachusetts in 1637 and founded Exeter, New Hampshire. Roger Williams was briefly the pastor a church till “notorious disagreements” caused the Massachusetts General Court to censor his religious speech. Upon hearing the sheriff was on his way to arrest him and send him back to England, Williams fled again, in freezing weather, January of 1636. For weeks he traveled alone till he was befriended by the Indians of Narragansett. He founded Providence Plantation, Rhode Island – the first place where the church was not controlled by state.

Roger Williams wrote in 1661: “I having made covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the Sachems (Chiefs) and natives round about us, and having in a sense of God’s merciful providence unto me in my distress called the place Providence … a shelter for persons distressed of conscience.”

A historical plaque reads: “To the memory of Roger Williams, the Apostle of Soul Liberty, Founder of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation.”

The reverse of the plaque reads: “Below this spot then at the water’s edge stood the rock on which according to tradition Roger Williams, an exile for the devotion to the freedom of conscience, landed. 1636.”

In 1638, Roger Williams organized the first Baptist Church in America.

A plaque reads: “The First Baptist Church, Founded by Roger Williams, AD 1638, The Oldest Baptist Church in America, The Oldest Church in this State.”

Physician John Clarke came to Rhode Island and founded another Baptist Church in Newport. Other dissenters arrived in Williams’ Rhode Island Colony, such as William Coddington, Philip Sherman, and Anne Hutchinson. Anne soon left again to settle in the Dutch settlement of the Bronx in New York City, where all her family was scalped and beheaded by raiding Indians in 1643. There was only one survivor, Anne’s nine-year-old daughter Susanna, who was taken captive. After several years, she escaped and married an innkeeper, Samuel Cole. Their descendants included three U.S. presidents.

The Governor of Massachusetts from 1636 to 1637 was Sir Henry Vane, who helped found Harvard. He supported the efforts of Roger Williams. Due to the “covenant of grace” versus “covenant of works” controversy, Governor Sir Henry Vane was not reelected, being replaced by John Winthrop.

In 1639, Sir Henry Vane returned to England where he backed the Puritan Revolution, led by Oliver Cromwell, though he did not support the Rump Parliament which beheaded Charles I.

During the brief English Commonwealth, Vane helped draft for Roger Williams the Patent for Providence Plantation, which was unique in that it did not acknowledge a king, and it guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience. Vane later defended the Patent on behalf of Roger Williams against a competing charter.

Roger William wrote of Vane in April of 1664: “Under God, the great anchor of our ship is Sir Henry Vane … an instrument in the hand of God for procuring this island.”

A statue of Sir Henry Vane is in the Boston Public Library with a plaque that reads: “Sir Henry Vane … An ardent defender of civil liberty and advocate of free thought in religion. He maintained that God, Law, and Parliament were superior to the King.”

The Plantation Agreement at Providence, Sept. 6, 1640, stated: “We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience.”

The Government of Rhode Island, March 19, 1641, stated: “The Government … in this Island … is a Democracy, or Popular Government; that is to say, It is in the Power of the Body of Freemen orderly assembled.”

Roger Williams responded to Puritan leader John Cotton’s accusations by publishing “The Bloody Tenet (Practice) of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience and Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered in 1644.” In this, Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, “wall of separation”: “Mr. Cotton … hath not duly considered these following particulars. First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world and added unto His Church or garden … a separation of Holy from unHoly, penitent from impenitent, Godly from unGodly.”

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Apologetics

6 Non-Awkward Questions That You Can Use to Start a Spiritual Conversation With Anyone

By Guest Post February 5, 2019

by Erik Manning

Most Christians know that they ought to be sharing their faith. I mean, there is the whole “make disciples of all nations” thing that Jesus said. (Matthew 28:19) But knowing and doing end up being two different things for many believers. When Christians hear the word evangelism, there’s a sense of anxiety that springs up for many.

Asking a friend “hey buddy, do you know Jesus?” can be an awkward thing. It’s only more awkward to spring that question on a total stranger. There’s a certain yuck factor, as you don’t want to come across overly salesy or be lumped in with some cult.

Our society is growing increasingly secular. We have to be aware of the cultural background in which we’re preaching. I’m sure in some cases that if you ask if someone knows Jesus, you might get the reply that they used to play soccer with him. We may want to consider backing up a little bit. Instead of going right for the “do you know Jesus?” we should ask some worldview questions.

A worldview is how one interprets the world around them, like their philosophical lenses. In other words, how they answer some of the big questions in life – origins, morality, meaning and the like. The nice thing about worldview questions is it helps us to locate someone. It gives you a starting point that becomes a more natural transition to the gospel. You’ll see as I provide some examples.

Without further adieu, here are some of my favorite “launch pads” into gospel conversations. I’ve included short videos with more in-depth explanations if this is new to you:

1. Are there moral facts? Does real right and wrong exist?

Everyone – and I mean everyone – has a moral opinion about something. Just sign into Twitter for like 2 seconds to see this in action. You’ll see what I mean. We live in an age of moral outrage. The words homophobe, misogynist, racist and bigot are thrown around like confetti. Tolerance and acceptance are the highest virtues according to many in our society.

These are often the same people who say that no culture is better than another. But if a culture practices terrible things – say female circumcision – then I think we recognize that we’re right to condemn such practices. No one is a consistent moral relativist. Certain things, like female genital mutilation, are wrong.

The heart of the gospel is that we’ve sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) That we recognize there are moral facts and we all fall short of them cries out for an explanation.

2. Is everything ultimately material in nature?

I like this question because if they say no, they’re at least open to spiritual things. If they answer with a yes, now you can follow up with some questions that should make them think.

We already talked about morality. Moral facts aren’t physical facts, because if all that exists is unintended nature, then there’s no way things should be. People hurt, main and torture each other. It is that way. But there is no way things should be. But surely that’s counterintuitive. Why should we doubt our moral experience any more than we doubt our other sense-experiences?

But there are further problems for the materialist worldview. If everything is matter, then our beliefs are all the product of natural processes that are beyond our control. Thinking that matter is all there is then is a just a product of a deterministic system. If the thorough-going materialist is right, it’s only by accident, not some intellectual virtue. In other words, materialism destroys knowledge.

But if thoughts, knowledge, and reason aren’t material things, then the idea of the spirit or soul comes into play.

3. What would you do if you had a week to live? And what do you think happens to us after we die?

OK, so the last two questions were super-philosophical. This one shoots straight for the heart. I like asking what they’d do if they found out that they had a week to live because now you’re going to see what’s important to them.

So many of us would put the smartphone down, spend time with our families, mend any fences that need mending and do something meaningful with our short time left. Life is fleeting. Blaise Pascal said:

“Imagine a number of men in chains, all under sentence of death, some of whom are each day butchered in the sight of others those remaining see their own condition in that of their fellows and looking at each other with grief and despair await their turn. This is an image of the human condition.”

In our modern world, everything is so sanitized. We live in denial of death and waste our time on the trivial. Once we’ve asked this question, maybe they’ll be open to sharing their thoughts on life after death. This can turn into a golden opportunity to share the gospel with them.

4. Is there any single ‘true’ religion?

It’s a popular thing to say that there is no one true religion, that they’re all basically saying the same thing. This is called religious pluralism. It the tolerant thing to say in our politically correct world. It’s also what makes Christianity not so PC.

But various religions aren’t teaching the same thing. Christianity says Jesus was God. Islam says he’s a prophet. Judaism says he was badly mistaken or a deceiver. Many Buddhists say there’s no god at all. Hinduism says there are many gods. Clearly, they’re not all teaching the same things!

The other knock on this view is that it’s just as dogmatic as the dogma it opposes. The pluralist implicitly suggests that their view is privileged, that they can see what others are blind to – namely, there is no one true religion! This is the kind of person that needs to hear the uniqueness of Christian truth claims. That leads me to my next question:

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Children

VA Gov. Northam: Abortion Bill Leaves Born Babies’ Lives Up to Doctors and Mothers to Decide

By Guest Post January 31, 2019

by Andrew Kugle

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

“Or physical health,” Tran said.

“Okay,” Gilbert replied. “I’m talking about the mental health.”

“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”

“Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?” Gilbert asked.

“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran said.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating.”

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said.

NBC4 reporter Julie Carey asked Northam about the measure.

“Do you support her measure and explain her answer?” Carey asked.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Apologetics

10 Reasons Why the Argument ‘Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality’ Doesn’t Matter

By Guest Post January 30, 2019

by David Kyle Foster

If you’ve ever engaged with an activist, a liberal Christian or just the average person on the street on the subject of homosexuality, you’ve probably encountered this platitude: “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality!” Among those who make such a claim, that statement is one of the quickest, easiest and most common excuses for approving homosexual practice because it gives the appearance of being a biblical argument while being just the opposite.

Does such a claim hold any weight biblically? And if it is true that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, does that really justify homosexual behavior?

The “Jesus never mentioned it” argument has numerous and serious flaws, so let’s go through them one by one.

The most obvious point to make is that Jesus didn’t mention any number of sins. For example, He never mentioned child sexual abuse or wife beating. Does that mean that they are no longer sins? He never mentioned transvestism (Deut. 22:5). Does that make it okay now?
It defies simple logic to claim that the absence of any mention of certain sins by Jesus in the New Testament indicates that He now approves of them. Homosexual practices were condemned in the Old Testament in the strongest of terms (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) and Jesus affirmed those prohibitions (Matt. 5:17-20).
Additionally, the claim that He must mention a sin for it to be wrong assumes that the purpose of the New Testament was to re-state or to create a new list of forbidden practices. Such an argument unmasks complete ignorance of Scripture on the part of those who make it. These would-be scholars are no scholars at all. They are apologists for those who seek to jettison God’s moral standards (see Rom. 1:28, 32). Until the modern era, no biblical scholar of the past 2,000 years has ever proposed such a ridiculous hermeneutic. Thus, such would-be scholars presume to know better than all of the biblical scholars (Christian or secular) of the past two millennia. They echo Satan’s original deception, “Did God really say”? (Gen. 3:1, NIV).

What Jesus did do was to point out that the religious leaders of His day were inventing laws in an effort to establish their righteousness before God and to show themselves pious before men (Matt. 23:1-7, 27-28).

He also pointed out that their standards and practices for obeying the Mosaic Law fell short of its full meaning. For example, when He pointed out that the sin of adultery could be committed at the heart level, not just physically (Matt. 5:27-28), Jesus was revealing the deeper meaning, scope and intent of the law. He was also establishing the fact that no man could keep the Law in all of its aspects (see also Rom. 3:20, 27-28; James 2:8-11).

4. Most of what Jesus said wasn’t even recorded in the Bible (John 20:30, 21:25; Rev. 22:18-19). So the incompleteness of the biblical accounts of what He said mitigates the claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexual practices.

5. Jesus reaffirmed all of the moral law (Matt. 5:17-20), and chided those who broke the commandments and taught others to do the same (Rom. 1:32).

Here, it’s important to understand that there were different kinds of Old Testament law. The Old Testament contained ritual (ceremonial), sacrificial, civil and moral law. Jesus affirmed its entirety, yet brought to an end the ritual and sacrificial law by fulfilling them.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Catholic

Why Thomas Aquinas Stands the Test of Time

By Guest Post January 29, 2019

by Casey Chalk

The 2016 data breach of the personal Gmail account of John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, garnered much attention from Catholics. They took umbrage at an email exchange discussing the possibility of a “Catholic Spring” aimed at fundamentally changing their identity and beliefs. In that conversation, John Halpin, a Catholic and fellow at the Center for American Progress, noted that many “powerful elements” in conservatism are Catholic. He speculated that “they must be attracted to the systematic thought,” and added, “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”

I’m not sure Halpin knows “what the hell” Thomistic thought is, but I certainly wish he—and all Americans—did. Thomism, 745 years since the great theologian’s death, remains perhaps the best philosophical system available to the West.

As I’ve argued elsewhere at TAC, we are all philosophers in the sense that we all develop, either consciously or subconsciously, a system of thought for evaluating ourselves, the world around us, and what counts as truth. We make choices, form opinions, and offer arguments, all based on philosophical presuppositions. When we go with “what works,” we channel the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey. When we seek to maximize sensual pleasure and minimize pain, we are drinking from the well of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. When we act off of scientifically verifiable data, we are the intellectual heirs of empiricist David Hume. Those who believe morality can be changed by will honor the memory of Friedrich Nietzsche. And those who reduce human persons to their economic output have embraced the thinking of Karl Marx.

There are fundamental problems with all of these philosophies. One error that unites them is a belief, either explicit or implicit, in materialism, or the idea that man (and reality) is reducible solely to what is material, what can be sensed, and what can be empirically studied. Even that which separates man from all other animals—his intellect and will—are explained away as physical properties. Yet without an intellect and will, appeals to an essential human dignity quickly collapse. We are all just a bunch of colliding atoms in a universe of colliding atoms. It’s just that our atoms are a bit more evolved and sophisticated than everything else.

Thus do all these philosophical systems tend to dehumanize man and overemphasize certain goods at the expense of others. For example, pace the pragmatists and utilitarians, of course we should prefer things that work over things that don’t work and pleasure over pain. But sometimes what “works” isn’t immediately perceptible to our senses. Additionally, the greatest pleasures in life sometimes require great sacrifice and suffering. Making decisions based on empirical data is a good, but not all things worthy of our attention can be empirically derived (e.g. the arts, human love, knowledge of eternal truth). There is something to Nietzsche’s argument that knowledge can be an instrument of power, but his claim that reality as we know it is simply an artificial creation of our minds unravels when one asks whether his own presuppositions are really real or just perspectives he has created and thus just as ephemeral as everything he attacks. Marx was right to recognize that man’s economic output contributes to his dignity and value—but it certainly isn’t the sum of his worth.

Who can save us amid this messiness? I would offer Aquinas. His philosophy doesn’t get as much attention as other philosophers, and certainly not as much as those of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment. When Americans think of Aquinas, if they ever do, they’re more inclined to think of his role in Christian theology, especially his contribution to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Perhaps if they’ve taken introductory theology or philosophy courses, they’re aware of his famous “Five Ways,” or proofs of the existence of God, which prominent New Atheist Richard Dawkins sought to take to task (and failed) in his bestselling book The God Delusion.

Yet Aquinas is a philosopher par excellence who is worthy of our attention. He stands tall on his own merits as the one who “was able to provide the principles,” to quote French philosopher Pierre Manent, for political communities governed by reason and grace. Yet his value also lies in the larger intellectual project of which he is a part. By this I mean that Aquinas, in a way that was perhaps unprecedented in the 12th and 13th centuries, consolidates the wisdom of the Western tradition into a coherent whole. He draws upon an impressive variety of sources. Certainly Holy Scripture and earlier theologians like Augustine, John of Damascus, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Anselm loom large in his work, though he is also incredibly well-versed in the history of philosophy.

It was Thomas who “baptized” Aristotle by appropriating significant chunks of his philosophy, including such concepts as act and potency, hylemorphism, the four causes, essence and existence, transcendentals, and being. Even Aquinas’s proofs for God’s existence, as many Thomists have noted, are drawing upon Aristotelian premises. He also builds his philosophical system upon the shoulders of Plato, Cicero, Boethius, Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Maimonides, and John Scotus Eriugena. This enterprise reflects conservatism at its best: studying, honoring, and incorporating the very best of our intellectual forebears, while carefully and humbly critiquing where they went astray.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Biology

Don’t Pretend Drag Queens at Libraries Aren’t Promoting Anything to Kids

By Guest Post January 29, 2019

By T.R. Clancy

Just when you think the left can’t behave worse, we find the inspiring story of public library officials in a Detroit suburb heroically defending their “children’s story hour hosted by drag queens.”

Since 2017, the Huntington Woods library has been hosting “Drag Queen Story Time,” where little kids are read to by characters like former Miss Motor City Pride, “Miss Raven Divine Cassadine.” Library official Joyce Krom discovered the San Francisco-born program online, after she followed a Google Alert promoting literacy. Huntington Woods, a “progressive, diverse community,” shares borders with three other woke towns – Ferndale, Royal Oak, and Berkley – which taken together constitute the highest concentration of “CoeXist” bumper stickers outside of California. Consequently, nearly all city officials fully support DQSH, because they want to keep their jobs. But one city commissioner, Allison Iversen, a mother of four who resigned her seat last month to move to another city, dared to push back. In an email to librarian Krom, Iverson questioned the wisdom of DQSH “trying to push this idea that this is something … completely natural.” Iverson also worried that “the program could be ‘planting a seed’ about gender fluidity in children who would have otherwise never had to wrestle with the issue in their own lives.”

Part-time library clerk Jon Pickell, “who has proudly watched the program thrive,” rejects Iverson’s concerns as “hogwash.” The clerk, who identifies as gay, says DQSH “is not promoting anything. You’re not going to end up as transsexual … because you saw a drag queen story hour.”

But according to the mission statement on the program’s Facebook page, DQSH is indeed promoting something:

DQS captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.

Role models are exactly that – models of behavior that adults want children to admire and emulate. Ideally, a child learns from the behavior and values of the role model and wants to do likewise. And what’s being promoted by Drag Queen Story Hour is being “unabashedly queer.”

Enlightened parents are bringing their small kids to see a drag queen because they want them to experience “all sorts of people.” But this story time isn’t just listening to a drag queen tell his own story, and it’s for certain not about literacy. The goal is that the children “play” with their own identities, exploring “the gender fluidity of childhood.” There’s a testimonial on the DQSH website from a first-grade teacher who held Drag Queen Story Hour for his class. He triumphantly describes what his pupils told him afterward, “[d]uring our debrief”: “they were preaching the incredible lessons they had learned, like ‘It’s OK to be different’ and ‘There’s no such things as “boy” things and “girl” things.'” So which is creepier: the idea of six-year-olds being “debriefed” after a pro-trans school activity, or that they come out of it “preaching” a first-grader’s version of queer theory. It sounds positively evangelistic.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!