Category

Worldview

Category

Along with my regular blog here at seanmcdowell.org, I am now featuring occasional guest posts from some students in the Biola M.A. in Christian Apologetics that I personally had the privilege of teaching. This post is from my friend Tim Stratton, who has an excellent and growing ministry of his own. I simply asked him to write anything on his heart and mind. Check out his ministry and enjoy this post! Sean McDowell

Avengers: Endgame and the Problem of Evil

By Tim Stratton

The problem of evil (a.k.a., the problem of suffering), in my experience, is by far the greatest reason atheists offer for their lack of belief. In a nutshell, the problem of evil/suffering comes down to this: Why would a perfectly good, loving, and all-powerful God allow so much pain, evil, and suffering in the world? Since many cannot make sense of this, they often either get mad at God and resent Him, or they simply abandon their faith altogether and become atheists.

Avengers Assemble!

Avengers: Endgame, however, provides Christians a unique opportunity to help non-Christians who struggle with the logical problem of evil and suffering, to see that this problem is really no logical problem at all.

Doctor Strange used the time stone to not merely look forward into the future to see what WILL happen, but to evaluate over 14,000,000 “alternate futures” (otherwise known as “possible worlds”) to see what “WOULD happen IF.” Doctor Strange is doing this because although it is not logically impossible for the Avengers to defeat Thanos (of course that COULD happen), he wants to see if there is a possible world that could be actualized (what philosophers and theologians describe as a “feasible world”) in which the Avengers actually would defeat Thanos!

Doctor Strange explains that he examined over 14 million possible alternate futures, but out of the multi-millions of possible worlds surveyed, he knows of only one in which the good guys actually defeat Thanos in the end. One in 14 million is typically thought of as “horrible odds.”

Many thought the ending of Infinity War was one of despair. I, however, was filled with hope. This is because it seemed that these “alternate futures” were not merely based on chance alone, and that Doctor Strange gained knowledge of how all of these super heroes and villains would freely choose in each of the millions and millions of possible worlds he examined. Possessing this knowledge of how these super-powered persons would freely choose in each of these possible futures (similar to what theologians refer to as God’s “middle knowledge”), it seemed to me that Strange freely chose himself — and did everything in his power — to make the possible world in which the good guys would win the actual world in which the good guys will win. Indeed, right before Strange fades away at the end of Infinity War he tells Tony Stark, “It was the only way.”

The Heroic Dr. Strange

As we see in Endgame, this “best feasible world” according to Doctor Strange, is the one in which the greatest number of persons flourish and the evil of Thanos is eventually conquered. As Strange tells Stark in Endgame, “If I tell you what will happen, it won’t happen!” Be that as it may, this particular world is also filled with temporary, but extreme amounts of pain, evil, sadness, and suffering before the ultimate good can be realized.

Read the Whole Article

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

by John Staddon

It is now a rather old story: secular humanism is a religion. A court case in 1995 examined the issue and concluded, rightly, that science, in the form of the theory of evolution, is not a religion. In 2006, the BBC aired a program called The Trouble with Atheism which argued that atheists are religious and made the point via a series of interviews with prominent atheists who claimed their beliefs were “proved” by science. The presenter, Rod Liddle, concluded that Darwinism is a religion. That is wrong, as 18th century philosopher David Hume showed many years ago. Science consists of facts, but facts alone do not motivate. Without motive, a fact points to no action. Liddle was half-right: both religion and secular humanism provide _motives, explicit in one case, but covert in the other.

What is religion? All religions have three elements, although the relative emphasis differs from one religion to another—Buddhists are light on the supernatural, for example.

The first is the belief in invisible or hidden beings, worlds and processes—like God, heaven, miracles, reincarnation, and the soul. All these are unverifiable, or unseen and unseeable, except by mystics under special and generally unrepeatable conditions. Since absence of evidence is not, logically, evidence of absence, these features of religion are neither true nor false, but simply unprovable. They have no implications for action, hence no bearing on legal matters.

The second element are claims about the real world: every religion, especially in its primordial version, makes claims that are essentially scientific—assertions of fact that are potentially verifiable. These claims are of two kinds. The first we might call timeless: e.g., claims about physical properties—the four elementary humors, for example, the Hindu turtle that supports the world, properties of foods, the doctrine of literal transubstantiation. The second are claims about history: Noah’s flood, the age of the earth, the resurrection—all “myths of origin.” Some of these claims are unverifiable; as for the rest, there is now a consensus that science usually wins—in law and elsewhere. In any case, few of these claims have any bearing on action.

The third property of a religion are its rules for action—prohibitions and requirements—its morality. All religions have a code, a set of moral and behavioral prescriptions, matters of belief —usually, but not necessarily—said to flow from God, that provide guides to action in a wide range of situations. The 10 Commandments, the principles of Sharia, the Five Precepts of Buddhism, etc.

Secular humanism lacks any reference to the supernatural and defers matters of fact to science. But it is as rich in moral rules, in dogma, as any religion. Its rules come not from God but from texts like Mill’s On Liberty, and the works of philosophers like Peter Singer, Dan Dennett and Bertrand Russell, psychologists B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, public intellectuals like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and “humanist chaplains” everywhere.

In terms of moral rules, secular humanism is indistinguishable from a religion.

It has escaped the kind of attacks directed at Christianity and other up-front religions for two reasons: its name implies that it is not religious, and its principles cannot be tracked down to a canonical text. They exist but are not formally defined by any “holy book.”

But it is only the morality of a religion, not its supernatural or historical beliefs, that has any implications for action, for politics and law. Secular humanism makes moral claims as strong as any other faith. It is therefore as much a religion as any other. But because it is not seen as religious, the beliefs of secular humanists increasingly influence U.S. law.

Read the Whole Article

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

By Alfred Kentigern Siewers

Two weeks ago, an elderly abbot of a Russian Orthodox Monastery in the U.S. Pacific Northwest was punched in the head while pumping gas.

The assailant, unknown to him, reportedly zeroed in on the cross he was wearing and then said, “How’s Trump?”

“I don’t know,” replied the gentle but traditional monk, not known for being political.

Then came the debilitating sucker punch.

With political extremism on the rise in the U.S., and leftist-anarchist groups denouncing the First Amendment as a legacy of white supremacy, expect anti-religious violence to continue to be normalized as public discourse keeps dehumanizing traditional Christians.

Normalization of leftist violence is seen in how CBS touts online a TV show that, as TAC senior editor Rod Dreher notes, “affirms and justifies the violent physical assault of a living American who was peacefully stating his opinion… to promote its own programming by rallying potential viewers to the episode.”

Dreher also cites how Villanova University Professor Billie Murray’s work theorizes a political tolerance for violence on the Left by “’challenging the violence/nonviolence binary’ and arguing that we ‘should imagine activism as combative’—this, as a counterpoint to ‘traditional nonviolent activism.’”

Middlebury College recently cancelled a speech by former Polish Solidarity activist and philosopher Ryszard Legutko because they reportedly could not guarantee his safety. Ironically, Legutko studies how liberal democracies are becoming “soft totalitarian” regimes. He too, has espoused conservative Catholic views of marriage and sex. This in part has led, we can only guess, to the Facebook rants against him ahead of his planned appearance, and a statement by protesting students who called him a homophobe, misogynist,  racist, sexist, “and practically everything an ideological sinner can be today,” according to Legutko’s own detailing of the events.

Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen suggested that Vice President Mike Pence should resign because his wife is teaching at a conservative Christian school that opposes secular sexual anthropology, and this puts him beyond the pale of acceptable social morals. In recent years, Christian restaurant chains, bakers, and high-tech executives have fallen prey to campaigns to chase them from the economy, a kind of professional execution in a capitalist society.

On a small scale, as a Russian Orthodox Christian like the aforementioned Abbot, I’ve experienced a kind of attempted social erasure in our small college town. For example, I was headed into a small restaurant when a progressive colleague inside called out that the establishment should be cleared because I was coming to “kill all gays and heretics.” That was a reference to my religious identity and not a reflection of my personal respect for LGBTQIA-identifying colleagues.

The larger social and professional ostracism that my family and I have experienced in a small university community was amplified by anti-Russian sentiments in the anti-Trump “resistance,” related to hatred of resurgent traditional Christianity in Russia. Ironically, this occurs in a region that once saw activity by the Ku Klux Klan, which targeted Orthodox Christians among other minorities.

Such dehumanization has deep roots. In the classical revolutionary philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, religion is an ideology by which “the ruling class has sought to maintain and legitimate the status quo and so sought to keep other classes in subjection to itself,” notes the intellectual historian James Thrower. But Leninism, he notes, made “the active struggle against religious ideology” crucial to “a successful struggle against political and economic oppression.”

Since World War II, “cultural Marxism” in the West sought to reverse-engineer Marxist revolution through cultural change, following the lead of the Italian theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who argued in his influential prison notebooks that “proletarian hegemony” needed to imitate religion by repeating cultural messages incessantly and establishing its own intellectual elite in influential institutions. This “war of position” to establish conditions for revolution is better known from post-1960s intellectuals as the “long march through the institutions,” analogous to Mao’s guerilla-style “long march.”

Such ideological efforts have spawned not only attempted social ostracism but a culture ripe for anti-Christian violence by the mentally unhinged. At Umpquaa Community College in Oregon in 2015, 10 people were killed in a tragedy where the shooter reportedly asked people if they were Christian and shot them if they were.

Read the Whole Article

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

by Jesse Carey

“Christian” movies don’t exactly have the greatest reputation among film watchers. Christian cinema’s apocalyptic thrillers, morally concerned family films and social-issue stumping dramas have often been criticized for being a little too preachy for non-church goers, lacking the subtlety of their Hollywood counterparts.

Of course, there’s nothing that makes a movie (or any other piece of pop culture) “Christian,” but films with overtly Christian messages have in some ways, become a sub-genre of their own.

Here’s our look at eight movies with Christian messages that will restore your faith in redemptive films.

Believe Me

Believe Me follows the exploits of a group of college guys who attempt to pay off their student loans by crafting a fake, charity:water-type nonprofit and keeping the donations for themselves. Along the way, they discover they’ve got a gift for crafting the sort of highly emotional, faux-substantive Christian “worship” experiences that grease the pockets of the faithful, but they also start to come to terms with their own hypocrisy. Watching the dudes learn to perfect their Christianese is a stinging riot, but Believe Me has a lot more on its mind than just laughs.

Amazing Grace

The 2006 film about William Wilberforce’s campaign to abolish the slave trade in Britain works on several levels: It’s a gripping historical drama; it’s a compelling story about social activism and it’s a moving testimony to the power of faith and reliance on a higher calling.

Blue Like Jazz

The film adaptation of Donald Miller’s best-selling memoir may not have captured the same breakaway success as the book, but the movie remains a pretty charming indie. Unlike many traditional “Christian” movies (or films that are targeted to Christian audiences), Blue Like Jazz isn’t afraid to embrace the complexity of faith, coming of age and thinking about God. Like the book, the movie enjoys asking questions and exploring doubts, but ultimately, finding truth.

Into Great Silence

In 1984, filmmaker Philip Gröning asked Carthusian monks in a remote French monastery if he could make a documentary about their lives. Sixteen years later, the monks agreed. The resulting documentary is a wordless, but gripping, look at the lives of the reclusive monks who have devoted themselves to God and the Bible. What’s captured on camera is like a time-capsule from a group of men dedicated to prayer, and it soon becomes clear why their order’s motto is “The Cross is steady while the world is turning.”

The Mission

Based on actual events, the 1986 drama starring Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons is an emotional story of redemption, forgiveness, persecution and devotion. Set at a Jesuit mission in the South American jungles during the 1700s, the movie is about fighting injustice and how grace can be used to overcome the most powerful forces of might. It’s a hard-hitting movie featuring one of the most iconic scores in history. Don’t miss it.

Read the Whole Article

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

Laurence Vance reviews Called to Freedom: Why You Can Be Christian and Libertarian by Elise Daniel.

This review was originaly posted on LewRockwell.com

I am a Christian and a libertarian. And not only that, I believe it is entirely possible to be a resolute social and theological conservative and at the same time be an uncompromising and hardcore libertarian. I believe that Christianity and libertarianism complement each other rather than contradict each other.

And so does editor Elise Daniel and the contributors to Called to Freedom: Why You Can Be Christian and Libertarian (hereafter Called to Freedom). “We are libertarians because we are Christians,” Daniel writes in the introduction.

Although Called to Freedom is a short book, I cannot stress enough its importance. I have many books on my shelves on the subject of libertarianism, but none of them are written from an evangelical Christian perspective. The other unique thing about the book is that half of the contributors are women.

Called to Freedom has six contributors, none of whom are widely known, and none of whom I had heard of before reading the book. However, my friend, Dr. Norman Horn, the founder and president of the Libertarian Christian Institute, wrote the foreword to the book. None of the contributors are ministers. Two of them are husband and wife. All of them are college graduates, some from Christian universities, some from secular universities, and some from both. They all appeared on a panel titled “Jesus, Morality, and Liberty: Is Christian Morality Coercive?” at the 2014 International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. Called to Freedom “is an attempt to extend that conservation across the country.”

The editor wrote the introduction and the afterword. The five other contributors each wrote one chapter:

  1. Can I Be a Libertarian Christian?
  2. What Does the Bible Say about Government?
  3. Cool It: You Don’t Have to Be a Libertine
  4. Bars with Breadcrumbs: Optimists with a Story to Tell
  5. The State Is No Savior

Although Called to Freedom is not written by academics or scholars, in addition to the foreword, acknowledgments, and a page about the contributors, I note that each chapter (including the introduction and afterword) has numerous footnotes and concludes with a bibliography. Authors quoted include William Röpke, Lord Acton, Hans Hoppe, Walter Block, John Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and G. K. Chesterton.

The chapters in Called to Freedom are not equal in length or importance; nevertheless, I did find something of value in each chapter.

In chapter 1, Jacqueline Isaacs explains that although “the social obligations put forward in the New Testament are described as voluntary,” it is through these obligations that “we develop individual virtue,” “emulate our Creator,” and “bring flourishing to others.”

In chapter 3, Taylor Barkley clarifies the distinction between libertarianism and libertinism. He has a good critique of “thick” libertarianism and the idea that normative moral judgments are coercive and therefore unlibertarian. His “position as a libertarian is that government exists to protect life, liberty, and property” and that “any deviation from these core principles and, particularly the infringement of any of those principles, means the government’s action is unjust.” He believes that “a libertarian system of limited government allows for the peaceful coexistence of freewheeling libertines and legalistic Christians.” Barkley concludes: “As a libertarian Christian, my belief that someone’s personal actions are wrong or right is not enforced via the state. Their actions may indeed be morally wrong, but I don’t want the government to use its monopoly on force to make sure that person compiles with my preferred morality.”

In chapter 4, Leah Hughey points out that “even with the hyperbolic emphasis on terrorism across the globe, Americans are more likely to be killed by their own furniture than by a terrorist.” And here is another good statement: “The market, when left free, has its own self-cleansing mechanism for unethical or dishonest business practices.”

In chapter 5, Philip Luca quotes one of the few good things that Winston Churchill ever said—“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”—even if he didn’t actually say it like that.

The most important part of Called to Freedom is chapter 2. At 50 pages, it takes up over one-third of the book. The author, Jason Hughey, is an adherent of “anarcho-capitalism, the belief that state power is wholly illegitimate and can be ultimately replaced by market and other private forces.” He defines government or a state as “a political organization of individuals that is distinguished from all other social institutions by two characteristics: (1) its territorial monopoly over lawmaking and enforcement and (2) its ability to collect revenue through compulsory taxation for the provision of services.” Government “operates under a different set of moral rules and consequently engages in immoral behaviors with a perceived sense of legitimacy.” Its authority is “inherently grounded on one principle: the threat of aggressive violence against individuals for noncompliant behavior.” It is “an institution that is distinguished from all other social institutions by its ability to inflict violence upon its citizens (or ‘customers’).” The power of government “has inflicted far more damage upon the human race than any other social institution.” Hughey posits five major themes about government that “articulate a biblical perspective of government that is far less rosy than the mainstream Christian perspective on government:”

  1. Government is filled with sinful humans.
  2. God is greater than any political authority.
  3. Political power tends to corrupt the wielder of power.
  4. Christians ought to grieve over the abuse of power.
  5. Christianity is advanced through the Gospel of Christ, not political authority or Obedience to it.

Hughey tackles what he terms the “Big Four” Bible verses (Romans 13, First Peter 2, Matthew 22, & Luke 20) that “are widely referred to in Christian circles when discussing the idea of whether or not government is legitimate and what our obedience to it should look like” (I would have also included Luke 4 & Titus 3). Even if you don’t completely agree with his conclusions (I don’t), he still makes some valid points.

Hughey concludes that “as Christians, we should agree with Bastiat and try liberty for a change and leave our desire to control, mold, and fix others up to God’s sovereignty.” Only God “can change men’s hearts, only he can fix sinners, and only he is worthy of honor, reverence, and unlimited obedience.”

The personal testimonies and biblical viewpoint of the contributors to Called to Freedom make it clear that one can be Christian and libertarian.

Read the Whole Article

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

by Alan Watts

At the very roots of Chinese thinking and feeling there lies the principle of polarity, which is not to be confused with the ideas of opposition or conflict. In the metaphors of other cultures, light is at war with darkness, life with death, good with evil, and the positive with the negative, and thus an idealism to cultivate the former and be rid of the latter flourishes throughout much of the world.

To the traditional way of Chinese thinking this is as incomprehensible as an electric current without both positive and negative poles, for polarity is the principle that plus and minus, north and south, are different aspects of one and the same system, and that the disappearance of either one of them would be the disappearance of the system.

Linear Ideology

People who have been brought up in the aura of Christian and Hebrew aspirations find this frustrating because it seems to deny any possibility of progress, an ideal which flows from their linear (as distinct from cyclic) view of time and history. Indeed, the whole enterprise of Western technology is “to make the world a better place” – to have pleasure without pain, wealth without poverty, and health without sickness.

We have been interfering with a complex system of relationships which we do not understand, and the more we study its details, the more it eludes us by revealing still more details to study. As we try to comprehend and control the world it runs away – from us. Instead of chafing at this situation, a Taoist would ask what it means. What is that which always retreats when pursued? Answer: yourself.

Idealists (in the moral sense of the word) regard the universe as different and separate from themselves – that is, as a system of external objects which needs to be subjugated.

Taoists view the universe as the same as, or inseparable from, themselves so that Lao-tzu could say, “Without leaving my house, I know the whole universe.”

This implies that the art of life is more like navigation than warfare, for what is important is to understand the winds, the tides, the currents, the seasons, and the principles of growth and decay, so that one’s actions may use them and not fight them.

In this sense, the Taoist attitude is not opposed to technology per se. Indeed, the Chuang-tzu writings are full of references to crafts and skills perfected by this very principle of “going with the grain.” The point is therefore that technology is destructive only in the hands of people who do not realize that they are one and the same process as the universe.

From Progress to Process

Our overspecialization in conscious attention and linear thinking has led to neglect, or ignore-ance, of the basic principles and rhythms of this process, of which the foremost is polarity.

In Chinese, the two poles of cosmic energy are yang (positive) and yin (negative), associated with the masculine and the feminine, the firm and the yielding, the strong and the weak, the light and the dark, the rising and the falling, heaven and earth, and they are even recognized in such everyday matters as cooking as the spicy and the bland.

Thus the art of life is not seen as holding to yang and banishing yin, but as keeping the two in balance, because there cannot be one without the other.

Read the Whole Article

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

by TheBibleProject

In the second video in the Spiritual Beings Series, TheBibleProject explores the Biblical word, “Elohim”.

Elohim

Did you know that the biblical word for God is actually a title and not a name? And did you know that this title can refer to other spiritual beings as well as to the creator God? In this video, we explore the biblical terminology for spiritual beings and how this helps us understand what the Bible means when it says that “God is one.”

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

by Brandon Smith for Alt-Market.com

Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil.

One very important fact that must first be made clear in people’s minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct – an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are actually inherent in our psyches from birth. The “eye of the beholder” is irrelevant.

Two particular areas of human psychology support this fact:

First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings no matter where in the world they are born, from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America, carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we ALL have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment.

This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is “relative”; that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out empty as “blank slates”.

The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.

Second, the undeniable existence of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. Jung referred to evil, or psychologically destructive impulses, as the ‘personal shadow’ and the ‘collective shadow’.

The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people. Some might call this a “moral compass”. I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit.

In any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it – a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We’ll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is.

Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the “greater good”.

In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.

Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with a capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative; that there is no difference between a good choice and a bad choice, or, that the evil choice is the only choice.

Beyond ignoring conscience, we must also define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self serving actions stem from an obsessive desire to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let’s stick to a secular examination.

As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths.  Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.

I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.

There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is “good”, and that system is Luciferianism. In fact, luciferianism appears to be the source influence for most existing destructive “isms” in our society today (including socialism and globalism).  It is my theory that luciferianism is a religion or cult designed by sociopathic narcissists for the benefit of sociopathic narcissists.

It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.

There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do openly admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that SOME human beings have the capacity to become gods through the accumulation of knowledge.

I have written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Proof make total scientific and mathematical observation and understanding of the universe impossible. But mathematical reality does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have.  By extension, scientific knowledge not tempered by discipline, wisdom and a moral compass can lead to catastrophe.  Material knowledge is invariably abused by those seeking godlike power.

The notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists; Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue. Another problem with the idea of becoming a god is that one inevitably develops a desire for followers and worshipers. What is a savior, after all, without a flock? But how does a human being gain a flock and become more a god? Through force or through trickery?

Second, luciferians claim they seek to elevate the power of the individual in general. In the minds of many people this doesn’t sound like a negative at all. Even I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls. That said, any ideology can be taken to extremes.

The pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, they are not necessarily seeking the elevation of ALL individuals, just certain “deserving” individuals. There is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior”; stupid people that should be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a superior dream of personal godhood.

This attitude can also be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites.

Read the Whole Article

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

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 . . .

Creative Commons Licence

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!

Persecution is increasing in Nepal. In the latter third of 2018, the Nepal government has deported and expelled at least 78 missionaries representing some 21 nations of the world. This in response to new legislation passed in October 2017 and put into effect in the summer of 2018.

For a personal overview of current conditions in Nepal, listen to my interview with Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

Also, please remember the native Nepalese believers “in chains” arrested by the same legislation (as we’re exhorted to do in Hebrews 13:3.) They face a hefty fine up to 50,000 rupees and five years in prisons (not up to Western standards) and often need total support from their families to survive (akin to the parable in Matthew 25:31-46.)

Biblical Era Powers

Nepali conditions are more akin to that of the world of the Bible than those in the west might imagine. We are surrounded by powers that would rather their influence or King (earthly or heavenly) not be impinged upon by any new kingdom; especially after the overthrow of their former monarchy.

Misleading Census Data

The 2011 census report in Wikipedia for Religions in Nepal is probably not accurate:

  • Hindu 81.3%
  • Buddhist  9.0%
  • Muslim 4.4%
  • Folk  3.0%
  • Christian 1.42%
  • Other 0.9%

The census is probably not accurate because the powers that be don’t want to report on the increase of Christianity resulting from the wave of Christian aid after the 2015 earthquakes.

Current Nepali Government

The current government is elected but is led by a communist faction with an overwhelming 2/3 majority for a five-year term. Nevertheless, it’s the first stable government since the bloody ravaged filled uprising in 2006. That uprising was focused on Christians as one of their primary necessities and partnered with the governments of both India and China in a unified effort.

Here is the Chinese media reporting on its pact with India and Nepal to drive out the West and Christianity in particular and an interview from this past summer as the legislation began to be enforced. The interviewee is a Christian political leader in Nepal and one of the principals at a college where I teach. He travels across Nepal with a book he’s written to address abuses of members of congregations who are being mistreated and deceived into giving up their rights so hard fought for in the newly established constitution.

Recent Persecution Events

Recent events in Nepal’s history concerning the rise in persecution is documented in the following articles:

Also, a school was shut down and children forced out because outsiders believed the children were being forcibly converted.

Preservation Law

The Anti-Conversion Law was followed up by a similar Preservation Law to protect the Hindu religion and religious tourists’ sites from the spread of Christianity. Such sites are at the heart of their economy. The Preservation Law can be used against anyone with a beef against believers for any reason to bring harassment through trumped-up charges.

Christian Moonies?

A recent summit was held and the focus was on the need to curtail Christianity. The “Moonies” and their “daughter of Jesus” represented Christianity and gave USD 100,000.

Tons of criticism ensued that this was even allowed among the Hindu/Buddhist majority currently ruling.

On the docket was a discussion of the role of faith-based organizations/initiatives in Asia. As a result, certain powers that be were ready to restore Nepal to a Hindu kingdom and drive out Christianity entirely.

Violent Swings

Much that happens in the new political environ of Nepal is in the wake of violent swings from one extreme to another. Those poised use the momentum to achieve their goals. Each one waits for their “moment” to strike while the iron is hot!

At the same time, though, in India, some elections of interest “just happened” to be going on. Their election process there have separate states voting each according to its designs. The current prime minister, Narendra Modi, recently lost his super majority and his influence has been gradually reduced to more like a fifty-fifty split at present it would seem.

Modi’s Upsurge

As the champion in Asian politics of Hinduism, Modi’s upsurge has been the driving force behind much persecution since in both India and subsequently Nepal. Those opposed to Christianity have ridden his “wave” of popularity to bring about their own agendas and as Nero of Rome did centuries ago take it out on Christians. Asia is much more akin to Biblical times in so many ways.

Now that he is not so strong, many feared what would happen if this slide/trend continues. Traditionally, the Congress party in India has stood up for the rights of Christians. Due to much political corruption, they lost to Modi when he and his party initially rose to power in 2014. Now the opposition to Modi has been able to cobble back a 50% stake apparently in the legislature and who will be the next prime minister in the wake of India’s 2019 General election.

Facebook Nonsense in Nepal

You wouldn’t believe what goes on Facebook here. A while back, they had Navy Seals in Syria slitting children’s throats! That was tough for some people to process albeit many knew the US is not like that!

The Empire Strikes Back

Teach Nepal (a Christian only entity) was being threatened because they don’t hire non-Christians. As a result, Teach Nepal shut down altogether and remain aloof.

Current Sentiment

The last paragraph of this article represents much the current sentiment in Nepal.

Here’s a new update coming out of China. and an update from India. and one on Christmas in Nepal.

Here’s an important ongoing story to help one understand where the persecution is trending amid the swirling powers of Nepal. A school in a remote district was closed and several Christians arrested. Afterward, the update on their “triumphant” release.

Not Looking Good for Christians

The Christians here see through the Hindus more influenced by the current Hindu party in power in India which is very opposed to Christians. The effect of a recent election in India shifted the thinking of the Hindus here is a case in point.

Either way, for Christians in Asia, it is not looking good. From what I am seeing on the ground Hindus respond more to Hindus in India than the communist in China presently while both factors do play significant roles.

God’s Hand on Elections!

Thus, on the very day, the contentions in Nepal swelled as many were hoping to take advantage and act, the news of the results in India’s provisional elections in three nearby states caused them to cool their jets and think more carefully.

With so many facets of political intrigue in competition for their piece of the pie, it is often tough to know where things may turn at any given moment. Many agendas get set aside as new interests prevail.

With Nepal so small in the world nestled between two of the largest people groups in the world, only God knows where things may end up.

This reminds me of the peripeties in the book of Esther! We just trust the Lord to lead and guide despite what “in the world” may transpire.

There is still more to the story as the General elections have yet to take place due in April, but if these recent state elections are any indication, things at least are being held in check at the moment. All sides look cautiously as the largest democracy in the world is set to vote.