Today at the impeachment hearings television personality attorney Jonathan Turley said something I thought was quite profound.
Wednesday, December 04, 2019
Today at the impeachment hearings television personality attorney Jonathan Turley said something I thought was quite profound.
Monday, November 11, 2019
In my last blog post I wrote about the time just last month I watched John Lennox share Christ in a lecture hall of about a hundred people, young and old, at a prominent secular science college. I spoke about a couple of the key things he missed, and no disrespect, Lennox is an amazing apologist. I'd like to think afterwards many in the audience genuinely considered making Christ their Lord and Savior.
Not sure, though. Not being cynical, I just want truth to reign.
One of those other things Lennox missed is the fact that the concept of justice upon which he based a core part of his address is a scientific concept. This thing justice is testable and falsifiable. It is something that can be proven to affect all people in the same way all the time. In the same way photosynthesis is the way plants make energy, justice is the transcendent standard for people to treat other people and know how to treat other people, and it is so scientifically. That we don't know all the aspects of the science doesn't mean it isn't so. We don't know all the aspects of photosynthesis either -- but we still study it scientifically.
When we dismiss science as only applying to the material things the World has told us we must, we simply plop ourselves deep into the philosophical rat hole of David Hume. By default we're supposed to be followers of him -- this is really the grand atheist claim. Empiricism is the reigning default mentality and if you don't adhere to it then you're a fool but we'll humor you so we can look respectable.
Scripture says, "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"
Hmm. Something's got to give.
This was borne out in the Q & A period when one of those in the audience asked this question, one I've heard a dozen times before but is really quite underhanded. I'd love to take time to go over all the questions in that session, all similar in their insidiously manipulative skepticism, but this one is good for now.
"What proof could be offered that would cause you to abandon your faith in God? What is there that would convince you that God does not exist?"
This sounds so profound, but it is not only really stupid but it is spiteful as well. It sounds fine because it seems to reveal that the student is a seeker, one who does genuinely want to know truth.
In reality it is a backhanded way to say, "Since you don't know for sure about God, and you of all people should know for sure since you in particular are one of the smartest there is about this God thing -- then why should I respect what you say? I only believe in things I can know for sure. I'm the one who is the real truth-holder, and the truth is actually empiricism and that there is no God."
I put in my notes a couple things Lennox said in response, but those things were all rather weak. One thing he said was "I'd have to have proofs that Jesus did not rise from the dead." Now indeed the gospel depends on the Resurrection, but can you see how Lennox puts himself at a severe rhetorical disadvantage? Right away he's throwing doubt into the whole Jesus enterprise. The audience is now thinking, "Oh, but there are all kinds of questions about the Resurrection -- are the records accurate, did He really die, isn't it just a story the disciples made up -- all the standard ways the World throws doubt into what actually happened, all challenges that can be easily answered.
But Lennox had not the time or the wherewithal to answer the question. Really -- I'm sorry, but he should have been more prepared for this kind of atheist bullshit.
I myself don't have the full answer either, I'm not trying to say I'm perfectly capable of it. But I know I'd do more to push back against it. Here's one very good thing to say in response, to the questioner:
"Are you God yourself? Because only God knows everything perfectly. And if God were to share with you the one thing that proves Him false, it would mean you yourself would then know everything there is to know, and you yourself would be God. In that sense, logically, you are proving God. Otherwise what's really going on here is your question is an underhanded way to try throw doubt into the minds of genuine seekers by simply making it seem there is something out there that disproves God. You already assume there is, and that 'truth' is the empiricism claim. Furthermore how does one know a thing that he doesn't know? Indeed how can one certainly identify this presumed thing a temporal and limited mind cannot know? The question assumes you can prove a negative. No, what's really happening here is you are not really seeking -- you are merely using your own dogmatic skepticism to bully someone who does know what you stubbornly refuse to allow yourself to know."
Now Lennox did say throughout his talk that there is overwhelming evidence for God. He shared much of it. Good for him. There is more evidence for him than against him -- and yes all the supposed evidence against put forth by the atheist is easily shot down. What is so sad, however, is how little do we challenge the rank idiocy of these people who ask questions like this.
It is getting scarier and scarier, because so many young people are becoming more and more indoctrinated by the System's propaganda -- the humanism and the atheism and the scientism and the simple flat-out folly -- Scripture's warning us about the children turning against their fathers looks more and more like reality.
Wow. Prophecy is just future reality.
John Lennox is an expert apologist, he really is.
Who will be stepping up to replace him in the next several years?
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Thursday night I went over to Harvey Mudd College, one of the top science schools in the nation, to see something I thought was quite extraordinary. John Lennox, one of the preeminent Christian apologists ever, was appearing for a talk I think I saw titled, "Cosmic Chemistry." Hmm, was this a nifty challenge to the materialist worldview? Whatever the case, wow...
John Lennox right there to talk Christ with however many atheist humanist religionist progressive naturalist dogmatist collegians who would be there.
I arrived and managed to get a seat right in the middle of a lecture hall that sat about 300. By the time Lennox started the place was packed. Hmm. What's with that? Who were these people? I noticed many were older folks -- these lectures are open to the public. There were quite a few students, however, but I did see some were brought in by their professors. Oh these kids are smart, but I really don't think many of them have the intellectual sophistication to truly get the sublime meaning of any of this.
Lennox did his typical best at eviscerating the world view of those who think science answers everyone's questions about life. He paraded before us all the pithy quotes from renowned scientists summarily showcasing the idiocy so many simply refuse to be equipped to see.
He also did put in a good word for Christ, and he did do it reasonably well, as he always does. He pulled no punches in highlighting the superiority of the Christian faith. Some in the audience chafed at that -- "If Christ is superior then you must by default be dissing my faith! The gall!"
Everyone was still respectful, but I can't help but see this as yet another forum in which one faith is expressed as just one of many. I'm certain most just left without any real consideration of what they should do with their destiny. The student representative introducing the event shared the standard pap about "respecting other views" and all the other politically correct humanist-derived dreck that tries to keep people's hurt feelings at a simmer.
Why Lennox couldn't do more to articulate the reality and the power and the beauty of the absolute truth of Christ in Him and Him alone, is he badly missed two things that I really don't believe he has the capacity to see. Nothing against him as a speaker and an apologist, or even a genuine man of faith -- he is an exceptionally gifted spokesman for the Kingdom.
The first is that at the end he was asked one last question, one that is very typical: "Why is your religion better than the others?"
Lennox proceeded to tell us about all the other religions and how they are all about following this rule and that rule, and that your favor is dependent on merit. Well, huh, Christianity is not that way.
Now I totally get why he shared this, this way. It is a typical strategy of the apologist who wants to get the nonbeliever the think seriously about the gospel. I get that.
But it is woefully deficient and leaves the listener with the idea that merit means nothing. That you're cool. That you really don't have to do anything to ultimately consider justice and your own part in violating it.
No. The truth is it is very much about merit. You must be morally perfect to enter God's Kingdom and live richly and fully and eternally. Yes, you must indeed merit His favor.
Oh but that is so ugly and mean and horribly intolerant!
Ergh. It is because people have such a benighted view of what this thing justice really is. Consider yet another incoherent view the humanist materialist has -- I don't like ugliness and meanness and intolerance. Well then, don't you then want to not be around those disfavored things when you're living your life? Aren't you being intolerant of the intolerant?
See, you can't escape the truth that merit and justice are two parts of the same principle. If you want justice you'd better be a part of having it around -- your merit to achieve it is unequivocally required.
Here's the truth about true Christianity: While you can never have enough merit to get to the place we want, Jesus Christ does. He's the one who did it for us. That was the whole purpose of what He did on Calvary. Because of His righteousness, yes, the beauty and wonder and joy of the Christian faith...
We now have merit.
Now I don't think Lennox is unaware of this important concept, I just think he dropped the ball here.
That second feature of really getting this audience to fully grasp the magnitude of Christ is, however, something I don't think Lennox really comprehends -- or maybe he does and he's just too Catholicist, just never really having a desire to even somewhat detail the -- yes -- merits of the authentic Christian faith beyond its magnificent counterfeit.
When Lennox splashes on the screen one inane statement after another made by secularly-minded scientists and shreds each one, does he understand who has already told those scientists to believe the stuff they emphatically blither to the masses? Does he know what "deep politics" forces are right now very proficiently filling the humanist materialist mind with this plap? Does he apprehend the identities of the people who are doing this are not only extraordinarily close to home but charged with that duty on behalf of the authorized ordained institution assigned the legitimate task of facilitating human sacrifice for the purpose of keeping an unjust and merciless populace in check?
How much more powerful would it have been for Lennox to use his excellent speaking ability to articulate these two truths, which would have gone miles further to get those in the audience to grasp the magnitude of what he was saying. I do believe Lennox said some amazing things. His talk was powerful. I was tremendously edified.
But I just wonder.
Oh that there would be apocalyptic revival.
To get a better idea of the subjects addressed in this post, please visit the webzine The Catholicist Nation. Even better, crack open your Bible. There you'll find Life, Truth, and Grace.
Friday, September 20, 2019
I haven't even had a chance to put in a modest blog post just to introduce my webzine's latest home page piece. Fall is a tremendously busy time for me professionally-- I don't even know how I put in anything in my web work at all. Definitely a God thing.
But I always hope to remark about something notable so this is worth your time. How about this folly?...
Today some large number of disled people went out of their way to screech loudly about climate change. At an intersection of a small college town near my home, a town filled with phenomenally disled people -- yeah, I should say here that I intend to say "dis-led," a more accurate form of misled, because these people are listening to, indeed led by the one who's endgame is their destruction -- anyway, at this intersection those people were all in on the folly. Holding up signs about how climate change is this and climate change is that.
When someone says, "Protesting climate change..." (as it was verbatim in a New York Times headline), it is exactly the same as saying "Protesting sunshine." It is idiotic, yet people do it all the time because they've been browbeat by those mandarins assigned the job of destabilizing society by insisting gobs of value extraction must take place to fight something that simply can't be fought.
This isn't the place to get into it, there are lots of places where you can see the details. What I do want to share is how much I do feel for these people. They stumble about thinking they're doing something meaningful, but they're just being exploited, pounded like a drum. What makes it especially heinous is how much they are manipulating children in this effort. It is extraordinarily ugly -- children being pushed to ditch school and hit the streets for the cause, choking on the propaganda rammed down their throats.
Here's one of the main, main, main things about all of this. It is what makes watching this so painful, watching these people continue to slide into Hell at rocket speed. Oh, they're not totally oblivious to it. They know the law. They have no excuse. Certainly the law is good, even good for telling us that we should be taking care of God's creation, that's fine. I'm all for fine strong constraints on polluters.
But the law can never get us there. Never. These people stridently believe the problem is climate change and its crazed deniers, and that if we could just get the planet right we'll be really good.
No, the problem is the heart. The problem isn't something environmental out there. It is totally, fully, completely the environment of the soul. Where is it? How is it? It is the heart that is most polluted. When the body dies, even if it is from the worst radiation poisoning because of a gargantuan hole in the ozone layer, the soul will live on -- where?
I do want a nice planet. I do want it now, and for our children, and grandchildren. God does want us to take care of this place. But it'll only happen by those who love with His love, and because they have an eternal perspective with the understanding that God's sure judgment against the evil on the planet will eventually result in the utter destruction of the earth and the wholesale replacement with a fully new creation.
The Way to be there with Him at that time, even if it 10,000 years from now, is to be joyfully in the embrace of Jesus Christ.
Thursday, August 08, 2019
I came across this article, in The Federalist, a pretty good one, but there are dozens of these kinds of things popping up everywhere now. This one gets deep into the numbers, the larger numbers of those dying at the hands of destructive people all around.
The author gets into all the main reasons, and yes, the systematic demolition of strong social institutions is a decent one.
What he doesn't get into is the main main reason:
The World System uses people's sinfulness to enlarge its authority and they do so at the people's request so they can remain sinful.
Does that last statement mean anything to you? Can you see the riveting and quite sobering truth in it? Or do you just do like millions of entrenched Catholicists and shrug it off as fairy tale blithering, conspiracy inanity, or just mumbo-jumbo too difficult to comprehend?
I agree, I understand, if you are not prayerfully versed in Scripture to employ the spiritual intelligence necessary to grasp what is really going on, then please, I censure no one. World inhabitants benefit tremendously from the magnificent work Cain's legacy carries out. God set forth the Roman Catholic Church, the United States government, the Federal Reserve banking system, and all their licensed, contracted, incorporated subdivision entities, all perfectly legitimate and authoritative for better managing the evildoing of people who want to keep evildoing.
If you are one of those people, then what are you complaining about? Why are you screaming at someone else who is wantonly murdering people when the only answer the World offers is more murdering in response?
I do peek around a bit at Facebook every once in a while, and while I love every one of my friends there, some of them post the most idiotic things. One such post featured something along the lines of "If you want to stop the mass killings then be willing to fight to do it!" There was another one like "F***ing do something and it isn't praying and sending thoughts and insisting politicians refrain from politicizing after these things!"
Ahem. Then what is that thing? What precisely are you going to fight to do when, um, I kind of got the idea that you want to end the fighting?
They don't say. Yes they'll screech about all kinds of gun control and other fine-sounding humanist things, but they only amount to splendid virtue-signaling that keeps the Legacy churning out more and more imaginative ways to murder in the name of not murdering.
The only only only answer is Jesus Christ, and it isn't the fake Jesus most churches shove in your face to bleat their virtue-signaling. Please, you really don't have to trust what I say about Him, you can find out for yourself. But the simplest truth of all is this.
"Whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life."
Thuh end. There ya go. It can't get simpler than that. That's from John's first letter, by the way, fifth chapter.
In fact do you remember what Jesus said when people did something very similar to what everyone seems to be doing right now? Screeching and hollering and wailing about those deaths at the hands of crazed gunmen? People right there with Jesus, way back then even, said, essentially, "Hey Jesus, what about those people who had that building fall on them, killing them? What's with that? And what about those sacrificially murdered for the governor's pleasure. WHAT ABOUT THAT?"
Yeah, ouch. That is a tough one. What'd Jesus say about it? Now I took some liberties with the text, but again, please, you don't have to take my word for it. Look at the passage yourself, it is at the beginning of the 13th chapter of Luke. Go ahead and see what Jesus said, right there.
Here's the essence of that, though. He told them, "Hey, everyone is guilty of sin that leads to death. No one is any more guilty than anyone else. That means you too. So make sure you turn from your own sinfulness, or it will be just as bad for you." In another context He said, "Don't fear those who may destroy the body, but fear the One who can destroy both your body and your soul."
That's the riveting and sobering reality that so, so many just can't see in all their plaintive moanings about lack of family and community and mentoring and parenting and all the rest of it. Please, family and community and mentoring and parenting are all good, but -- whupp, Jesus again -- He said if you so tightly grip all those things no matter how good and wholesome they are and your heart doesn't belong to Him, then you're no better. What is amazing is that He also said if you give them up and put 100% of your trust in Him, in return you'd get a hundred times those things. And not just in heaven some time, but right now.
Wow. That's in the tenth chapter of Mark, by the way.
Seek and find.
These web pieces are fine and quite informative, but I'm still looking for the ones that share those fundamental biblical truths, not about some ethereal theological confusion...
...but about life itself.
Or even better, about The One Who Is Life And Pours Life Out To Those Who Want It.