Thursday, May 8
Interesting. Licentious progressives demand such uniformity of mindset that those privileged to be spotlighted in the media targeting that particular demographic must not be allowed to formulate streams of cognition contradicting this ethical hegemony even when these reflections are not highlighted in the information such personalities are contracted to convey. For example, HGTV removed from its lineup a new program titled “Flip It Forward” because the Christianity espoused by the hosts of the program opposes gay marriage and abortion. Never mind the fact that it would be Christian beliefs that would motivate an individual to assist the destitute in acquiring shelter. That should teach the hosts a lesson. Perhaps they should just use their skills at carpentry and real estate to accumulate wealth for themselves with those unable to do so allowed to fritter into destitution and ruination in compliance with the Darwinian hypothesis. Yet when there is the possibility that a small segment of the media is at least open to the possibility of allowing for the expression of a broadly traditionalist or theistic perspective in a public format, these very same licentious progressives rampage how this one outlet is suppressing dissent. This is particularly evident in liberal opposition to Fox News. Derangement against that news organizations is so widespread and vehement that some time ago, liberals about pulled their hair out how the network was featured in episodes of 24 (a drama that tends to skewer conservative in terms of its viewership) even though Fox (the network upon which 24 aired) and Fox News are owned by the same company.
In justifying why a pastor must never be seen in a Hawaiin shirt, a fundamentalist Baptist insisted that the world needs to see that we are like God and not the world. So how is such a perspective markedly different than those that insist ministers should wear clerical collars and vestments rather than business suits? Isn’t it that the business suit is the clerical collar and vestment of most hyperlegaistic fundamentalists?
A pastor condemned a fellow minister for making an idol technology because he did not return a phone call after several attempts but replied to a text within 30 seconds of receiving one. What we have here is not so much a sin but rather a difference in personal technological preference. So would condemnation on part of an Amishman or a Luddite of the minister conducting his communications through telephone rather than through written correspondence or perhaps face to face also be valid or would that simply be viewed as fanatic overkill? And what of those that condemned the proliferation of the printing press during the days of the Reformation?
Interesting. In terms of coercing compliance irrespective of whether or not that which being called for is a clearly delineated issue, pastors often emphasize the Hebrews 13:17 calling for obedience of those that rule over you so that their task might be joyful. What about the verse where those in authority (especially parents) are urged not to provoke those under them to wrath?
A number of questionable assumptions were expounded in an elocution on national repentance based upon the Book of Joel posted on SermonAudio.com. For example, for true repentance to come about the pastor insisted that first one was required to first conduct a “fast of the spirit”. Apparently, it is not enough to abstain from that which is merely sin. One must also abstain from those desires that find their origin in the flesh but are otherwise legitimate. So does that mean if your backside itches, you can’t scratch it? Giving up that which one is not required to does not earn brownie points with God. If anything, it merely takes one dangerously closer to works-based righteousness “at best” and at worst might push one over into a proto-gnosticism that denigrates materiality and embodiment. Secondly, this pastor went out of his way to spoof those that prefer to deal with there in the pew any conviction they might be under from the Holy Spirit rather than going forward to make a, shall we say, spectacle of themselves in the front of the church. Instead, in times of judgment, repentance must be made public. So apparently, not only can’t you scratch your own backside, you’ve got to cop before an audience to each time you’ve stolen a glance of someone else's backside Frankly, on what grounds do these variety of Baptists then complain about Roman Catholic ritualism such as confession, unnecessary penance, and bodily mortification?
Transhumanist Conference Ponders The Theological Implications Of The Pending SIngularity
Lessons In Apologetics #5: Deism
The first worldview examined will be Deism. As with Christianity, Deism believes that God created the universe and set it up to operate in accord with a system of natural laws both physical and moral that are discoverable by mankind. What sets Deism apart from Christianity is the extent to which each believes God intervenes in the affairs of both nature and man.
Often, Deism is described as the watchmaker view of God. Those holding to this view believe that, while God created the world and set it into motion, the natural laws He established were so comprehensive that God no longer intervenes in or on His creation’s behalf. This assumption puts it at odds with orthodox Biblical theology on a number of points.
As a system, it could be said that Deism served as a transitional set of beliefs between two great epochs of Western intellectual history. Following the upheaval of religious conflicts such as the Thirty Years War, in a sense Deism was a recoil to the horrors of dogma that had been exorcised of the doctrines of compassion and moderation.
Deism also softened the shock to those wanting to turn their backs on a Biblically-based understanding of life but not yet ready to embrace the rampant secularism characterizing the more recent contemporary era. Deism was also the end product of the scholastic undertakings of the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration whereby European thinkers had to come to grips with the realization that a world, a goodly portion of it consisting of cultures as at least as complex as their's, existed beyond the borders of Christendom.
The Father of English Deism was Herbert of Cherbury. In his book “On Truth“, Herbert established the following principles as common to all men: that there is one supreme God, that he ought to be worshipped, that virtue and piety are the chief parts of worship, that we ought to be sorry for our sins, and that a divine goodness dispenses rewards and punishments both in this life and the hereafter (153).
At a quick glance, the list does not appear all that controversial and there is not much there the orthodox Christian would disagree with. However, it is what is not on the list that Deists following after Herbert of Cherbury expanded upon that brought this worldview's anti-Christian underpinnings to full fruition for all the world to see.
One thinker that most have at least a cursory knowledge of connected to Deism was John Locke. According to Geisler, Locke in “The Reasonableness Of Christianity” endorsed the Deist unitarian view of God and denied the deity of Christ.
Among early Deists, the average Christian would really have to be on their toes to detect the subtle attacks against the faith. Often then the attacks were carefully aimed at other religious systems rather than directly on the Bible itself. However, as society became more accepting as to the amount of dissent that could be openly expressed, a number of Deists more bluntly stated their antagonisms with varying degrees of success.
For example, Matthew Tindal in “Christianity As Old As Creation” argued that, since God is perfect by definition, the revelation of God in the created order is so complete that the idea of the Bible is superfluous and is actually inferior as Tindal considered the Bible to be full of errors anyway (160). And by the time of the founding of the United States of America and the early years of the Republic, Thomas Jefferson edited a version of the Bible exorcising the Scriptures of their miraculous content. Our third president ended the Gospel with “there laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone in front of the sepulcher and departed”, thus causing this version of the good news not to be all that good as Jesus had not risen according to this act of censorship (165).
Source: Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
by Frederick Meekins
