Category Archives: Current Events

78th D-Day anniversary serves as a reminder of American greatness

________

Saving Private Ryan D-Day Scene

77th D-Day anniversary serves as a reminder of American greatness

Those who made ultimate sacrifice paid for freedoms we enjoy, memorial president says

This Sunday marks the 77th anniversary of D-Day, a pivotal moment in World War II, when thousands of American, British and Canadian soldiers selflessly stormed the beaches of Normandy to help liberate Europe from the grip of the German-led Axis forces.

To discuss the importance of the anniversary, April Cheek-Messier, president of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation, sat down with Fox News to talk about D-Day and the lessons the events of June 6, 1944, can teach all Americans.

MEMORIAL DAY: THE MEANING AND HISTORY OF THE HOLIDAY

“This memorial pays tribute to all of our, truly our D-Day veterans, our World War II veterans, to any veteran, I think, who served our country, this memorial is a powerful reminder of service and sacrifice,” said Cheek-Messier, who counts several family members among those who served during World War II. “But what’s really important is that we pass on those lessons to the next generation. That’s really what our veterans want to make sure is happening.”

The National D-Day Memorial, which opened in 2001 and was dedicated by President George W. Bush that same year, has never received any federal or state funding. Instead, Cheek-Messier says, the memorial was the result of a grassroots effort led by those who were there on June 6 to honor their fallen comrades.

“[The memorial] truly was a grassroots effort among veterans to start a national monument to recognize those who served, and those who sacrificed on June 6, 1944,” Cheek-Messier said.

Nearly eight decades after the battle, Cheek-Messier says it’s hard to know how many D-Day veterans remain but they likely only numbers in the hundreds.

“If you think about the fact that there are 16 million who served during World War II, there are only around 325,000 World War II veterans still living today, and of that a very small percentage would be D-Day veterans, and we don’t know the exact number, but you can imagine they would probably only be in a few hundred,” said Cheek-Messier.

Cheek-Messier says the COVID pandemic has hit the D-Day veteran community especially hard.

“It’s been pretty devastating,” she said. “We lost many of them. Many out of just, I think, not being able to see their loved ones and things like that. COVID certainly had an impact in many ways.”

Despite the pain brought on by the COVID pandemic over the last year, and the deep cultural and political divisions among many Americans today, Cheek-Messier believes that D-Day and the memorial can again show Americans what the country can be when it unites.

“I think when people walk around the memorial you get a real sense of that, it’s a good feeling. It’s a good feeling of what we can do as a nation, what we can do as a people when we come together,” said Cheek-Messier.

Unlike during World War II, when nearly everyone knew someone serving the American cause, Cheek-Messier says many aren’t aware of the sacrifices made by veterans and their families. “We’ve kind of lost touch a little bit, I think, with our military and the sacrifices that not only our military men and women make, but their families.”

Cheek-Messier noted that Americans should never forget that the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens today came at the expense of those who served before them, including the thousands who perished 77 years ago defending American ideals along the French shoreline.

“We are here and free today to say the things we want and do the things we want because so many have given the ultimate sacrifice, and I don’t think that we should ever forget that.”

Saving Private Ryan opening cemetery scene

HD – Saving Private Ryan – Death of Captain John H. Miller and Final Speech

The Good Life

by Chuck Colson

Learn More | Meet Chuck Colson

An old man walks down a wide path through a colonnade of evergreens. He has a full head of gray hair, combed from a wavy peak to one side. His eyebrows spike with a grandfatherly flourish toward his temples. He wears a light blue Windbreaker over a golf shirt with a horizontal stripe, Sansabelt slacks, and the crepe-soled shoes his doctor recommended. His gait is quick but stiff – stiff like someone who has just gotten himself up. He marches forward with great intent and purpose, as if he’s hunting out something or someone.Behind him trail his family. His wife is closest, his son and daughter-in- law a step or two farther behind, bracketing their children.

The man’s eyes show that for the moment he’s not thinking of his family, although he seems to be dragging them in his wake. His eyes are at once wide-open yet fixed, poached by what can only be dread. His mouth works in a way that shows his stomach is in his throat. Off to the left his family can see the curve of a long shore, hear the soughing of the waves, and nearly breathe in the scent of the brine. But the man looks neither to his right nor to his left. He keeps stumbling forward, his body tense yet determined.

When he finally turns to his right, he steps onto a vast lawn striped with thousands of white crosses that extend toward the horizon. Here and there a Jewish star adds to the procession of markers that contrast starkly against the green sward. The old man’s pace speeds as he makes his way through this vast cemetery. His family struggles to keep up.

James Ryan’s determined march finally halts in front of a particular cross. The rims of his eyes show red. He wipes at them with a shaking hand, sniffs hard, tries again to breathe. Here it is, his captain’s cross, the name, the date: Captain John W. Miller, June 13, 1944.

He takes another sniff against his watering eyes, bites his lip. He’s almost choking as he struggles to breathe in the heavy air. His knees give way, and he kneels before the cross, his shoulders heaving. His wife is suddenly at one shoulder, his son at the other. He’s glad they are there, but they cannot help with what needs to be done.

He mumbles that he’s all right, and they retreat several steps, leaving him to the thoughts that press so hard he can’t bear the weight.

Not until this moment does he realize that what he has been looking forward to yet dreading is a transaction. An exchange of some kind. For him this visit to the Normandy American Cemetery is no sightseeing tour. It’s a profound action. Even now he cannot say why he believes this to be the case. The emotion that’s seized him declares it to be so, however.

Whatever must happen involves the question that’s dogged him his whole life. The unspoken question that’s brought him here. He feels its presence in every memory, and not only the good ones.

Now that he’s looking at his captain’s grave, Ryan has to ask the question.

Decades earlier, on June 6, 1944, Captain Miller and his men had landed at Omaha Beach, a horror James Ryan had been spared as part of the 101st Airborne. His unit had been dropped into Normandy the night before the sea assault. He later learned from the tales of his buddies and from seeing newsreel footage what D-day had been like. Although Germany had not been expecting the assault at the place Eisenhower chose, the air assault hadn’t softened their positions one whit, and when the armored front of the Higgins boats opened onto the beach, the men were ducks on a pond to the enemy’s machine guns. Many of those sitting forward in the landing craft never had a chance to move from their seats as the Germans opened fire. Those who jumped over the craft’s sides to swim and crawl ashore could only cling to the Belgian gates and iron hedgehogs – the jack-shaped defensive works strewn in rows all along the shingle that prevented tanks from making the initial assault.

The army rangers humped forward in waves, men falling to the right and left every few feet. They were getting hit not only by machinegun fire but by artillery as well. Bodies flew with the explosions. The wounded picked up their severed arms and stumbled a few more feet to their deaths. The waves washing onto the beaches ran red with blood, lapping at the dead, who lay scattered and senseless.

Captain Miller and a few of his company made it to the seawall. Although 50 percent of the men in the first waves to hit Omaha Beach were killed in action, the others broke the first line of German defenses.

Soon after the hell of D-Day, Captain Miller and a squad of seven men were assigned to find paratrooper James Ryan and bring him home – alive. The army’s chief of staff, General George C. Marshall, had personally issued the order for Private James Ryan to be taken out of the war. Ryan’s two older brothers had died in the great assault, and a third brother had been killed in action in New Guinea. Marshall thought that three sons were enough for any mother to contribute to the war.

Captain Miller and his squad found Ryan with remnants of the 506, Baker Company, which had orders to secure a bridge on the far side of a river. The company had been ordered to hold the bridge at all costs – or, as a final defense, to blow it up. When Captain Miller and his squad arrived to take Ryan home, Ryan refused to leave. Miller asked him what he was supposed to say to Ryan’s mother when she got another folded American flag. Ryan replied, “You can tell her that when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. And that there was no way I was deserting them. I think she’d understand that.”

Captain Miller and his squad told Ryan angrily that they had already lost two men in the search to find him. Miller finally decided that they’d make Ryan’s battle their own as well and save him in the process.

The Germans soon came at them – nearly a full company of men, two Panzer tanks, two Tigers. The Americans lured the Panzers down the village’s main street, where they staged an effective ambush. The only thing Ryan had been allowed to do was pitch mortar shells like hand grenades. Captain Miller never let Ryan leave his side, protecting the private every step of the way.

Still, one tank blew their sharpshooter to eternity. Another soldier died in hand-to-hand combat with a knife to his heart. No matter their ingenuity, the squad couldn’t hold off such an overpowering force, and the men made a strategic retreat to the other side of the bridge. In the retreat one of the sergeants was hit and collapsed.

Captain Miller took a shot beneath his ribs as he struggled to fix the wiring on a detonation device. Then an artillery blast knocked him nearly unconscious. All hope lost, Captain Miller began shooting at a tank coming straight at him.

Suddenly, Tankbuster aircraft shrieked down on them, blowing the enemy’s tanks to smithereens and routing their foot soldiers. The Allies’ own armored reinforcements rolled up minutes later.

Of the squad that had come to save Ryan, only two men escaped relatively unscathed. The others were dead or dying.

Captain Miller lay close by where he had been hit, his back slumped against the bridge’s wall. Ryan, in anguish, was alone with his rescuer in the final moments before Miller died. Ryan watched as the captain struggled in his last moments, shot clean through one lung. The captain wouldn’t take another breath, except to grunt, “James. Earn this . . . earn it.”

Were these dying words a final order or charge?

These memories rivet the aged James Ryan, who now finds himself staring at the grave marker and mumbling to his dead commander. He tells Captain Miller that his family is with him. He confesses that he wasn’t sure how he would feel about coming to the cemetery today. He wants Captain Miller to know that every day of his life he’s thought of their conversation at the bridge, of Miller’s dying words. Ryan has tried to live a good life, and he hopes he has. At least in the captain’s eyes, he hopes he’s “earned it,” that his life has been worthy of the sacrifice Captain Miller and the other men made of giving their lives for his.

As Ryan mutters these thoughts, he cannot help wondering how any life, however well lived, could be worthy of his friends’ sacrifice. The old man stands up, but he doesn’t feel released. The question remains unanswered.

His wife comes to his side again. He looks at her and pleads, “Tell me I’ve led a good life.”

Confused by his request, she responds with a question: “What?”

He has to know the answer. He tries to articulate it again: “Tell me I’m a good man.”

The request flusters her, but his earnestness makes her think better of putting it off. With great dignity, she says, “You are.”

His wife turns back to the other family members, whose stirring says they are ready to leave.

Before James Ryan joins them, he comes to attention and salutes his fallen comrade. What a gallant old soldier he is.

Who of us can see this scene from Steven Spielberg’s magnificent film Saving Private Ryan and not ask ourselves the same question: Have I lived a good life?

Does there exist an exact way of calculating the answer to this question? How do we define living a good life? What makes the good we do good enough? Is our life worthy of the sacrifice of others? The unavoidable question of whether we have lived a good life searches our hearts.

Not everyone experiences what Ryan did in such a dramatic way. Yet this question of the good life – and others like it – haunts every human being from the earliest years of our consciousness. Something stirs us at the very core of our being, demanding answers to so many questions: Is there some purpose in life? Are we alone in this universe, or does some force – call it fate, destiny, or providence – guide our lives?

These questions don’t often occur to us so neatly of course. Usually the hardest questions hit us at the hardest times. In the midst of tragedy or serious illness, when confronting violence and injustice, or after seeing our personal hopes shattered, we cry out, “Why is the world such a mess? Is there anything I can do about it?”

There’s a mystery at work in these perennial questions of human existence. I doubt anyone who has ever seen Saving Private Ryan or read great works of literature like Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov or Camus’s The Plague has ever doubted the relevance of such questions. Neither does anyone who has ever marveled at the beauty of the Milky Way or sat weeping at the bedside of a dying loved one.

What distinguishes humans from all other creatures is our selfconsciousness: We know we are alive and that we will die, and we cannot keep from asking ourselves questions about why life is the way it is and what it all means.

And isn’t it odd that we all understand immediately why Private Ryan would feel compelled to live an honorable life? Does he believe that in doing so he can make his comrades’ sacrifice worthwhile? Evidently, he does, and we sense the rightness of this. But why does he feel in their debt? Why does he feel that their actions have to be recompensed by his own, as if blind justice with a sword in one hand and balancing scales in the other really existed? And why should goodness be the means of repaying this debt? Why not revenge? Why should he not set about killing as many former Nazis as possible? Somehow that does not satisfy, though. If sacrifice can be repaid at all, it can be done only by sacrifice, not by slaughter. We know this. But why do we know this?

A broad answer lies in our humanity. Because we are human, we ask questions about meaning and purpose. We have an innate sense of justice and our own need to meet the demands of justice. Moral attitudes differ from culture to culture, but take people from a Stone Age culture in a remote village in Papua New Guinea, sit them down in front of Saving Private Ryan, and they will immediately understand the issues involved. They will understand Ryan’s questions and his sense of gratitude.

The word should in the questions that arise from Private Ryan’s life immediately grounds us in ethical considerations. It implies there must be a variety of answers to these questions. It suggests that some answers are better than others – some are right while others are wrong. So, where does this should come from? What does it mean that we possess an innate sense of these things?

At the very least it points to the notion that we all live in a moral universe, which is one of the reasons human beings, regardless of background or economics or place of birth, are irresistibly religious. If nothing else, we know there is someone or something to which we owe a debt for our existence.

Our questions also presume that we can choose our answers to these questions and act on these choices. The freedom of the human will, even if circumscribed, is built into the way the human mind works.

Commenting on life’s questions, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Kennedy asserted that beliefs about these matters define the attributes of personhood. We are who we are, we are the type of creatures we are, because we are obliged to come to our own conclusions about the great questions. Although I disagree profoundly with the legal conclusion Justice Kennedy drew from this observation, I must admit his summary captures what makes us human.3

I can remember when I first began asking questions early in life. I have particularly vivid memories of the Sunday morning in December 1941 when our family was riveted to the radio, listening with growing anxiety to the reports of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. I was certain we’d be fighting Japanese soldiers or German SS officers in the streets of our sleepy Boston suburb. I remember asking my father, “Why does there have to be war and bloodshed and death?” He replied – mistakenly, as I now think – that it was all part of the natural process, like famines and plagues that prevented overpopulation.

During the war, I organized fund-raising campaigns in my school, even auctioned off my treasured model airplane collection to raise funds for the war effort. Instinctively I knew I was meant to do my part to protect our freedoms. I wanted my life – even at age twelve – to matter.

I also remember standing in our yard many nights, the world around me in darkness, blackout shades covering every window in the neighborhood, protecting us against the expected air raids. I would stare into the dazzling array of stars above me and wonder where the universe began, where it ended, and what I was doing here. As a student, I struggled to grasp the concept of infinity – what was beyond those stars.

I’ve continued to ask these kinds of questions, especially during times of stress. I’ve asked them in my life as a government official, as a husband and father, as a convicted felon, and then as a Christian leader. Many times in the inner recesses of my conscience I’ve asked Ryan’s questions: Have I been a good man? Have I lived a good life? Sometimes I’ve been unsure; other times I’ve been sure that I have failed. But where do we go to answer these questions? Whom do we ask? Who can tell us the truth about the value of our lives?

While the quest to find answers to such questions can be arduous at times, even heartbreaking, the search for the truth about life is the one thing that makes life worthwhile, exhilarating. The ability to pursue such a search makes us human. Emmanuel Mounier, the founder of the French “personalist” philosophical movement, writes that human life is characterized by a “divine restlessness.” The lack of peace within our hearts spurs us on a quest for the meaning of life – a command imprinted on “unextinguished souls.”4 Pope John Paul II sums up the matter elegantly: “One may define the human being, therefore, as the one who seeks the truth.”5

What will be the truth of our lives and our destinies? Most people want to arrive at Captain Miller’s cemetery cross – or whatever judgment seat they envision – with some confidence that they have lived a good life.

But what is a good life? How does such a life incorporate answers to the great questions? How can such a life be lived?

Have I lived one?

Have you?

(This scene includes violence and bad language) Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach

________

Daily Wire and Matt Walsh’s ‘What is a Woman’ Documentary Sheds Light on Disturbing Transgender Agenda 

Daily Wire and Matt Walsh’s ‘What is a Woman’ Documentary Sheds Light on Disturbing Transgender Agenda

Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire’s “What Is a Woman?” documentary discusses the gender identity crisis in America with a variety of experts and activists (Photo: The Daily Wire)

“I’ve heard people say that there are no differences between male and female. Those people are idiots.”

Thus begins the Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s new “What Is a Woman?” documentary, which highlights the left’s ever-growing reluctance and inability to define gender. Think that defining the qualities of men and women is easy for most people today? Think again.

While some may struggle to “figure out” women, Walsh identifies that Western culture’s obsession with gender identity has paralyzed people from defining what a woman is. As the documentary progresses, we see further evidence that the transgender narrative has not only rejected the definitions of “man” and “woman” as insensitive and transphobic, but has dismantled the very concept of universal truth and reality.

Fittingly released on the first day of “Pride Month,” Walsh’s documentary is a thought-provoking, humorous, yet often emotional and disturbing film that illuminates the contradictory and dangerous narrative of the transgenderagenda.

In the documentary, Walsh interviews “the experts,” such as “gender-affirming” therapists, sex change surgeons, and gender ideology professors (most of whom are transgender themselves or members of the LGBTQ+ community), asking them, “What is a woman?” The majority of responders say they have no idea how to define womanhood or refuse to answer the question, calling it bigoted and pointless. Not only are they unable to provide a simple definition of a woman, but they find the entire concept offensive and transphobic.

The documentary begins on a humorous note, as Walsh asks a family therapist, “How do I know if I’m a woman? I mean I like scented candles and I watch ‘Sex and the City.’”

“What a great question!” the therapist (who has every indication of being a woman) says, nodding and smiling encouragingly.

“So, what is a woman?” Walsh asks. A disconcerted look enters the counselor’s eye: “Great question! But I’m not a woman, so I can’t really answer that.”

“I thought therapy would make me less confused,” Walsh said. Us too, Matt.

So, he takes to the streets to ask the common American if they can solve this conundrum. Surprisingly, most of the interviewees responded to the “what is a woman?” question with a blank stare and nervous laughter. Most said it couldn’t be defined and said they would accept Walsh as a woman if that’s what he believed he was.

Especially entertaining is Walsh’s trip to the Women’s March—surely they’ll know what a woman is if they’re marching for them, right? But no, the marching women either ignored Walsh or yelled, “Why are you here?”—insinuating that he was a man (without even asking his gender identity, the audacity!) and that a man had no right to attend a women’s march. “How can you have a women’s march if you don’t know what a woman is?” he asked. Touché.

What is the female gender, according to the transgender community? Walsh spoke with a transgender surgeon who differentiated between sex and gender, saying that sex-change surgery is “altering the physical characteristics of an individual to fit better with a gender identity that is female.” In that case, what is a woman, according to this surgeon? “A woman is a combination of your physical attributes, what you’re showing to the world and the gender clues you give, and hopefully those match your gender identity.”

As if the issue couldn’t get any more confusing, Walsh speaks with a pediatrician and professor who has worked in Planned Parenthood and advocates for “gender and reproductive justice.” She provides “gender affirmation care,” saying that a good doctor is there to listen to the patient and act on what they’re expressing. Walsh asked whether it was ethical for minors to be making life-altering decisions such as taking puberty blockers or opposite sex hormones, since children often have a fantastical, unrealistic interpretation of reality, such as believing in Santa Claus.

“Well, he’s real to them,” the pediatrician said. “But the fact that Santa exists isn’t true,” Walsh countered. “Whose truth are you talking about? It’s very real to the child,” the pediatrician responded.

The documentary makes it clear that Americans can no longer ignore the transgender movement. It is permeating every aspect of society, politics, and education and now targets children as young as preschoolers.

The push for children to define their own realities and irreversibly change their bodies is perhaps what is most disturbing about the transgender agenda. In what other sphere of medicine do patients, especially young children, prescribe both their malady and remedy to the affirmation and acceptance of a counselor or physician? As clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson said to Walsh, “It’s not my job to affirm as a therapist, you come to see me because there’s something wrong.

The fact that the transgender agenda is increasingly targeting young children is what psychiatrist Miriam Grossman finds most disturbing. Grossman explains to Walsh the history of the transgender and sex-ed movement and highlights the unethical, traumatic techniques and flawed studies that have shaped it over the years. “It’s unspeakable what these people have done to our children,” she says.

Not only is the transgender movement harming women’s sports, exposing children to inappropriate material, and encouraging them to reject science and universal truth, it is also irreparably damaging children’s bodies and destroying their futures.

The most moving and persuasive interview occurred with Scott Newgent, a biological female who transitioned to a male as an adult but passionately argues against the rise in gender surgery among children and the subjectivity of gender. “I’m a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a man through synthetic hormones and surgery,” Newgent said. “I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth?”

Newgent describes the details and horrific side effects of gender reassignment surgery that are so conveniently hidden from public discourse. Having undergone multiple surgeries, illnesses, and painful, permanent side effects, Newgent told Walsh, “Nobody would help me, including the doctor who did this to me, because I lost my insurance. I probably won’t live very long.”

Newgent said that the possible risks and side effects were never discussed when considering gender reassignment surgery, and warns parents and anyone considering sex-change surgery that “the truth is that medical transition is experimental.”

Revealing an arm mutilated from skin grafts, Newgent broke down in tears on camera, exclaiming in horror that minor children are regularly operated on without any discussion of the risks and permanence of the surgery, or any discussion as to whether children should ethically be allowed or able to consent to such procedures.

“We’re butchering a generation of children because no one’s willing to talk about anything,” Newgent said. “This is wrong on so many levels. Kids aren’t able to consent.”

The transgender movement is ultimately an attack on scientific fact, the concept of reality, and the meaning of language. No longer are words allowed to mean one thing. No longer is the word “truth” socially acceptable, because who are we to deny “your reality” or “your truth?”

A professor of women (whatever those are, anyway) gender, and sexuality responded to Walsh’s statement that he was seeking the truth with “I’m really uncomfortable with that language of ‘getting to the truth’ because it sounds deeply transphobic to me. The word truth is condescending and rude.”

Sensing that this concept is a purely Western phenomenon, Walsh heads to Nairobi to immerse himself in the customs of a local tribe. In this culture, gender norms and roles are crucial to the survival of the tribe. The men protect and provide, and the women maintain the home and nurture the children. It’s an honor to be a man or a woman in this tribe, and every member knows their distinct duties and privileges.

A group of men laugh in disbelief when Walsh asks what they would do if a man wanted to look and act like a woman—the entire concept is ridiculous and unheard of. “The Maasai people don’t think much about gender,” Walsh observes on the way back home to America, “but they have a firm sense of their identity.”

Instead of solving gender dysphoria and body image discomfort, Americans’ infatuation with identity has only created greater societal instability and refused to answer the most foundational of questions. “What Is a Woman?” succeeds in highlighting the inconsistencies and dangerous agenda of the transgender movement.

Walsh’s angle is particularly effective, as he gives the majority of the screentime to pro-trans activists and medical professionals. The lack of data or persuasive argument for the trans community isn’t the producers’ fault, the “experts” simply couldn’t provide any. Walsh’s sarcastic, borderline-dark sense of humor in the delightfully ridiculous street interviews breaks up the more serious, unsettling information and gives a sense of hope and common sense to the insanity that’s been normalized.

Bold, humorous, thought-provoking, and undeniably chilling, “What is a Woman?” equips its audience to better face the ever-growing reality of the transgender agenda and its far-reaching effects through civil discourse, empathy, and a firm grasp of truth, science, and reality.

At the end of the film, it’s Walsh’s wife who’s the true MVP. “Hey honey, what’s a woman?” Walsh asks. “An adult human female,” she responds.

Of course, who knew it could be that simple?

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl

—-

After Life on Netflix

——

Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!

All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!

Francis Schaffer in his book THE GOD WHO IS THERE addresses these same issues:

“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117

Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

Francis and Edith Schaeffer

Brendan O’Neill

Ricky Gervais is guilty of blasphemy

He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times

I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.

When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.

In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.

Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.

‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.

‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.

——

Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.

The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.

Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.

This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.

In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.

This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.

The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.

He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’

What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’

Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.

Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.

But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.

‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’

Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.

A.F. Branco for Jan 12, 2022

—-

Dennett wearing a button-up shirt and a jacket

I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg

Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.

As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).

Not everyone I have corresponded with is a secular humanist but  many are the top scientists and atheist thinkers of today and hold this same secular views. Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-), Harry Kroto (1939-), Marty E. Martin (1928-), Richard Rubenstein (1924-), James Terry McCollum (1936-), Edward O. WIlson (1929-), Lewis Wolpert (1929), Gerald Holton(1922-), Martin Rees (1942-), Alan Macfarlane (1941-),  Roald Hoffmann (1937-), Herbert Kroemer (1928-), Thomas H. Jukes(1906-1999) and  Ray T. Cragun (1976-). 

Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.

Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“

After Life Ricky GervaisRicky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)

(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.

In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:

Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?

Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.

Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.

Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?

Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.

Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.

Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.

Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?

Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.

If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?

If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!

God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you  will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.

Then in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes Solomon returns to looking above the sun and he says that obeying the Lord is the proper way to live your life. The  answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted. If you need more evidence then go to You Tube and watch the short video:

NOW TO RICKY’S COMEDY:

Brendan O’Neill noted above:

‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….

He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’

What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’

Ricky  is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:

26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,

—-

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.

“Yes,” Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot)

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)

“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”

“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)

“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”

“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.

“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.

“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.

Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…

First is what Romans says:

Romans 1:18-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History

Related posts:

John MacArthur on Romans 1 and the Democratic Party

First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]

Did God kill someone that I knew? What does I John 5:14-17 mean?

1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]

A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE ”Ricky Gervais is guilty of blasphemy! He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times”

     

After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl

—-

After Life on Netflix

——

Before I get into the fine article by Brendan O’Neill which I present in its entirety, I wanted to quote Francis Schaeffer who spent his life examining the humanism that now Ricky Gervais embraces!

All humans have moral motions and that is why Ricky Gervais knows it is wrong to let biological men use ladies’ bathrooms!!!!!!

Francis Schaffer in his book THE GOD WHO IS THERE addresses these same issues:

“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117

Francis Schaeffer in the film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

Francis and Edith Schaeffer

Brendan O’Neill

Ricky Gervais is guilty of blasphemy

He has mocked identity politics – the god of our times

I have long thought that if Life of Brian came out today, it wouldn’t be Christians kicking up a fuss about it — it would be trans activists.

When Monty Python’s classic tale of a man mistaken for a Messiah came to cinemas in 1979, people of faith weren’t happy. They saw it as taking the mick out of Christ and they aired their displeasure noisily. Nuns in New York picketed cinemas. In Ireland the film was banned for eight years.

In 2022 I reckon it would be a very different story. It wouldn’t be Monty Python’s ribbing of the gospels that would outrage the chattering classes — it would be their mockery of trans people.

Life of Brian was way ahead of time. It was Terf before Terf was even a thing. There is a brilliantly observed scene in which Stan of the People’s Front of Judea — or is it the Judean People’s Front? — says he wants to become Loretta.

‘I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta’, says Stan, played by Eric Idle. When the others push back and say he can’t just become a woman, he says: ‘It’s my right as a man.’ Which was remarkably perspicacious.

‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters.

——

Imagine if a film or TV show did something like that today. Showed an aspiring ‘trans woman’ being mocked for not having the right body parts to be a woman. Showed a man who wants to be a woman being told — for laughs, remember — that the only thing he’s struggling against is reality.

The cancel-culture mob would kick into action. There’d be a Change.org petition, maybe even a physical protest outside the offices of the production company or streaming service that was foolish enough to broadcast such trans-poking humour. ‘Jokes kill!’, we would be told, day and night.

Hell, JK Rowling can’t even very politely say ‘men aren’t women’ without being subjected to weeks of hatred and violent threats — so heaven help the film company that tried to air a Stan / Loretta skit in these febrile times.

This week, my theory about Life of Brianin 2022 was kind of proven right. For we had the pretty extraordinary sight of Ricky Gervais getting a very free ride for his God-mocking while being dragged into the Twitter stocks for his gags about trans issues.

In his new Netflix special SuperNature, Gervais vents his atheistic spleen. The Christian God is cruel and perverted, he says. Those Christian fundamentalists who believe Aids is the Almighty’s way of punishing gay sex clearly believe in a God who’s up in heaven thinking, ‘I’m sick of all this bumming’. And so just as God once said ‘Let there be light’, according to Gervais in the 1980s He said, ‘Let there be Aids’. What a rotter.

This isn’t the first time Gervais has made fun of God and those who believe in him. He’s famously an atheist. He talks about it all the time. (Rather too much, in my view.) But God-bashing is fine these days. Cool, even. Christians tend to take it in their stride. Believers have mostly kept their counsel following Gervais’s latest mockery of their wicked, ridiculous God.

The same cannot be said of trans activists and their allies. Not even remotely. They have responded with fury to Gervais’s blasphemy against the new god of genderfluidity.

He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’

What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’

Cutting, yes. But also incredibly accurate. Some police forces and courts do indeed refer to rapists as ‘she’ and ‘her’, if that’s how they identify. And, as feminists have pointed out, this results in rape victims being pressured to refer to their rapist with female pronouns. As for the language, anyone who has spent more than five minutes online in recent years will know that that kind of thing is said to gender-critical women all the time.

Like all great blasphemous comics, Gervais is merely shining a light on things that really are said, and things which really do happen, and inviting us, his audience, to laugh and say: ‘Yeah, that is kind of ridiculous.’ Much as Monty Python did with the Bible, in fact.

But, say Gervais’s humourless critics, while the likes of Monty Python were punching up — against God, no less — Gervais is punching down, against vulnerable, marginalised trans people. I don’t buy this at all. Gervais has made it clear that he fully supports rights for trans people. His issue is with the excesses of trans activism and the authoritarianism of identity politics more broadly.

‘I talk about Aids, famine, cancer, the Holocaust, rape, paedophilia’, he says in SuperNature. ‘But no, the one thing you mustn’t joke about is identity politics.’

Absolutely. And that’s because identitarianism is the god of our times. It’s the new religion of the elites, their means of controlling and reprimanding the masses. Ridiculing identity politics is to the 21st century what questioning the authority of God was to the 15th. The woke rage against Gervais really does echo earlier outbursts of intolerant religious fury against anyone who dared to dissent from the Word of God.

A.F. Branco for Jan 12, 2022

—-

Dennett wearing a button-up shirt and a jacket

I was referred this subject by a tweet by Daniel Dennett which referenced a fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION and you can read my response at this link.
Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg

Ricky Gervais is a secular humanist just like his good friend Richard Dawkins and it is the humanists who have bought into this trans-identity politics and as a result the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION has stripped Dawkins of his 1996 HUMANIST OF THE YEAR award.

As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979).

Not everyone I have corresponded with is a secular humanist but  many are the top scientists and atheist thinkers of today and hold this same secular views. Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-), Harry Kroto (1939-), Marty E. Martin (1928-), Richard Rubenstein (1924-), James Terry McCollum (1936-), Edward O. WIlson (1929-), Lewis Wolpert (1929), Gerald Holton(1922-), Martin Rees (1942-), Alan Macfarlane (1941-),  Roald Hoffmann (1937-), Herbert Kroemer (1928-), Thomas H. Jukes(1906-1999) and  Ray T. Cragun (1976-). 

Let me make a few points about Ricky personally and then a few about this comedy routine by the secular humanist Ricky Gervais.

Notice below in AFTER LIFE how he suspects Anne of being a Christian when she tells him “We are not just here for us. We are here for others,“

After Life Ricky GervaisRicky Gervais and Penelope Wilton in ‘After Life’ (CREDIT: Netflix)

(Above) Tony (played by Ricky) and Anne on the bench at the graveyard where their spouses are buried.

In the fourth episode of season 1 of AFTER LIFE is the following discussion between Anne and Tony:

Tony: My brother-in-law wants me to try dating again.
Anne: Oh excellent! You need some tips.
Tony: why would I need some tips?

Anne: I imagine you are awful with women…Well all men are awful with women but grumpy selfish ones are the worst.

Tony: Let me take notes. This is dynamite.

Tony: I would just be honest. Tell them my situation and tell them what I am going through. Be honest up front.
Anne: So it is all about you then?

Tony: I can’t win can I? I don’t want to date again. I don’t want to live without Lisa.

Anne: But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are just here for us. We are here for others.

Tony: I don’t do the whole God thing I am afraid.

Anne: Neither do I. It is a load of rubbish. All we got is each other. We have to help each other struggle until we die then we are done. No point in felling sorry for ourselves and making everyone else unhappy too. Might as [kill] yourself if you feel that bad.
Tony: Are you sure you want to work for the Samaritans?

Christ came to this world and his followers have changed this world for the better more than any other group that ever existed. When Anne makes the assertions, “But is not just about you is it? That is what I am saying. What if a nice date made her feel good? That might feel nice right? We are not just here for us. We are here for others,” Tony assumes she is a Christian.

If you found yourself in a dark alley late at night, with a group of rough-looking, burly young men walking swiftly toward you, would you feel better knowing they were coming from a Bible study?

If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

I highly recommend Ricky Gervais series AFTER LIFE which is running on NETFLIX because it reminds me of King Solomon trying to find meaning in life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture!!!

God put Solomon’s story in Ecclesiastes in the Bible with the sole purpose of telling people like Ricky that without God in the picture you  will find out the emptiness one feels when possessions are trying to fill the void that God can only fill.

Then in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes Solomon returns to looking above the sun and he says that obeying the Lord is the proper way to live your life. The  answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted. If you need more evidence then go to You Tube and watch the short video:

NOW TO RICKY’S COMEDY:

Brendan O’Neill noted above:

‘I want to have babies’, says Stan / Loretta. ‘You can’t have babies! You haven’t got a womb!’, barks John Cleese’s Reg. Transphobic or what? To calm things down, Francis (Michael Palin) says they should accept Stan’s desire to be Loretta as being ‘symbolic of our struggle against oppression’. ‘Symbolic of his struggle against reality…’ Reg mutters….

He’s been called all the usual names. Transphobe, Terf, bigot. His crime? Choosing not to adhere to the ideology of transgenderism, daring to dissent from that pseudo-religious mantra we are all now pressured into saying: ‘Trans women are women.’

What’s funny about this spittle-flecked response to Gervais’s trans jokes is that he was really only saying what trans activists themselves have said. He had a bit on ‘old-fashioned women’ — ‘you know, the ones with wombs’ — complaining about born males using their bathrooms. ‘What if he rapes me?’, these women say. To which Gervais, playing the trans activist, responds: ‘What if she rapes you, you… Terf whore.’

Ricky  is trying to use common sense (through sarcasm) on people that “GOD GAVE…OVER to depraved [minds]. Romans 1 states:

26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural…

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,

—-

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.

“Yes,” Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot)

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)

“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”

“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)

“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”

“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.

“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.

“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.

Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…

First is what Romans says:

Romans 1:18-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History

Related posts:

John MacArthur on Romans 1 and the Democratic Party

First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]

Did God kill someone that I knew? What does I John 5:14-17 mean?

1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]

On Religion: The serious, mysterious faith of comedian Norm Macdonald

__

On Religion: The serious, mysterious faith of comedian Norm Macdonald

Terry Mattingly
Mattingly_Terry_2006 (SHNS photo)

While debating heretics, early Christians used the Greek term “hypostasis” — meaning “substance” and “subsistence” — to help define their belief in the Incarnation of Jesus as one person, yet with divine and human natures.

This “hypostatic union” is not the kind of subject a comedian typically raises on a TV talk show while chatting about mortality with a Hollywood legend. Then again, Norm Macdonald — who died on Sept. 14 after a secret nine-year fight with cancer — wasn’t a typical funny man. He openly identified as a Christian, while making it clear that he didn’t consider himself a very good one.

During an episode of “Norm Macdonald Has a Show,” the former “Saturday Night Live” star asked Jane Fonda — who at one point briefly embraced evangelical Christianity — this question: “Are you a religious person?”

“I have faith,” said Fonda. The host quickly asked, “In Jesus Christ?” Hesitating, Fonda called herself “a work in progress,” saying she accepted “the historical Jesus.”

Macdonald responded: “But do you believe in the hypostatic Jesus?”

When Fonda said “no,” he added, “So, you’re not a Christian. But you believe, you believe in something.”

Raised vaguely Protestant in Canada, Macdonald didn’t discuss the brand-name specifics of his faith even as he wrestled with his own demons, such as habitual gambling. Yet he could be stunningly specific when addressing criticisms of Christian beliefs. As a judge on NBC’s “Last Comic Standing,” he quietly shot down a contestant who trashed the Bible before praising the Harry Potter series.

“I think if you’re going to take on an entire religion, you should maybe know what you’re talking about,” said Macdonald. “J.K. Rowling is a Christian, and J.K. Rowling famously said that if you’re familiar with the scriptures, you could easily guess the ending of her book.”

The result was a public persona laced with paradoxes — an edgy, courageous comic who often seemed unconcerned if his work pleased the public or his employers. Nevertheless, superstars such as David Letterman, Jerry Seinfeld, Bob Newhart and others hailed him as a deadpan comic genius, and mourned his passing at the age of 61.

“I am absolutely devastated about Norm Macdonald,” tweeted Conan O’Brien, who once clashed with network leaders about how often he could feature Macdonald as a guest. “Norm had the most unique comedic voice I have ever encountered, and he was so relentlessly and uncompromisingly funny. I will never laugh that hard again.”

In a tribute entitled “Norm Macdonald — Dostoyevsky in Front of a Red Brick Wall,” Ricochet editor Jon Gabriel offered this summary: “The smartest comedians portray themselves as the dumbest; Norm Macdonald was the best at this sleight of hand. He graduated high school at 14, read Russian literature in his downtime and had long philosophical discussions with clergy. … Macdonald was a student of human nature first, comedy second.”

During his decade with cancer, Macdonald — as a talk-show host and guest — frequently discussed death and dying and the Big Issues looming in the background.

During one such encounter, talk-show giant Larry King turned the tables and asked Macdonald to, once and for all, address years of media chatter about his “religious views.”

“I’m a Christian,” Macdonald replied. “It’s not stylish to say that now.”

King pushed on: “Are you devout? … You believe in the Lord?”

“Yes, I do,” Macdonald said.

Unaware that he was interviewing a man with cancer, King asked: “You think that you’re going somewhere when (life) ends?”

“Well, I don’t BELIEVE it,” Macdonald replied, saying the word “believe” in a way that added verbal quotation marks. “What people don’t understand about faith is that you have to CHOOSE. You know what I mean? They think that you believe it — but you have to choose.”

When King said that he simply could not believe, because of the presence of evil in the world, the comedian quipped: “It sounds like you have a God-shaped hole in your heart.”

Macdonald was even more concise in a tweet posted on Oct. 17, 2017 — the date of annual “Reformation Day” celebrations observed, alongside All Hallows’ Eve, by Lutherans and some other Protestants.

“Scripture. Faith. Grace. Christ, Glory of God,” wrote Macdonald. “Smart man says nothing is a miracle. I say everything is.”

  1. (Terry Mattingly leads GetReligion.org and lives in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is a senior fellow at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi.)
09-14-2021
Peter Power/The Canadian Press via AP
Peter Power/The Canadian Press via AP

Famous comedian Norm Macdonald, who described himself as a Christian, passed away unexpectedly Tuesday after a nine-year battle with cancer.

Lori Jo Hoekstra, a friend of the 61-year-old celebrity, said the comedian “had been fighting cancer for nearly a decade but was determined to keep his struggle away from his family, friends, and fans,” according to the New York Post.

“He was most proud of his comedy,” she said. “He never wanted the diagnosis to affect the way the audience or any of his loved ones saw him. Norm was a pure comic. He once wrote that ‘a joke should catch someone by surprise, it should never pander.’ He certainly never pandered. Norm will be missed terribly.”

In addition to his famous role as anchor of the “Weekend Update” on “SNL,” Macdonald wrote for the erstwhile comedy “Roseanne” and appeared on “The Drew Carey Show.” He also brought his signature brand of comedy to multiple movies.

Macdonald made headlines a few years ago when he drew the ire of leftists on social media for tweeting about Christianity. In a tweet he later deleted, Macdonald wrote, “The Enlightenment turned us away from truth and toward a darkling weakening horizon, sad and gray to see. The afterglow of Christianity is near gone now, and a Stygian silence lurks in wait.”

The comedian’s tweet, posted in 2018, was a reference to the 18th-century cultural shift away from the imitation and depiction of the sacred to a focus on self-indulgence and decadence. From then, people began favoring secular reasoning and science above spirituality.

That was not the only time Macdonald had taken up for Christianity.

In 2015, when he served as a judge on NBC’s “Last Comic Standing,” Macdonald schooled a contestant for mocking Christianity during his routine.

Fellow judge Roseanne Barr told comedian Harrison Greenbaum his jokes about the Bible were “brave,” an assertion with which Macdonald staunchly disagreed.

“I don’t think the Bible jokes are brave at all,” he said at the time. “If you think you’re gonna take on an entire religion, you should maybe know what you’re talking about.”

He went on to tell Greenbaum that, if he’s going to reference the “Harry Potter” novels, he should know author J.K. Rowling once said the novels were inspired by Christianity.

Macdonald later told The Hollywood Reporter he didn’t care for Greenbaum’s “smugness” and didn’t think it was courageous to mock Christianity in this day and age. Instead, he argued, it would be “brave” to say, “Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.”

Two years before that, while talking with the late interviewer Larry King, Macdonald described himself as a Christian, quipping that he knew it wasn’t “a stylish thing to say.”

“What people don’t understand about faith is that you have to choose it,” he told King. “They think that you believe it. But you have to choose it. … There’s a lot of things, I have faith, but I don’t really believe in DNA. If I was on a jury, and a guy was — his DNA was on a cigarette, I’d go, ‘I don’t know what DNA is.’”

“I don’t have faith in science,” he continued. “Haven’t scientists always been wrong? Like, they used to think the sun went around the earth. … Back then, everybody at that time thought that guy was smart. Why at this time do we think the earth goes around the sun?”

In 2017, he tweeted this on Reformation Day, “Scripture. Faith. Grace. Christ, Glory of God. Smart man says nothing is a miracle. I say everything is.”

In a separate interview with King, however, Macdonald suggested he felt more at home in Judaism, telling the anchor he was “on a spiritual journey.”

“I believe there’s a God, but I’m unsure of His nature,” he said in the updated interview. “So I consult a rabbi often because they’re the people that know the Bible the best. … I’ve had more time with Judaism than with any other religion.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: In reporting about steps that high-profile individuals may be taking to seek God or start a relationship with Him, CBN does not endorse past or current behavior that may not line up with the Word of God. As we report positive developments in celebrities’ spiritual journeys, we encourage our readers to pray for anyone and everyone in the news, that the fruit of God would grow in all of our lives.

***As the number of voices facing big-tech censorship continues to grow, please sign up for Faithwire’s daily newsletter and download the CBN News app to stay up-to-date with the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

MUSIC MONDAY “Foreigner Top 10 Songs” Part 1

Top 10 Foreigner Songs

Mick Jones
Elsa, Getty Images

Read More: Top 10 Foreigner Songs | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/top-10-foreigner-songs/?trackback=tsmclip

Foreigner‘s lone remaining founding member, guitarist Mick Jones, has been at the helm of the legendary American rock group since 1976. But if you’ve seen the band lately, it seems like they’re just getting started, with Jones putting together a turbo-charged version of the group, which has been fronted by Kelly Hansen since 2005. But even though 2009’s Can’t Slow Down proved that they still had the goods to make a damn fine Foreigner album, it’s their chart-reigning period from 1977-84 with Lou Gramm as the lead singer, that make up the songs on our list of the Top 10 Foreigner Songs.

10

‘Night Life’

From: ‘4’ (1981)

Our list of the Top 10 Foreigner Songs begins with this album track, which drew simple inspiration from the hookers that were hanging out outside New York’s Electric Lady studios where the band was hard at work on ‘4.” Hearing Lou Gramm singing about getting “caught up in the action” suggests that some members of the band just might have taken advantage of “those bad girls hanging around.”

‘Blue Morning, Blue Day’

From: ‘Double Vision’ (1978)

The tangled relationship depicted in “Blue Morning, Blue Day” is very clearly reaching its breaking point and Gramm delivers the final kiss-off to his apparently soon to be ex-lover, telling her “Well, honey don’t telephone / ‘Cause I won’t be alone / I need someone to make me feel better.” Or to put it another way, here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.

‘Head Games’

From: ‘Head Games’ (1979)

“Head Games” remains as one of the best lasting artifacts of the Jones/Gramm partnership, a song that can usually be found in the second slot of Foreigner’s modern-day setlist. A soaring opening riff from Jones leads into urgent lyrical communication from Gramm, who struggles to figure out and face the true mental reality of his fractious relationship.

Foreigner’s Lou Gramm; Christianity & Adversity

Let’s talk about the conversion of a rockstar. Lou Gramm spent 26 years as the front man of the famous rock band “Foreigner”. He is the voice behind the great classics “I wanna know what love is” (1984) and “Waiting for a girl like you” (1981), two of the most succesful singles in the 80’s, which respectively ranked the #1 and #2 in the chart music position all around the world.

But there’s more than meets the eye, and not everyhting was sucess for this amazing singer. As years went by, his life would experince ups and downs, but more deeply than many of us. It’s so true that in his life “there’s been heartache and pain“, but there’s also been hope and faith that he eventually found in Christianity.

This time, I’m sharing the transcription of a conversation that Scott Ross from CBN held in an interview with Lou Gramm, in which he shares the experiences that changed him radically. He openly talks about his struggles, and he speaks sincerely about his feelings, telling us how he got this new faith that helped him to overcame the most difficult and troubled times of his life.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott: At a point of your life, when you were extremely succesful, did you bind to the whole rock n’roll scene… you know, sex, drugs and rock n’roll? Were you living that stuff?
Lou Gramm: Yes, I was… all of it. Thought I grew up in a good solid family background, I honestly felt that drugs and alcohol were changing me into a person ― or had changed me into a person ― that I didn’t recognize anymore”.
Scott: How did that happen?
Lou Gramm: “I think it was more like when I came to New York. It was prevalent. And most of the guys of the band kept different hours. I was used to be operating in the morning and in bed by midnight. When we would record, a lot of times we would begin recording at about 5 or near 6 pm, and work until 4 or 5 of the next morning. At that time my sensibilities were not clear anymore, and just would begin to… be one of the guys.”
Scott: How were you feeling?
Lou Gramm: “I could feel myself changing inside in a negative way. It was just party after party and it became very habitual. When I tried to stop, I was very surprised that what was fun before, became something that I absolutely needed, and at that point I knew that it was way past the recreational and I began to really dislike the person that I had become.” 
 
Scott: Did you had all the trappings of success and what you wanted?
Lou Gramm: “What I thought I needed. And I needed more of the same.”
Scott: More success?
Lou Gramm: “And everyhting I was in.”
 
Scott: So how did you finally realize that this reality wasn’t really for you…?

Foreigner performed in the Madison Square Garden,
at the Atlantic Records 40th Anniversary
a 13-hours New York concert on May 14, 1988.
Lou: “I think it was a night after we had played in Madison Square Garden and I lived about sixty miles at north in Manhattan and I was not in the condition to drive myself home.
Scott: You were high?

Lou [nodding his head]: “At the end of an afterparty, after a showparty, and I knew my wife and children would be expecting me, but, at number one, I could’t drive myself, nor did I wanna have them see me like that. So I stayed the night in Manhattan and grappled with the person I had become.” 
Scott: What did you see?
 
Lou: “Something that I didn’t like, I didn’t like and didn’t respect and I saw the possibility of my own demise. It was in this huge, posh hotel room that I got down on my knees asking for God’s help to heal me and help me to get rid myself of this horrible addiction. I just started praying, because I knew there wasn’t anybody in the world that could help me.” 
Scott: Did you know how to pray?
 
Lou: “I think I just started talking to God, it wasn’t necessary a prayer in a pre-fabicated form. It was a conversation.” 
Scott: Saying…?
Lou Gramm: “That I didn’t want to be in this position and that I really believed that that lifestyle had the better of me and that I couldn’t walk away from it on my own, that I needed it, more than it needed me; and I prayed for the strenght and the sense to break the chains.”
The Hazelden Foundation in Minessota
Scott: What happened?
Lou: “The next morning I called a place that a friend have told me about, called ‘Hazelden’ in Minnesota, and went to rehab. I didn’t know for what was it but it was a good facility and there was a pastor as part of the rehab to re-connect with God. That’s where I became a Christian. I received Jesus that moment.”
Scott: Did you prayed, “Jesus Christ, come into my life”?
Lou: “Yes, I was asked if I was sure about it. I definitely did it because that’s what I wanted for a long time and it was an option that He was offering to me.”
Scott: Did you tell your bandmates?
Lou: “Not right away, but when I returned in the next tour months later, nothing in the band had changed. They said they were all thrilled that I had cleaned myself up. After a show, as usual, we were driving on the bus to the next city, and the cocaine lines and the joints came out, and I let them know that I wouldn’t be doing that with them anymore.”
Scott: And the response was?
Lou: “ ‘What in the world’s wrong with you?’
Scott: About your relationship with Jesus, how did your bandmates received that?
 
Lou: “Most of them were pretty angry, because making the desition changed me from the old. It kept for, I’m saying, about another seven or eight years, but there were more and more breaks between tours and the next album, in which I was heavily involved in the melody and the lyrics, started having inferences to God.”
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In 1990, Lou had departed from the band (which is one of the “breaks between” tours he talks about). Later he rejoined and in the next Foreigner album, “Mr. Moonlight”, he clearly expressed some glimpses of a new faith who was putting down roots in his music composition:
An excerpt from the song “I Keep Hoping“:

“Now I make my new beginnings

 I’ll start again at any cost
 I’ve learned a lot from losing you
 But I’ve got nothing if I’m lost
 
 And I keep hoping 
and I still believe in love
 If I wait long enough, 
I know I’ll be strong enough
 Yeah, I keep hoping,
I believe in faith and trust
 I’m gonna find a way
there are better days still ahead of us
 I keep hoping
 
 Now this candle burns low it won’t last through the night
 But I’ve found peace and I know it’s all right
 I try to understand what’s been missing in my life
 Between the darkness and the daylight. . .
I keep hoping, hoping and praying
 And I still believe in love
 I keep hoping, I keep hoping, hey hey hey
 I keep hoping”
An excerpt from the song “Rain” :
 Tell me why, oh why?
 Why don’t you open up your heart?
 Let the light from inside
 Show us who you are
An excerpt from the song “Until The End Of Time” :
“When I was young and the world belonged to me
 I thought that love meant pain and jealousy
 It was a cross on my shoulder
 Oh Lord, now I feel so much older
An excerpt from the song “Real World” :
“In the world we were born into, we’re alone, ooh
 And it brings me to my knees our father lay me down to sleep
 Father please, pray the Lord my soul to keep
 Keep us in the real world, keep us in the real world”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott: “Did the song ‘I wanna know what love is‘ take a new meaning for you?
 
Lou: Totally. We had a young girl who was a singer, and whenever we would have shows coming up, we would have at end of each show about one week, and she would find a real talented and soulfull choir; and when we would perform alive, the choir would come on stage and sing that song with us. And it would bring the house down every time. 
 
They were always Christian choirs, baptist, sometimes white, sometimes black, sometimes mixed, but the point is that they would sing the song with a soulfull feeling, to me there was no doubt what the song was about. 
 
I remember when we were recording the song a friend of Mick Jones came in, and he was a representative for a small gospel group of New Jersey. He suggested that we should use a choir for that song, and suggested a choir that he was involved in, the ‘New Jersey Mass Choir‘. They came in, and before they sang, they made a big circle and hold their hands and said the Lord’s prayer while we were in the control room. When they started singing, it was just changed!, it changed the meaning of the song. The song was big enough in its lyrics, that when the choir was put on it, kind of got a double meaning, so that it could be about a person and his God, you know.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just after collaborating in Petra’s album “Petra Praise 2: We Need Jesus”, in 1997, some juncture hit when Gramm was diagnosed with a rare type of brain tumor called a “craniopharyngioma”. Fortunately, it was benign, but the complex surgery to remove it actually threatened, not only the singer’s career, but his very life as well.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott: What were the first signs of your tumor?
Lou: “I got intense headaches when I would wake up in the morning. I didn’t know why that was coming. Also I would call my mom and dad who have had the same phone number over 20 years and I couldn’t remember the last four numbers. That started to really scare me. I would see people at the grocery store who I had known for 10 or 15 years and couldn’t remember their name. The doctor recommended that I would go for an MRI [Magnetic resonance imaging], and they found a tumor in the frontal lobe of my brain about the size of an egg that had tentacles wrapped around my optic nerve and my pituitary glandand. They determined that it had been growing in me since birth. I thought I was in a bad dream, really. I just couldn’t figure out”
Scott: Was it operable?
Lou: “Some told that it was so big that they knew they couldn’t operate, other said that it’d be extremely difficult and they didn’t hope a lot of hope of success. I went back to home, thinking that I was going to die. 
One night I was watching a segment about a doctor in Boston, who is provider of laser surgery that he was using to operate brain tumors that were considered “inappropriate”. They gave a phone number, and I was on the phone early the next morning, I talked to his assistant and told her what my prognostic was and she told me that there was a cancellation on Thursday and that I should come to Boston that very day. It was Tuesday.”
Scott: They didn’t give you so much time to think a lot…
Lou: “And I did. Thursday morning about 4:30 am, they were wheeling me into the operating room and they had the drip in my to put me under. I was praying to God that if He wanted to take me, I was ready. I didn’t pray for Him to let me live; I prayed that He may do His will. The operation took 19 hours but the tumor was successfully removed. I was very happy to be alive.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The operation’s effects and the heavy medication caused Lou’s weight to balloon from 145
pounds to 260 in a year. He would lose his train of thought, fall asleep in the middle of conversations and get aptia. He had three car crashes after falling asleep at the wheel.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott: How long did it take you to get back on stage?
Lou: “The operation was in April and I was performing in August. I shouldn’t have been anywhere near a stage, however, I was told by management that Foreigner had commitments and that I needed to get on the road. I knew it was way to early. I couldn’t remember the words to any of the songs. They all had to be written down in big marker pens and taped to the floor because I couldn’t figured out all the words, I lost key words. When the band would take the stage, I could see people gone and the reviews were like ‘what happened to Lou?, it’s like he’s taking too much pasta’”
Scott: In the middle of all that, was there desilutionment?
Lou: “A little bit. I thought that when the operation was over, there would be a recovering, but it took at least 4 and half or 5 years to start feeling any better. I felt that God was testing me. At 2001 and 2002 , I would wake up in the morning feeling more tired that I went to bed at night.”
Scott: What happened to the marriage?
Lou: “Over. Lost. She told I wasn’t the man she fell in love with. When the mariage ended and we went to court, it was really obvious that I was uncapable of seeing my two little twins much, cause I could barely take care of myself.”
Scott: What happened to your brothers and friends?
Lou: “My brothers and friends were good, I had a lot of people visiting me and helping me, cooking for me as a child in bed.” 
Scott: When did it change?
 
Lou: “About 2002, I just noticed that litle by little my conciousness and my thoughts were coming to me more naturally and I was feeling better. I was told that maybe my creativity would have been damaged by the operation, but I realized that I was still able to create and compose music.”
 
Lou’s faith in God, not only has endured after his battle with the brain tumour and his troubled times;
It also has kept him hopeful, and it has been growing as a mustard tree,
even to the extent that he has decided to dedicate an essential part of his carreer
to compose praises to The Lord
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lou remained with Foreigner for years, but he finally parted ways in 2003. Since leaving Foreigner, Gramm’s health would continue to improve. He has lost half the weight he gained after the operation, and in 2009, he decided to start a new Christian musical project called “The Lou Gramm Band”.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Scott: Tell us about “The Lou Gramm Band
Lou: “I had thought a lot about making a Christian rock album, not a trade back to payback the Lord for letting me live, but I have a God-given talent, and I felt and wanted to honour Him by using it for Him. 
 
Right before my dad passed away in 2002, he had just got the three Gramm brothers in the room, and said that it was mom’s and his hope that someday the boys would do something together. 
 
https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/HzACd1AFhX8&source=udsEven though my brothers and my friends believe in God they were not sure about what I wanted to do. But they jumped on board and as soon as we started writing songs and they heard the lyrics and the powerful music, they were moved. They really loved it now.”
 
Scott: So Lou Gramm is back!?
Lou: “Yes.”
Scott: With the Lou Graham Brothers together?
Lou: “You better believe it.”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
During the late and early decade 2000, Lou has been performing Foreigner songs with his new band.
Though it has not became famous in the market due to the lack of advertising, his Christian music album remains as one of the most powerful testimonies of his commitment and faith.
The God-given talent of this rock-legend is very strong and alive, and his music continues to be promising. With electric guitars, rhythmic drumming, fresh melodies, complex guitar solos, keyboard accompaniment, soothing backing vocals, and sense of conviction in the high-pitched voice behind; the songs in the album “The Lou Gramma Band” is conveys high-quality music, great compositions, and powerful Christian messages. Take the lyrics of this, his latest album, into account:
In “You Saved Me“, Lou recapitulates the moment of his conversion:
With my feet firmly planted on the shores of sin
I was lost, and afraid
For into the sorrow I was livin’ in
I felt down, and I prayed
I found trouble, and sorrow
had taken hold on me
Trouble and anguish
Please deliver me!
YOU saved me!
I was all alone, and the time was right
YOU saved me!
Shine the light of the day in the darkest night
YOU saved me!
I was all alone, and the time was right
YOU saved me!
I can close my eyes, but I still see the light
Free ourselves from who we are
I can’t do it alone
I let you know how I feel
I never lose heart
I pray for, my Lord, to give me hope 
Cos’ dark days and winding roads
It’s all I’ve known
YOU saved me!
I was all alone, and the time was right
YOU saved me!
Shine the light of the day in the darkest night
YOU saved me!
I was all alone, and the time was right
YOU saved me!
I can close my eyes, but I still see the light
and when I lost myself
You took my hand
I found trouble, and sorrow
had taken hold on me
Trouble, and anguish
Please, deliver me!
I live by my faith
my faith
Now I call upon my Lord
To save me
To save me”
In “Willing To Forgive”  (a powerful, precious and inspiring song!), Lou celebrates God’s forviness:
“Called me out from my darkness, to learn the secrets of my soul
Uncertain of my first step, I’ve gotta search until I know
 
In my desperation, it’s the life that I have lived
I can feel my vindication, but You’re willing to forgive!
 
You’re willing to forgive! 
You’re willing to forgive! 
You’re willing to forgive! 
 
Rise up and follow, my faith is not in vain!
In my time of reflection, please be standing in the rain
 
You give understanding!
And I get what I deserve!
Oh LORD!
It’s YOU!
that I serve!
 
You’re willing to forgive! 
You’re willing to forgive! 
You’re willing to forgive! 
In “I Wanna Testify”, Lou raises up his voice saying that “he just want to testify” what God’s love has made in his life:
“Friends, inquisitive friends, are asking what’s come over me
 A change, there’s been a change, it‘s so plain for everyone to see
 
 Love won’t get on me and it took me by surprise
 Happiness is all around me
 You can even see it in my eyes, 
yeah, yeah, yeah
 
 I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me!
 I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me,
 yeah, yeah, yeah!
 
 It might be… a mighty long way 
mighty long way, a mighty long way
 
 Once I was a halo man, and with your lonely heart it dwell
 The love came sneaking up on me, and brought a light to an empty shell
 
 Well, I heard so many times before that love can’t be so bad
 I just got to tell you now!
 That it’s the best LOVE I’ve ever had, 
hey, yeah, yeah!
 
I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me!
I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me!
 yeah, yeah, yeah!
 
hmmm… Precious!
 sure been precious to me!
hhhhmmm… Precious! 
sure been precious to me,
yeah, yeah, yeah!
 
 I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me!
 I just wanna testify what Your love has done for me!
 yeah, yeah, yeah!
In “Made to be broken” (a very vigorous song), Lou declares
“I’m a man with a mission, in the very heart of darkness
at the edge of existance…

I’ve got a heart, that’s made to be broken
The harder I try, to hold on to my Lord
Oh yeah!…

You gave me resistance…
Can we still make from his to be

at the edge of existance…

I’ve got a heart, that’s made to be broken
The harder I try, to hold on to my Lord

I’ve got a heart, that’s made to be broken
The harder I try, to hold on to my Lord

I cast all my chains
until nothing remains
Only my Faith in You Lord
Now You know where I’ve been

Lost in the every end
But it’s all in Your hands, my Lord…”
The album also includes an excellent and sweet version of Billy Preston’s “That’s The Way God Planned It“, in which Lou sings at the top of his lungs and with a strong voice:
Why can’t we be humble, like the good Lord said?
 He promised to exalt us! for love is the way!
 
 How men be so greedy when there’s so much left?
 All things are God given! and they all have been blessed!
 
 That’s the way!
God planned it!
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be!
Didn’t He?
 
 Well, that’s the way!
God planned it
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be!
for you and me!
 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
 
Let not your heart be troubled,
 Let mourning sobbing cease;
Learn to help one another!
 And live in perfect peace!
 
 If we just be humble, like the Good Lord said!
 He promised to exalt us, for LOVE is the way!
 
That’s the way!
God planned it!
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be!
doesn’t He?
 
 You better believe me!: that’s the way!
God planned it!
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be,
for you and me
 
that’s the way, all right, 
come on! come on! come on!
 
I hope you get this message! 
and where you won’t others will
 You don’t understand me, but I’ll love you still!
 
 That’s the way!
God planned it!
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be!
 You better believe me!: that’s the way!
God planned it!
 That’s the way!
God wants it to be!
In “Baptized by Fire” (a very rockish song), Lou sings:
“All the things I cannot see, when no one is watching me
I caught site Heaven, 
and the streets of Gold

It’s gonna take some time, it won’t happen over night;
but the hearts of darkness, will appear in plain sight, plain sight!
The voice of my prayers…!
He can hear me anywhere!

Baptized by fire,
caught up on this high wire
Now feel my blood run cold,
Oh Lord heal my wounded soul!

There will be no dispair!
He can hear me anywhere!”
In “Redeemer” (another rockish song)
I don’t look at things the way I used to
 My whole desires have lost their gains
 Through the doorway of love
 There’s a threshold of pain
 
Redeemer, gotta get it in the light
 Redeemer, now You better put yourself in the fight”
In “Rattle Yer Bones”, he shouts:
“Something’s missing in our day
I’ve got a heart and a spirit
The circumstances out of control
I was a fugitive, a vagabond,
and I walked this salty earth
I’m not a held slave of this world
I’ve got to get the strength that I need
 
Rattle Yer Bones
Walk on stone
 
I‘ve been redeemed,
this new life in me
and you will see The Truth
when You look in His eyes
 
Rattle Yer Bones
Walk on stone…
Rattle Yer Bones
Seven times a day
 
In “Single Vision”, Lou call his nation to turn to God again:
“Is the way of this cold world
I keep my distance
and the days full of darkness
I give my resistance
 
Any kept secret, will come to light
Just because I feel it, It don’t make it right
But I know who’ll be there!
 
In the light of a single vision
One nation under God
In the light of a single vision
In the visible,
Our country will have gone
Turn my eyes from the darkness
and those that seek my soul
Let, my Lord, mighty Truth
Shine, light, more than than gold
 
In my desperation, and the end of my pride
even if it’s painful, it’s always on my side
And I know You’ll be there
In the light of a single vision
One nation under God
In the light of a single vision
In the visible, 
Our country will have gone…
 
Don’t take our Lord from the classrooms
Please let us say our prayers of thanks
And when we pledge to our country
I know that without Him
we will never be free
 
In the light of a single vision
One nation under God
In the light of a single vision
In the visible,
Our country will have gone
 

In the track “Our Lord Never Fails“, Lou sings about God’s fidelity:

“Our Lord never fails,
He heals the broken hearted
Our Lord never fails
now that’s His only way 
Our Lord never fails,
He’s Truth and He’s wisdom,
Our Lord never fails
Lights up our darkest day
 
My heart is wounded withn me,
Love is just beyond my reach
I come out from the darkness
I hear the words that You teach
 
Our Lord never fails,
He heals the broken hearted
Our Lord never fails
now that’s His only way 
Our Lord never fails,
He’s Truth and He’s wisdom,
Our Lord never fails
Lights up our darkest day
 
Our Lord never fails,
He will liberate your soul
Our Lord never fails
If you walk by faith alone,
Our Lord never fails
He’s got this single vision,
Our Lord never fails
Our Lord never fails
 
Lou composed a hard-rock worship song called “So Great!”:
SO great, SO great, is Our LORD!
SO great, SO great, is Our LORD!
 
The fire in my heart, is already kindled and burning
I take hold of His words, that God sends me,
His truth and His mercy!
 
SO great, SO great, is Our LORD!
SO great, SO great, is Our LORD!
(My faith is my Lord)
 
When there is no way, to satisfy the longing of my soul
Well, it’s then that I pray to my Lord
my rock and my fortress!
 
Well I’ve made my decision
And that’s all I need!
(Just then, after a guitar solo in the same song,
a chorus of children voices retake verses from Foreigner’s song “Real World“):
…lay me down to sleep
I pray the Lord my soul to keep
and If I die before I wakeI pray The LORD my soul to take
I pray The LORD my soul to take!
 
SO great, SO great! SO great is Our LORD!
SO great, SO great! SO great is Our LORD!
My LORD!…”
In an interview on july 2013, Lou remembers the time where he passed through health problem. He reflects and says it was a nightmare, but one that “I guess it was in God’s time that he was gonna bring me some glimpse of normalcy and little peace in my llife, you know, and the fog did lifted and I started thinking a lot clear and I actually that I was getting better. ” He discusses how it was an honor to be inducted to the “Songwriters Hall of Fame” in 2013, and the possibility of performing again together with Mick Jones; something that –at this time– have already happened a couple of times. Wearing a cross on his neck, he told with a smile that he is now on his third marriage and his wife is expecting.
May God bless Lou and his family,
We love you much Lou!

Read More: Top 10 Foreigner Songs | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/top-10-foreigner-songs/?trackback=tsmclip

Read More: Top 10 Foreigner Songs | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/top-10-foreigner-songs/?trackback=tsmclip

Read More: Top 10 Foreigner Songs | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/top-10-foreigner-songs/?trackback=tsmclip

Related posts:

MUSIC MONDAY Glen Campbell

__ Glen Campbell’s Greatest Hits Compilation – Complete Set Related posts: MUSIC MONDAY Washed Out: ‘I wish I could have a 9 to 5 life’ Ernest Greene’s debut album confirms his place at the forefront of the chillwave scene. So why is he so worried? August 22, 2016 – 12:36 am _ Washed Out – Life […]

MUSIC MONDAY Washed Out: ‘I wish I could have a 9 to 5 life’ Ernest Greene’s debut album confirms his place at the forefront of the chillwave scene. So why is he so worried?

_ Washed Out – Life Of Leisure (Full Album) | HD   Washed Out: ‘I wish I could have a 9 to 5 life’ Ernest Greene’s debut album confirms his place at the forefront of the chillwave scene. So why is he so worried? Ernest Greene, aka Washed Out: ‘At no point was I actively […]

MUSIC MONDAY Washed Out’s Ernest Greene Finds Fulfillment in 9-to-5 Grind, ‘Portlandia’ Fame Laura Ferreiro Live Nation•August 27, 2014

__ Washed Out – Within and Without (Full Album) Washed Out’s Ernest Greene Finds Fulfillment in 9-to-5 Grind, ‘Portlandia’ Fame Laura Ferreiro Live Nation•August 27, 2014 On Monday, Sept. 1 at 7:45 p.m. PT/10:45 p.m. ET, Yahoo Live will live stream Washed Out’s concert from First Avenue in Minneapolis. Tune in HERE to watch! Anyone […]

MUSIC MONDAY Washed out

__ Washed Out – Feel it all around Washed Out From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Ernest Greene” redirects here. For the member of the Little Rock Nine, see Ernest Green. This article is about the musician. For the film, see Washed Out (film). Washed Out Washed Out performing in October 2009 Background information Birth name […]

MUSIC MONDAY Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!

Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Jimi Hendrix & Eric Clapton Jimi Hendrix & Mick Jagger Jimi Hendrix & Keith Richards Jimi Hendrix & Brian Jones Jimi Hendrix & Janis Joplin Jimi Hendrix with Cream & Pink Floyd Even “Legends” want to meet a “Legend” Jimi Hendrix: ‘You never told me he […]

MUSIC MONDAY Last interview of Jimi Hendrix

JIMI HENDRIX : FINAL INTERVIEW . Uploaded on Feb 5, 2011 Jimi Hendrix being interviewed in England just seven days before his death . September 11th 1970 Hear Jimi Hendrix’s Final Interview from September 11, 1970 Posted 02/24/2015 by Damian Fanelli On September 11, 1970, NME’s Keith Allston interviewed Jimi Hendrix in England. The interview […]

MUSIC MONDAY Chas Chandler mentored Jimi Hendrix!!!

Chas Chandler mentored Jimi Hendrix!!! The History of Jimi Hendrix and Chas Chandler’s Split By Dave Swanson December 2, 2015 10:24 AM Read More: The History of Jimi Hendrix and Chas Chandler’s Split |http://ultimateclassicrock.com/chas-chandler-leaves-jimi-hendrix/?trackback=tsmclipSHARE TWEET EMAIL EMAIL REDDIT Express, Hulton Archive, Getty Images After leaving the Animals in mid 1966, bassist Chas Chandler […]

MUSIC MONDAY Dan Peek’s life plus OPEN LETTER TO PAUL MCCARTNEY about Dan Peek

  Dan Peek -All Things Are Possible Dan Peek Testimony America – Lonely People Dan Peek From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dan Peek Peek performs on the AVRO show TopPop in 1972. Background information Birth name Daniel Milton Peek Born November 1, 1950 Panama City, Florida Died July 24, 2011 (aged 60) Farmington, Missouri Genres Folk […]

MUSIC MONDAY Chuck Girard

______ Chuck Girard Band “Sometimes Alleluia” 1979 Published on Apr 24, 2015 Recently unearthed video of Chuck Girard Band performing the song “Sometimes Alleluia” from Chuck’s 1977 album, “Chuck Girard”. Performance is at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, CA circa 1979. Personnel: Jon Linn, electric guit., Larry Myers, rhythm guit, , Terry Clark, keyboards, Jay Truax, […]

MUSIC MONDAY Calvin Harris – Feel So Close

Calvin Harris – Feel So Close Related posts: MUSICC MONDAY My two favorite songs from Harry Nilsson!!! June 20, 2016 – 12:09 am Harry Nilsson – Everybody’s Talkin’ (1969) Harry Nilsson – Without You 1972 (HD) Harry Nilsson From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the Swedish footballer, see Harry Nilsson (footballer). Harry Nilsson Nilsson in 1974 […]

A response to the fine article “Identitarianism Is Incompatible with Humanism” by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner and Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind” as Romans 1 states. Good luck with that!

A.F. Branco for Jan 12, 2022

—-

Dennett wearing a button-up shirt and a jacket

I was referred this fine article by Robyn E. Blumner in defense of her boss at the RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION by a tweet by Daniel Dennett.
Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg

As an evangelical I have had the opportunity to correspond with more more secular humanists that have signed the Humanist Manifestos than any other evangelical alive (at least that has been one of my goals since reading Francis Schaeffer’s books and watching his films since 1979). Actually I just attended the retirement party held for my high school Bible teacher Mark Brink of EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL of Cordova, Tennessee on May 19th and he introduced me to the works of Francis Schaeffer and it was Schaeffer’s works that eventually help topple ROE v WADE!!! Ironically Mr Brink had a 49 year career that spanned 1973 to 2022 which was the same period that ROE v WADE survived!!!

Not everyone I have corresponded with is a secular humanist but  many are the top scientists and atheist thinkers of today and hold this same secular views. Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-).

Let me make a few points about this fine article below by the humanist Robyn E. Blumner. 

Robyn is trying to use common sense on people that “GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind.” Romans 1 states:

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil,

I had the unique opportunity to discuss this very issue with Robert Lester Mondale and his wife Rosemary  on April 14, 1996 at his cabin in Fredricktown, Missouri , and my visit was very enjoyable and informative. Mr. Mondale had the distinction of being the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos in 1933, 1973 and 2003.

I asked if he knew John Dewey and he said he did not, but Dewey did contact him one time to ask him some questions about an article he had written, but Mondale could not recall anything else about that.

Mondale told me some stories about his neighbors and we got to talking about some of his church members when he was an Unitarian pastor. Once during the 1930’s he was told by one of his wealthier Jewish members that he shouldn’t continue to be critical of the Nazis. This member had just come back from Germany and according to him Hitler had done a great job of getting the economy moving and things were good.

Of course, just a few years later after World War II was over Mondale discovered on a second hand basis what exactly had happened over there when he visited with a Lutheran pastor friend who had just returned from Germany. This Lutheran preacher was one of the first to be allowed in after the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, and he told Mondale what level of devastation and destruction of  innocent lives went on inside these camps. As Mondale listened to his friend he could feel his own face turning pale.

I asked, “If those Nazis escaped to Brazil or Argentina and lived out their lives in peace would they face judgment after they died?”

Mondale responded, “I don’t think there is anything after death.”

I told Mr. Mondale that there is sense in me that says  justice will be given eventually and God will judge those Nazis even if they evade punishment here on earth. I did point out that in Ecclesiastes 4:1 Solomon did note that without God in the picture  the scales may not be balanced in this life and power could reign, but at the same time the Bible teaches that all  must face the ultimate Judge.

Then I asked him if he got to watch the O.J. Simpson trial and he said that he did and he thought that the prosecution had plenty of evidence too. Again I asked Mr. Mondale the same question concerning O.J. and he responded, “I don’t think there is a God that will intervene and I don’t believe in the afterlife.”

Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, was on this very subject of the Nazis that Lester Mondale and I discussed on that day in 1996 at Mondale’s cabin in Missouri.  In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality.Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah’s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie and continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.

Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life. CAN A MATERIALIST OR A HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE GIVE JUDAH ONE REASON WHY HE SHOULDN’T HAVE HIS MISTRESS KILLED?

The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)

Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)

HOW CAN A REASONABLE SAY SUCH A THING AS THE HUMANIST Abigail Ann Martin? She has no standards but relative standards! That is where humanism finds itself in 2022!

Francis Schaeffer in the 3rd chapter of ESCALE FROM REASON tells us how our humanist society arrived there:

The twentieth- century pornographic writers all trace their origin to the Marquis de Sade (1740- 1814). The twentieth century now treats him as a very important man—he is no longer just a dirty writer. Twenty or thirty years or so ago, if anyone was found with one of his books in England he was liable to have difficulties with the law. Today, he has become a great name in drama, in philosophy, in literature. All the “black” (nihilistic) writers, the writers in revolt today, look back to de Sade. Why? Not only because he was a dirty writer, or even that he has taught them how to use sexual writing as a vehicle for philosophic ideas, but also because basically he was a chemical determinist. He understood the direction that things would have to take when man is included in the machinery. The conclusions he drew were these: if man is determined, then what is, is right. If all of life is only mechanism—if that is all there is—then morals really do not count. Morals become only a word for a sociological frame-work. Morals become a means of manipulation by society in the midst of the machine. The word “morals” by this time is only a semantic connotation word for non-morals. What is, is right.

This leads to the second step—man is stronger than woman. Nature has made him so. Therefore, the male has the right to do what he wishes to the female. The action for which they put de Sade in prison, both under the Monarchy and the Republic—taking a prostitute and beating her for his own pleasure—was by nature right. We get our word sadism from this. But it must not be forgotten that it is related to a philosophic concept. Sadism is not only pleasure in hurting somebody. It implies that what is, is right and what nature decrees in strength is totally right. Men like Sir Francis Crick today and even Freud, at his point of psychological determinism, are only saying what the Marquis de Sade has already told us—we are a part of the machine. But, if this is so, the Marquis de Sade’s formula is inescapable—what is, is right. We are watching our culture put into effect the fact that, when you tell men long enough that they are machines, it soon begins to show in their actions. You see it in our whole culture—in the theater of cruelty, in the violence in the streets, in the murders on the moors, in the death of man in art and life. These things, and many more like them, come quite naturally from the historical and philosophic flow which we are tracing

Identitarianism Is Incompatible with Humanism

Robyn E. Blumner

Identitarian: A person or ideology that espouses that group identity is the most important thing about a person, and that justice and power must be viewed primarily on the basis of group identity rather than individual merit. (Source: Urban Dictionary)

“The Affirmations of Humanism”: We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for the common good of humanity. (Paul Kurtz, Free Inquiry, Spring 1987)

The humanist project is at a dangerous crossroads. I fear that our cohesion as fellow humanists is being torn apart by a strain of identitarianism that is making enemies of long-standing friends and opponents of natural allies.

Just at a time when it is essential for all of us to come together to work arm-in-arm against Christian Nationalism and the rise of religious privilege in law, humanism is facing a schism within its own movement. It is heartbreaking to watch and even more disheartening to know that the continued breach seems destined to grow.

The division has to do with a fundamental precept of humanism, that enriching human individuality and celebrating the individual is the basis upon which humanism is built. Humanism valorizes the individual—and with good reason; we are each the hero of our own story. Not only is one’s individual sovereignty more essential to the humanist project than one’s group affiliation, but fighting for individual freedom—which includes freedom of conscience, speech, and inquiry—is part of the writ-large agenda of humanism. It unleashes creativity and grants us the breathing space to be agents in our own lives.

Or at least that idea used to be at the core of humanism.

Today, there is a subpart of humanists, identitarians, who are suspicious of individuals and their freedoms. They do not want a free society if it means some people will use their freedom to express ideas with which they disagree. They see everything through a narrow affiliative lens of race, gender, ethnicity, or other demographic category and seek to shield groups that they see as marginalized by ostensible psychic harms inflicted by the speech of others.

This has given rise to a corrosive cultural environment awash in controversial speakers being shouted down on college campuses; even liberal professors and newspaper editors losing their jobs for tiny, one-off slights; the cancellation of great historical figures for being men of their time; and a range of outlandish claims of microaggressions, cultural appropriation, and other crimes against current orthodoxy.

It has pitted humanists who stand for foundational civil liberties principles such as free speech and equal protection under the law against others on the political Left who think individual freedoms should give way when they fail to serve the interests of select identity groups. The most important feature of the symbol of justice is not her sword or scales; it is her blindfold. Identitarians would pull it off so she could benefit certain groups over others.

Good people with humanist hearts have been pilloried if they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of the identitarian gospel. A prime example is the decision last year by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to retract its 1996 award to Richard Dawkins as Humanist of the Year. The man who has done more than anyone alive to advance evolutionary biology and the public’s understanding of that science, who has brought the light of atheism to millions of people, and whose vociferous opposition to Donald Trump and Brexit certainly must have burnished his liberal cred became radioactive because of one tweet on transgender issues that the AHA didn’t like.

Apparently decades of past good works are erased by 280 characters. Just poof. No wonder a New York Times poll1 recently found that 84 percent of adults say it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

This is what identitarians have wrought. Rather than lifting up individuals and imbuing them with autonomy and all the extraordinary uniqueness that flows from it, identitarians would divide us all into racial,  ethnic,  and  gender-based groups and make that group affiliation our defining characteristic. This has the distorting effect of obliterating personal agency, rewarding group victimhood, and incentivizing competition to be seen as the most oppressed.

In addition to being inherently divisive, this is self-reinforcing defeatism. It results in extreme examples, such as a draft plan in California to deemphasize calculus as a response to persistent racial gaps in math achievement.2 Suddenly a subject as racially neutral as math has become a flashpoint for identitarians set on ensuring equality of outcomes for certain groups rather than the far-more just standard of equality of opportunity. In this freighted environment, reducing the need for rigor and eliminating challenging standards becomes a feasible solution. The notion of individual merit or recognition that some students are better at math than others becomes racially tinged and suspect.

Not only does the truth suffer under this assault on common sense, but we start to live in a Harrison Bergeron world where one’s natural skills are necessarily sacrificed on the altar of equality or, in today’s parlance, equity.

Of course, the identitarians’ focus is not just on racial issues. Gender divisions also play out on center stage. I was at a secular conference recently when a humanist leader expressed the view that if you don’t have a uterus, you have no business speaking about abortion.

Really? Only people with female reproductive organs should be heard on one of the most consequential issues of the day? Such a call, itself, is a form of lamentable sexism. And it seems purposely to ignore the fact that plenty of people with a uterus are actively opposed to the right to choose, while plenty of people without a uterus are among our greatest allies for abortion rights. Why should those of us who care about reproductive freedom cut fully half of all humanity from our roster of potential vocal supporters and activists?

As has been said by others perplexed and disturbed by such a narrow-minded view, you don’t have to be poor to have a valid opinion on ways to alleviate poverty. You don’t have to be a police officer to have a valid opinion on policing. And, similarly, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion rights.

If the Affirmation quoted at the beginning of this article that rejects “divisive parochial loyalties” based on facile group affiliations isn’t a rejection of identitarianism, I don’t know what is. In his 1968 essay “Humanism and the Freedom of the Individual,” Kurtz stated bluntly:

Any humanism that does not cherish the individual, I am prepared to argue, is neither humanistic nor humanitarian. … Any humanism worthy of the name should be concerned with the preservation of the individual personality with all of its unique idiosyncrasies and peculiarities. We need a society in which the full and free development of every individual is the ruling principle. The existence of individual freedom thus is an essential condition for the social good and a necessary end of humanitarianism.

The individual is the most important unit in humanism. When our individuality is stripped away so we can be fitted into prescribed identity groups instead, something essential to the humanist project is lost. Those pushing for this conception of society are misconstruing humanism, diminishing human potential and self-actualization, and driving a wedge between good people everywhere.

Notes

1. The New York Times/Siena College Research Institute February 9–22, 2022 1,507 United States Residents Age 18+. Available online at https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/free-speech-poll-nyt-and-siena-college/ef971d5e78e1d2f9/full.pdf.

Jacey Fortin, “California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash,” New York Times, November 4, 2021. Available online at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html.

Robyn E. Blumner

Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason &, Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM

—-

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.

“Yes,” Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot)

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)

“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”

“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)

“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”

“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.

“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.

“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.

Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…

First is what Romans says:

Romans 1:18-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History

Related posts:

John MacArthur on Romans 1 and the Democratic Party

First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]

Did God kill someone that I knew? What does I John 5:14-17 mean?

1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]

MUSIC MONDAY Every James Bond Theme Song, Ranked Worst to Best Part 6 (#1-4)

________

 

I really enjoyed the latest James Bond film NO TIME TO DIE and for my thoughts on it you can go to this link

Continue reading

May 20, 2022 READING A PROVERB A DAY (PROVERBS 20) Adrian Rogers and John MacArthur on wisdom from Proverbs on alcohol “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1)

Proverbs 20 New Living Translation

20 Wine produces mockers; alcohol leads to brawls.
    Those led astray by drink cannot be wise.

The king’s fury is like a lion’s roar;
    to rouse his anger is to risk your life.

Avoiding a fight is a mark of honor;
    only fools insist on quarreling.

Those too lazy to plow in the right season
    will have no food at the harvest.

Though good advice lies deep within the heart,
    a person with understanding will draw it out.

Many will say they are loyal friends,
    but who can find one who is truly reliable?

The godly walk with integrity;
    blessed are their children who follow them.

When a king sits in judgment, he weighs all the evidence,
    distinguishing the bad from the good.

Who can say, “I have cleansed my heart;
    I am pure and free from sin”?

10 False weights and unequal measures[a]
    the Lord detests double standards of every kind.

11 Even children are known by the way they act,
    whether their conduct is pure, and whether it is right.

12 Ears to hear and eyes to see—
    both are gifts from the Lord.

13 If you love sleep, you will end in poverty.
    Keep your eyes open, and there will be plenty to eat!

14 The buyer haggles over the price, saying, “It’s worthless,”
    then brags about getting a bargain!

15 Wise words are more valuable
    than much gold and many rubies.

16 Get security from someone who guarantees a stranger’s debt.
    Get a deposit if he does it for foreigners.[b]

17 Stolen bread tastes sweet,
    but it turns to gravel in the mouth.

18 Plans succeed through good counsel;
    don’t go to war without wise advice.

19 A gossip goes around telling secrets,
    so don’t hang around with chatterers.

20 If you insult your father or mother,
    your light will be snuffed out in total darkness.

21 An inheritance obtained too early in life
    is not a blessing in the end.

22 Don’t say, “I will get even for this wrong.”
    Wait for the Lord to handle the matter.

23 The Lord detests double standards;
    he is not pleased by dishonest scales.

24 The Lord directs our steps,
    so why try to understand everything along the way?

25 Don’t trap yourself by making a rash promise to God
    and only later counting the cost.

26 A wise king scatters the wicked like wheat,
    then runs his threshing wheel over them.

27 The Lord’s light penetrates the human spirit,[c]
    exposing every hidden motive.

28 Unfailing love and faithfulness protect the king;
    his throne is made secure through love.

29 The glory of the young is their strength;
    the gray hair of experience is the splendor of the old.

30 Physical punishment cleanses away evil;[d]
    such discipline purifies the heart.

I love the Book of Proverbs and every day I read one chapter of Proverbs. Since there are 31 chapters, I start the 1st of ever month and read chapter 1 and then the next day I read chapter 2 and so on the rest of the month.

John McArthur said:

“First of all, number one issue in gaining wisdom is to fear God…is to fear God. How do you know that? Back in chapter 1 verse 7, we read this, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the holy one is true understanding.”

____________

One of the issues I have learned about in Proverbs is concerning the issue of alcohol.

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise (Proverbs 20:1).

ryan dunn Jackass dead in crash

Ryan Dunn and his friends moments before they died.

Flickr user Eric Lewis posted the image below with a caption that says the photo shows what’s left of Dunn’s car.

Ryan Dunn tweeted a picture of himself drinking from a bar. At 2 am he left the bar and a few minutes later he was killed after running off the road in his car.There are three reasons that I do not drink and here they are.First,alcohol has brought a social plague on our country not matched by anything we have ever seen in the past.  I will never forget the day I heard this statistic in 1975:  “Drunk drivers are responsible for 50% of highway fatalities.”My pastor Adrian Rogers shared that statistic from the pulpit. I was only 14 years old at the time, but I was looking forward to driving. It caused me to realize that I had to abstain from alcohol and try to convince my friends and family to do likewise.Second, the Bible does condemn alcoholic wine. There were three kinds of wine mentioned in the Bible (grapes, grape juice and strong drink). Wine in the cluster which is equal to our grapes. Isaiah 65:8 ” “As the new wine is found in the cluster…”  The point I am making here is very clear. The Bible does refer to nonalcoholic wine which is equal to our grape juice. Don’t take for granted everytime you read the word “wine” in the Bible that it is referring to the kind of wine we are used to today.Next we have the term “strong drink” which is equal to our wine today. Strong drink is condemned. .Proverbs 20:1 states, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. ”

  • WHAT WAS “STRONG DRINK” IN BIBLE TIMES?

Distillation was not discovered until about 1500 A.D. Strong drink and unmixed wine in Bible times was from 3% to 11% alcohol. Dr. John MacArthur says “…since anybody in biblical times who drank unmixed wine (9-11% alcohol) was definitely considered a barbarian, then we dont even need to discuss whether a Christian should drink hard liquor–that is apparent!”

Since wine has 9 to 11% alcohol and one brand 20% alcohol, you should not drink that. Brandy contains 15 to 20% alcohol, so thats out! Hard liquor has 40 to 50% alcohol (80 to 100 proof), and that is obviously excluded!

For documentation on this subject Google “alcohol” with the name of Adrian Rogers or John MacArthur. These theologians  have covered this subject fully with biblical references.

Third, Romans 14:21 states, “It is better not to eat meat (that had been offered to idols) or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.” If a person rejects all the linguistic arguments, there is still Romans 14:21 concerning not causing a weaker brother to stumble..

It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike. Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Everette Hatcher, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them. The fact is that 1 of every 6 drinkers in the USA are problem drinkers. Maybe if my family of 6 drank, that could be me or one of my children?

Billy Sunday told a story that illustrates this principle and I heard this story while Adrian Rogers was my pastor at Bellevue Baptist:

I feel like an old fellow in Tennessee who made his living by catching rattlesnakes. He caught one with fourteen rattles and put it in a box with a glass top. One day when he was sawing wood his little five-year old boy,Jim, took the lid off and the rattler wriggled out and struck him in the cheek. He ran to his father and said, “The rattler has bit me.” The father ran and chopped the rattler to pieces, and with his jackknife he cut a chunk from the boy’s cheek and then sucked and sucked at the wound to draw out the poison. -He looked at little Jim, watched the pupils of his eyes dilate and watched him swell to three times his normal size, watched his lips become parched and cracked, and eyes roll, and little Jim gasped and died.

The father took him in his arms, carried him over by the side of the rattler, got on his knees and said, “God, I would not give little Jim for all the rattlers that ever crawled over the Blue Ridge mountains.”

That is the question that must be answered by everyone no matter what their religious beliefs. Is the pleasure of drinking alcohol worth the life of one of your children?

Here is a scripture that describes what will happen to a person addicted to alcohol:

Proverbs 23:29-35
(29) Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
(30) They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
(31) Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
(32) At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
(33) Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
(34) Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
(35) They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

More alcohol statistics:

  • More than one-half of American adults have a close family member who has or has had alcoholism.
  • Alcohol is a factor in nearly half of America’s murders, suicides and accidental deaths.
  • The highest rates of current and past year heavy alcohol use are reported by workers in the following occupations: construction, food preparation and waiters/waitresses, along with auto mechanics, vehicle repairers, light truck drivers and laborers. 95% of alcoholics die from their disease and die approximately 26 years earlier than their normal life expectancy.
  • Up to 40% of industrial fatalities and 47% of injuries in the workplace are linked to alcohol consumption and alcoholism.
  • Absenteeism among alcoholics or problem drinkers is 3.8 to 8.3 times greater than normal.
  • More than three fourths of female victims of nonfatal, domestic violence reported that their assailant had been drinking or using drugs.
  • More than one third of pedestrians killed by automobiles were legally drunk.
  • About half of state prison inmates and 40% of federal prisoners incarcerated for committing violent crimes report they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their offense.
  • Long-term, heavy alcohol use is the leading cause of illness and death from liver disease in the U.S.
  • Alcoholics spend four times the amount of time in a hospital as non-drinkers, mostly from drinking-related injuries.

Probably the most telling is the last statistic: 95% of alcoholics die from their disease and die approximately 26 years earlier than their normal life expectancy.

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights on May 11, 2022 declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds me of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party! Romans 1:26 “For this reason GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,“ MacArthur notes, “…the Democratic Party, has now made the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm!” WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? Francis Schaeffer noted unbelievers in Romans 1 [rejected] THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIMSELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER LGBTQ+ SCHISM

—-

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Francis Schaeffer later in this blog post discusses what the unbelievers in Romans 1 were rejecting, but first John MacArthur discusses what the unbelievers in the Democratic Party today are affirming and how these same activities were condemned 2000 years ago in Romans 1.

Christians Cannot And MUST Not Vote Democrat – John MacArthur

A Democrat witness testifying before the HouseJudiciary Committee on abortion rights Thursday declared that men can get pregnant and have abortions. This reminds of Romans chapter 1 and also John MacArthur’s commentary on the 2022 Agenda of the Democratic Party:

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…26 For this reason (M)GOD GAVE THEM OVER  to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are…inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live….it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions

‘I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,’ Aimee Arrambide tells House Judiciary Committee

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, was asked by Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., to define what “a woman is,” to which she responded, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.”
“Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop asked.

“Yes,” Arrambide replied.

The remarks from Arrambide followed a tense exchange between Bishop and Dr. Yashica Robinson, another Democrat witness, after he similarly asked her to define “woman.”

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot)

Aimee Arrambide testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on May 11, 2020.  (YouTube screenshot) (Screenshot/ House Committee on the Judiciary)

“Dr. Robinson, I noticed in your written testimony you said that you use she/her pronouns. You’re a medical doctor – what is a woman?” Bishop asked Robinson, an OBGYN and board member with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do,” Robinson responded. “And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.”

“Are you going to answer my question? Can you answer the question, what’s a woman?” Bishop asked.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas.

Donna Howard and Aimee Arrambide speaks at Making Virtual Storytelling and Activism Personal during the 2022 SXSW Conference and Festivals at Austin Convention Center on March 14, 2022 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Hubert Vestil/Getty Images for SXSW)

“I’m a woman, and I will ask you which pronouns do you use?” Robinson replied. “If you tell me that you use she and her pronouns … I’m going to respect you for how you want me to address you.”

“So you gave me an example of a woman, you say that you are a woman, can you tell me otherwise what a woman is?” Bishop asked.

“Yes, I’m telling you, I’m a woman,” Robinson responded.

“Is that as comprehensive a definition as you can give me?” Bishop asked.

“That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today,” Robinson said. “Because I think that it’s important that we focus on what we’re here for, and it’s to talk about access to abortion.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“So you’re not interested in answering the question that I asked unless it’s part of a message you want to deliver…” Bishop fired back.

Wednesday’s hearing, titled, “Revoking your Rights,” addressed the threat to abortion rights after the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion signaled the high court is poised to soon strike down Roe v. Wade.
John MacArthur explains God’s Wrath on unrighteousness from Romans Chapt…

First is what Romans says:

Romans 1:18-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

24 Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [g]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips, 30 slanderers, [k](R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Here is what John MacArthur had to say:

Now, all of a sudden, not only is this characteristic of our nation, but we now promote it. One of the parties, the Democratic Party, has now made Romans 1, the sins of Romans 1, their agenda. What God condemns, they affirm. What God punishes, they exalt. Shocking, really. The Democratic Party has become the anti-God party, the sin-promoting party. By the way, there are seventy-two million registered Democrats in this country who have identified themselves with that party and maybe they need to rethink that identification.

I know from last week’s message that there was some response from people who said, “Why are you getting political?”

Romans 1 is not politics. The Bible is not politics. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with speaking the Word of God through the culture in which we live. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s not about personalities; it’s about iniquity and judgment. And why do we say this? Because this must be recognized for what it is–sin, serious sin, damning sin, destructive sin.

WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REJECTED? THE ANSWER IS THE GOD WHO HAS REVEALED HIM SELF THROUGH THE BOOK OF NATURE AND THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE!

God Is There And He Is Not Silent
Psalm 19
Intro. 1) Francis Schaeffer lived from 1912-1984. He was one of the Christian
intellectual giants of the 20th century. He taught us that you could be a Christian and not abandon the mind. One of the books he wrote was entitled He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In that work he makes a crucial and thought provoking statement, “The infinite- personal God is there, but also he is not silent; that changes the whole world…He is there and is not a silent, nor far-off God.” (Works of F.S., Vol 1, 276).
2) God is there and He is not silent. In fact He has revealed Himself to us in 2 books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Francis Bacon, a 15th century scientist who is credited by many with developing the scientific method said it this way: “There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent us from falling into error: first the volume to the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creation, which expresses His power.”
3) Psalm 19 addresses both of God’s books, the book of nature in vs 1-6 and the book of Scripture in vs. 7-14. Described as a wisdom Psalm, its beauty, poetry and splendor led C.S. Lewis to say, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world” (Reflections on the Psalms, 63).
Trans. God is there and He is not silent. How should we hear and listen to the God who talks?
I. Listen To God Speak Through Nature 19:1-6
God has revealed himself to ever rational human on the earth in two ways: 1) nature and 2) conscience. We call this natural or general revelation. In vs. 1-6 David addresses the wonder of nature and creation.

Whatever Happened To The Human Race? | Episode 5 | Truth and History

Related posts:

John MacArthur on Romans 1 and the Democratic Party

First is what Romans says: Romans 1:18-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because (C)that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to […]

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur

Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality (Selected Scriptures) John MacArthur Published on Sep 30, 2012 by JohnMacArthurGTY http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-448 What a privilege and joy it is to worship the Lord here at Grace Church. Patricia and I miss it when we’re not here. There’s no place like this. Our hearts are full to overflowing to be […]

John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)

Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]

Did God kill someone that I knew? What does I John 5:14-17 mean?

1 John 5:14-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 This is (A)the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, (B)if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (C)we know that we have the requests which we have asked from […]

MUSIC MONDAY Every James Bond Theme Song, Ranked Worst to Best Part 5 (#5-11)

________

 

I really enjoyed the latest James Bond film NO TIME TO DIE and for my thoughts on it you can go to this link

Continue reading

MUSIC MONDAY Every James Bond Theme Song, Ranked Worst to Best Part 4 (#12-17)

________

 

I really enjoyed the latest James Bond film NO TIME TO DIE and for my thoughts on it you can go to this link

Continue reading