Dr. Francis Schaeffer: Whatever Happened to the Human Race Episode 1 ABORTION

Many in the world today are taking a long look at the abortion industry because of the May 14, 2013 guilty verdict and life term penalty handed down by a jury (which included 9 out of 12 pro-choice jurors) to Dr. Kermit Gosnell. During this time of reflection I wanted to put forth some of the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

History’s Jury Is Out: Has Gosnell Rocked Our Conscience?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Evangelical Blogger Lists Eight Reasons the Media Are Ignoring the Gosnell Murder Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ What a great article below: Dr. Alveda King: Guilty Gosnell Verdict May Spark More Justice for Women and Babies Contact: Eugene Vigil, King for America, 470-244-3302 PHILADELPHIA, May 13, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kristen Hatten: Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict, but what about the rest?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Lila Rose of Live Action comments on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ May 14, 2013 Murdered Thousands, Convicted for Three: The Kermit Gosnell Verdict By Drew Belsky Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/murdered_thousands_convicted_for_three_the_kermit_gosnell_verdict.html#ixzz2TMstLk1c Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on FacebookPhiladelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gerard M. Nadal: Dr. Gosnell Guilty, but now what?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Reince Priebus on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ A Verdict Doesn’t End the Gosnell Story By: Chairman Reince Priebus (Diary) | May 13th, 2013 at 03:27 PM | 28 RESIZE: AAA The horrors that unfolded in the clinic of Dr. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kirsten Powers of USA Today on Dr. Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Top 10 Revelations of Kermit Gosnell Trial

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ All-American Horror Story: Top 10 Kermit Gosnell Trial Revelations by Kristan Hawkins | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/12/13 3:38 PM Since so many in the media have failed/refused to report on […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Denny Burk: We have to learn from Dr. Gosnell’s Crimes

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Tony Perkins on Kermit Gosnell Trial

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Hey Obama, Kermit Gosnell Is What a Real War on Women Looks Like […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Ross Douthat of NY Times on Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Family Research Council happy with Kermit Gosnell Guilty Verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ___ _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Family Research Council Praises Jury for Bringing Justice to Victims of Abortionist […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Peter Jones on Infanticide and Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Is Dr. Gosnell a “one-of-a-kind anomaly”?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ _____________ Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News Published on May 13, 2013 Tony Perkins: Gosnell Trial – FOX News ________________ Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice” by Matthew J. Franck within […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

______________________

Do New York late term abortionists need more attention like Dr. Gosnell did?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted Texas authorities to take closer look a Houston abortionist

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Father Frank Pavone reacts to Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Fr. Pavone: Right to choose must yield to right to life STATEN ISLAND, NY — Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, had the following comment on the verdict in […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

NAF reacts to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Hope for Kermit Gosnell’s repentance?

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ The truth of abortion … the hope for Gosnell’s repentance A conviction in the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell has boosted the efforts of pro-lifers to demonstrate what abortion really […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 5 (Includes videos and Pictures)

November 26, 2015 – 5:44 am

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 2 (Includes videos and Pictures) _________________________________ _____________________ _______________________ __________________________ Tennis – Wimbledon 1974 [ Official Film ] – 05/05 Published on May 1, 2012 John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Bjor Borg, Jimmy Connors, Cris Evert… ___________________ Jimmy Connors Reflects Published on May 13, 2013 Jimmy Connors visits “SportsCenter” to discuss his memoir, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Prolife | Comments (0)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART THE BEATLES Part 87 George Bernard Shaw Part B “Why was Shaw on the cover of SGT. PEPPER’S?” Featured Photographer is Henry Grossman

In my last post I demonstrated that George Bernard Shaw was a vocal communist and that probably had a lot to do with his inclusion on the cover of SGT PEPPER’S but today I will look more into more this great playwright’s views. Did you know that Shaw wrote the play that MY FAIR LADY was based on? Did you know that George Bernard Shaw was a dedicated humanist too.

Monday, May 23, 2011

About the Cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

The old Beatles are at left side, standing graveside, mourning their death. Legend is this signified when the Beatles realized they could no longer tour and play live dates. The crowds were too large, the noise was too great even for them to hear themselves playing, and the crazies and stalkers were rearing up.

So from this point forward, the new Beatles – shown front and center in their Sgt. Peppers regalia – became a studio band, safely nestled away in the Abbey Road studios.

Another reason for their departure from the stage. By 1967, the Beatles were creating music that was so electronically complex for the time it could not be reproduced live using the technology of the day.

This was the advent of post-production effects. For example, the rising orchestra-glissando and final chord for “Day In The Life” was produced by all 4 Beatles and George Martin banging on 3 pianos simultaneously. As the sound diminished, the recording engineer boosted to faders. The resulting note lasts 42 seconds, and the studio air conditioners can be heard toward the end as the faders were pushed to the limit to record it.

The rising orchestra-glissando and the thundering sound are reminiscent of “Entry of the Gods into Valhalla” from Richard Wagner’s opera “Das Rheingold,” where after the rising glissando, Thor beats with his hammer. George Martin said in his 1979 book All You Need is Earsthat the glissando was Lennon’s idea. After Lennon’s death, Martin seems to have changed his mind. In his 1995 book Summer of Love: The Making of Sgt. Pepper, he states that the rising orchestra-glissando was McCartney’s idea. (thanks to Johan Cavalli, who is a music historian in Stockholm).

This album cover was created by Jann Haworth and Peter Blake. They won the Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Graphic Arts in 1968 for their work on this cover.

The celebrities and items featured on the front cover are (by row, left to right):

Top row:

Sri Yukteswar Giri (Hindu guru)
Aleister Crowley (occultist)
Mae West (actress)
Lenny Bruce (comedian)
Karlheinz Stockhausen (composer)
W. C. Fields (comedian/actor)
Carl Gustav Jung (psychiatrist)
Edgar Allan Poe (writer)
Fred Astaire (actor/dancer)
Richard Merkin (artist)
The Vargas Girl (by artist Alberto Vargas)
Huntz Hall (actor)
Simon Rodia (designer and builder of the Watts Towers)
Bob Dylan (singer/songwriter)

Second row:

Aubrey Beardsley (illustrator)
Sir Robert Peel (19th century British Prime Minister)
Aldous Huxley (writer)
Dylan Thomas (poet)
Terry Southern (writer)
Dion (singer)
Tony Curtis (actor)
Wallace Berman (artist)
Tommy Handley (comedian)
Marilyn Monroe (actress)
William S. Burroughs (writer)
Sri Mahavatar Babaji (Hindu guru)
Stan Laurel (actor/comedian)
Richard Lindner (artist)
Oliver Hardy (actor/comedian)
Karl Marx (political philosopher)
H. G. Wells (writer)
Sri Paramahansa Yogananda (Hindu guru)
Sigmund Freud (psychiatrist) – barely visible below Bob Dylan
Anonymous (hairdresser’s wax dummy)

Third row:

Stuart Sutcliffe (artist/former Beatle)
Anonymous (hairdresser’s wax dummy)
Max Miller (comedian)
A “Petty Girl” (by artist George Petty)
Marlon Brando (actor)
Tom Mix (actor)
Oscar Wilde (writer)
Tyrone Power (actor)
Larry Bell (artist)
Dr. David Livingstone (missionary/explorer)
Johnny Weissmuller (Olympic swimmer/Tarzan actor)
Stephen Crane (writer) – barely visible between Issy Bonn’s head and raised arm
Issy Bonn (comedian)
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (playwright)
H. C. Westermann (sculptor)
Albert Stubbins (football player)
Sri Lahiri Mahasaya (guru)
Lewis Carroll (writer)
T. E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”)

Front row:

Wax model of Sonny Liston (boxer)
A “Petty Girl” (by George Petty)
Wax model of George Harrison
Wax model of John Lennon
Shirley Temple (child actress) – barely visible, first of three appearances on the cover
Wax model of Ringo Starr
Wax model of Paul McCartney
Albert Einstein (physicist) – largely obscured
John Lennon holding a Wagner Tuba
Ringo Starr holding a trumpet
Paul McCartney holding a Cor Anglais
George Harrison holding a flute
Bobby Breen (singer)
Marlene Dietrich (actress/singer)
An American legionnaire[1]
Diana Dors (actress)
Shirley Temple (child actress) – second appearance on the cover

마이 페어 레이디(My Fair Lady) 1964

The Beatles in Texas (1964)

Within You Without You- The Beatles

Below is a portion of an article from the British Humanist Association who claims that George Bernard Shaw put forth their views in his writings and I tend to agree with that assessment although I do not agree with that worldview.

How The Beatles Rocked The Kremlin Part 2/4

20th Century Humanism

The Twentieth Century – A Scientific and Secular Age

Society

The twentieth century saw a revulsion against war, partly because of the horrors of the first and second World Wars, and partly because the mass media make us aware of atrocities and suffering all over the world. Both world wars, and especially the Nazi genocide against the Jews, made many question their faith in a loving god. We still have wars and the threats of war, but the United Nations exists to encourage negotiation and resolution of conflict by other means, and to police international law on the conduct of war and on human rights. Generally, there has been greater awareness and spread of human rights and democracy in the twentieth century.

Because of their belief that this world is the only one we have and that human problems can only be solved by humans, humanists have often been very active social reformers. The early Ethical Societies set up Neighbourhood Guilds to undertake social and educational work in city slums, where it was much needed in the days before a welfare state. Most humanists believe in democracy, open government and human rights, and support action on world poverty and the environment. Some were and are pacifists, and many are active in charities and politics. Ethical societies came together as the Ethical Union, which in the 1960s became the British Humanist Association, its first director being Harold Blackham and its first President Julian Huxley. The English social scientist and academic, and founder member of the British Humanist Association, Baroness Barbara Wootton (1897-1988) became the first woman to chair the proceedings of the House of Lords. She always spoke up for humanist causes, especially on social policy.

Religion and Philosophy

The twentieth century saw a decline in religious belief and an increase in secularisation in the developed world. Fewer people in Europe are actively religious and people are free to declare their disbelief in gods with little fear of reprisal or social disadvantage. Mobile populations and the mass media have made most parts of the world aware of a range of belief systems, and more liberal attitudes mean that people often feel free to choose a philosophy for themselves. The growth of studies such as anthropology, pioneered in Sir James Frazer’s exhaustive collection of myths and customs, showed religions as natural human creations, and encouraged a more tolerant attitude towards other cultures.

Few Christian intellectuals nowadays defend the literal truth of the Bible, but focus instead on its metaphorical truth and the exemplary life of Jesus. Religious beliefs have tended to evolve, casting some doubt in the minds of sceptics about what exactly Christians believe these days, or what they mean by “truth” or “God”. Theologians such as Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), Deitrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45), William James (1842-1910) and Paul Tillich (1886-1965), and developments such as liberation theology and the ideas of the Sea of Faith group, have done much to liberate academic Christian theology from religious dogma and to integrate secular and scientific ideas into Christianity. Many humanists today see little point in attacking beliefs that are no longer held except by a tiny minority of people.

On the other hand, there is still much popular conventional belief and there is a growing trend towards new religions and ideas, many of which are little more than superstition, and some of which are dangerous. In some countries there has been a growth in religious fundamentalism. Religion is still given special status and privileges in most countries, and non-religious people have often had to organise and campaign for their views to be heard.

Most twentieth century philosophers have worked on the assumption that morality is independent of religious faith e.g Sir Karl Popper, A J Ayer, G E Moore, Mary Warnock, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Wallace Matson, Antony Flew, Peter Singer, though it was still possible to cause a scandal in Britain by suggesting, as did Margaret Knight in a radio talk in the late 1950s, that morality and religion could usefully be separated.

The Arts

Despite continued laws against blasphemy, artists and intellectuals have increasingly challenged religious privilege and conventions. In the first half of this century, the Bloomsbury Group (which included J M Keynes, Virginia Woolf (1882-1941), Leonard Woolf, E M Forster, Betrand Russell) were an influential group of writers, academics and artists, who were heavily influenced by the ethical theories of G E Moore, which stressed the values of friendship and aesthetic experience. Writers such as Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, H G Wells, and Joseph Conrad, were well-known free-thinkers and the novelist Arnold Bennett (1867-1931) was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association from 1916.

My Fair Lady “Why Can’t the English Learn to Speak”

Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Album really did look at every potential answer to meaning in life and to as many people as the Beatles could imagine had the answers to life’s big questions. One of the persons on the cover did have access to those answers and I am saving that person for last in this series on the Beatles.

How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)

In this article below Francis Schaeffer tells how men such as George Bernard Shaw saw that there were two competing worldviews (Humanism and Christianity) and they sought to do away with the traditional view of truth and morality.

The Abolition of Truth and Morality – Francis A. Schaeffer

June 24, 2010

The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.

They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality — each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in world view — that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different — toward a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. They have not seen that this world view has taken the place of the one that had previously dominated Northern European culture, including the United States, which was at least Christian in memory, even if the individuals were not individually Christian.

These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results—including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.

It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results, The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results.

Why have the Christians been so slow to understand this? There are various reasons but the central one is a defective view of Christianity. This has its roots in the Pietist movement under the leadership of P. J. Spener in the seventeenth century. Pietism began as a healthy protest against formalism and a too abstract Christianity. But it had a deficient, “platonic” spirituality. It was platonic in the sense that Pietism made a sharp division between the “spiritual” and the “material” world — giving little, or no, importance to the “material” world. The totality of human existence was not afforded a proper place. In particular it neglected the intellectual dimension of Christianity.

Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a small, isolated part of life. The totality of reality was ignored by the pietistic thinking. Let me quickly say that in one sense Christians should be pietists in that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, even the right doctrines. Every doctrine is in some way to have an effect upon our lives. But the poor side of Pietism and its resulting platonic outlook has really been a tragedy not only in many people’s individual lives, but in our total culture.

True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful — which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.

Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ’s miracles, Christ’s substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths.

When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality — the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth — Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually — and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is — brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.

Now let’s go over to the other side — to those who hold the materialistic final reality concept. They saw the complete and total difference between the two positions more quickly than Christians. There were the Huxleys, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), and many others who understood a long time ago that there are two total concepts of reality and that it was one total reality against the other and not just a set of isolated and separated differences, The Humanist Manifesto published in 1933, showed with crystal clarity their comprehension of the totality of what is involved. It was to our shame that Julian (1887-1975) and Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), and the others like them, understood much earlier than Christians that these two world views are two total concepts of reality standing in antithesis to each other. We should be utterly ashamed that this is the fact.

They understood not only that there were two totally different concepts but that they would bring forth two totally different conclusions, both for individuals and for society. What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law.

There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty because what their liberal theology really is is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms.

An example of this coming down naturally on the side of the nonreligious humanists is the article by Charles Hartshorne in the January 21, 1981, issue of The Christian Century, pages 42-45. Its title is, “Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” He begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have).

His conclusion is, “Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder, Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants.” He then, logically, takes the next step: “Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does.” No atheistic humanist could say it with greater clarity. It is significant at this point to note that many of the denominations controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and strongly, in favor of abortion.

Dr. Martin E. Marty is one of the respected, theologically liberal spokesmen. He is an associate editor of The Christian Century and Fairfax M. Cone distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago divinity school. He is often quoted in the secular press as the spokesman for “mainstream” Christianity. In a Christian Century article in the January 7-14, 1981, issue (pages 13-17 with an addition on page 31), he has an article entitled: “Dear Republicans: A Letter on Humanisms.” In it he brilliantly confuses the terms “being human,” humanism, the humanities and being “in love with humanity.” Why does he do this? As a historian he knows the distinctions of those words, but when one is done with these pages the poor reader who knows no better is left with the eradication of the total distinction between the Christian position and the humanist one.

I admire the cleverness of the article but I regret that in it Dr. Marty has come down on the non-religious humanist side, by confusing the issues so totally it would be well at this point to stress that we should not confuse the very different things which Dr. Marty did confuse. Humanitarianisrn is being kind and helpful to people, treating people humanly. The humanities are the studies of literature, art, music, etc. — those things which are the products of human creativity. Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things.

Thus, Christians should be the most humanitarian of all people. And Christians certainly should be interested in the humanities as the product of human creativity, made possible because people are uniquely made in the image of the great Creator. in this sense of being interested in the humanities it would be proper to speak of a Christian humanist, This is especially so in the past usage of that term. This would then mean that such a Christian is interested (as we all should be) in the product of people’s creativity. In this sense, for example, Calvin could be called a Christian humanist because he knew the works of the Roman writer Seneca so very well. John Milton and many other Christian poets could also be so called because of their knowledge not only of their own day but also of antiquity.

But in contrast to being humanitarian and being interested in the humanities Christians should be inalterably opposed to the false and destructive humanism, which is false to the Bible and equally false to what Man is.

Along with this we must keep distinct the “humanist world view” of which we have been speaking and such a thing as the “Humanist Society,” which produced the Humanist Manifestos I and 11(1933 and 1973). The Humanist Society is made up of a relatively small group of people (some of whom, however, have been influential — John Dewey, Sir Julian Huxley, Jacques Monod, B. F. Skinner, etc.). By way of contrast, the humanist world view includes many thousands of adherents and today controls the consensus in society, much of the media, much of what is taught in our schools, and much of the arbitrary law being produced by the various departments of government.

The term humanism used in this wider, more prevalent way means Man beginning from himself, with no knowledge except what he himself can discover and no standards outside of himself. In this view Man is the measure of all things, as the Enlightenment expressed it.

Nowhere have the divergent results of the two total concepts of reality, the Judeo-Christian and the humanist world view, been more open to observation than in government and law.

We of Northern Europe (and we must remember that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are extensions of Northern Europe) take our form-freedom balance in government for granted as though it were natural. There is form in acknowledging the obligations in society, and there is freedom in acknowledging the rights of the individual. We have form, we have freedom; there is freedom, there is form. There is a balance here which we have come to take as natural in the world. It is not natural in the world. We are utterly foolish if we look at the long span of history and read the daily newspapers giving today’s history and do not understand that the form-freedom balance in government which we have had in Northern Europe since the Reformation and in the countries extended from it is unique in the world, past and present.

That is not to say that no one wrestled with these questions before the Reformation nor that no one produced anything worthwhile. One can think, for example, of the Conciliar Movement in the late medieval church and the early medieval parliaments. Especially one must consider the ancient English Common Law. And in relation to that Common Law (and all English Law) there is Henry De Bracton. I will mention more about him in a moment.

Those who hold the material-energy, chance concept of reality, whether they are Marxist or non-Marxist, not only do not know the truth of the final reality, God, they do not know who Man is. Their concept of Man is what Man is not, just as their concept of the final reality is what final reality is not. Since their concept of Man is mistaken, their concept of society and of law is mistaken, and they have no sufficient base for either society or law.

They have reduced Man to even less than his natural finiteness by seeing him only as a complex arrangement of molecules, made complex by blind chance. Instead of seeing him as something great who is significant even in his sinning, they see Man in his essence only as an intrinsically competitive animal, that has no other basic operating principle than natural selection brought about by the strongest, the fittest, ending on top. And they see Man as acting in this way both individually and collectively as society.

Even on the basis of Man’s finiteness having people sweat in court in the name of humanity, as some have advocated, saying something like, “We pledge our honor before all mankind” would be insufficient enough. But reduced to the materialistic view of Man, it is even less. Although many nice words may be used, in reality law constituted on this basis can only mean brute force,

In this setting Jeremy Bentham’s (1748-1842) Utilitarianism can be and must be all that law means. And this must inevitably lead to the conclusion of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935): “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” That is, there is no basis for law except Man’s limited, finite experience. And especially with the Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest concept of Man (which Holmes held) that must, and will, lead to Holmes’ final conclusion: law is “the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.”

The problem always was, and is, What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny?

In contrast to the materialistic concept, Man in reality is made in the image of God and has real humanness. This humanness has produced varying degrees of success in government, bringing forth governments that were more than only the dominance of brute force.

And those in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view have had something more. The influence of the Judeo-Christian world view can be perhaps most readily observed in Henry De Bracton’s influence on British Law. An English judge living in the thirteenth century, he wrote De Legibus et Consuetudinibus (c.1250). Bracton, in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view, said:

And that he [the King] ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, whose vice-regent on earth he is, for though many ways were open to Him for His ineffable redemption of the human race, the true mercy of God chose this most powerful way to destroy the devil’s work, he would not use the power of force but the reason of justice.

In other words, God in His sheer power could have crushed Satan in his revolt by the use of that sufficient power. But because of God’s character, justice came before the use of power alone. Therefore Christ died that justice, rooted in what God is, would be the solution. Bracton codified this: Christ’s example, because of who He is, is our standard, our rule, our measure. Therefore power is not first, but justice is first in society and law. The prince may have the power to control and to rule, but he does not have the right to do so without justice. This was the basis of English Common Law. The Magna Charta (1215) was written within thirty-five years (or less) of Bracton’s De Legibus and in the midst of the same universal thinking in England at that time.

The Reformation (300 years after Bracton) refined and clarified this further. It got rid of the encrustations that had been added to the .Judeo-Christian world view and clarified the point of authority — with authority resting in the Scripture rather than church and Scripture, or state and Scripture. This not only had meaning in regard to doctrine but clarified the base for law.

That base was God’s written Law, back through the New Testament to Moses’ written Law; and the content and authority of that written Law is rooted back to Him who is the final reality. Thus, neither church nor state were equal to, let alone above, that Law. The base for law is not divided, and no one has the right to place anything, including king, state or church, above the content of God’s Law.

What the Reformation did was to return most clearly and consistently to the origins, to the final reality, God; but equally to the reality of Man — not only Man’s personal needs (such as salvation), but also Man’s social needs.

What we have had for four hundred years, produced from this clarity, is unique in contrast to the situation that has existed in the world in forms of government. Some of you have been taught that the Greek city states had our concepts in government. It simply is not true. All one has to do is read Plato’s Republic to have this come across with tremendous force.

When the men of our State Department, especially after World War II, went all over the world trying to implant our form-freedom balance in government downward on cultures whose philosophy and religion would never have produced it, it has, in almost every case, ended in some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism.

The humanists push for “freedom,” but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that “freedom” leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite), Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society.

George Bernard Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Bernard Shaw
Shaw in 1936
Born	26 July 1856 Dublin, Ireland
Died	2 November 1950 (aged 94) Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire, England
Occupation	Playwright, critic, political activist
Nationality	Irish
Alma mater	Wesley College, Dublin
Genre	Satire, black comedy
Literary movement	Ibsenism, naturalism
Notable awards	Nobel Prize in Literature 1925Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay 1938 Pygmalion

Signature

George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was an Irish playwright and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama, and he wrote more than 60 plays. He was also an essayist, novelist and short story writer. Nearly all his writings address prevailing social problems with a vein of comedy which makes their stark themes more palatable. Issues which engaged Shaw’s attention included education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.

He was most angered by what he perceived as the exploitation of the working class. An ardent socialist, Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the St Pancras Vestry.

Shaw was noted for expressing his views in uncompromising language, whether on vegetarianism (branding his own pre-vegetarian self a “cannibal“), the development of the human race (his own brand ofeugenics was driven by encouragement of miscegenation and marrying across class lines), or on political questions (in spite of his own generally liberal views he was not an uncritical supporter of democracy, and is even recorded as supporting, or at least condoning, the dictators of the 1930s).

In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St Lawrence in a house now called Shaw’s Corner. Shaw died there, aged 94, from chronic problems exacerbated by injuries he incurred by falling from a ladder.

He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize in Literature (1925) and an Academy Award (1938), for his contributions to literature and for his work on the film Pygmalion (an adaptation of his play of the same name), respectively.^{[n 1]} Shaw refused all other awards and honours, including the offer of a knighthood.

Political activism[edit]

Shaw declined to stand as an MP, but in 1897 was elected as a local councillor to the St Pancras Vestry as a Progressive. With the creation of the Metropolitan Borough of St Pancras in 1900 Shaw was elected as a borough councillor but dismissed any party label, claiming “I have not yet discovered the party that is anxious to claim me as its representative.”^[10]^[11] He resigned from the council at the next election in 1903 as “in his view, the only perfect Council should consist of millionaires and labourers” and he was neither.^[12]

Contributions[edit]

Shaw’s plays were first performed in the 1890s. By the end of the decade he was an established playwright. He wrote sixty-three plays and his output as novelist, critic, pamphleteer, essayist and private correspondent was prodigious. He is known to have written more than 250,000 letters.^[13] Along with Fabian Society members Sidney and Beatrice Webb and Graham Wallas, Shaw founded the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1895 with funding provided by private philanthropy, including a bequest of £20,000 from Henry Hunt Hutchinson to the Fabian Society. One of the libraries at the London School of Economics is named in Shaw’s honour; it contains collections of his papers and photographs.^[14] Shaw helped to found the left-wing magazine New Statesman in 1913 with the Webbs and other prominent members of the Fabian Society.^[15]

Final years[edit]

During his later years, Shaw enjoyed attending to the grounds at Shaw’s Corner. At 91 he joined the Interplanetary Society for the last three years of his life.^[16] He died at the age of 94,^[17] of renal failure precipitated by injuries incurred by falling while pruning a tree.^[18] He was cremated at Golders Green Crematorium on 6 November. His ashes, mixed with those of his wife, Charlotte Payne-Townshend, were scattered along footpaths and around the statue of Saint Joan in their garden.^[19]^[20]

Career[edit]

Writings[edit]

See List of works by George Bernard Shaw for listings of his novels and plays, with links to their electronic texts, if those exist.

The International Shaw Society provides a detailed chronological listing of Shaw’s writings.^[21] See also George Bernard Shaw, Unity Theatre.^[22]

Criticism[edit]

Shaw around 1900 (aged 43).

Shaw in 1909 (aged 52).

Shaw in 1925 (aged 68), when he was awarded theNobel Prize in Literature

Short stories[edit]

Shaw writing in a notebook at the time of first production of his play Pygmalion in 1914 (aged 57).

A collection of Shaw’s short stories, The Black Girl in Search of God and Some Lesser Tales, was published in 1934.^[37] The Black Girl, an enthusiastic convert to Christianity, goes searching for God. In the story, written as an allegory, somewhat reminiscent of Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, Shaw uses her adventures to expose flaws and fallacies in the religions of the world. At the story’s happy ending, the Black Girl quits her searchings in favour of rearing a family with the aid of a red-haired Irishman who has no metaphysical inclination.

One of the Lesser Tales is The Miraculous Revenge (1885), which relates the misadventures of an alcoholic investigator while he probes the mystery of a graveyard—full of saintly corpses—that migrates across a stream to escape association with the body of a newly buried sinner.

Plays[edit]

By the 1910s, Shaw was a well-established playwright. New works such as Fanny’s First Play (1911) and Pygmalion (1912), had long runs in front of large London audiences. Shaw had permitted a musical adaptation of Arms and the Man (1894) called The Chocolate Soldier (1908), but he had a low opinion of German operetta. He insisted that none of his dialogue be used, and that all the character names be changed, although the operetta actually follows Shaw’s plot quite closely, in particular preserving its anti-war message. The work proved very popular and would have made Shaw rich had he not waived his royalties, but he detested it and for the rest of his life forbade musicalization of his work, including a proposed Franz Lehár operetta based onPygmalion. Several of his plays formed the basis of musicals after his death—most famously the musical My Fair Lady—it is officially adapted from the screenplay of the film version of Pygmalion rather than the original stage play (keeping the film’s ending), and librettist Alan Jay Lerner kept generous chunks of Shaw’s dialogue, and the characters’ names, unchanged.

Shaw’s outlook was changed by World War I; which he uncompromisingly opposed, despite incurring outrage from the public as well as from many friends. His first full-length piece, presented after the War, written mostly during it, was Heartbreak House(1919). A new Shaw had emerged—the wit remained, but his faith in humanity had dwindled. In the preface to Heartbreak House he said:

It is said that every people has the Government it deserves. It is more to the point that every Government has the electorate it deserves; for the orators of the front bench can edify or debauch an ignorant electorate at will. Thus our democracy moves in a vicious circle of reciprocal worthiness and unworthiness.^[41]

The movable hut in the garden of Shaw’s Corner, where Shaw wrote most of his works after 1906, including Pygmalion.

Shaw had previously supported gradual democratic change toward socialism, but now he saw more hope in government by benign strong men. This sometimes made him oblivious to the dangers of dictatorships. Near his life’s end that hope failed him too. In the first act of Buoyant Billions (1946–48), his last full-length play, his protagonist asks:

Why appeal to the mob when ninetyfive per cent of them do not understand politics, and can do nothing but mischief without leaders? And what sort of leaders do they vote for? For Titus Oates and Lord George Gordon with their Popish plots, for Hitlers who call on them to exterminate Jews, for Mussolinis who rally them to nationalist dreams of glory and empire in which all foreigners are enemies to be subjugated.^[42]

Polemics[edit]

In a letter to Henry James dated 17 January 1909,^[46] Shaw said,

I, as a Socialist, have had to preach, as much as anyone, the enormous power of the environment. We can change it; we must change it; there is absolutely no other sense in life than the task of changing it. What is the use of writing plays, what is the use of writing anything, if there is not a will which finally moulds chaos itself into a race of gods.^[47]

As well as plays and prefaces, Shaw wrote long political treatises, such as Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889),^[54] and The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1912),^[55] a 495-page book detailing all aspects of socialistic theory as Shaw interpreted it. Excerpts of the latter were republished in 1928 as Socialism and Liberty,^[56] Late in his life he wrote another guide to political issues, Everybody’s Political What’s What (1944).

Correspondence and friends[edit]

Shaw corresponded with an array of people, many of them well known. His letters to and from Mrs. Patrick Campbell were adapted for the stage by Jerome Kilty as Dear Liar: A Comedy of Letters,^[57] as was his correspondence with the poet Lord Alfred ‘Bosie’ Douglas (the intimate friend of Oscar Wilde), into the drama Bernard and Bosie: A Most Unlikely Friendship by Anthony Wynn. His letters to the prominent actress, Ellen Terry,^[58] to the boxer Gene Tunney,^[59] and to H.G. Wells,^[60] have also been published. Eventually the volume of his correspondence became insupportable, as can be inferred from apologetic letters written by assistants.^[61] Shaw campaigned against the executions of the rebel leaders of the Easter Rising, and he became a personal friend of the Cork-born IRA leader Michael Collins, whom he invited to his home for dinner while Collins was negotiating the Anglo-Irish Treaty with Lloyd George in London. After Collins’s assassination in 1922, Shaw sent a personal message of condolence to one of Collins’s sisters. He much admired (and was admired by) G. K. Chesterton.^[62] When Chesterton died, Shaw mourned his death in a poignant letter to Chesterton’s widow; he had always expected that he would predecease Chesterton, being the latter’s senior by almost two decades.

Shaw also enjoyed a (somewhat stormy) friendship with T.E. Lawrence, the British Army officer renowned for his liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, as well as the Arab Revolt, which Lawrence memorialized in his book The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Lawrence even used the name “Shaw” as his nom de guerre when he joined the Royal Air Force as an aircraftman in the 1920s.

Awards[edit]

Shaw was awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature (1925) for his contributions to literature. The citation praised his work as “… marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty”.^[66] Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright because he had no desire for public honours, but accepted it at his wife’s behest: she considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of fellow playwright August Strindberg‘s works from Swedish to English.^[67]

At this time Prime Minister David Lloyd George was considering recommending to the King Shaw’s admission to the Order of Merit, but the place was instead given to J. M. Barrie.^[43] Shaw rejected a knighthood.^[43] It was not until 1946 that the government of the day arranged for an informal offer of the Order of Merit to be made: Shaw declined, replying that “merit” in authorship could only be determined by the posthumous verdict of history.^[43]

In 1938, Shaw was awarded an Oscar for his work on the film Pygmalion (adaptation of his play of the same name). The Academy Award was jointly shared with Ian Dalrymple, Cecil Lewis and W.P. Lipscomb, who had also worked on adapting Shaw’s script.^[68]

Political, social, and religious views[edit]

Shaw asserted that each social class strove to serve its own ends, and that the upper and middle classes won in the struggle while the working class lost. He condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently.^[69] He believed this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process elective breeding but it is sometimes referred to as shavian eugenics, largely because he thought it was driven by a “Life Force” that led women — subconsciously — to select the mates most likely to give them superior children.^[70] The outcome Shaw envisioned is dramatised in Back to Methuselah, a monumental play depicting human development from its beginning in the Garden of Eden until the distant future.^[71]

In 1882, influenced by Henry George‘s view that the rent value of land belongs to all, Shaw concluded that private ownership of land and its exploitation for personal profit was a form of theft, and advocated equitable distribution of land and natural resources and their control by governments intent on promoting the commonwealth. Shaw believed that income for individuals should come solely from the sale of their own labour and that poverty could be eliminated by giving equal pay to everyone. These concepts led Shaw to apply for membership of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), led by H. M. Hyndman who introduced him to the works of Karl Marx. Shaw never joined the SDF, which favoured forcible reforms. Instead, in 1884, he joined the newly formed Fabian Society, which accorded with his belief that reform should be gradual and induced by peaceful means rather than by outright revolution.^[72] Shaw was an active Fabian. He wrote many of their pamphlets,^[54] lectured tirelessly on behalf of their causes and provided money to set up The New Age, an independent socialist journal. As a Fabian, he participated in the formation of the Labour Party. The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism^[55] provides a clear statement of his socialistic views. As evinced in plays like Major Barbara and Pygmalion, class struggle is a motif in much of Shaw’s writing.

Oscar Wilde was the sole literary signator of Shaw’s petition for a pardon of the anarchists arrested (and later executed) after the Haymarket massacre in Chicago in 1886.^[73]

Shaw opposed the execution of Sir Roger Casement in 1916. He wrote a letter “as an Irishman”^[74] to The Times, which they rejected, but it was subsequently printed by both the Manchester Guardian on 22 July 1916, and by the New York American on 13 August 1916.

Communism[edit]

After visiting the USSR in 1931 and meeting Joseph Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR. On 11 October 1931 he broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any ‘skilled workman … of suitable age and good character’ would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union.^[75] Tim Tzouliadis asserts that several hundred Americans responded to his suggestion and left for the USSR.^[76]

Shaw continued this support for Stalin’s system in the preface to his play On the Rocks (1933) writing:

But the most elaborate code of this sort would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without ever having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? are you giving more trouble than you are worth? have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and “liquidate” persons who could not answer them satisfactorily.^[77]

Yet, Shaw defends “the sacredness of criticism”:

Put shortly and undramatically the case is that a civilization cannot progress without criticism, and must therefore, to save itself from stagnation and putrefaction, declare impunity for criticism. This means impunity not only for propositions which, however novel, seem interesting, statesmanlike, and respectable, but for propositions that shock the uncritical as obscene, seditious, blasphemous, heretical, and revolutionary.^[77]

In an open letter to the Manchester Guardian in 1933, he dismissed stories—which were later determined to be largely substantiated—of a Soviet famine as slanderous, and contrasts them with the hardships then current in the West during the Great Depression:

We desire to record that we saw nowhere evidence of such economic slavery, privation, unemployment and cynical despair of betterment as are accepted as inevitable and ignored by the press as having “no news value” in our own countries.”^[78]

In the preface to On The Rocks he wrote:

It sounds simple; but the process requires better planning than is always forthcoming (with local famines and revolts as the penalty); for while the grass grows the steed starves; and when education means not only schools and teachers, but giant collective farms equipped with the most advanced agricultural machinery, which means also gigantic engineering works for the production of the machinery, you may easily find that you have spent too much on these forms of capitalization and are running short of immediately consumable goods, presenting the spectacle of the nation with the highest level of general culture running short of boots and tightening its belt for lack of sufficient food.
I must not suggest that this has occurred all over Russia; for I saw no underfed people there; and the children were remarkably plump. And I cannot trust the reports; for I have no sooner read in The Times a letter from Mr Kerensky assuring me that in the Ukraine the starving people are eating one another, than M. Herriot, the eminent French statesman, goes to Russia and insists on visiting the Ukraine so that he may have ocular proof of the alleged cannibalism, but can find no trace of it. Still, between satiety and starvation mitigated by cannibalism there are many degrees of shortage; and it is no secret that the struggle of the Russian Government to provide more collective farms and more giant factories to provide agricultural machinery for them has to be carried on against a constant clamor from the workers for new boots and clothes, and more varied food and more of it: in short, less sacrifice of the present to the future.^[77]

He wrote a defence of Lysenkoism in a letter to Labour Monthly, in which he asserted that an “acquired characteristic” could be heritable, writing of Lysenko: “Following up Michurin’s agricultural experiments he found that it is possible to extend the area of soil cultivation by breeding strains of wheat that flourish in a sub-Arctic climate, and transmit this acquired characteristic to its seed.” He added:

Lysenko is on the right side as a Vitalist; but the situation is confused by the purely verbal snag that Marx called his philosophy Dialectical Materialism. Now in Russia Marx is a Pontif; and all scientists who do not call themselves Materialists must be persecuted. Accordingly, Lysenko has to pretend that he is a Materialist when he is in fact a Vitalist; and thus muddles us ludicrously. Marxism seems to have gone as mad as Weismannism; and it is no longer surprising that Marx had to insist that he was not a Marxist.^[79]

Despite Shaw’s scepticism about the creation of the Irish Free State, he was supportive of Éamon de Valera‘s stance on the Second World War, including his policy of refusing to fall in line with the Allies’ demand for neutral countries to deny asylum to Axis war criminals during the war.^[80] According to Shaw “The voice of the Irish gentleman and Spanish grandee was a welcome relief from the chorus of retaliatory rancor and self-righteousness then deafening us”.^[81]

Eugenics[edit]

Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.^[82]

Shaw’s play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be “invested with eugenic doctrines” and “an ironic reworking” of Nietzsche‘s concept of Übermensch.^[82]^[83] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of “The Revolutionist’s Handbook and Pocket Companion”, which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist’s Handbook includes chapters on “Good Breeding” and “Property and Marriage”. In the “Property and Marriage” section, Tanner writes:

To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.

In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.^[84]

Shaw in 1905

When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.^[85] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.^[86] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.^[85]

As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the “social purity” movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.^[77]^[87]^[88] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a “lethal chamber” to solve their problem. Shaw said: “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …” Shaw also called for the development of a “deadly” but “humane” gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.^[89]

In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.^[90]^[91]

Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.^[82]^[92] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists’ wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: “Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture”.^[92]^[93]

Religion[edit]

In his will, Shaw stated that his “religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in Creative Evolution.”^[94] He requested that no one should imply that he accepted the beliefs of any specific religious organization, and that no memorial to him should “take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.”^[94]

Gary Sloan summarises Shaw’s religious views as follows:

Until he was thirty or so, Shaw called himself an Atheist. He became one, he later quipped, before he could think. He adjudged the doctrines of the Church of Ireland, which he attended as a child, unintelligible or absurd. Since the first of its Thirty-nine Articles describes god as “without body, parts, or passions,” he waggishly theorized that the church was atheistic. An incomprehensible god, he opined, was tantamount to no god. In 1875, he blazoned his Atheism abroad. In a letter to Public Opinion, a Dublin newspaper, he announced “with inflexible materialistic logic, and to the extreme horror of my respectable connections, that I was an atheist.” In Immaturity, the first of five novels he wrote in his twenties, the young protagonist, obviously Shaw’s alter ego, walks pensively in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey: “His hushed step, impressive bearing, and reflective calm, marked him as a confirmed freethinker.”
In “The New Theology,” he prepped his audience: “When you are asked, ‘Where is God? Who is God?’ stand up and say, ‘I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing towards completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole society and the whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends.”‘ God “would provide himself with a perfectly fashioned and trustworthy instrument. And such an instrument would be nothing less than God himself.”^[95]

_________

Featured Photographer is Henry Grossman

UNSEEN IMAGES

03.27.134:45 AM ET

Beatles Photographer Henry Grossman on ‘Places I Remember’

In his new book, veteran photographer Henry Grossman unveils 1,000 never-before-seen images of his time with the band in the 1960s. He tells Abby Haglage how he caught their goofy side.

The Beatles’ most trusted photographer was a friend, not a fan.At 27, Henry Grossman—then employed by Life magazine—was first invited to shoot the pop stars during their 1964 appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. A New York City–born opera singer in training, Grossman didn’t like their music, but he loved them. By far the youngest photographer shooting them, he forged a lasting friendship with the group, landing him unprecedented access to their lives, which he captured in 6,000 images, more than any other photographer.In his latest, limited-edition, book, Places I Remember: My Time With the Beatles, Grossman unveils more than 1,000 photos never before seen by the public. He tells Abby Haglage what it was like traveling the world with the most popular band of all time—and what, 50 years later, he’s still remembering.What was it that made you connect with them so well?Well, I liked them! I found them witty, charming, fun, intelligent. They were bright guys—and they were only about four years younger than me. Most of the other photographers were much older than me, so I think that was part of it. But also, as a Life magazine photographer, we were taught to watch. We didn’t set up a lot of pictures, I simply captured their lives. I didn’t want things from them. As a result, it was a lot of fun.

But were you a Beatles fan at the time?

Well, I did not particularly care for Rock music, at all. I loved opera. I didn’t listen to their stuff. Some songs, like “Yesterday,” I loved. But I wasn’t a fan of their music, I was a fan of them. I never had the adoration, the awe that their fans had. I recognized the greatness I was around, definitely, but they were my friends. That made it different.

Is it true that they tried to stop you from running the first intimate photos you took of them?

Well, Brian Epstein [their manager] called me when Life magazine said they were going to syndicate some of the pictures I had taken of them in their home, and he said, “Henry, please don’t do that.” The next day, I got a cable from him that said: “Please disregard phone call. I’ve just seen the pictures. Can I have a set?” So that was good news.

When you imagine a moment with them now, what comes to mind?

I was always singing along the beach in Nassau with them, Oh, what a beautiful morning—simply because I loved that song! They caught on to that quite quickly and began singing it to me whenever I would show up to meet them. Even years later, I had a cable from George, and he started it with “Oh, what a beautiful morning!”

That’s hilarious. It seems like you were really able to see their goofy sides.

Absolutely. When I was shooting the cover for Life magazine, I said to Ringo, “I wish I had the guts to wear a tie like that.” And he came over and fingered my paisley tie, a very quiet tie I’d bought in London, and he said, “Well, Henry, if you did, you’d still be Henry, but with just a bright tie.” I thought that was justmarvelous. I loved it.

“George said to me once, ‘You know, we don’t know if this is going to last at all, Henry.’ That’s crazy to me to think about now.”

It’s clear that they really let you into their lives. Can you describe what that was like?

Well, to give an example, one day in Wales, I passed through the group of photographers waiting outside where they were staying and knocked on the door. John peeked out the curtain window, saw me, and immediately opened it and pulled me inside. The other photographers who were waiting in the courtyard were fuming and making a racket about it, saying, “Why does he get to go inside!?” When John heard them, he leaned back out to explain it: “He’s a friend of ours. He’s traveled around the world with us. If you’d traveled around the world with us, you might be inside too.” I thought that was funny.

Of the four guys, who were you closest with?

I became closer friends with George. When I would end up in London, I would call the office and leave a message for him that I was in town and he’d get back to me. We’d arrange to meet the next day or whenever. One time when I went over to George’s house, he had an instrument hanging on the wall that I didn’t recognize—it was a sitar. He took it down and told me, “I can’t get anyone to teach me how to play it.” I told him that he had enough money to find the best sitar teacher in India and ask him to come stay for the summer to teach him how to play. He took my advice but went further—and headed all the way to India!

What about Paul?

I remember one day I was standing with Paul by the water in Nassau, and I looked down and saw what appeared to be a fossil. It was a piece of coral, I think. I picked it up and handed it to Paul and said, “Look at this, you know how many millions of years it took for this to end up this way?” And he picked it up, looked me in the eye, grinned, and tossed it as far out into the ocean as he could. Then he turned to me laughing and said, “Wow, I guess we set that one back a few million years, didn’t we, Henry?”

It seems like you captured so many light moments like that. In all the time you spent with them, did you ever see them upset?

I never saw any dark days. Maybe that’s just me. I see the best things in people, and I try to capture that. But I can honestly say, I never saw a nasty or biting look from any of them. They were charming. The only time that I really saw them down was the day Brian Epstein died. I left with Jane Asher and Paul for the car ride back to London after they got the news, and the press was surrounding him trying to ask “How do you feel?” and “What’s next?” Those were definitely some down times. But I was there as a friend, not an interviewer or photographer.

What about the iconic Bob Dylan image you took outside the Delmonico in New York?

That one is interesting. I knew who Dylan was, but only got one frame off before he went into the hotel. I did not recognize Al Aronowitz until my publishers told me of the importance of that shot. I didn’t think much of the photograph, but when my publishers saw it, they flipped. I said, “What’s the matter, what’s the matter?” And they said, “You don’t understand, that’s the night Dylan introduced them to pot!”

Did you ever see them doing drugs?

No, I never saw any of that. The closest I came to it was David Crosby was smoking something, that night at the party at George’s. He asked if I wanted some. It was hash, I think. I took a smoke of it and never had it again.

Is there anything you realize now, almost 50 years later, that you missed at the time?

One of the things that I think about, looking back now, is the love and excitement that they engendered. They had no idea how long it would all last. They knew how good they were, but they were always wondering how much longer they had. George said to me once, “You know, we don’t know if this is going to last at all, Henry.” That’s crazy to me to think about now.

_______________

_________________

______________

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

“Truth Tuesday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 21(What right do atheists have to impose their morality on the German people in the 1930’s ?)

November 24, 2015 – 1:20 am

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicle, of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem, 2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism), 4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites, 6.Shishak Smiting His Captives, 7. Moabite Stone, 8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. 10. Cyrus Cylinder, 11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E., 12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription, 13. The Pilate Inscription, 14. Caiaphas Ossuary, 14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2, 14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.,

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

Why Can’t Morals Be Grounded In Society?

Published on Aug 31, 2012

Dr William Lane Craig was invited by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Christian Union, London to give a lecture titled “Can we be good without God?” In this video Dr Craig answers a question about the objectivity of morality. Should we consider morals to be objective? If so, why can’t morals be “abiding” and objectively grounded in society?

The lecture formed part of the Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. The Tour was sponsored by Damaris Trust, UCCF and Premier Christian Radio.

The entire lecture “Can We Be Good Without God” can be viewed here: http://youtu.be/jzlEnrJfDBc

For more resources visit Dr Craig’s website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

Be sure to visit both of our Youtube channels for more videos:
youtube.com/reasonablefaithorg and youtube.com/drcraigvideos

More videos from the tour can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/user/Reasonabl…

____________________________________

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism

(Samuel Beckett example: Life is meaningless, live in tension with reality)

(Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example of the lady tied to the railroad tracks in this above video as a example.)

Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below:

HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? was both a book and a film series.

______________

_________________

Life without God in the picture is absurdity!!!. That was the view of King Solomon when he wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes 3000 years ago and it is the view of many of the modern philosophers today. Modern man has tried to come up with a lasting meaning for life without God in the picture (life under the sun), but it is not possible. Without the infinite-personal God of the Bible to reveal moral absolutes then man is left to embrace moral relativism. In a time plus chance universe man is reduced to a machine and can not find a place for values such as love. Both of Francis Schaeffer’s film series have tackled these subjects and he shows how this is reflected in the arts.

Here are some posts I have done on the series “HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”, episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” , episode 6 “The Scientific Age” , episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” , episode 4 “The Reformation”, episode 3 “The Renaissance”, episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and episode 1 “The Roman Age,” .

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

I have discussed many subjects with my liberal friends over at the Ark Times Blog in the past and I have taken them on now on the subject of the absurdity of life without God in the picture. Most of my responses included quotes from William Lane Craig’s book THE ABSURDITY OF LIFE WITHOUT GOD. Here is the result of one of those encounters from June of 2013:

I wrote:

Outlier, if there is no afterlife then maybe Hitler lived “an honorable and fulfilling life” and he was not morally wrong since there are no absolute moral values that we can impose on German Society in the 1930’s and the Germans did think that Hitler was very good at that time. What right do atheists have to impose their morality on the German people then?

Of course, a Christian with his Bible can stand up to Hitler and say that the German laws against Jews were wrong because man is made in the image of God. This is because the infinite-personal God of the universe has revealed this truth in the Bible.

_______________
William Lane Craig notes:

Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. FIRST OF ALL, ATHEISTIC HUMANISTS ARE TOTALLY INCONSISTENT IN AFFIRMING THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF LOVE AND BROTHERHOOD. Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and to the ethics of human love and brotherhood. The two are logically incompatible. Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views “incredible.” “I do not know the solution,” he confessed.17 The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong cannot exist. As Dostoyevsky said, “All things are permitted.”

BUT DOSTOYVEVSKY ALSO SHOWED IN HIS NOVELS THAT MAN CANNOT LIVE THIS WAY. HE CANNOT LIVE AS THOUGH IT IS PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT FOR SOLDIERS TO SLAUGHTER INNOCENT CHILDREN. He cannot live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners. He cannot live as though it is all right for dictators like Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in him cries out to say these acts are wrong—really wrong. But if there is no God, he cannot. So he makes a leap of faith and affirms values anyway. And when he does so, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

He cannot live as though it is all right for dictatorial regimes to follow a systematic program of physical torture of political prisoners. He cannot live as though it is all right for dictators like Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein to exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in him cries out to say these acts are wrong—really wrong. But if there is no God, he cannot. So he makes a leap of faith and affirms values anyway. And when he does so, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

The horror of a world devoid of value was brought home to me with new intensity several years ago as I viewed a BBC television documentary called “The Gathering.” IT CONCERNED THE REUNION OF SURVIVORS OF THE HOLOCAUST IN JERUSALEM, where they rediscovered lost friendships and shared their experiences. NOW I HAD HEARD STORIES OF THE HOLOCAUST BEFORE AND HAD EVEN VISITED DACHAU AND BUCHENWALD, and I thought I was beyond shocking by further tales of horror. But I found that I was not. Perhaps I had been made more sensitive by the recent birth of our beautiful baby girl, so that I applied the situations to her as they were related on the television. In any case, one woman prisoner, a nurse, told of how she was made the gynecologist at Auschwitz. She observed that pregnant women were grouped together by the soldiers under the direction of Dr. Mengele and housed in the same barracks. Some time passed, and she noted that she no longer saw any of these women. She made inquiries. “Where are the pregnant women who were housed in that barracks?” “Haven’t you heard?” came the reply. “Dr. Mengele used them for vivisection.”

Another woman told of how Mengele had bound up her breasts so that she could not suckle her infant. The doctor wanted to learn how long an infant could survive without nourishment. Desperately this poor woman tried to keep her baby alive by giving it pieces of bread soaked in coffee, but to no avail. Each day the baby lost weight, a fact that was eagerly monitored by Dr. Mengele. A nurse then came secretly to this woman and told her, “I have arranged a way for you to get out of here, but you cannot take your baby with you. I have brought a morphine injection that you can give to your child to end its life.” When the woman protested, the nurse was insistent: “Look, your baby is going to die anyway. At least save yourself.” And so this mother felt compelled to take the life of her own baby. Dr. Mengele was furious when he learned of it because he had lost his experimental specimen, and he searched among the dead to find the baby’s discarded corpse so that he could have one last weighing.

My heart was torn by these stories. One rabbi who survived the camp summed it up well when he said that at Auschwitz it was as though there existed a world in which all the Ten Commandments were reversed: “Thou shalt kill, thou shalt lie, thou shalt steal …” Mankind had never seen such a hell.

And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz: there is no right and wrong; all things are permitted. But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view of life. Nietzsche himself, who proclaimed the necessity of living “beyond good and evil,” broke with his mentor Richard Wagner precisely over the issue of the composer’s anti-Semitism and strident German nationalism. Similarly Sartre, writing in the aftermath of the Second World War, condemned anti-Semitism, declaring that a doctrine that leads to extermination is not merely an opinion or matter of personal taste, of equal value with its opposite.18 In his important essay “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” Sartre struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons. Like Russell, he could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.

Neither can Richard Dawkins. For although he solemnly pronounces, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…. We are machines for propagating DNA,”19 he is a patent moralist. He declares himself mortified that Enron executive Jeff Skilling regards Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene as his favorite book because of its perceived Social Darwinism.20 He characterizes “Darwinian mistakes” like pity for someone unable to pay us back or sexual attraction to an infertile member of the opposite sex as “blessed, precious mistakes” and calls compassion and generosity “noble emotions.”21 He denounces the doctrine of original sin as “morally obnoxious.”22 He vigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice, and prizing cultural diversity in the case of the Amish over the interests of their children.23 He even goes so far as to offer his own amended Ten Commandments for guiding moral behavior, all the while marvelously oblivious to the contradiction with his ethical subjectivism.24

A second problem for the atheist is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded. But who can live with such a view? Richard Wurmbrand, who has been tortured for his faith in communist prisons, says,

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, “There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I have heard one torturer even say, “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.” He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.25

The English theologian Cardinal Newman once said that if he believed that all the evils and injustices of life throughout history were not to be made right by God in the afterlife, “Why I think I should go mad.” Rightly so.

And the same applies to acts of self-sacrifice. A number of years ago, a terrible mid-winter air disaster occurred when a plane leaving the Washington, D.C., airport smashed into a bridge spanning the Potomac River, plunging its passengers into the icy waters. As the rescue helicopters came, attention was focused on one man who again and again pushed the dangling rope ladder to other passengers rather than be pulled to safety himself. Six times he passed the ladder by. When they came again, he was gone. He had freely given his life that others might live. The whole nation turned its eyes to this man in respect and admiration for the selfless and good act he had performed. And yet, if the atheist is right, that man was not noble—he did the stupidest thing possible. He should have gone for the ladder first, pushed others away if necessary in order to survive. But to die for others he did not even know, to give up all the brief existence he would ever have—what for? For the atheist there can be no reason. And yet the atheist, like the rest of us, instinctively reacts with praise for this man’s selfless action. Indeed, one will probably never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system. For a universe without moral account-ability and devoid of value is unimaginably terrible.

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 8, 2012 – 12:54 am

E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged francis crick, hitler and stalin, john kenneth galbraith, robert theobald, youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 1, 2012 – 12:51 am

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged free speech movement, paris riots, personal peace., sproul plaza, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 25, 2011 – 12:45 am

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged airplane design, http www youtube, marcel duchamp art, post impressionism, van gogh gauguin | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 18, 2011 – 12:41 am

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged french existentialism,humanist philosophers, humanistic philosophy, natural freedom, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 11, 2011 – 12:37 am

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged biblical foundations.,biblical influence, french prose, neo darwinism, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 4, 2011 – 12:33 am

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged christian foundations,freedom of press, freedom of religion, lex rex, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 27, 2011 – 12:26 am

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged authority of the bible,christian humanism, old testament prophets, school of athens., thomas cromwell |Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

November 20, 2011 – 10:03 am

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted, Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sunday” Debating Kermit Gosnell Trial, Abortion and infanticide with Ark Times Bloggers Part 12 Matthew Franck: “Kermit Gosnell has been the equivalent of the American slave-dealer—someone who has done work rendered absolutely necessary by the twisted laws of his regime, but who has nevertheless been ignored or regarded with unease, and even repulsion, by his fellow citizens”

November 22, 2015 – 1:36 am



Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush

Francis Schaeffer
Founder of the L’Abri community
Born	Francis August Schaeffer January 30, 1912

Died May 15, 1984 (aged 72)

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis Schaeffer: Whatever Happened to the Human Race Episode 1 ABORTION

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

In July of 2013 I went back and forth with several bloggers from the Ark Times Blog concerning Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice and his trial which had finished up in the middle of May:

Zatharus wrote:

When the proponents of state servitude imply a connection to slavery or the holocaust, they fail to comprehend depth of their misconception.

_______________________

Matthew J. Franck is Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute and he did assert “Kermit Gosnell has been the equivalent of the American slave-dealer—someone who has done work rendered absolutely necessary by the twisted laws of his regime, but who has nevertheless been ignored or regarded with unease, and even repulsion, by his fellow citizens.”

Franck went on to comment:

Barack Obama, on April 26, was the first sitting president of the United States to give a public address to a convention of the slave-dealers of our age. That morning he gave a twelve-minute speech to the annual conference of Planned Parenthood, an organization responsible for more abortions than any other provider in the country.

Evidently he is not afraid to come into contact with our own “class of native tyrants,” who carry on the despicable business of destroying hundreds of thousands of human lives each year, and have the audacity to say they are serving “women’s health.” But then this is, after all, the same politician who voted against an Illinois law to protect the lives of newborns who survived failed abortions.

There is a limit even to Obama’s audacity, though. The president mentioned the “right to choose” four times in his brief speech, but somehow this transitive verb never took an object. Choose what? He never uttered the word “abortion,” though it was plain that the entire speech was about the centrality of abortion to the president’s notion of women’s “health.” Is there any other constitutional right, real or invented, that does not go by its true name when its defenders speak of it?

And far be it from the president to utter the name of Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist now convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for “snipping” the necks of babies who survived their abortions, as well as manslaughter in the case of a pregnant woman who did not survive his ministrations.

Gosnell, whose clinic was shut down by the Philadelphia authorities who charged him with murder, is the ne plus ultra of the abortion trade. Not because of the filth, the squalor, the jars of amputated keepsake baby feet, the employment of unlicensed incompetents, the promiscuous use of narcotics on unwitting patients, or the poisonous racism of a physician who preyed upon women and babies of his own race—although all of these are no surprise at all in America’s most unregulated branch of medicine.

No, Gosnell is the “slave-dealer” par excellence because, even if he had run the cleanest, brightest, most professional clinic in the country, he was simply following out the remorseless logic of the abortion regime installed forty years ago by the Supreme Court.

Women came to him for the very latest of late-term abortions, and he made sure their children were dead. WHETHER HE ACCOMPLISHED THEIR DEATHS IN UTERO OR EX UTERO- BEFORE OR AFTER THEIR BIRTHS- DIDN’T REALLY MATTER TO GOSNELL. AND, AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OFFICIALS, FROM THEN-ILLINOIS STATE SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, and from “pro-choice” politicians like Senator Barbara Boxer, it doesn’t matter to them, either.

Their insouciance about infanticide, moreover, is given intellectual respectability when a leading academic publication like the Journal of Medical Ethics publishes a symposium on infanticide in which the majority of the contributing scholars cannot bring themselves to condemn it.

And there is something inexorably logical about this attitude. How can it really matter where an innocent human being’s life is deliberately snuffed out? If it’s a legally protected “baby” after birth at 24 weeks’ gestation, but only an unprotected “fetus” before birth at 25 weeks’ gestation, how does that make any sense? Yet this is the kind of gyration the law produces, just as it was shot through with contradictions and inanities under the regime that sanctioned slavery.

It mattered a great deal whether Gosnell’s tiny victims were born dead or alive to his defense counsel, attorney Jack McMahon, for it meant the difference between capital crimes and the facilitation of women’s “constitutional rights.”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/…

A Twin Lives Through an Abortion – CBN.com

Uploaded on Jan 7, 2011

My name is Claire Culwell, and I am an abortion survivor…

__________

“Everyone needs to hear Claire’s story! Often times at pro-life events or banquets we can forget who is at stake in abortion. Claire’s passion reminds the audience that every life lost due to abortion cannot be taken back but every life saved from abortion is a profound witness of God’s hope and love for every human life. Having seen her speak multiple times, I know that Claire’s story captures an audience at a pregnancy center event like no other story because she is living proof of what we stand for, life!” **–Shawn Carney, Co-founder 40 Days for Life, Host of Being Human on EWTN**

Claire’s Story:

I found out I was affected by abortion about 3 years ago. This changed my life. I had walked into the Coalition For Life wondering what their organization provided and 5 months later I met my birth mother who told me my life is a miracle.

My birth mother was 13 years old at the time she became pregnant with me. Her mother took her straight to an abortion clinic where she had a surgical abortion. After thinking she had “fixed the problem,” a few weeks later she realized her belly was still growing. Her mother took her back to the abortion clinic where she learned that she had been pregnant with twins…One was aborted; One survived.

My life is a miracle and I would be selfish to keep this GIFT of life to myself. I want to tell everyone what a gift I and even they have been given!! I want to encourage them to seek alternatives to abortion because I would never want any woman/man to go through the grief and the pain that my birth mother went through simply because she didn’t know she had any other option. I also want to be a vessel to offer God’s forgiveness to the men and women who have previously had abortions. I know healing is possible and I have been given the gift of surviving an abortion so that I can tell these men and women that they are forgiven…coming from an aborted child, I hope they know the power of forgiveness and healing through meeting me. My involvement in Coalition For Life transformed me, taught me how to stand up for life on the front lines, and how to share my story in a meaningful way. I have the staff at Coalition For Life to thank for encouraging me to get involved and to share my story not only on the sidewalk but in public (my biggest fear) because God is glorified when I publically proclaim that “I am here not because of anything I did, but ONLY because of God’s mercy and love for me.”

My life is a testimony that there are wonderful alternatives to abortion (such as adoption in my case) and an accident/unwanted child still deserves life…even a child with disabilities. I was born 2 1/2 months early, weighed 3 lbs 2 oz, had dislocated hips and club feet. I had to wear casts on my feet, a harness and eventually a body cast. The abortion still affects me today. All that to say, LIFE IS STILL WORTH IT.If my life can touch just one person who has had an abortion or considering an abortion or adoption, then I am fulfilling my purpose in the pro-life movement.

I will not be silent because each mother and child are in the same place my biological mother, my twin and I were in 22 years ago and I am here to say THERE IS HOPE and there are options!

Traveling and sharing my story was not something that I had planned for myself, but God proved to have better plans for me than I had for myself. Sharing my story is as much of a gift to MYSELF as it is to others.

GBCSUMC on Gosnell: What’s abortion got to do with it? #UMC

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

History’s Jury Is Out: Has Gosnell Rocked Our Conscience?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Evangelical Blogger Lists Eight Reasons the Media Are Ignoring the Gosnell Murder Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Cornerstone Executive Ashley Pratte on Gosnell Trial Verdict

July 10, 2013 – 1:48 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial ignored for a while by mainstream media

July 9, 2013 – 1:22 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

ANALYSIS: Will the Kermit Gosnell verdict change the abortion debate?

July 8, 2013 – 1:21 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

What’s So Bad About Kermit Gosnell?

July 5, 2013 – 1:20 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Gospel

July 4, 2013 – 1:19 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

VIDEO: Kermit Gosnell killings like ‘weeding your garden’

July 3, 2013 – 1:18 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gosnell: The Silence is Deafening

July 2, 2013 – 1:17 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

July 1, 2013 – 12:00 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Implications of the Kermit Gosnell Verdict

June 28, 2013 – 1:10 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Godly comments on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

June 27, 2013 – 1:07 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted closer look at Albuquerque abortion clinic

June 26, 2013 – 1:52 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Why won’t President Obama comment on Dr. Gosnell Trial?

June 25, 2013 – 1:50 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Alveda King reacts to guilty verdict of Kermit Gosnell

June 24, 2013 – 3:49 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kristen Hatten: Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict, but what about the rest?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Lila Rose of Live Action comments on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gerard M. Nadal: Dr. Gosnell Guilty, but now what?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Reince Priebus on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kirsten Powers of USA Today on Dr. Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Top 10 Revelations of Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Denny Burk: We have to learn from Dr. Gosnell’s Crimes

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Tony Perkins on Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Ross Douthat of NY Times on Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Family Research Council happy with Kermit Gosnell Guilty Verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Peter Jones on Infanticide and Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Is Dr. Gosnell a “one-of-a-kind anomaly”?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

______________________

Do New York late term abortionists need more attention like Dr. Gosnell did?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted Texas authorities to take closer look a Houston abortionist

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Father Frank Pavone reacts to Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

NAF reacts to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Hope for Kermit Gosnell’s repentance?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 5 (Includes videos and Pictures)

November 17, 2015 – 1:15 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Prolife | Comments (0)

“Truth Tuesday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 20 (Belief in an afterlife affects how people live now according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky {1821–1881})

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

Eastwooding Richard Dawkins’ Moral Argument Objections

Published on Oct 20, 2012

For more information and resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org

On September 29th, 2012, William Lane Craig participated in the Contending with Christianity’s Critics Conference held at Watermark Community Church in Dallas, TX. In this short clip, Dr. Craig uses the technique of Eastwooding to deal with Richard Dawkins’ attempted refutations of the moral argument for God’s existence.

To view the entire video: http://youtu.be/_XZb8m7p8ng

The statements ascribed to Richard Dawkins in this presentation are statements actually made by Prof. Dawkins. The following is a list of the sources of such statements:

Dawkins, Richard. “Afterword.” In Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press, 2012.

_____. “Comment.” http://old.richarddawkins.net/comment….

_____. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2006.

_____. River out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books, 1996.

_____. “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992), http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2007/….

_____. “Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig.” The Guardian 20 October 2011 http://old.richarddawkins.net/comment…

Citations of these statements with references may be found in:

“Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God.” In God Is Great, God Is Good, pp. 13-31. Ed. Wm. L Craig and Chad Meister. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 2009.

Citations in lecture format may be found at:

http://youtu.be/9HLmow850iE

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith’s other channel: http://www.youtube.com/drcraigvideos

Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: http://twitter.com/rfupdates

Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaith

Francis Schaeffer and Gospel of Christ in the pages of the Bible

(The Bible is the key in understanding the universe in its form)

Francis and Edith Schaeffer pictured below:

_________________

I wrote:

Outlier you don’t think that an afterlife would influence the way people act now on this earth? Why did the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) tackle this very issue so long ago?

_______________

William Lane Craig noted:

Another apologetic based on the human predicament may be found in the magnificent novels of the great nineteenth-century Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881). (May I add that I think the obsession of contemporary evangelicals with the writings of authors like C. S. Lewis to the neglect of writers like Dostoyevsky is a great shame? Dostoyevsky is a far, far grander writer.) The problem that tortured Dostoyevsky was the problem of evil: how can a good and loving God exist when the world is filled with so much suffering and evil? Dostoyevsky presented this problem in his works so persuasively, so poignantly, that certain passages of his, notably “The Grand Inquisitor” section from his Brothers Karamazov, are often reprinted in anthologies as classic statements of the problem of evil. As a result, some people are under the impression that Dostoyevsky was himself an atheist and that the viewpoint of the Grand Inquisitor is his own.

Actually, he sought to carry through a two-pronged defense of theism in the face of the problem of evil. Positively, he argued that innocent suffering may perfect character and bring one into a closer relation with God. Negatively, HE TRIED TO SHOW THAT IF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS DENIED, THEN ONE IS LANDED IN COMPLETE MORAL RELATIVISM, SO THAT NO ACT, REGARDLESS HOW DREADFUL OR HEINOUS, CAN BE CONDEMNED BY THE ATHEIST. To live consistently with such a view of life is unthinkable and impossible. Hence, atheism is destructive of life and ends logically in suicide.

Dostoyevsky’s magnificent novels Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov powerfully illustrate these themes. In the former a young atheist, convinced of moral relativism, brutally murders an old woman. Though he knows that on his presuppositions he should not feel guilty, nevertheless he is consumed with guilt until he confesses his crime and gives his life to God. The latter novel is the story of four brothers, one of whom murders their father because his atheist brother Ivan had told him that moral absolutes do not exist. Unable to live with the consequences of his own philosophical system, Ivan suffers a mental collapse. The remaining two brothers, one of whom is unjustly accused of the parricide and the other a young Russian orthodox priest, find in what they suffer the perfection of their character and a nearness to God.

Dostoyevsky recognizes that his response to atheism constitutes no positive proof of Christianity. Indeed, he rejects that there could be such. Men demand of Christ that he furnish them “bread and circuses,” but he refuses to do so. The decision to follow Christ must be made in loneliness and anxiety. Each person must face for himself the anguish of a world without God and in the solitude of his own heart give himself to God in faith.

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 8, 2012 – 12:54 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged francis crick, hitler and stalin, john kenneth galbraith, robert theobald, youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 1, 2012 – 12:51 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged free speech movement, paris riots, personal peace., sproul plaza, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 25, 2011 – 12:45 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged airplane design, http www youtube, marcel duchamp art, post impressionism, van gogh gauguin | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 18, 2011 – 12:41 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged french existentialism,humanist philosophers, humanistic philosophy, natural freedom, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 11, 2011 – 12:37 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged biblical foundations.,biblical influence, french prose, neo darwinism, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 4, 2011 – 12:33 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged christian foundations,freedom of press, freedom of religion, lex rex, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 27, 2011 – 12:26 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged authority of the bible,christian humanism, old testament prophets, school of athens., thomas cromwell |Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

November 20, 2011 – 10:03 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 13, 2011 – 12:13 am

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged byzantine art,conservative evangelicalism, gothic architecture., gregorian chants, naturalism in art| Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 6, 2011 – 12:01 am

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY

November 8, 2012 – 7:56 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

November 7, 2012 – 7:06 am

The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE

November 6, 2012 – 8:01 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

November 5, 2012 – 6:31 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

November 2, 2012 – 8:52 am

It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Ecclesiastes, Purpose, Meaning, and the Necessity of God by Suiwen Liang (Quotes Will Durant, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Stephen Jay Gould,Richard Dawkins, Jean-Paul Sartre,Bertrand Russell, Leo Tolstoy, Loren Eiseley,Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chesterton, Ravi Zacharias, and C.S. Lewis.)

June 20, 2013 – 6:46 am

Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 16, 2012 | Derek Neider _____________________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Robert Leroe on Ecclesiastes (Mentions Thomas Aquinas, Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, King Solomon, King Rehoboam, Eugene Peterson, Chuck Swindoll, and John Newton.)

June 19, 2013 – 1:30 am

Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Super Bowl, Black Eyed Peas, and the Meaning of Life and Ecclesiastes

June 18, 2013 – 1:22 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Brian LePort on Ecclesiastes

June 17, 2013 – 1:17 am

Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

J.W. Wartick on Ecclesiastes

June 14, 2013 – 1:14 am

Ecclesiastes 4-6 | Solomon’s Dissatisfaction Published on Sep 24, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 23, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider ___________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Overview of the Book of Ecclesiastes

June 13, 2013 – 1:05 am

Overview of the Book of Ecclesiastes Overview of the Book of EcclesiastesAuthor: Solomon or an unknown sage in the royal courtPurpose: To demonstrate that life viewed merely from a realistic human perspective must result in pessimism, and to offer hope through humble obedience and faithfulness to God until the final judgment.Date: 930-586 B.C. Ecclesiastes 2-3 Published on Sep 19, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Doy Moyer on the Book of Ecclesiastes and Apologetics

June 12, 2013 – 1:02 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes

June 11, 2013 – 1:55 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted, Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sunday” Debating Kermit Gosnell Trial, Abortion and infanticide with Ark Times Bloggers Part 11 Representative Marvin Stuzman of Indiana and his moving story concerning his mother and abortion

November 15, 2015 – 1:30 am



Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush

Francis Schaeffer
Founder of the L’Abri community
Born	Francis August Schaeffer January 30, 1912

Died May 15, 1984 (aged 72)

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis Schaeffer: Whatever Happened to the Human Race Episode 1 ABORTION

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

In July of 2013 I went back and forth with several bloggers from the Ark Times Blog concerning Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice and his trial which had finished up in the middle of May:

Olphart you are right that pro-life advocates should promote marriage and adoption as solutions to abortion. Here is a very moving story below from Representative Marvin Stuzman of Indiana who is 38 years old and grateful that he was born!!!!

On a cold December night in 1975, a 17-year-old girl sobbed on the bedroom floor of a neighbor’s house. Her own home had just burned to the ground, destroying everything she had. But that wasn’t the only weight she carried that night. She had just discovered that she was a few weeks pregnant with her first child. In the dark, alone and terrified, she decided to find a way to Kalamazoo, Mich., 40 miles away, to “take care of her situation.”

That young girl was my mother, and if she had gone to Kalamazoo that night, you wouldn’t be reading this today. I would have been aborted.

Recently, after speaking on the House floor about the horrors of Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I began wondering if my mother had ever thought about ending her unplanned pregnancy. My parents never gave any indication that it was ever a consideration, but was it?

I gave her a call. When she answered, I talked to her about my speech on the House floor and then asked gently, “Mom, did you ever think about .” There was a tense pause, and then, through tears she said, “Marlin, I’m so sorry!” As we cried together, I was no longer a congressman, but a son understanding for the first time the heartache and struggles my mom had gone through before I was born. As we talked about her fear of driving 40 miles alone, I had to think, “What if a ‘Gosnell‘ clinic was only four miles away instead of 40?”

She asked if I could forgive her. I answered, “Yes, with all my heart.” I said that I couldn’t imagine how scared she must have been, and how thankful I was for her and Dad’s strength to do the right thing and protect my life. It could have ended so differently. At home with my wife and two children that night, my heart ached at the thought that all of this might never have been.

For 40 years, our society has been unwilling to come to grips with the grim truth about abortion. We’ve raced down a dead-end street, willfully blind to the facts, only to find ourselves at 3801 Lancaster St. — Kermit Gosnell’s clinic in West Philadelphia. There, behind brick walls, he killed hundreds of babies by snipping their spinal cords just moments after delivery.

After hiding behind euphemisms like “choice” for so long, is it any wonder that Dr. Gosnell and his staff hid behind the euphemism of “snipping” to describe severing infants’ necks with scissors?

Right now, Americans ought to come together for an honest conversation about abortion. In the days and weeks ahead, let’s leave the euphemisms at the door, examine the facts and find our national conscience.

Kermit Gosnell, like every other abortionist in this country, sold lies to young women like my mother. Two years after Roe v. Wade, my young parents made the incredibly difficult decision to reject those lies and protect my life. The impactful conversation with my mom just a few weeks ago made me wonder how many more fathers, wives, business owners, doctors and public servants are missing today because of abortion?

Since 1973, more than 55 million children have been killed before birth. I was just 40 miles from being one of them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/m…

Part 1 of 2 Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor speaks at Queen’s Hall, Parliament House, Victoria. Australia – on the eve of the debate to decriminalize abortion in Victoria.
Gianna’s visit was sponsored by the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee.

Gianna Jessen is an abortion survivor. She was intervewed on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, where she shared her personal story and also commented on Obama’s voting record. As an Illinois state senator, four times he voted “no” on the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Defined Act, which would protect babies born alive after failed abortions.

There is a lively discussion at the end about whether or not Obama, by his vote, was in fact denying born babies (abortion survivors now outside the womb), the right to live. Pay attention especially to Alan Combs who tries to defend his pro-life liberal president.

Sean Hannity show with Gianna Jessen

Did you see how difficult it was for Alan Combs to defend his liberal president from the charge of infanticide. Logically there is no escape but he tried the best he could. President Obama was so intent on protecting Roe v Wade that he had to endorse a form of infanticide in order to protect Roe v Wade.

Liberals must acknowledge that hospitals are required to save lives. However, if a hospital is paid to perform an abortion and they botch the job then they must turn from trying to snuff out a life to trying to save it again. How ironic.

Part 2 of 2 Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor speaks at Queen’s Hall.

GBCSUMC on Gosnell: What’s abortion got to do with it? #UMC

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

History’s Jury Is Out: Has Gosnell Rocked Our Conscience?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Evangelical Blogger Lists Eight Reasons the Media Are Ignoring the Gosnell Murder Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Cornerstone Executive Ashley Pratte on Gosnell Trial Verdict

July 10, 2013 – 1:48 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial ignored for a while by mainstream media

July 9, 2013 – 1:22 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

ANALYSIS: Will the Kermit Gosnell verdict change the abortion debate?

July 8, 2013 – 1:21 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

What’s So Bad About Kermit Gosnell?

July 5, 2013 – 1:20 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Gospel

July 4, 2013 – 1:19 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

VIDEO: Kermit Gosnell killings like ‘weeding your garden’

July 3, 2013 – 1:18 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gosnell: The Silence is Deafening

July 2, 2013 – 1:17 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

July 1, 2013 – 12:00 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Implications of the Kermit Gosnell Verdict

June 28, 2013 – 1:10 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Godly comments on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

June 27, 2013 – 1:07 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted closer look at Albuquerque abortion clinic

June 26, 2013 – 1:52 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Why won’t President Obama comment on Dr. Gosnell Trial?

June 25, 2013 – 1:50 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Alveda King reacts to guilty verdict of Kermit Gosnell

June 24, 2013 – 3:49 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kristen Hatten: Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict, but what about the rest?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Lila Rose of Live Action comments on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gerard M. Nadal: Dr. Gosnell Guilty, but now what?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Reince Priebus on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kirsten Powers of USA Today on Dr. Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Top 10 Revelations of Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Denny Burk: We have to learn from Dr. Gosnell’s Crimes

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Tony Perkins on Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Ross Douthat of NY Times on Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Family Research Council happy with Kermit Gosnell Guilty Verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Peter Jones on Infanticide and Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Is Dr. Gosnell a “one-of-a-kind anomaly”?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

______________________

Do New York late term abortionists need more attention like Dr. Gosnell did?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted Texas authorities to take closer look a Houston abortionist

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Father Frank Pavone reacts to Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

NAF reacts to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Hope for Kermit Gosnell’s repentance?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 5 (Includes videos and Pictures)

November 10, 2015 – 1:56 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Prolife | Comments (0)

“Truth Tuesday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 19 (WITHOUT HEAVEN AND HELL THEN ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED IN THIS LIFE)

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values

Published on Dec 6, 2012

For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org

The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. Christian academics William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Peter J Williams and Gary Habermas lead 600 people in training on how to defend and proclaim the credibility of Christianity against the growing tide of secularism and New Atheist popular thought in western society.

In this session, William Lane Craig delivers his critique of Richard Dawkins’ objections to arguments for the existence of God, followed by questions and answers from the audience. In this clip, Dr Craig addresses a question about objective moral values and distinguishes them from absolute moral values.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

______________________________

_________________

I wrote:

The outlier wrote:

Saline, give it up! Just because you can’t imagine yourself living an honorable and fulfilling life without a hope of heaven or fear of hell doesn’t mean others can’t. Plenty of people do lead such lives—I know lots of them.

_______________________

WITHOUT HEAVEN AND HELL THEN ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED IN THIS LIFE. CHECK OUT THE MOVIE “CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” BY WOODY ALLEN.

When modern philosophers look at the human condition without God in the picture they see a picture of anything but satisfaction. Francis Schaeffer as you know, Outlier, is my favorite Christian philosopher and his work HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? does a great job of showing this exact thing.

From Wikipedia:

According to Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live traces Western history from Ancient Rome until the time of writing (1976) along three lines: the philosophic, scientific, and religious.[3] He also makes extensive references to art and architecture as a means of showing how these movements reflected changing patterns of thought through time. Schaeffer’s central premise is: when we base society on the Bible, on the infinite-personal God who is there and has spoken,[4] this provides an absolute by which we can conduct our lives and by which we can judge society. This leads to what Schaeffer calls “Freedom without chaos.”[5] When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”,[6] all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism.[7] Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,[8] which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Should_We…

Here are two 30 minute episodes that I really liked at this link (The Age of Nonreason and The Age of Fragmentation).

https://thedailyhatch.org/2013/06/04/how-sh…

William Lane Craig discusses Schaeffer’s work below:

One of the apologetic questions that contemporary Christian theology must treat in its doctrine of man is what has been called “the human predicament,” that is to say, the significance of human life in a post-theistic universe. Logically, this question ought, it seems to me, to be raised prior to and as a prelude to the question of God’s existence.

The apologetic for Christianity based on the human predicament is an extremely recent phenomenon, associated primarily with Francis Schaeffer. Often it is referred to as “cultural apologetics” because of its analysis of post-Christian culture. This approach constitutes an entirely different sort of apologetics than the traditional models, since it is not concerned with epistemological issues of justification and warrant. Indeed, in a sense it does not even attempt to show in any positive sense that Christianity is true; it simply explores the disastrous consequences for human existence, society, and culture if Christianity should be false. In this respect, this approach is somewhat akin to existentialism: the precursors of this approach were also precursors of existentialism, and much of its analysis of the human predicament is drawn from the insights of twentieth-century atheistic existentialism.

As I remarked earlier, FRANCIS SCHAEFFER (1912–1984) is the thinker most responsible for crafting a Christian apologetic based on the so-called modern predicament. According to Schaeffer, there can be traced in recent Western culture a “line of despair,” which penetrates philosophy, literature, and the arts in succession. He believes the root of the problem lies in Hegelian philosophy, specifically in its denial of absolute truths. Hegel developed the famous triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, in which contradictions are seen not as absolute opposites, but as partial truths, which are synthesized in the whole. Ultimately all is One, which is absolute and non-contradictory. In Schaeffer’s view, Hegel’s system undermined the notion of particular absolute truths (such as “That act is morally wrong” or “This painting is aesthetically ugly”) by synthesizing them into the whole. This denial of absolutes has gradually made its way through Western culture. In each case, it results in despair, because without absolutes man’s endeavors degenerate into absurdity. Schaeffer believes that the Theater of the Absurd, abstract modern art, and modern music such as compositions by John Cage are all indications of what happens below the line of despair. Only by reaffirming belief in the absolute God of Christianity can man and his culture avoid inevitable degeneracy, meaninglessness, and despair.

Schaeffer’s efforts against abortion may be seen as a logical extension of this apologetic. Once God is denied, human life becomes worthless, and we see the fruit of such a philosophy in the abortion and infanticide now taking place in Western society. Schaeffer warns that unless Western man returns to the Christian world and life view, nothing will stop the trend from degenerating into population control and human breeding. Only a theistic worldview can save the human race from itself.

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 8, 2012 – 12:54 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged francis crick, hitler and stalin, john kenneth galbraith, robert theobald, youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

January 1, 2012 – 12:51 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged free speech movement, paris riots, personal peace., sproul plaza, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 25, 2011 – 12:45 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged airplane design, http www youtube, marcel duchamp art, post impressionism, van gogh gauguin | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 18, 2011 – 12:41 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged french existentialism,humanist philosophers, humanistic philosophy, natural freedom, www youtube | Edit |Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 11, 2011 – 12:37 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged biblical foundations.,biblical influence, french prose, neo darwinism, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

December 4, 2011 – 12:33 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged christian foundations,freedom of press, freedom of religion, lex rex, www youtube | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 27, 2011 – 12:26 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged authority of the bible,christian humanism, old testament prophets, school of athens., thomas cromwell |Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

November 20, 2011 – 10:03 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 13, 2011 – 12:13 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Tagged byzantine art,conservative evangelicalism, gothic architecture., gregorian chants, naturalism in art| Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

November 6, 2011 – 12:01 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY

November 8, 2012 – 7:56 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY

November 7, 2012 – 7:06 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE

November 6, 2012 – 8:01 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

November 5, 2012 – 6:31 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

November 2, 2012 – 8:52 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

Ecclesiastes, Purpose, Meaning, and the Necessity of God by Suiwen Liang (Quotes Will Durant, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Stephen Jay Gould,Richard Dawkins, Jean-Paul Sartre,Bertrand Russell, Leo Tolstoy, Loren Eiseley,Aldous Huxley, G.K. Chesterton, Ravi Zacharias, and C.S. Lewis.)

June 20, 2013 – 6:46 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Robert Leroe on Ecclesiastes (Mentions Thomas Aquinas, Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, King Solomon, King Rehoboam, Eugene Peterson, Chuck Swindoll, and John Newton.)

June 19, 2013 – 1:30 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Super Bowl, Black Eyed Peas, and the Meaning of Life and Ecclesiastes

June 18, 2013 – 1:22 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Atheists Confronted, Biblical Archaeology | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sunday” Debating Kermit Gosnell Trial, Abortion and infanticide with Ark Times Bloggers Part 10 Matt Barber: I appreciate President Obama’s candor on the matter, Like he said, laws preventing abortionists like Gosnell from finishing (abortion survivors) off are “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion”

November 8, 2015 – 1:32 am



Surgeon General of the United States
In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush

Francis Schaeffer
Founder of the L’Abri community
Born	Francis August Schaeffer January 30, 1912

Died May 15, 1984 (aged 72)

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis

In July of 2013 I went back and forth with several bloggers from the Ark Times Blog concerning Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice and his trial which had finished up in the middle of May:

Elwood wrote, “Saline makes plain he wants the gubmint out of our lives and bidnesses except he wants gov in control of what wingnuts fear most, female sexuality and autonomy.”

__________

Elwood you are so concerned about the freedom of choice of ladies on the issue of abortion, but what about the right to life that unborn females have?

Matt Barber wrote on April 28, 2013 just days before the Gosnell verdict came out these words:

What’s the big deal?

I mean, why are we surprised that an abortionist and his staff would, behind the walls of an always-lethal abortion clinic, commit one of the most horrific serial killings in American history? What did you think abortionists do, heal people?

Why are we taken aback that there was no oversight, no regulation, or that Planned Parenthood, though privy to the clinic’s filthy, medieval conditions, refused to report it to the Department of Health? After all, Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama and the DNC have vehemently opposed all laws – such as those in Virginia, Mississippi and elsewhere – designed to prevent exactly the same kind of squalid conditions found in Gosnell’s clinic (and others), laws that simply direct abortion mills to meet the same minimal safety standards required of all other medical facilities.

You didn’t really buy that whole “women’s health” nonsense, did you?

Sucker.

Seriously, there are so few sociopathic doctors left willing to hack alive those inconvenient little buggers; What did you think women were “choosing” with abortion, some kind of medical treatment? Besides, there’s billions to be made in the death racket.

Let’s keep it real. The only difference between what happened in Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic and what happens every day in Planned Parenthoods across the country can be measured by a matter of inches – by the child’s proximity to her mother in the room. Whether the baby is in the womb or 12 inches removed, a dead baby is a dead baby, right? So why all the drama? Relax. You know, Roe v. Wade and all.

Besides, what’s an abortionist to do (wink, wink) if that resilient little pest does survive, if she’s born alive? I appreciate President Obama’s candor on the matter. Like he said, laws preventing abortionists like Gosnell from finishing her off are “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Snippety-snip, eh, Barack? You know, choice and all.

Or, as Gosnell attorney Jack McMahon noted during the trial, it’s “ludicrous … to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time.” You anti-choice zealots don’t get to define the terms here. One man’s “alive” is another man’s “unwanted pregnancy.” Potato, potahto.

In reality, to the media, this stuff is old news. Gosnell is on trial for doing something nearly indistinguishable from partial-birth abortion – a “never necessary” procedure (according to the AMA) Obama vocally endorsed. He said that banning it was part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.”

Furthermore, why are we surprised that this rush-to-judgment-when-it-suits-his-political-agenda president suddenly “can’t comment” on Gosnell “because it’s an active trial”? Remember? This is the same race-baiting “community organizer” who said that Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when arresting a combative black Harvard professor who, as it turned out, was himself acting stupidly. Don’t forget; this is the same president who had no problem laying guilt on a “presumed innocent” George Zimmerman, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

To “pro-choicers” it’s not that old Kermit did anything wrong; it’s just that he got caught doing it. He was careless. He pulled back the curtain of “reproductive freedom” to reveal abortion’s house of horrors. Kermit Gosnell is liberalism personified, and liberalism relies on deceit. The “progressive” culture is a culture of death. Moral relativism is as moral relativism does.

Speaking of moral relativism, on Friday the first sitting president in United States history gave the keynote address at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Nice timing. Even as the Gosnell mass-murder trial wraps up, Obama was lending the full weight of his presidency to a mass-murder celebration.
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/…

Melissa Ohden: An Abortion Survivor – CBN.com

Fulfilling the purpose that she believes God set out for her when He saved her from the certain death of the abortion attempt, Melissa is truly a voice for the voiceless.

GBCSUMC on Gosnell: What’s abortion got to do with it? #UMC

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

History’s Jury Is Out: Has Gosnell Rocked Our Conscience?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Evangelical Blogger Lists Eight Reasons the Media Are Ignoring the Gosnell Murder Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Cornerstone Executive Ashley Pratte on Gosnell Trial Verdict

July 10, 2013 – 1:48 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial ignored for a while by mainstream media

July 9, 2013 – 1:22 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

ANALYSIS: Will the Kermit Gosnell verdict change the abortion debate?

July 8, 2013 – 1:21 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

What’s So Bad About Kermit Gosnell?

July 5, 2013 – 1:20 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Gospel

July 4, 2013 – 1:19 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

VIDEO: Kermit Gosnell killings like ‘weeding your garden’

July 3, 2013 – 1:18 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gosnell: The Silence is Deafening

July 2, 2013 – 1:17 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

July 1, 2013 – 12:00 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Implications of the Kermit Gosnell Verdict

June 28, 2013 – 1:10 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Godly comments on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

June 27, 2013 – 1:07 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted closer look at Albuquerque abortion clinic

June 26, 2013 – 1:52 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Why won’t President Obama comment on Dr. Gosnell Trial?

June 25, 2013 – 1:50 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Alveda King reacts to guilty verdict of Kermit Gosnell

June 24, 2013 – 3:49 am

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kristen Hatten: Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict, but what about the rest?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Lila Rose of Live Action comments on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Gerard M. Nadal: Dr. Gosnell Guilty, but now what?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Reince Priebus on Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kirsten Powers of USA Today on Dr. Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Top 10 Revelations of Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Denny Burk: We have to learn from Dr. Gosnell’s Crimes

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Tony Perkins on Kermit Gosnell Trial

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Ross Douthat of NY Times on Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Family Research Council happy with Kermit Gosnell Guilty Verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Peter Jones on Infanticide and Dr. Gosnell

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Is Dr. Gosnell a “one-of-a-kind anomaly”?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of “Pro-Choice”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

______________________

Do New York late term abortionists need more attention like Dr. Gosnell did?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. Gosnell Trial has prompted Texas authorities to take closer look a Houston abortionist

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Father Frank Pavone reacts to Kermit Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

NAF reacts to Dr. Gosnell guilty verdict

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Hope for Kermit Gosnell’s repentance?

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

The Selfishness of Chris Evert Part 5 (Includes videos and Pictures)