and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__________________________
There are 3 videos in this series and they have statements by 150 academics and scientists and I hope to respond to all of them. Wikipedia notesJonathan Parry is an English historian. He is Professor of Modern British History at the University of Cambridge.[1]
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 122nd clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
_______________
Interview with Jonathan Parry, Part 1
Uploaded on Feb 3, 2012
The anthropologist Jonathan Parry interviewed by Alan Macfarlane on 5th December 2008. Please see http://www.alanmacfarlane.com for the wider context.
Since the age of about 15 or 16 I have been an agnostic. In later years I converted from being an agnostic to a somewhat dogmatic atheist. I think my personal attitudes to religion were actually hardened by doing the Banaras Study (about death)…. A lot of the ideas that were underlying what people were saying were really rather deeply disturbing and frankly personally unpleasant. You would meet a man whose son had died in some tragic circumstances and the Priest would be going on about the fruits of Karma and so on. I found this personally unattractive.
I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”
Here is a quote I ran across recently from you in your wonderful in depth interview with Alan Macfarlane :
Since the age of about 15 or 16 I have been an agnostic. In later years I converted from being an agnostic to a somewhat dogmatic atheist. I think my personal attitudes to religion were actually hardened by doing the Banaras Study (about death)…. A lot of the ideas that were underlying what people were saying were really rather deeply disturbing and frankly personally unpleasant. You would meet a man whose son had died in some tragic circumstances and the Priest would be going on about the fruits of Karma and so on. I found this personally unattractive.
On February 15, 2015 at our church service at FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH in Little Rock, Arkansas, our teaching pastor Brandon Barnard told the story of my good friends Roger and Terrie Cheuvront and the tragic death of their 19 year daughter Danaea on April 15, 2007 in a traffic accident. Just like you I was at the Funeral Home when the minister came in that very day, but unlike you I found the words of the pastor as a great comfort. The sermon on 2-15-15 was about the time that Jesus wept at sight of his friend Lazarus’ tomb, and this 11th chapter of John had comforted Terrie Cheuvront because she knew that Jesus had felt the same pain that we have and he will eventually raise us too from the dead and her daughter Danaea is even now in heaven with Christ.
Rev Barnard actually read these words from Terri at our service: “God never intended us to experience sin and death, but sin brought about this consequence. I could be mad at death and all that it meant but the amazing thing was when I realized God’s plan then God took the anger and replaced it with His grace. It made me realize at a deeper level what God had truly done for me on the cross. He conquered sin and death for me. What amazing glorious hope he gives us. We live because He lives. Yes I am separated from my daughter now but there will be a glorious reunion.”
Let me make three points concerning the problem of evil and suffering.First, the problem of evil and suffering hit this world in a big way because of Adam and what happened in Genesis Chapter 3. Second, if there is no God then there is no way to distinguish good from evil and there will be no ultimate punishment for Hitler and Josef Mengele. (By the way Mengele never faced punishment and lived his long life out in peace.) Third. Christ came and suffered and will destroy all evil from this world eventually forever.
“I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest. It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide…....Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world.”
Francis Schaeffer observed:
This of course is a valid problem. The only answer to the problem of evil is the biblical answer of the fall. Darwin has a problem because he never had a high view of revelation, so he doesn’t have the answer any more than the liberal theologian has the answer. If you don’t have a space-time fall then you don’t have an answer to suffering. If you have a very, very significant man at the beginning, Darwin did not have that, but if you had a very significant, wonderful man at the beginning and can change history then the fall is the possible answer that can be given to Darwin’s 2nd argument.
“But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove.”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
We come now to a funny situation where Darwin is arguing there is more happiness than sorry in the world. In this I think he is right. What he is saying if you could have a balance of 51% of happiness then it would open the door to thinking God is good, but I would never argue this way because it is not 51% of happiness versus 49% of unhappiness in the universe but how could a good God make unhappiness at all. The answer is in the [space time fall in Genesis].
If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever, or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient begins have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness. Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number.
Francis Schaeffer noted:
What he is saying here is that from his own view he needs to hold that suffering is less than happiness otherwise what would drive the creatures on toward natural selection. The Christian of course does not have this problem. The Christian says everything is in agony because the whole has been thrown out of joint and there has been an reordering of the universe because of the fall. We don’t have to find such a balance as he was grappling with here.
The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.
Francis Schaeffer :
He has to argue this otherwise what drove the creatures on. He has to have a 51% or 52% happiness. Then he says what does this do to God. We would answer if there is no space time fall it makes God if He exists the devil, on the other hand with a space time fall you have another answer.
WITHOUT THE VIEW THAT THE GARDEN OF EDEN EXISTED OR IN THE EXISTENCE OF HEAVEN THEN YOUR ANALYSIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS PROBABLE. FURTHERMORE, IF WE WERE NOT CREATED BY GOD THEN WE HAVE NO HOPE FOR OUR ETERNAL FUTURES. I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life. FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.
Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. DAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
About the film:
In 1973, six guys in a local band from America’s heartland began a journey that surpassed even their own wildest expectations, by achieving worldwide superstardom… watch the story unfold as the incredible story of the band KANSAS is told for the first time in the DVD Miracles Out of Nowhere.
_____________________________ Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 3 Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007 Part 3 of 3: ‘Is Woody Allen A Romantic Or A Realist?’ A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, Crimes and Misdemeanors, perhaps his finest. By Anton Scamvougeras.http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/antons@mail.ubc.ca ______________ I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times […]
Friendly Fire with John Whitehead—Rob Boston (Part 1) Uploaded by RutherfordInstitute on Aug 20, 2007 An interview with Rob Boston, Assistant Director of Communications, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Part 1. ____________ Above you see Rob Boston discuss the teaching of intelligent design in the class room. He was against it. Obama’s […]
_____________________________ Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 3 Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007 Part 3 of 3: ‘Is Woody Allen A Romantic Or A Realist?’ A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, Crimes and Misdemeanors, perhaps his finest. By Anton Scamvougeras.http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/antons@mail.ubc.ca ______________ I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times […]
________________ Kansas – Dust In The Wind “Live” HD Rolling Stones: “Satisfaction!” U2 Still Haven’t Found (with lyrics) Carl Sagan appears on CBC to discuss the importance of SETI [Carl Sagan Archives] __________________________________________________ On December 5, 1995, I got a letter back from Carl Sagan and I was very impressed that he took time to answer […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
On 2 April, Adrian Leftwich of the Department of Politics at the University of York died at the age of 73 of lung cancer. He was a South African student leader at the University of Cape Town, and very committed to the anti-Apartheid struggle. I was at the University of Cape Town at the same time doing my degree in philosophy (1960-1963). Although, I did not know him personally, he was very visible. Here is an excerpt from his obituary, which describes him having the finest qualities of “humanism.”
“[He had an] extraordinary and genuine interest in and support for others. Adrian was above all a humanist (my italics), wanting to know and understand the people he met and worked with – important leaders and charismatic taxi-drivers alike. Adrian wanted to understand the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ weft and weave of the person, and in doing so invariably left an enduring impression on people. As a mentor Adrian was deeply valued and respected by DLP [Development Leadership Program] researchers and the whole team. He educated and enthused us, had the unique ability to shine a search-light and illuminate complex issues, but also the skill to encourage and bring out the ideas and thoughts of others. There were so many times where I witnessed Adrian’s endless generosity in intellect and time, but what stands out is that, on the day he was diagnosed with cancer, he somehow took time to provide detailed feedback on the draft manuscript of an AusAID [Australian Agency for International Development] colleague. In a word, selfless. To a person DLP friends and former colleagues have said that it was an honour and privilege to have worked with Adrian and that they truly valued his shared wisdom.”
What is Humanism
There exist various definitions of humanism, Here is one:
“…a commitment to the perspective, interests and centrality of human persons; a belief in reason and autonomy as foundational aspects of human existence; a belief that reason, scepticism and the scientific method are the only appropriate instruments for discovering truth and structuring the human community; a belief that the foundations for ethics and society are to be found in autonomy and moral equality (Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”
Paganism and humanism
In ancient Judaism other religions are described as goyim (the nations). In modern Judaism a non-Jew is a goy. Early and Middle-Ages Christianity referred to religions other than itself and Judaism as paganism (from “rural,” “peasant”). In early Christianity, “paganism” comprised the Greco-Roman religions, neoplatonism and gnosticism, and the mystery cults, while in the Middle-Ages there was Germanic and Slavic paganism.
“Seventy-five years ago, writes J Gresham Machen, Western civilization, despite inconsistencies, was still predominantly Christian; today it is predominantly pagan. In speaking of ‘paganism,’ we are not using a term of reproach. Ancient Greece was pagan, but it was glorious, and the modern world has not even begun to equal its achievements. What, then, is paganism? The answer is not really difficult. Paganism is that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties” (my italics). And that exactly describes humanism.
The nobler qualities of humanism also have the above qualities as the highest human goal. “Very different , continues Machen, is the Christian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart [by which is not meant] continual beating on the breast or a continual crying of ‘Woe is me.’ Christianity begins with the broken heart and the consciousness of sin and ends with its final reality, God in Christ.”
The measure of all things, the pleasure of all things
In humanism “man is the measure of all things.” Plato attributes this saying to Protagoras. Briefly, it means that truth – moral and intellectual – is not something out there, but is the product of individual human minds. Human minds differ, therefore, my truth may not be your truth. A problem: when it comes to water boiling at sea-level, surely all beach-lovers would have to agree that the 100 degrees centigrade they see on their individual pocket thermometers is not a product of their minds. In the philosophy of humanism, many other areas of human life such as the “humanities” – politics, economics, art and ethics – the rigid belief “your truth, my truth” is regarded as the natural order of things.
In humanism, says Francis Schaeffer, “the material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality.” In 1982, the United States of America legislated that the only view of reality that can be taught is that matter and energy are the product of chance. This philosophy says Schaeffer, “gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.” So, those in power get together and decide what is good for society in a given place and at a given time, and that becomes law. “TYRANNY! Exclaims Schaeffer (his emphasis); that’s what we face! We face a world view which never would have given us our freedoms. It has been forced upon us by the courts and the government — the men holding this other world view, whether we want it or not, even though it’s destroying the very freedoms which give the freedoms for the excesses and for the things which are wrong.”
Man is not only the measure of all things, but all things are measured for his pleasure, his enjoyment. For the natural man, joy means enjoyment, lots of it – enjoyment of freedom, enjoyment of job, of family, of friends, of sex, of sport, of holidays, of gadgets – and enjoyment of church! “Enjoyment” here does not merely mean amusements, thrills and diversions (French divertissement “entertainment”) but has to do with such things as the relationship between lifestyles and happiness. (See “Enjoyment of life lengthens life: Findings and consequences’” by R. Veenhoven).
All is permitted unless it interferes with someone else’s enjoyment. If there is no God, all is permissible (Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov – free ebook). Here are two excerpts (the pagination is of the ebook) :
“Only five days ago, in a gathering here, principally of ladies, he solemnly declared in argument that there was nothing in the whole world to make men love their neighbours. That there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism.” (p. 134). Immortality implies belief in God. Also from “The Brothers Karamazov:
“But God will save Russia, for though the peasants are corrupted and cannot renounce their filthy sin, yet they know it is cursed by God and that they do wrong in sinning. So that our people still believe in righteousness, have faith in God and weep tears of devotion. It is different with the upper classes. They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that’s consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? (pp. 649-50).
1. The world of sense, of physical things, as we apprehend them.
2. The world of science, of physical things, as the learned conceive them.
3. The world of ideal relations and abstract truths believable by all – logical mathematical, ethical, metaphysical propositions.
4. The world of “idols of the tribe”, illusions or prejudices common to all.
5. The various supernatural worlds.
6. The various worlds of individual opinion.
7. The various (and numerous) worlds of “sheer madness”.
James distinguishes between the “idols” of illusions and prejudices and the ” various supernatural worlds.” The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – also distinguish between idols and the supernatural world. Idols in these religions, in contrast to William James, do not refer to illusions and prejudices but to anything that one loves above God. John Calvin, in his preface to the Olivat translation of the New Testament writes:
It is true enough that the Gentiles, astonished and convinced by so many goods and benefits which they saw with their own eyes, have been forced to recognize the hidden Benefactor from whom came so much goodness. But instead of giving the true God the glory which they owed him, they forged a god to their own liking, one dreamt up by their foolish fantasy in its vanity and deceit; and not one god only, but as many as their temerity and conceit enabled them to forge and cast (feindre et fondre); so that there was not a people or place which did not make new gods as seemed good to them. Thus it is that idolatry, that perfidious panderer, was able to exercise dominion, to turn men away from God, and to amuse them with a whole crowd of phantoms to which they themselves had given shape, name, and being itself.
Idols are not only images and statues as described in Romans 1:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Anything you love more than Jesus the Christ is idolatry. In one culture, the family is an idol; in another culture – Western culture – the individual is an idol. In Western culture it is not polite to hurt someone’s feelings, for example, telling them that they are wrong. When it comes to religion, no one, says the humanist, is wrong.
Your idol may be money or art or your moral rectitude, even your good works, if not done mainly for God. Idols, then, are anything that takes precedence over your Creator; in Christianity, anything that you covet more than Christ is idolatry. John Piper defines covetousness as “desiring something so much that you lose your contentment in God” (“Future Grace,” 221). Thus the opposite of covetousness is resting satisfied with God. Covetousness is idolatry “because the contentment that the heart should be getting from God, it starts to get from something else” (221). Covetousness, simply put, “is a heart divided between two gods” (221).”
There is also the idolatry of human reason. The “Enlightenment” made reason an ultimate thing. When it came to the Bible, it threw out anything it could not explain. Our brains, it says, can’t operate without patterns and order. We have to make some order out of what we see and hear. It says, patterns create music, language and thought. We need stories, it says, because they are part of our make-up. Some people, it says, are content with fiction, while others have a need for their stories to be true. It says, some people believe that absolute truth will always elude us, others believe that they know the Truth.
For example, here is a comment someone wrote to me about the Suffering Servant” passage in Isaiah 53; the book of Isaiah was written 700 years before Christ was born. “The Old Testament tells of the coming of the Messiah. The Book of Isaiah is not a prophecy. Of course a Messiah, whether Jesus or not, would be spurned, persecuted and martyred. To predict this, all you need is to witness human behaviour. It is the humanist opinion that the bible stems from our longing for order and understanding. We need a beginning, a middle and an end. In the humanist view, the bible story of Adam and Eve is a dramatic, fictional explanation for human nature, suffering and death.”
“Critics of biblical Christianity, writes Michael Kruger have roundly argued that Christians have no rational basis for holding such a belief about the canon. Christians can believe such a thing if they want to, it is argued, but it is irrational and intellectually unjustifiable. It must be taken on “blind faith,”(Michael Kruger, Introduction to Canon revisited Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books). This, of course, is silly. This is not the place to say why.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing ( 1729- 1781) is famous for his metaphor of the “ugly broad ditch” (der garstige breite Graben) between the “accidental truths of history” and “the proof for necessary truths of reason.” For Lessing, religion belongs to the “accidental truths of history.” Christians, Jews and Muslims should not consider one another’s “accidental” beliefs as wrong. Why is this silly? Because, (most) Jews believe that Jesus is not the Messiah and was crucified, Christians also believe jesus was crucified but is indeed the Messiah, while Muslims also believe that Jesus is the Messiah but that he did not die on the cross, indeed, he did not die at all but was taken up into heaven while still alive. Lessing wished that they could look past the “accidents” of religion to the “necessary truths of reason.”
Our modern cultural elite think that science and education, not the Bible, will improve the world. This view has had devastating results. In 1920, H.G. Wells, in his “Outline of history,” praised human progress, which he maintained was due to advances in science and education. Human reason was going from strength to strength, to the end of all war. In his “Shape of things to come” (1933), Wells described how appalled he was by the selfishness of nations. In his last book, at the end of World War II, “Mind at the end of its tether (1945), he wrote ‘Homo sapiens is spent, this is the end.” Homo Sapiens lost all its sap; result you end up a sap.
Here is the problem, which Wells, the great humanist, either ignored or was ignorant of: He had put his great hope in humanity to solve all its problems. Alas, he was forced to face the reality of the inherent depravity of man. He knew nothing of the grace and power of God to change lives.
The inevitable outcome of humanism
What does this individualist autonomy of humanism lead to? Often not to the fine humanistic qualities described in Adrian Leftwich’s obituary but, says Francis Schaeffer, to “things such as over-permissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things…whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.” (See the recent case of the killing of botched aborted babies). (F. Schaeffer, “A Christian Manifesto”).
It indeed possible for the generosity and empathy of a humanist to exist side by side with some or all of the evils mentioned by Schaeffer. The above evils (that is what they are) mentioned by Schaeffer are symptoms of the deeper problem of a change in the Western world from a Judeo-Christian standard to a humanistic one. Not only a departure from the Judeo-Christian world view but, says Bavinck, from the “religious supra-naturalistic worldview [which] has universally prevailed among all peoples and in all ages down to our own day, and only in the last hundred and fifty years has given way in some circles to the empirico-scientific” (Herman Bavinck, “The philosophy of Revelation,” 1908). So, for most of human history, East and West, there existed a close connection between religion and civilization, between the world and the other-wordly. Indeed religion was the very foundation of the family and social life.
The Christian should destroy his idols. How to do it? The Bible is ambivalent about the power of idols. In one sense they are nothing, they are not real, because there is, the Bible says, only one God. In another sense, through these idols, the powers and principalities insinuate your soul. How does a Christian disarm these evil powers – the devil and his demons? The only sure way is to be prepared to lose one’s life. The Apostle Paul was prepared to do it, and Jesus actually did it. This is what happened at the cross:
“When you [ believers] were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:13-15). When Jesus bowed his head and died, he totally triumphed over the idols. Your career, your wife, your children, your CV cannot die for your sins, only Christ can.
How can God punish those who hate him – a just punishment – and yet bring them back to him. How does Jesus’ objective triumph over idols (at the cross) help one to leave one’s idols? If the reality of who Jesus is and what he has done breaks through to you, it will free you. The only way to understand why Jesus is more important is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer and meditation (not of the “transcendental” kind”). When you look into the coffin of a loved one, the real question, says Tim Keller, is: “Is Jesus there in that coffin with you?” (Tim Keller, “The Gospel and Idolatry”).
The Church, of course, has also been infected with the idolatry of humanism. Here is Paris Reidhead:
“Now religion [in the 19th century] then had to exist because there were so many people that made their living at it, so they had to find some way to justify their existence. So back about the time, in 1850, the church divided into two groups. The one group was the liberals, who accepted the philosophy of the humanism and tried to find some relevance by saying something like this to their generation, “Ha, ha, we don’t know there’s a heaven. We don’t know there’s a hell. But we do know this, that you’ve got to live for 70 years! We know there’s a great deal of benefit from poetry, from high thoughts and noble aspirations. Therefore it’s important for you to come to church on Sunday, so that we can read some poetry, that we can give you some little adages and axioms and rules to live by. We can’t say anything about what’s going to happen when you die, but we’ll tell you this, if you’ll come every week and pay and help and stay with us, we’ll put springs on your wagon and your trip will be more comfortable. We can’t guarantee anything about what’s going to happen when you die, but we say that if you come along with us, we’ll make you happier while you’re alive.” And so this became the essence of liberalism. It has simply nothing more than to try and put a little sugar in the bitter coffee of their journey and sweeten it up for a time. This is all that it could say.”
“Well now the philosophy of the atmosphere is humanism; the chief end of being is the happiness of man. There’s another group of people that have taken umbrage with the liberals, this group are my people, the fundamentalists. They say, “We believe in the inspiration of the Bible! We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ! We believe in hell! We believe in heaven! We believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ!” But remember the atmosphere is that of humanism. And humanism says the chief end of being is the happiness of man. Humanism is like a miasma out of a pit, it just permeates everyplace. Humanism is like an infection, an epidemic, it just goes everywhere.” (Paris Reidhead, “Ten shekels and a shirt.”
Sin and forgiveness are central motifs in all religions. One of the worst sins is betrayal, especially by those who say they love you. Judas’ betrayal of and Peter’s denial of Jesus are well known. “Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me” (Psalm 41:9). I return to Adrian Leftwich. The “Daily Maverick” (11 May, 2013) carries an article entitled, “Adrian Leftwich, the Unforgiven” with the following rubric:
Adrian Leftwich, who died earlier this month, ended his life as a respected politics professor at the University of York, in England. But as a young man in his native South Africa, Leftwich was an anti-Apartheid activist who sold out some of his closest friends and comrades in exchange for his own freedom. Even after almost 50 years, some would never forgive him. Rebecca Davis looks back on a haunting South African story.” The article quotes an excerpt from Leftwich “I gave the names”: “In July 1964, when I was 24, my life in South Africa came to a sudden end. The events which brought this about were of my own making. No one else was to blame.” Davis continues:
“In this slightly abrupt fashion, Adrian Leftwich begins his 2002 essay “I Gave the Names”. It was the first time in 40 years that Leftwich, by that time a successful UK academic, would break his silence in public on the events that had condemned him to a life lived in exile from his home country. It was said later that he had been writing the essay for 15 years. Leftwich, looking back at events which occurred more than 40 years earlier, still revealed traces of bemusement: ‘For reasons which I still do not fully understand, I tried to do things which were far beyond me, and I failed. I tried to help change the world around me but in the process I destroyed my own, I betrayed my friends and colleagues and I damaged the cause which I believed in and had worked for,’ he wrote.”
From the “humanistic” standpoint (as defined in this article), Leftwich, in his student days, did a heinous crime, which resulted in torture and long prison sentences for his associates and close friends. Some eventually forgave him, some half-forgave him, and others could never forgive him. I mentioned earlier, how his later life took an “extraordinary and genuine interest in and support for others. Adrian was above all a humanist (my italics), wanting to know and understand the people he met and worked with – important leaders and charismatic taxi-drivers alike. Adrian wanted to understand the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ weft and weave of the person, and in doing so invariably left an enduring impression on people.” (His obituary at the beginning of this article).
Oh the contrast! The traitor seeking redemption (for surely there must be truth in this inference) in humanistic virtue. Christ, in contrast, teaches that redemption can never be found in turning over a new leaf, or even in turning your body over to be burned for any reason, even for Christ’s sake, if not done without faith in Him, without faith in His sacrifice on the cross. It was on the cross that he was made sin for those who were to believe in Him. Humanists can’t understand how faith can save you. They, like Pontius Pilate, ask, “What is truth? They are asking, if there is no Truth – which they believe is true!– in what truth can they believe? (All knowledge and action is based on belief).
Both the humanist and the Christian agree with the Apostle James:
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (James 2).
Adrian Leftwich, in human eyes, did far more good than evil; yet, the Bible says without faith in (trust in) Christ there is no redemption – in this world and the world to come. I say this with great sadness.
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:20-21)
_____________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : 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 […]
_____________ Francis Schaeffer: An Introduction to his Apologetics by Jim Leffel Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason ____________________ Episode 8: The Age Of Fragmentation Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture _______________________ I love the works of Francis Schaeffer and I […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007 Part 1 of 3: ‘What Does Judah Believe?’ A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, perhaps his finest. By Anton Scamvougeras.http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/antons@mail.ubc.ca________________________ I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007 Part 1 of 3: ‘What Does Judah Believe?’ A discussion of Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, perhaps his finest. By Anton Scamvougeras.http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/antons@mail.ubc.ca________________________ I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and […]
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]
Francis Schaeffer: An Introduction to his Apologetics by Jim Leffel Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason ____________________ Episode 8: The Age Of Fragmentation Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture _______________________ I love the works of Francis Schaeffer and I have […]
_______________ Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason ____________________ Episode 8: The Age Of Fragmentation Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture _______________________ I love the works of Francis Schaeffer and I have been on the internet reading several blogs that talk […]
John Whitehead in an article noted: Bacon, however, clearly expressed his atheistic pessimism: “Man now realizes that he is an accident, that he is a completely futile being, that he has to play out the game without purpose, other than of his own choosing.” On another occasion, he remarked: “We are born and we die […]
I first read about Bacon in a book by Francis Schaeffer. John Whitehead in an article noted: Bacon’s work epitomizes the spirit of twentieth century man—a grasping for meaning and dignity within an environment of dehumanization and meaninglessness. He once said: “Nietzsche forecast our future for us—he was the Cassandra of the nineteenth century—he told […]
John Whitehead in an article noted: Bacon, however, clearly expressed his atheistic pessimism: “Man now realizes that he is an accident, that he is a completely futile being, that he has to play out the game without purpose, other than of his own choosing.” On another occasion, he remarked: “We are born and we die […]
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)
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:
Vanessa, thank you for your thoughts. You wrote, “The afterlife: there’s good and there’s evil. Most people fall on one side or the other. The part of you that’s left when your earthly body turns to dust, or begins to turn to dust, becomes one with good or one with evil. The force. The force has nothing to do with the bible, which is still a decent history book and an outline for living a good life if you don’t get too literal with it.”
___________
Your view of the afterlife is a very popular view that is spreading to more parts of the world than ever before, but is it right? I have defended the truthfulness of the Bible and have given evidence to show that it is the revealed word of God. On what basis do you make your claims? WHAT IS EVIL AND WHAT IS GOOD ACCORDING TO YOU AND ON WHAT BASIS CAN YOU MAKE THOSE CLAIMS?
Evidently you do not believe in the infinite-personal God of the Bible. It sounds like to me that you are similar in your religious views to Steve Jobs. His views were based on evolution and he did not believe in a personal God. I have written about his views many times in the past.
The sad fact is that without a moral lawgiver then you can not base your moral views on anything but moral relativism. An atheistic religion just doesn’t cut it.
William Lane Craig noted:
The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible. The atheistic worldview is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent life. Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our worldview.
Confronted with this dilemma, modern man flounders pathetically for some means of escape. In a remarkable address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue, confronted with the predicament of modern man, boldly advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “Noble Lie” into thinking that we and the universe still have value.28 Claiming that “the lesson of the past two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case,” Dr. Rue muses that the consequence of such a realization is that one’s quest for personal wholeness (or self-fulfillment) and the quest for social coherence become independent from one another. This is because on the view of relativism the search for self-fulfillment becomes radically privatized: each person chooses his own set of values and meaning. “There is no final, objective reading on the world or the self. There is no universal vocabulary for integrating cosmology and morality.” If we are to avoid “the madhouse option,” where self-fulfillment is pursued regardless of social coherence, and “the totalitarian option,” where social coherence is imposed at the expense of personal wholeness, then we have no choice but to embrace some Noble Lie that will inspire us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence. A Noble Lie “is one that deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, [and] race.” It is a lie, because it tells us that the universe is infused with value (which is a great fiction), because it makes a claim to universal truth (when there is none), and because it tells me not to live for self-interest (which is evidently false). “But without such lies, we cannot live.”
This is the dreadful verdict pronounced over modern man. In order to survive, he must live in self-deception. But even the Noble Lie option is in the end unworkable. For if what I have said thus far is correct, belief in a Noble Lie would not only be necessary to achieve social coherence and personal wholeness for the masses, but it would also be necessary to achieve one’s own personal wholeness. For one cannot live happily and consistently on an atheistic worldview. In order to be happy, one must believe in objective meaning, value, and purpose. But how can one believe in those Noble Lies while at the same time believing in atheism and relativism? The more convinced you are of the necessity of a Noble Lie, the less you are able to believe in it. Like a placebo, a Noble Lie works only on those who believe it is the truth. Once we have seen through the fiction, then the Lie has lost its power over us. Thus, ironically, the Noble Lie cannot solve the human predicament for anyone who has come to see that predicament.
The Noble Lie option therefore leads at best to a society in which an elitist group of illuminati deceive the masses for their own good by perpetuating the Noble Lie. But then why should those of us who are enlightened follow the masses in their deception? Why should we sacrifice self-interest for a fiction? If the great lesson of the past two centuries is moral and intellectual relativism, then why (if we could) pretend that we do not know this truth and live a lie instead? If one answers, “for the sake of social coherence,” one may legitimately ask why I should sacrifice my self-interest for the sake of social coherence. The only answer the relativist can give is that social coherence is in my self-interest—but the problem with this answer is that self-interest and the interest of the herd do not always coincide. Besides, if (out of self-interest) I do care about social coherence, the totalitarian option is always open to me: forget the Noble Lie and maintain social coherence (as well as my self-fulfillment) at the expense of the personal wholeness of the masses. Generations of Soviet leaders who extolled proletarian virtues while they rode in limousines and dined on caviar in their country dachas found this alternative quite workable. Rue would undoubtedly regard such an option as repugnant. But therein lies the rub. Rue’s dilemma is that he obviously values deeply both social coherence and personal wholeness for their own sakes; in other words, they are objective values, which according to his philosophy do not exist. He has already leapt to the upper story. The Noble Lie option thus affirms what it denies and so refutes itself.
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
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 was formerly a College Outreach Speaker with Feminists for Life and former Patron of Real Choices Australia. She is the Founder and Director of For Olivia’s Sake, an organization which seeks to raise awareness of the intergenerational impact of abortion on men, women, children, families, and communities. The birth of Olivia, her first child, in 2008,who never would have existed if Melissa’s birthmother’s abortion would have succeeded in ending her life, prompted Melissa to create this organization that would positively raise awareness of the ripple effect of abortion across generations.
In 2012, Melissa founded The Abortion Survivors Network, www.theabortionsurvivors.com, after recognizing the number of abortion survivors and how most felt alone in this role, and after recognizing the need for the public to be educated about the reality of failed abortions and abortion survivors. Since ASN’s inception, Melissa has been in contact with over 130 survivors and she is working on a healing ministry curriculum and a retreat for survivors.
Melissa has been featured on television and radio programs including: The 700 Club, EWTN’s Life on the Rock and Defending Life, Fox News, Facing Life Head On, Focus on the Family, and American Family Radio, the Mike Huckabee show, and the Teresa Tomeo show. Her life and ministry is featured in the award winning pro-life documentary, A Voice for Life.
After years of searching for her biological family and offering them forgiveness for the decision that was made to end her life, Melissa’s story, and her life, is so much more than one of survival. Melissa’s life story is about the beauty of God’s grace in our lives, about the power of love, about the hope for joy and healing in the midst of grief and loss, and about the transformational power of forgiveness and in answering God’s call for your life.
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.
For more information about hosting Melissa at an upcoming event, please see the “links” section on this site for more information on Ambassador Speaker’s Bureau, the oldest and most established faith-based talent agency in the United States, who Melissa is affiliated with, or visit the Ambassador Speaker’s Bureau website directly at ambassadorspeakers.com.
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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/ […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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. […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
An impersonal beginning…raises two overwhelming problems which neither the East nor modern man has come anywhere near solving. First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. Despite its frequent attempt to reduce the concept of the personal to the area of chemical or psychological conditioning, scientific study demonstrates that the universe has an express form. One can go from particulars to a greater unity, from the lesser laws to more and more general laws or super-laws. In other words, as I look at the Being which is the external universe, it is obviously not just a handful of pebbles thrown out there. What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation.
Second, and more important, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. In a very real sense the question of questions for all generations — but overwhelmingly so for modern man — is, “Who am I?” For when I look at the “I” that is me and then look around to those who face me and are also men, one thing is immediately obvious: Man has a “mannishness.” You find it wherever you find man — not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning cannot adequately explain the personal beings we see around us; and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersonal, man soon disappears.
In short, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies, or engaging in any kind of cultural effort. Itís not just the man in the university who needs to understand these questions. The farmer, the peasant, anyone at all who moves and thinks needs to know. That is, as I look and see that something is there, I need to know what to do with it. The impersonal answer at any level and at any place at any time of history does not explain these two basic factors — the universe and its form, and the “mannishness” of man. And this is so whether it is expressed in the religious terms of pantheism or modern scientific terms.
But the Judeo-Christian tradition begins with the opposite answer. And it is upon this that our whole Western culture has been built. The universe had a personal beginning — a personal beginning on the high order of the Trinity. That is, before “in the beginning” the personal was already there. Love and thought and communication existed prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis In Time and Space, Ch. 1)
Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)
Well, I’m glad tonight for a little bit of extra time because I have much on my heart that I want to say along the line of our series on origins. Last Sunday night I began to talk to you about the issue of origins and tonight I want to continue in part two on the issue of creationand the gospel. As I said last time, the issue of origins is absolutely critical to all human thinking, human behavior and human life. It is the foundation of our existence. It is the foundation of our purpose. It is the foundation of our destiny. Without a right understanding of origins there’s no way to comprehend ourselves. There’s no way to understand our earth, our universe or the ultimate meaning of anything.
And there are only two options when it comes to origins. The two options are: there is a Creator God, or there is not. Those are the only two options. There either is a Creator God or there is not. If there is not, then everything is an impossible, implausible, irrational result of chance. And the equation that I gave you last week is “nobody times nothing equals everything.” If on the other hand there is a creative intelligence, if there is a Creator God, then creation is understandable. It is possible, it is plausible, it is rational. And even the scientists who have left their mark on the scientific world, those who think honestly and make honest confessions about origins, will tell you that there must be a creative intelligence. Even Einstein said that.
Recently the well-known scientist who teaches at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania has written a book called Darwin’s Black Box. He is a scientist. He is not a Christian. But he says, in effect, guys, the jig’s up. The ruse is over. There is no explanation for this universe apart from an intelligent creator. That’s the only thing that makes any sense. Darwin explained the universe purely on the basis of external appearance. But the deeper science goes, the more it is forced to the conclusion of a Creator God. Behind this complex universe is an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful eternal being who made everything. That is the only thing that makes sense. In fact, evolution in any form doesn’t make sense.
Now the question is, if this universe is the product of a Creator God with an infinite amount of intelligence and power, how can we know anything about this God? How can we know who He is and how He created? Well, there’s only one answer and that is we can only know about Him and how He created if He chose to tell us. That’s the only way we can ever know. Has He? Yes, He has. In fact, He has revealed an entire 66 books of personal self-disclosure. And included in that revelation, in which God has revealed Himself, is very clear instruction about how He created the universe.
For example, in Psalm 19 the psalmist writes these familiar words, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” In other words, day and night, everything in the universe speaks of a Creator God. “There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is notheard.” In other words, it’s a silent revelation but it’s a revelation that’s unmistakable. Just look at the creation, look at the universe, look at the heavens and their expanse and everything that He’s created in the day and in the night and it’s clear. He says, “Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.” Everyone on the globe can look out and see the creative evidence of a Creator God.
The psalmist goes on to talk about the fact that He has made the created universe “a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them; and there is nothing hidden from its heat.” He picks that one body, that one celestial body out of the great expanse of the universe, that one celestial body that most dominates our life, the one that is closest to us in terms of a star, the one that has the greatest impact on us, the one that affects us, the sun, the unmistakable one. And he says about the sun that the sun runs its circuit from one end of heaven to the other so that nowhere in the created universe is its heat not felt. That’s one of the things that science has discovered in modern times is that the sun is in orbit. We talk about the sun as the center of our solar system and everything orbiting around it, but you need to know that science has discovered that the sun itself has an orbit and this orbit goes from one end of the infinite space to the other. The sun is moving and dragging our entire solar system with it. It is notfixed any more than the things that revolve around it are fixed. So the psalmist says you can look up and you can look at the universe and look at the creation and it gives you loud testimony to the glory of God, to the majesty of His intelligence, to the massive character of His power to create all of this.
In Hebrews, chapter 1, going to the other end of the Bible, we read that God who “spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” Hebrews 1 says that God made the world. Psalm 19 says He made the universe. Hebrews 1says He made the world. The only way we’re going to know that is if God tells us that. We are natural. God is supernatural. The natural cannot comprehend the supernatural. So on our own we can’t find God, we can’t discover God. We’re locked in a time-space world. We can’t crawl outside of it into eternity and comprehend what is incomprehensible. The only things we know about God are those things which He has told us, and that’s why He gave us the Bible.
First Timothy 3, 2 Timothy 3, I’m sorry, says familiar, familiar words to us. “All Scripture is inspired by God,” 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is inspired by God.” God breathed it out, so that it is His Word. Second Peter 1, “Know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The only source of knowledge we have about God is the Bible and the external evidence of God in creation. We can know about God by creation; we cannot know God except through Scripture. We can know that He created, as we look at the creation around us. It’s reasonable to assume there was a Creator. But we cannot know how He created unless He reveals it to us. So we can know some things through what theologians call natural revelation. But in order to really know God, and how He created, and how He operates, and how He saves, we have to have special revelation, which is the Bible, and the Bible alone.
Now with that in mind, go back to Genesis, chapter 1. When God began the Bible as His self-revelation, He began at the beginning. He began with an account of origins. He began by telling how He created the universe. Verse 1 of Genesis 1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” And then He goes on into chapter 2 and verse 4 with a description of precisely and exactly how He created the universe. Now this is where Genesis begins. But it doesn’t end there. Genesis is a book of origins. To show you how important Genesis is, let me tell you the range of origins that are found in the revelation of this one book.
Now the word genesis, by the way, means origins, beginnings. And in the book of Genesis you find many beginnings, many origins. First of all, and we just noted that, you find the origin of the universe. Genesis 1:1 is unique in all literature, all science, and all philosophy. Every other system of cosmogony explaining the universe, whether in ancient religious myths or modern scientific models, starts with eternal matter, or eternal energy in some form. Only the book of Genesis starts with eternal God. Genesis then is the book of the origin of the universe.
Secondly, in Genesis we find the origin of order and complexity. Man’s universal observation of his world is that it is, it is an orderly world. It functions on fixed rules and it is profoundly complex. Order and complexity never arise spontaneously. They are always generated by a prior cause programmed to produce order and complexity simultaneously. And in the book of Genesis we meet God, who programmed order and complexity into His universe. We also find in Genesis the origin of the solar system. In the midst of this vast, limitless universe, God created a solar system. The Earth, as well as the sun, and moon, the planets, all the stars of heaven, were brought into existence by the Creator and we’re told that He created them all.
Fourthly, the book of Genesis tells us about the origin of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. The earth is uniquely equipped with a great body of liquid water and an extensive blanket of oxygen-nitrogen gaseous mixture, both of which are necessary for life. These have never shown up on any other celestial bodies or any other planets and are accounted for only by specialcreation by God to provide an environment for human life.
We also find in Genesis the origin of life, the marvels of the reproductive process. The almost infinite complexity programmed into the genetic system of plants and animals are inexplicable apart from special creation by a great, supernatural, powerful intelligence.
Sixthly and certainly centrally, Genesis tells us about the origin of man. Man is the most highly organized and complex entity in the universe. Man is the supreme illustration of order and complexity. He possesses not only innumerable, intricate, physical, chemical structures in the marvelous capacities of life and reproduction, but beyond that sort of physical part of man, there is a nature which can contemplate abstract entities of beauty, and love, and worship, and which is capable of understanding and thinking about its own meaning. It is self-awareness that singularly identifies and separates man from the rest of the created order. The true record of man’s creationis given only in Genesis.
In Genesis you also find the origin of marriage. The remarkable universal and stable institution of marriage and the home, a monogamous, patriarchal, social culture is defined and described in Genesis as having been ordained by the Creator. And polygamy, and infanticide, and matriarchy, and promiscuity, and divorce, and abortion, and homosexuality, and all the corruptions developed later after the Fall, corrupting God’s initial order.
You also find in the book of Genesis the origin of evil. The origin of physical and moral evil in the universe is explained in Genesis as a kind of temporary intrusion into God’s perfect world, allowed by God as a concession to the principle of human freedom and responsibility and also to manifest Himself as Redeemer of sinners as well as Creator. You find, number nine, in the book of Genesis the origin of judgment on evil. All the forms of God’s wrath are set in motion and illustrated in Genesis.
Also, number ten, in the book of Genesis you find the origin of salvation by grace through God’s mercy and a substitute. That’s all in Genesis and it starts to show as God is merciful to Adam and Eve and doesn’t kill them, even though they deserved to die for their sin. And then God develops a system of animal sacrifice which pictures a substitute who will take the place of sinners, which is an act of mercy and grace on God’s part. The plan of redemption leading to Christ is even referred to when the book of Genesis talks about the seed of the woman, that being the seed planted by God in Mary; the Messiah, the Savior.
It is in the book of Genesis that we find the origin of language. You know, one of the things that evolutionists gag on all the time, and I was reading it in Newsweek this week, is how you go from apes to man not just making some physical transition, but developing language. How you go from grunting and making unintelligible noises to human speech. Newsweek was trying to present an article to answer that and it was just bizarre and pointless and unbelievable. The gulf between the mindless, instinctive chattering of animals and the intelligent, abstract, symbolic communication of man is absolutely and completely unbridgeable by any evolutionary process. And the book of Genesis not only accounts for the origin of language in general—that is, God is a communicating God and He created someone in His own image who thereby could communicate—but Genesis also tells us not only how man was given by God the ability to communicate but how so many languages occurred from the judgment of God at the Tower of Babel. That’s in Genesis, too.
You find in Genesis, number 12, the origin of government, the development of organized systems of human government for the maintenance of orderly social structures through systems of law and punishment. You find in Genesis the origin of culture. You find here such things as urbanization, the development of metallurgy, music, agriculture, animal husbandry, writing, education, navigation, textiles and ceramics. All of that starts in the book of Genesis. You find in Genesis the origin of nations and that is related, of course, again to the Tower of Babel, as God takes one race and scatters them all over the world. That is the only source you’ll ever find of how we have so many different peoples scattered all over the earth with different languages and cultures.
You find in the book of Genesis the origin of religion. Both the true religion and false religions appear, first of all, in the book of Genesis; organized systems of worship and conduct. The origin of man’s unique characteristic, of man’s own consciousness and his ability to comprehend a God and to structure a system of response to the God he believes exists. That all appears in Genesis.
You find also significantly, number 16 in my list, the origin of the chosen people, Israel, who were the conduit for God’s revelation to all of the world. It was Israel that was God’s people, through whom He gave His revelation and through whom His saving covenant came, in Genesis 12, to Abraham.
Now when you talk about origins you’re going to have to go back to Genesis. This is a book of origins. And let me put it again on the line where I put it last Lord’s Day. Either you believeGenesis or you don’t. It’s that simple. Either you believe what Genesis says about all of those origins or you don’t. And that would include either you believe the creation account in Genesis 1and 2 or you don’t. And if you don’t believe the Genesis account, then I just, I have to tell you, you have no hope of coming to the truth. You’re not going to discover it. Unconverted scientists aren’t going to discover it. You either believe Genesis or you don’t.
And what is really intolerable is to say you believe the Bible but not just the Genesis creationaccount. You believe Genesis, you believe about the origin of sin, you believe chapter 3 on maybe. Or maybe you’re not sure about that because you don’t really believe there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve. You’ve got a small problem because Jesus said, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,” and there was a real Christ, so you can be sure there was a real Adam. But just in case you don’t believe in a real Adam, maybe you don’t sign on until chapter 6, maybe you just believe the Flood. Well, maybe you don’t believe that, maybe you believe when the Tower of Babel is described later on in chapter 11, or maybe you don’t believe that. Maybe you don’t check in until Abraham shows up in chapter 12. Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? Who are you to be sitting in judgment on Scripture?
You know, I’m never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I’m just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation. As you will see, it will do that. All you can know about how God created is what He said. That’s all you can know. And if you don’t believe what He said about creation, what kind of precedent have you established for the rest of the Bible?
And what about the end? Do you know how all of redemptive history ends? You know how the whole story of humanity ends? It ends, according to 2 Peter, when the Lord uncreates the universe; I like to use that word. The elements melt with fervent heat. There’s some kind of a, literally an implosion, as the nuclear structure, the atomic structure of the universe, literally is totally turned against its existence, and takes it right back out of existence when He uncreates, when the elements melt as with a fervent heat in that kind of nuclear holocaust that ends human history.
And immediately after that it says in Revelation that He creates a—what? A new heaven and a new earth. Let me ask you this, do you believe He can do that? Or is that going to be another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and the new earth cranked up? Is it going to take billions of years to evolve the new heaven and the new earth, or do you really believe God might be able to do that just by fiat, just by making the statement and calling it into existence? If you believe that, then what’s your problem in Genesis? If God can wipe the entire universe out in a split second, if He can dissolve the whole thing, if He can send it reeling in the time of the tribulation, and refurbish it during the time of the kingdom, and then totally uncreateit at the end of the thousand years, if He can do all of that, then I don’t know why you have a problem with Him creating it all in six days. You see, the implications of rejecting the account of Genesis are profound.
And listen to me, because what I’m going to say is very important. It is not necessary to reject the six-day creation. It is not necessary. We have yielded up territory to evolution without cause. Science knows nothing. Science proves nothing that contradicts a six-day creation, nothing. In fact science, as it keeps advancing, makes its own claims to evolution ridiculous, more ridiculous all the time. You know—and having a perspective on this is very important—we’ve caved in to the scientists too long and it’s time to stop. If you want to do some reading on this, get Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial; it just devastates the scientific perspectives. Christian people literally accepting the scientific descriptions of origins, and come out of an evolutionary bias as if somehow they’ve been proven, and somehow the Bible is going to have to give at that point, because a six-day creation is not scientifically possible; that is just not true. But the results are staggering.
Master’s College, for example, is a member of the Christian College Coalition. It’s a coalition of Christian colleges across America, of which there are about 110 colleges. Of the 110 Christian colleges in the coalition, six that we know of believe in the creation account in Genesis; six out of 110 Christian colleges. That’s a small, small fraction. And most Christian leaders and most Christian educators have allowed the teachings of evolution to one degree or another to be added to the Bible; they sort of stuff evolution in between the verses in Genesis. Most Christian leaders have accepted the fact that the universe is billions of years old.
Yet clearly, from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days. And Christian leaders can’t deny that that’s what it says because that’s what it says. You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out. The word yom means day and you have six of them. But theybelieve somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old. So they believe you’ve got to go back to Genesis and fix it. And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right? It’s serious stuff. If the words of the Bible means six days, and you conclude, but so-called science says that’s not true, then science is right and the Bible is wrong. Now if you can’t trust the words of Genesis, when do you start trusting the Bible? It’s a sad indictment of the church, isn’t it? And the humanists even use the compromising of the Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine Christianity. And what we have is a kind of Christianity today that loses its absolutes in Genesis 1. That’s sad.
Christian leaders might not sign on, of course, to humanistic evolution. They would say, “Yes, there’s a God and somehow God’s involved in the evolutionary process.” That’s called theistic evolution, sometimes called progressive creationism, a term developed by Russell Mixter in the science department of Wheaton College a number of years ago. But they would say, “No, there is a God and God is, sort of injects Himself at points at theistic evolution.” Says, “God launched it and started it.” Progressive creationism says, “He jumps in along the way but it still took millions and millions and billions of years for it to happen.” These people call themselves believers in God. They probably would say they believe the Scripture. But they don’t want to allow for a six-day creation. This poses immense problems, immense problems.
Here’s one of them, I’m not going to give you all, but here’s one, just strikes me as a serious problem. If man is created at the end of the evolutionary process, whether it’s a naturalistic evolutionary process, or it’s a theistic evolutionary process launched by God, which some Christians think they have to affirm in order to pay homage to science, or if it’s a progressive creationist view where God injects Himself along the way, the problem you’ve got is evolution is a process—listen carefully—evolution is a process by nature of death. It’s a process known as the survival of—what?—the fittest. It’s a process of violence. It’s a process of bloodshed. It’s a process of suffering. It’s a process of disease. It’s a process of death as the order rises higher and higher and higher until it gets to man.
Now here’s a serious problem. You don’t have man until billions of years and when man appears he is perfect and he is sinless and there’s no such thing as death. Death doesn’t even come into the picture until man does—what?—sins. How can you have death before the Fall? You don’t even have a cursed earth. The whole of the Genesis record is stood on its head. If there’s been all kinds of death in this billions of years of evolutionary processing, then what did sin do to the world that hadn’t already been done? And how could God, who looked over this whole evolutionary deal when it finally reached its completion in man and said He saw it and He looked at it and He said it is good? How could God say that? You see then, the sin of Adam and the curse of death is meaningless, because there’s been death for millennia and for billions of years; just convolutes all of the biblical record. Because what you have in Genesis is a perfect world until man is confronted by the serpent, and falls into sin, and God curses the universe and then comes death, and disease, and suffering, and violence, and bloodshed, and not before. Evolution makes no sense in that perspective.
You know, I, Christians will get out there, you know, and they’ll say, “Boy, we’re against abortion, and we’re against homosexuality, and we’re against Jack Kevorkian because he’s murdering people, and we’re against euthanasia, and we’re against genocide and, you know, we’re against the moral evils of our society, etc., etc., etc.” Why are we against those things? Can you tell me why? Why are we against those things? Give me one reason. Here it is, because they’re forbidden in Scripture. Is that not true? The only reason we’re against abortion is because God’s against it. How do we know that? Because it’s in the Word of God. The reason we’re against homosexuality, adultery, etc., etc., is because of the Bible. You see, we stand on the Scripture. But the problem is we don’t want to stand on the Scripture in Genesis. So we equivocate on whether or not the Bible is an authority at all. What do you think the watching world thinks about our commitment to Scripture? Pretty selective, isn’t it? And again, I say such capitulation to evolution is completely unnecessary. Nothing requires evolution. In fact, evolution cannot happen. It can’t happen.
Let me tell you why. Now again I want to give a disclaimer. I’m not a scientist and I’ve got to tell you, I work really hard to try to understand this stuff. I’m going to do my best to make it comprehensible to you. I read a couple of books by a man named Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, who has a whole long list of letters after his name. He’s a scientist. Now, just to tell you how far I’ve gone in this reading, I read his book from cover to cover called, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Now this is a very technical book and I don’t recommend that you go try to find it because you’ll not really enjoy reading it. You just have to kind of do it, just an exercise that you’re sort of forced to do if you’re going to do what I’m going to do. But let me distill it to you, the thesis of the book. A. E. Wilder-Smith in this book demonstrates the absurdity of evolution on the basis of one great reality and that one great reality is the encoded information in the DNA of living organisms. Did you get that? Every living organism has in it DNA. DNA is genetic material and on that genetic material in every living thing is a code and that is an operative code. And that living organism, whether you’re talking about a cell or whether you’re talking about a large man and everything in between, all of that operation of every living thing is dependent on that encoded information. And listen to this, every different living thing has a completely different code.
Darwin had no clue about that. There was no genetic study when he wrote his Origin of Species. He didn’t know anything about DNA. He didn’t know anything about chromosomes. He didn’t know anything about genetics. It didn’t exist as a science. He was just describing what he thought he was seeing. It was all according to appearance and nothing more. If Darwin had been alive today and try to sell his deal today, it never would fly; he wouldn’t even believe it. He barely believed his own view. He certainly wouldn’t have believed it in a day like ours when we have this incredible ability to go with electron microscope into the DNA and see the coded information in living organisms. The entire realm of genetics, Wilder-Smith points out, is all about information, storage and retrieval; was totally unknown to Darwin. Every living thing, if you’re talking about before these flowers were cut, they were living things, this one is blue, this one is pink, and this one is orange, etc., because there’s information, there’s information in the DNA in the genetics that causes that to happen. That’s a code of information in every living thing.
It has been discovered in recent years that the genetic programs of say, higher biological organisms, consist of about one thousand million bits of information. One thousand million bits of information in one living organism; and that information that is encoded in that living organism determines the nature, the growth, the development and the death of billions of cells in that living organism. Now who, frankly, in his right mind could ever believe that such supremely complex machines, which is what living organisms are, storing and retrieving the precise information to service a thousand million cells, diagnose defects, and repair them, and reproduce, all developed at random by chance out of nothing? It’s absolutely idiotic.
The big issue, the issue that is bringing down evolution, is the study of the origin of information; it’s called information theory. Where did the information come from? Where did the code come from? A monkey has a monkey code, and the DNA, and the chromosomes, and the genetics just keep making the monkey behave like a monkey. There’s no code in there to turn the monkey into a man. There’s no such thing as jumping out of your species.
Well they got all excited in science. Wilder-Smith talks about this, as do some other writers I read, when they got into polymers and they were looking at some things, saying, “Well, maybe those polymers are the transitional things, they look a little unusual, they’re a little out of the normal. Maybe they were the transitions.” And the longer they studied those, the more they realized those were just elements of the encoded information doing repair work because there was some reason to repair. That’s why it was a little unusual because it was repairing damage to that living organism. And after all, polymers weren’t transitional forms at all; they were just encoded information in the DNA that you didn’t see until there was a need to repair something. It’s incredible.
Where did this genetic information come from? Where did it come from? It couldn’t evolve out of nowhere. It’s too precise. Wilder-Smith says this, “Darwin’s so-called gradualism postulated, in the last analysis, all forms of biology were derived from a single, simple cell which by an unbroken series of small, gradualistic changes, gave rise to an unbroken chain of steps from the original cell up to man himself, and biology was strictly continuous.” This is just unbelievable. And only a man in Darwin’s time who didn’t know genetics would ever come up with such a statement, because if a one-celled thing, listen to this, developed into a man, then all the encoded information necessary to run that one-cell thing and to run everything from then on all the way up, including the man, had to be in the original cell. And if it wasn’t in the original cell, then where did it come from? That’s the question. It’s ridiculous. They know that all of the encoded information to run every living thing in the universe is not contained in a one-celled amoeba. What is contained in a one-celled amoeba is the code for a one-celled amoeba.
Wilder-Smith goes on and says, “There was one great aspect of reality about which Darwin, and indeed everyone of his epic, knew nothing. I’m referring to the modern science of information theory; for if a primeval kind of amoeba is to develop up to a primate, that primeval cell will have to gather all sorts of new information on how to make kidneys, livers, four-chamber hearts, cerebra and cerebella.” It’s just going to have to, as this one-celled thing goes, it’s just going to have to collect information; from where?
If the law of entropy is true, and it is—that matter is breaking down, things are getting worse—how can things be getting more complex and more ordered simultaneously? Wilder-Smith says, “For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid, actual information, which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted, nor the intact amoeba cell contained. Similarly, inorganic matter will have to assemble huge numbers of bits of holistic information before it can synthesize an amoeba.”
So he says whatever it was that started the first amoeba, whatever inanimate thing started the first amoeba, would have to have collected information to make that happen. I’ll give you an illustration; maybe help you a little bit. Have you been reading about the fact they’ve cloned rabbits and then they cloned sheep? You say, “Does this, is this an evolutionary triumph?” No, you know what this proves? This proves that it takes an outside intelligence to do this. You can have a sheep and put him in a pen and say, “Um…mutate!” You can put, you can put the sheep in there and say, you know, you can, “Please, have a clone.” But that sheep’s not going to have a cloned sheep unless an intelligence, a higher intelligence, in this case a human brain, understanding genetics, works from the outside to produce that. That is a classic illustration of why evolution can’t happen. It’s classic. Whenever we want to create something that is in the least sense out of the natural order, it takes an intelligent human brain to invade that level of life. It has to come from the outside because the information isn’t in the code system.
That’s exactly how God operates. You can’t have evolution. First Corinthians 15 says “there’s a flesh of animals and there’s…a flesh of birds,” and “there’s a flesh of man,” and that’s how it is. And it’s all determined by the genetic code, and they don’t crisscross and jump over those bounds.
Wilder-Smith further writes, “Assuming that original primeval form of life was kind of an amoeba, a kind of amoeba, where did it obtain the almost infinite number of bits of information required to be stored in its DNA storage and retrieval system? In order to transform the amoeba-type of cell to a mammal, a primate, an octopus, or a bee, new bits of holistic information are required. Neither the primeval amoeba-type of cell nor the inorganic matter of which it is constructed contains such highly specialized, holistic information, which is necessary to transform from the alleged amoeba into say, an anthropoid ape. [It is legitimate to assume that such incredible amounts of information arose.] Is it legitimate to assume that such incredible amounts of information arose spontaneously, out of thin air, by pure chance?” Absolutely ridiculous.
I mentioned this morning, went down to the Sonoran Desert this week to spend a little time with my dad and my sister, decided to cart us out to the desert there and to go out with some naturalists and poke around under rocks and look at cactus and things like that. And I’m always kind of fascinated by the creation of God and I’ve seen the desert a lot in my life because I’ve always lived in the West, or most always. And, but I was introduced to some things that were really amazing by these naturalists. You know, they turned over a rock and out came a little gecko and they gave me the whole ecology of how they operate. And out from another rock with a little pair of tweezers came a scorpion and I, I learned more about a scorpion than I ever cared to know or could use in about five minutes. But I did learn one thing: That they survive by cannibalizing other scorpions, and that’s how they survive. And it talked about how their sting operates and how; they talked about all the details. Then we went over to see a saguaro cactus. And a saguaro cactus, there’s a whole ecology in one of those things that’s incredible. They think they live 800 years. They don’t know for sure because no botanist lives long enough to see one live and then die. So, you know, it’s sort of a guess. But they go through these incredible, this thing is incredible. Its needles crisscross like this because there’s high winds in that, there, the only place in the world it grows in the Sonoran Desert. And the needles that grow out of them, as they do in cacti, crisscross each other, and that defuses the wind so it doesn’t blow them over, doesn’t snap them off. It’s a marvelous ecology. There’s legend, too, in fact one of the legends. You ever see a saguaro cactus? Some of the arms go up and like this. And they say the main stem of a saguaro cactus is representative of the man and the other branches are representative of his wives. And if they grow upward, he had a very ordered life and dutiful wives, but if they go all directions, the poor guy had a really tough time. Well, I mean that’s legend. But apart from the legend, as they began to define the ecology of this thing, the complexity of this thing, how it retains water and how it creates these ribs, how it produces an incredibly gorgeous flower at the peak of each branch once a year, and it dies burned in the sun. They took us over to a paloverde tree, the tree with the smallest leaves of any tree on the face of the earth. And it desperately needs water, and they have found them, get this, with a one main root 300 feet below the surface of the ground, though the tree is only six feet high. Amazing ecology, amazing complexity in all these forms of life.
And they were going through all of this, and all this. Then I jumped in and said, “May I say something?” And I gave them this speech basically that I’m giving you, you know, that every one of these living organisms in the universe has its own code. How did it get that code? Where did it come from? It had to come from a divine mind who made everything. Listen to this, when God created, He created everything and encoded everything. Just get a grip on the vastness of His intelligence, staggering, staggering. Everything demonstrates the imprint of God.
And then Wilder-Smith in his books, book, likes to talk about a guy named Von Neumann, Von Neumann actually, German scientist. Von Neumann defined these living machines (machine referring to an organism that’s alive), and he said, the amazing thing about living organisms, get this, is they are self-producing, self-sustaining and self-repairing. That is what’s known as a Von Neumann machine, self-producing, self, or self-reproducing, self-sustaining, and self-repairing. And he points out in his book that we’ve never been able to build a machine like that.
Do you know any machine like that? Do you know any computer that has little computers? Do you know a computer that sustains its own life and repairs itself? How about a car? Do you know a car that does that? Von Neumann pointed out if we could make a machine complex enough to reproduce itself and sustain itself it would always be in disrepair because of its complexity. So it couldn’t keep up with the self-repairing responsibility. We’ve never created a machine like that, yet every single living organism is just that: self-producing, self-sustaining, self-repairing. Is that incredible? This is the mind of God. Don’t tell me this is chance. Blind devotion to chance is an act of defiance against reason, and more importantly against revelation, and more importantly against God Himself.
Douglas Kelley says, at the very least one can note that the whole edifice of evolutionary theory is increasingly seen as a faith rather than objective, empirical science and its foundations are shaky, end quote.
According to Michael Denton—he’s written a book called A Theory in Crisis—he says, “There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive efforts, biologists have failed to validate it in any significance sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.” In fact—that’s end quote—in fact, it’s just the opposite. The more science learns about astonishing complexity, the more science learns about harmony, the more science learns about design, the more science learns about the intelligence of the universe, the more science must confess there has to be an intelligent creator.
And again Douglas Kelley says, “Now in the nature of the case, we are dealing here with a unique situation, the bringing into being of the space-time universe by a transcendent source who according to the Scriptures [Listen to this.], spoke it into existence out of nothing but the word of His own power.” Hmm, what power, what complexity, what order, what intelligence! You know, reasonable science, reasonable science should suggest that an intelligent and powerful supernatural creator had to be out there and still is. But although science should recognize that, because it’s the only reasonable explanation, to know who He is and to know how He created, science must bow its knee to the Scripture and the God of Scripture.
Our sole source of knowledge is the Bible, the Bible. Evolution is an act of faith, irrational faith. Creation is an act of faith, revelational faith. I don’t know about you, but I believe the Bible and Ibelieve the Word of God. Evolution is a twentieth-century religious sect that denies reason and denies revelation. Creation is the worship of the true God in perfect accord with reason and revelation. So I go back to where I’ve started. Either you believe in an eternal God or you believein eternal matter, or eternal energy, or eternal amoeba; nothing in between, nothing in between. You are either a materialist who believes in the eternality of matter, or you are a supernaturalist who believes in the eternality of God. That’s the only two choices there are.
What happens to a world that rejects the Creator and replaces Him with material? What happens to a world that replaces the Creator God with faceless time, chance, matter, energy? What happens? William Provine of Cornell University stated it clearly, quote: “The implications of modern science are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No inherent [Listen to this] moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life,” end quote. That’s right. If we’re just the result of chance, nothing matters. There is no moral standard, there is no ethical standard; all you’re left with is tragedy and despair. If this universe is the result of impersonal forces, if this universe is faceless, if it’s pitch dark out there because nobody’s there, that makes a tremendous difference in my life. But if there is a Creator and if that Creator showed His face in human form in Jesus, and if He is a loving, saving, blessing God who stands behind this creation, that makes all the difference in my life.
And you know, the Bible, I’m so glad the Bible doesn’t start like this, “I know you guys are going to find this hard to believe but in the beginning God.” It doesn’t do that. It just says, “In the beginning God…” There has to be something in the beginning. The evolutionist would say, “In the beginning amoeba, in the beginning matter, in the beginning energy.” The Bible says, “In the beginning God…” And in John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by Him, and [without Him, this says it], without Him was not anything made that was made.” That’s another way of saying nothing evolved. Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,” not by evolution. “The worlds were framed by the Word of God.” This is repeating: It’s in Genesis, it’s in John, it’s in Hebrews. And as I said at the beginning, either you believe it or you don’t.
We can conclude then that evolution is a false religion. And why in the world would we want to bring it into the Bible? Why would we want to borrow from the false religion of evolution and impose it upon the straightforward account of Genesis? For what? That’s an assault on the revelation of God. The Bible tells us how energy got here, it came from God. It tells us how matter got here, it came from God. It tells us how the heavens and the earth were formed, God did it. That’s all we need to know. Nothing could be more logical than that. An intelligent Creator God made it. And here come the evolutionists with all their lies, and their disregard of Genesis, and why in the world do we buy into that and try to impose that on the Scripture?
Evolution is a false religion. Here are the principles it’s based on, just to give you another perspective:
One, evolution is pure science. That’s what the evolutionists would like you to believe. It’s pure science, it’s a closed system founded on reality, not on the illusion of a God.
And secondly the evolutionists would say that evolution is equal to rationality because it excludes miracles and the supernatural. But, friends, there comes a point in which the supernatural is the only rational thing.
Thirdly—and this has been adapted from Philip Johnson’s wonderful book, Reason in the Balance—thirdly, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands, which restrict free sexual behavior.
Fourthly, the evolutionist says his religion is democratic because every man is his own source of moral judgment, since there is no God, no moral judge, no law.
Fifthly, evolution is broad because it allows a belief in God, just not the biblical God.
That’s the religion. You want to know what the tenets are of the religion of evolution?
One, evolution is pure science, they say, it’s a closed system founded on reality not the illusion of a God.
Two, it is equal to rationality because it excludes irrational miracles and supernatural interference.
Three, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands which restrict free sexual behavior. And, folks, I want to tell you, that’s what drives the whole thing. They love their sin.
Fourth, evolution, they say, is democratic because every man can be his own source of moral judgment.
And fifth, evolution is broad because it allows belief in God, whatever you want Him to be except the God of the Bible.
Amazing, isn’t it? People fighting reason, embracing absurdity, to avoid accountability to the eternal judge.
Let me close tonight by taking you over to Romans 1. And this is just a pertinent statement from God that addresses those who reject Him. Romans 1 verse 18:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men [Listen to this.] who suppress the truth…because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without [What?] excuse. For even though they knew God, they didn’t honor Him as God or give thanks,…they became futile in their speculations,…their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…birds…four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
And it all starts in verse 18. The wrath of God is unleashed on these people who replace the supernatural with the natural, who replaced God with creatures. This is God’s judgment on them. Now two weeks from tonight, next week is a baptism on Easter Sunday, but two weeks from tonight I want to go back and start in Romans 1 because I want to unfold this passage to you a little bit. Then we’ll go to a number of passages in the New Testament that show you why you have to have a creationist view or you impact negatively the gospel, okay? So, that will be two weeks from tonight. Let’s pray.
Our Father, this is so important for us to have our faith again encouraged. We don’t need to be caving in to the supposed wisdom of the world, those who know You not. Give us a firm, and resolute, strong confidence that Your Word is true, that every Word of God is pure, as Scripture says, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, that no Scripture comes by private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Remind us that You created the world in the way that You said, that there wasn’t anything in this universe created that You didn’t create. By You the worlds were framed. Father, help us to know You as the Creator, to know that the worlds were framed by Your Word and You did it so marvelously and magnificently in six days, as it’s outlined in the book of Genesis. Strengthen our faith in the God who created, the God who redeems sinners. We are overwhelmed at Your greatness, the vastness of Your intelligence, and Your power, and the sweetness of Your mercy toward us, and we thank You for it in our Savior’s name. And everybody said, amen.
This is the fourth post I have done on Stuart Kaufman recently. The first post I did on Stuart Kauffman used the Fine Tuning Argument of Antony Flew against him among other things. In the second post, I put an article by Kauffman on the question Does science make belief in God obsolete?, and his article asserted, […]
The Fruits of Atheism (Part 1) Uploaded on Apr 10, 2009 Examining the Creation/Evolution Controversy in Light of Reason and Revelation The Bible and Science (Part 03) 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 […]
_________________ The Existence of God (Part 5) The Bible and Science (Part 02) How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds Published on Dec 17, 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 […]
__________________ INTERESTING QUOTES: Note: Although we believe these quotes are authentic, we have not specifically verified the authenticity of each and every one. If you find that any quote is in error, please let us know and we will correct it. CATEGORIES: A) EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM B) INTELLIGENT DESIGN C) PROBLEMS ABOUT FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION D) DISTORTIONS USED BY DOGMATIC […]
_______________________________ Adrian Rogers pictured below: __________________ I sent William Provine a letter several months ago with a CD of the following message by Adrian Rogers and in the letter were several arguments from Schaeffer. Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Today I am sending out another […]
________________ Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009verloreseun Definition The word ‘evolution’ is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the ‘Big Bang’) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution – At some point, non-living […]
________ Ernst Mayr 1904-2005 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas… Published on May 19, 2012 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas, James Cameron, Larry King, Ian Wilmut, Jane Goodall, Stephen Jay Gould, Tim D. White, Leon Lederman, Timothy Berners-Lee and Bill […]
______________ How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality? June 24, 2009 Worldview and Evangelism Posted by jasondulle under Apologetics, Worldview [6] Comments Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world. The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought […]
____ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]
The Scientific Age Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis in content and also in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, […]
In our last lesson, we looked briefly at five revolutions: 1) The British Bloodless Revolution, 2) The American Revolution, 3) The French Revolution, 4) The Russian Revolution, and 5) The
Industrial Revolution. In this lesson we will look at another revolution, the Scientific Revolution. Church attacks on Copernican Science were philosophical. The start of modern science is usually associated with the Polish astronomer Copernicus. The most influential cultures, Greek, Arabic, and Chinese had a well-developed knowledge of the world. Yet the science of the ancient world was rooted more in philosophy than science with Aristotle seen as the “final authority.” The major advances of the ancients were in mathematics, algebra, geometry and astronomy. Perhaps the reason for this is that these fields were more readily advanced by logic than experimentation. Francis Schaeffer says that “medieval science was based on authority rather than observation.” Modern science or the Scientific Revolution began amid the “High Renaissance” and the Reformation. “In 1546 Luther died. Copernicus, the astronomer, lived from 1473 to 1543 and gave a preliminary outline of his theory in 1530 – that is, that the earth went around the sun, and not the sun around the earth.”
During the 1540s, three books were published that changed forever the way the world is seen. “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Copernicus was published posthumously; second, Vesalius published his book, On the Structure of the Human Body (this book is often spoken of as De Fabrica); third, the first edition of a Latin translation of the collected works of Archimedes (287-212 B.C.) was published in 1544 in Basel.” This introduced some of the mathematical methods essential to developing modern science. These books would become keystones to modern science.
The astronomer Galileo Galilei, using the newly invented telescope, began to write about his astronomical findings in his native tongue so the common man could understand his discoveries. In his writings he supported the views of Copernicus, disagreed with Aristotle’s views of the universe, and wrote extensively of his findings about the makeup of the universe. Galileo came under condemnation by the Roman Inquisition in 1632 and was forced to recant his statements about Copernicus and Aristotle. Yet he continued writing “not only that Copernicus was right, but also that Aristotle was wrong.” Many have incorrectly suggested that the Church attacks on Copernicus and Galileo were made because their “theories” contradicted the Bible, the opposite is true. Copernicus and Galileo’s views did not conflict with the Bible but their views did conflict with Aristotle and thus the Roman Church of the day. “When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo (1564-1642), it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo’s notions clearly conflicted with them.”
Scientific aspects of biblical influence
The Bible provided the basis for the rise of the Scientific Revolution and Modern science was born from a biblical worldview. Early scientists accepted that the world was created by a personal, intelligible, knowable God, and that they could learn the truth “about nature and the universe” because of reason. “Christian thought-forms” even influenced those who were not believing Christians. Schaeffer explains; “. . . the Christian thought-form of the early scientists gave them the faith in the possibility of science.” Without having “the faith in the possibility of science,” that the world was created by a personal God, the early scientists would not have been thought it possible to understand the world by observation and experimentation. This became the basis for the birth of modern science in the western world. Because there was personal God it was possible to know that there was “a correlation between themselves as observers and the thing observed – that is between subject and object.” Christianity gave birth to modern science “because it insists that the God who created the universe has revealed Himself in the Bible to be the kind of God He is . . .” and “the belief that God as the Creator and Lawgiver has implanted laws in His creation which man can discover.”
Let’s look at some of the “founders” of modern science that were strongly influenced by their Christian worldview.
Examples of biblical influence
Francis Bacon was a lawyer, essayist, and Lord Chancellor of England. He was cut from different cloth than those of his peers who continued to accept recognized authorities as their guiding light. Rather than authorities, Bacon “stressed careful observation and a systematic collection of information – to unlock nature’s secrets.” Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a man who firmly believed in the Bible’s view of the fall of man and man’s rebellion against God. Bacon, who was known by some as “the major prophet of the Scientific Revolution,” said: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over creation. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some parts repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences.” Bacon, like the other early founders, “. . . did not see science as autonomous.” And like science, man also is not autonomous. We are to take seriously what the Bible teaches about man, history, and what has taken place within God’s creation. It is “upon the base of the Bible’s teaching, science and art are intrinsically valuable before both men and God. This gave a strong impetus for the creative stirrings of science to continue rather than to be spasmodic.”
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who as a young professor in his twenties at Cambridge University, recognized that “there is a universal force of attraction between every body in the universe and that it must be calculable. That force he called gravity.”
He subsequently wrote a book, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, in 1687, arguably one of the most influential books ever, detailing his observations. He also recognized and developed the theory of the speed of sound. Newton was able to calculate the speed of sound “by timing the interval between the sound of an object which he dropped, and the echo coming back to him from a known distance.”
Newton is best known for his writings about ravity and the speed of sound, what isn’t as well known is that he was a devoted Christian and wrote prolifically about the Bible. Like many early scientists, Newton was criticized for not concerning himself with the question of why. He, again like many scientists of his day, didn’t worry about the why because he accepted that all creation had been created by a personal God. In his later years, Newton turned his attention writing “more about the Bible than about science.” We must recognize that for Newton it was the same God who had created the universe, whose truths could be learned from observation and experimentation, who had revealed Himself and His truths to His people in the Bible.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a man of great talents and abilities. He developed the first successful barometer and made major contributions in the study of the equilibrium of fluids. For example, he “took a tube of mercury up the mountain Puy de Dôme (in central France) and thus recorded the changes in the mercury level according to altitude.” Pascal was also a noted mathematician and his work played an important part in developing differential calculus.
Perhaps Pascal greatest contributions were not in science or mathematics but in literature. He is accepted by many as the, or at least one the, greatest writers of French prose whoever lived. Pascal, as a Christian, understood people as special because they were created in the image of God and more important Christ had died on a cross for them. He saw people as not just a part of nature, or as Schaeffer suggests “he did not see people lost like specks of dust in the universe.” Pascal saw people as the creation of God that gave life meaning in that it was man that could comprehend the universe not the universe comprehending man.
A later day scientist was Michael Faraday (1791-1867). He is best known for his major contributions in electricity. It was Faraday who discovered the induction of electric current. Faraday, like the others we have listed, was also a Christian. Schaeffer tells us that Faraday “. . . belonged to a group whose position was: Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” Like the scientists we have mentioned, Faraday understood man was created in God’s image and nature was created for man. He rejected the idea that man was created for nature.
Shift in modern science
Science and discovery continue today but for the most part without the advantage of the Christian worldview and as a result there has been a not so subtle change of emphasis. The biblical emphasis on an “ordered creation reflects the nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures” despite what their worldview might be. Mankind acts on an assumption of order not chaos. Today many think that the concept of an orderly universe is no longer accurate. More important they do not recognize a universe or a world that was created for man by God. They see man as created for the universe, that man is just part of some great “cosmic machine.” This represents a clear change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.
The Greek philosopher Plato recognized that “regardless of what kind of particulars one talks about, if there are no absolutes – no universal – then particulars have no meaning.” The universal or absolute is that under which all the particulars fit – that which gives unity and meaning to the whole. Philosophers from Plato on have recognized that it is absolutes or universals that give meaning to individual particulars. This is most easily understood in terms of morals. “If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions.” The argument can also be made for man’s existence. If our existence is to have meaning then there must be an absolute, a universal, which gives our existence meaning.
Today there has been a shift not in science but in the worldview of the scientists and philosophers. The Christian worldview sees God and man as outside of the cause- and-effect of the universe or cosmos. In this view, God and man could influence nature or what is called “the machine” by Schaeffer. In the worldview of the modern scientists changed and today man is no longer outside the machine, man is just part of the machine and God has been removed from the picture. It is critical that we remember that it was not science that brought them to this point but their worldview.
In a closed system of cause-and-effect there is no place for a living God and there is no place “for man as man.” In fact, as Schaeffer explains, there is not room for much in a closed cause-and-effect system. “There is no place for love in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. There is no place for morality in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. There is no place for the freedom of people in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. Man becomes a zero. People and all they do become only a part of the machinery.”
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) furthered this worldview by teaching that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest. There are serious problems with this theory, do I dare say flaws, that have never been satisfactorily explained by Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists. This fact has not prevented this theory from gaining dominance in our current culture. Statistically there is no proof chance could have produced the complex world we live. Schaeffer says: “Statistical studies indicate that pure chance (randomness) could not have produced the biological complexity in the world out of chaos, in any amount of time so far suggested. Has there been enough time for natural selection, as it is seen through the eyepieces of Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism to operate and give rise to the observed phenomena of nature? No, say these mathematicians.” Schaeffer continues saying: “Most importantly, no one has yet shown how man could have been brought forth from non-man solely by time plus chance.”
The popularization of Darwin’s ideas by Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) “extended the theory of biological evolution to all of life, including ethics.” This opened a “barn door” that is still open and may never be shut until Christ comes again. The idea of the survival of the fittest supported the proponents of racism and the noncompassionate use of wealth. We have seen the natural conclusion of this thinking in the rise of Nazi Movement in Germany. Without having a biblical world, people of Germany could not withstand the impact of Darwinism on them and their culture. Although we cry out against the death and hatred of the Nazis, we have not yet encountered the full natural conclusion of Darwinism as it will be presented to us as genetic engineering.
Is it just an accident that we have seen the rise of the most brutal, authoritarianism regimes in the history of man in the twentieth century? How many citizens have died through the hands of their own governments under the guise of making things better for average citizens? A conservative estimate would be thirty to forty million people have been murdered by the governments that were to protect them. How many may die to provide a supply of transplantable body organs to enable the “fittest” to survive? What is the cost of “stem cell research” among the unborn? Are we entering a period that will give us a new definition of death to support those who are deemed more worthy of living?
Without the absolutes of the Bible, there are no absolutes except those arbitrary rules established by either popular or political consensus. Without absolutes,
there are no boundaries between what we can do and what we should do – nothing is out of bounds.
Every day some scientist or politician is suggesting that the government do this or that to make our lives better. The only problem is that we might not consider it making our lives better. Should we force people to be tranquilized to limit or eliminate human aggression? Should we require all politicians be medicated to control hostility? Should we sanction mass sterilization where population growths are more than wanted by government? Should we end the lives of those who for reasons of health will only be a drain on either their families or the state, using resources better used for someone who can make a positive contribution? Should we shut down all fast-food operations as unhealthy for the general populace? Should we require everyone to wear seat-belts, or carry health insurance, or stop smoking, to get flu shoots, to pay for services given free to illegal aliens? Who is going to control those who are in control? If man is just a “machine” what is the value of biological continuation?
Today, Humanism says: “. . . that there is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses everything, including people.” In this view everything is explained by being man being part of the “closed system.” Schaeffer explains that “To those who hold this view everything people are or do is explained by some form of determinism, some type of behaviorism, some kind of reductionism. The terms, determinism or behaviorism, indicate that everything people think or do is determined in a machinelike way and any sense of freedom or choice is an illusion. In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different.” How far have we fallen from the “pride of man in the High Renaissance and the Enlightenment down to the present despair.” Today there is no place for God, no place for love, freedom or significance. Man is only a machine, but can man live like a machine? If man is a machine what can he find to give meaning to life?
Need to reaffirm the original base for modern science
This despair of man, this despair of man in our culture and in our society is so unnecessary. At the risk of oversimplifying, the problem is our starting point, the answer to the question; where did we come from? The biblical worldview says that world, the universe was created by God who could make something out of nothing and He was responsible for making man in His image. In the biblical worldview man is not a machine but a being, created in the image of a personal God, who cares about him. In the biblical worldview man need not despair but trust and have faith in His creator.
For the humanist, it is a bit more of a problem. Some humanists who might believe creation from nothing, absolutely nothing, is possible. However, although possible in theory, creation from absolutely nothing seems to be “unthinkable.” There is not much of an answer there. Well then if one does not subscribe to something from nothing, then for the humanist, there must be something that has always existed. This something must be either an atom or a molecule, or the energy particle, and then everything, including life and man, comes forth by chance from that. Hmm, that does not seem like much of an answer either. Is it any wonder man is in despair?
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ Why am I doing this series FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE? John Fischer probably expressed it best when he noted: Schaeffer was the closest thing to a “man of sorrows” I have seen. He could not allow himself to be happy when most of the world was desperately lost […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : 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 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
___________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Naturalistic, Materialistic, World View Francis Schaeffer and Gospel of Christ in the pages of the Bible Francis Schaeffer’s term the “Mannishness of Man” and how it relates to Woody Allen and Charles Darwin!!! Schaeffer noted that everyone has these two things constantly pulling at them. First, it is […]
________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
_______________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
______________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer has […]
__________ A Christian Manifesto Francis Schaeffer Published on Dec 18, 2012 A video important to today. The man was very wise in the ways of God. And of government. Hope you enjoy a good solis teaching from the past. The truth never gets old. The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer How Should […]
I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.”
Francis Schaeffer – How Should We then Live – 07.The Age of Non Reason
In the last blog I wrote about how the breakdown in the concept of truth moved from the philosophies into the world of art. Van Gogh is just one example of an artist who hoped to find ultimate meaning through human artistic expression, but fell short. In the end, the Dada-ists chose randomness and created art which had at its heart the goal of propagating their chaotic and destructive worldview.
Schaeffer next turns to music and general culture. The decay of a cohesive approach to truth through absolutes and healthy logic (antithesis) is becoming pervasive. The musique concretemovement presented its chaotic, deconstructive compositions as if to say, “All is relative, nothing is sure, nothing is fixed”. With such a strong relativist sensibility being thrust forward “the possibility of finding any universal which could make sense of the particulars is denied”.
Modern Cinema soon became a powerful avenue for widespread communication of modernity’s approach to truth. “The so-called ‘good’ pictures have almost all been developed by men holding the modern philosophy of no certain truth and no certain distinctions between right and wrong,” observes Schaeffer, and, “…the films they produce are tools for teaching their beliefs”. In the 1960’s Michelangelo Antonioni’s film Blow-Up carried this tag-line: “Murder without guilt, love without meaning”.
Schaeffer’s last example of the relativistic approach’s popular infiltration is The Beatles’Seargent Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Rather than disconnected individual songs, this album, which expertly weaved together a conceptual whole, effectively communicated “psychedelic music, with open statements concerning drug-taking, [and] was knowingly presented as a religious answer”.
Schaeffer was the closest thing to a “man of sorrows” I have seen. He could not allow himself to be happy when most of the world was desperately lost and he knew why. He was the first Christian I found who could embrace faith and the despair of a lost humanity all at the same time. Though he had been found, he still knew what it was to be lost.
Schaeffer was the first Christian leader who taught me to weep over the world instead of judging it. Schaeffer modeled a caring and thoughtful engagement in the history of philosophy and its influence through movies, novels, plays, music, and art. Here was Schaeffer, teaching at Wheaton College about the existential dilemma expressed in Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film, Blowup, when movies were still forbidden to students. He didn’t bat an eye. He ignored our legalism and went on teaching because he had been personally gripped by the desperation of such cultural statements.
Schaeffer taught his followers not to sneer at or dismiss the dissonance in modern art. He showed how these artists were merely expressing the outcome of the presuppositions of the modern era that did away with God and put all conclusions on a strictly human, rational level. Instead of shaking our heads at a depressing, dark, abstract work of art, the true Christian reaction should be to weep for the lost person who created it. Schaeffer was a rare Christian leader who advocated understanding and empathizing with non-Christians instead of taking issue with them.
“BLOW UP” TRAILER (in HD!)
Uploaded on Apr 23, 2009
The original trailer for the Michelangelo Antonioni film “Blow Up,” starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, and Sarah Miles.
Published: December 18, 2013 Updated: December 18, 2013
“How should we then live?” Francis Schaeffer asks this question of his readers before his book is even opened. He tries to grab the reader’s attention as they respond, “As a result of knowing what?”
Schaeffer takes the reader through the history of western culture beginning in Roman Europe and ending in the Immoral States of America. He brings the reader through the major philosophical ideas of history beginning with the Self Deification of the Romans (particularly the emperors) and into today’s humanistic, apathetic anti-philosophy.
Given the vast knowledge that Schaeffer provides in his book, readers are left to draw our own conclusions to this question as he does not explicitly say how we should “then” live. Which in and of itself is a good thing, otherwise we would all be a bunch of little Schaeffers running around waiting for the Elite Society Members to take over the world and doom us all for one last time.
One thing in this book was particularly striking throughout Schaeffer’s discourse on the “rise and decline of western thought and culture.” The idea of using the cinema as a vehicle for philosophy was and still is a powerful mode of “infiltrating” the minds of the “westerners” with the ideas and ideals that the directors and producers have in mind.
Using “art” (and the word “art” is used here loosely) as a vehicle to show the viewer the “artist’s” worldview is not exactly a new concept. In the time before the cinema even existed, artists showed their worldview through their paintings, plays, music, tattoos and photography. With the evolution of technology, man is now able to use film (in the sense of movies) to let the world look in on how he perceives it.
The use of cinema for this purpose really took off in the 1960s. Before this, most films were more or less for entertainment purposes. (However, Schaeffer would contest that it is impossible for art to exist for sheer entertainment. Instead he would say that all art produced says something about the philosophy of the producer.) In the 1960s, though, men like Alain Resnais, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bunuel, and Michelangelo Antonioni popularized cinematic philosophy.
These directors were at no loss for viewers, as movies were, and still are, one of the most popular mediums for entertainment. This kind of popularity allowed for many to see and be “infiltrated” with the worldview of the directors. At this time, in the 1960s, the popular philosophy being expressed in the cinema was that of humanism and non-reason. These movies portrayed man as nothing more than a machine. They sought to extract any trace of emotion or humanity from the human being.
This idea is best noted in the movie “Blow Up” by Antonioni. ”Blow Up” is essentially a story about a photographer who thinks that he may have photographed a murder while casually snapping photos. He then “runs into” a mysterious woman who wants him to turn over the film to her. When he does not oblige, she shows up at his studio (without having known the address). The evidence (presumably of the murder) then disappears. The woman does a series of disappearing acts. The photographer returns to the park without his camera and finds the body, which then disappears itself. The film closes with a scene of mimes playing tennis.
Many people misunderstand the intentions of Antonioni in his making of this film. They perceive it to be an analysis of the fashion business in the 1960s. However, Antonioni’s purpose in making this film was to show to the world that everyone perceives reality in their own way and ultimately sees only what they want to see.
Directors pushing their worldview upon viewers are prevalent in today’s society as well. Many movies of today seem to say basically the same things as the movies of the 1960s, just less intelligently. Movies of today speak of guiltless crimes, sexual enjoyment without commitment, and senseless gross-out humor. Is this what our culture is? Do the leaders of media really believe this is where our culture is?
The answer is a resounding “yes” for both questions. This must be where our culture is – otherwise, movies like this would not be grossing upwards of $50 million on their opening three days. As we as a society even today (as in the 1960s) slip further into non-reason and self gratification, yet attempt to, at the same time, seek after optimism, we just slip further and further into the detachment of meaning from mankind.
As saddening as this might be to the Christian sector, there is little being done to counteract these worldviews. If cinema is used as a vehicle to express philosophies and worldviews, then why not try to harness it for the advancement of the Biblical worldview? A few people have put forth valiant efforts, yet none have really succeeded (save for Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, “Left Behind”, and “Facing the Giants”).
Maybe Christian producers lack the (monetary) resources to make “quality” films. This is not really the case however. Christian cinema lacks the following of the secular crowd. Why would the non-reasoning western culture want to see a movie that promotes morals, and a purpose for all of mankind? This would by no means be cool at all. Also, Christian movies are made, most of the time if not all of the time assuming that the viewer already has some sort of understanding of the basic principles of Christianity, which is not always the case. This leads to the question: Why are Christians making movies? Is the purpose merely to entertain ourselves? Or is it to evangelize the unsaved?
I would submit that if it were for the evangelizing of the unsaved, then we are doing a lousy job at it. How can we expect an unsaved person to understand something that is completely foreign to them?
Cinema as a vehicle for philosophy has been very successful. The films of today speak volumes about where society as a whole is today. This is troubling, and as long as humanist philosophy is played on the big screen, society will stay troubled. Society might not want to stay troubled though, if Christians can offer “quality” alternatives. These alternatives need not be preachy and evangelistic, but they can offer good morals and values with an appealing story.
J.I.PACKER WROTE OF SCHAEFFER, “His communicative style wasnot that of a cautious academic who labors for exhaustive coverage and dispassionate objectivity. It was rather that of an impassioned thinker who paints his vision of eternal truth in bold strokes and stark contrasts.Yet it is a fact that MANY YOUNG THINKERS AND ARTISTS…HAVE FOUND SCHAEFFER’S ANALYSES A LIFELINE TO SANITY WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LIVING.”
Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.”
Many modern artists are left in this point of desperation that Schaeffer points out and it reminds me of the despair that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.” THIS IS EXACT POINT SCHAEFFER SAYS SECULAR ARTISTS ARE PAINTING FROM TODAY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ARE A RESULT OF MINDLESS CHANCE.
___________
Francis Schaeffer below in his film series shows how this film was appealing to “nonreason” to answer our problems.
In the book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Schaeffer notes:
Especially in the sixties the major philosophic statements which received a wide hearing were made through films. These philosophic movies reached many more people than philosophic writings or even painting and literature. Among these films were THE LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD by Alain Resnais (1961), THE SILENCE by Ingmar Bergman (1967), JULIET OF THE SPIRITS by Federico Fellini (1965), BLOW UP by Michelangelo Antonioni (1966), BELLE DE JOUR by Luis Bunuel (1967), and THE HOUR OF THE WOLF by Ingmar Bergman (1967).
They showed pictorially (and with great force) what it is like if man is a machine and also what it is like if man tries to live in the area of non-reason. In the area of non-reason man is left without categories. He has no way to distinguish between right and wrong, or even between what is objectively true as opposed to illusion or fantasy….One could view these films a hundred times and there still would be no way to be sure what was portrayed as objectively true and what was part of a character’s imagination. if people begin only from themselves and really live in a universe in which there is no personal God to speak, they have no final way to be sure of the difference between reality and fantasy or illusion.
But Bergman (like Sartre, Camus, and all the rest) cannot really live with his own position. Therefore in The Silence the background music is Bach’s Goldberg Variations. When he was asked in the filmed interview about music, he said that there is a small holy part of the human being where music speaks. Bergman also said that while he was writing the script for the film SILENCE that he had the music of Bach’s Goldberg Variations playing in his home and the music interfered with that which was being set forth in that film.
A good example is Antonioni’s BLOW UP. The advertisement for the film read: “Murder without guilt, love without meaning.” Antonioni was portraying how, in the area non-reason, there are no certainties concerning moral values, and no human categories either. BLOW UP had no hero. Compare this with Michelangelo’s DAVID–that statement of humanist pride in the Renaissance. Man had set himself up as autonomous, but the end result was not Michelangelo’s DAVID, but Antonioni’s non-hero. All there is in the film is the camera which goes “click, click, click,” and the human has disappeared. The main character snaps pictures of individual things, particulars. One might point out, for example, the models he snaps: all their humanity and meaning are gone.
After a scene in which clowns play tennis without a ball, there is at the end of the film a reverse zoom shot in which the man who is the central character disappears entirely, and all that remains is the grass. Man is gone. Modern people, on their basis of reason, see themselves only as machines. but as they move into the area of non-reason and look for their optimism, they find themselves separated from reason and without any human or moral values (pp. 201-203)
____________________
Schaeffer noted:
How Do We Know We Know?
During the early stages of modern philosophy (as distinguished from medieval philosophy) – that is, around the seventeenth century in Europe – the question that was troubling philosophers was this: how do we know that we know?
The early modern scientists had made advances in the physical sciences by rejecting previous human authority. For example, they rejected much of what had been inherited from the science of the Middle Ages. At that time, investigation had been governed and restrained by the concepts of Aristotle. In the field of astronomy, this had meant that the Ptolemaic system held sway. Suddenly, observations were made which cast doubt on that entire system of understanding the heavenly bodies. The result was, of course, the Copernican revolution: the discovery that the sun does not move around the earth but, rather, the earth around the sun. Thus, a general attitude was developed toward the ideas which had prevailed till then. The scientists said, “We must not accept the ideas passed down to us or derived from various previous authorities. We must start from scratch and simply observe the world and see how it works. Otherwise, we may be hampered from seeing what is there.” The early modern scientists did not, however, reject the knowledge that God gave in the Bible as they rejected previous human authority and opinion. For example. in Novum Organum (1620) Francis Bacon wrote: “To conclude, therefore, let no man out of weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far of be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works.”81 “The book of God’s word” is the Bible. “The book of God’s works” is the world which God has made.
Modern scientists in general lived, thought, and worked in the framework of rejecting human authority, while respecting what was taught in the Bible in regard to the cosmos – right up to the time of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell in the second half of the nineteenth century.
The philosophers (and later the materialistic scientists) went further. Their error was to confuse the escape from past human authority (which was indeed confining) with putting man at the center and rejecting God’s authority as well. They wanted to reject all outside authority. They wanted to establish everything only on human observation. That was how the question of epistemology (how we know we know) became so important in modern philosophy. It has remained so right up to our own day.
_______________________________________
The philosopher who first raised these questions was Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes wrote in Meditations on First Philosophy:
How often it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself on this particular place … whilst in reality I was lying on my bed! At this moment it does seem that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper …. But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I now dream.82
Here is the modern epistemological problem expressed three centuries ago! All knowledge comes through the senses, but how can we rely on our own senses? Sometimes, as in dreaming, we seem to be experiencing things very really, yet the reality is only in our heads.
______________________________
We are reminded of the 1966 film by Michelangelo Antonioni called Blow-Up, in which one of the central issues was this same question. A photographer had taken a picture of a murdered man in a park in London and then became uncertain whether this was, in fact, part of reality or an experience of fantasy similar to a drug trip. Within the humanist world-view there is no final way of telling. And Antonioni ends his film by making the point graphically. Tennis players play the game without a ball. The invisible “ball” goes back and forth and the spectators watch its “path” from side to side until finally the “ball” (which does not exist) goes out over the surrounding wire and “falls” at the photographer’s feet. He pauses for a moment, uncertain about what he should do. (Is observation simply a matter of the majority? Does the reality of things come from the general agreement in society and nothing more?) Then the photographer stoops down, picks up the “ball,” and throws it back onto the court. Here, depicted brilliantly, is the problem of any system which builds its epistemology on man alone. This film was a philosophic statement of the period in which we are living.
Blow Up – Michelangelo Antonioni (Original Trailer)
Uploaded on Jul 7, 2008
Blow-up (1966)
Director:Michelangelo Antonioni
Writers:Michelangelo Antonioni (story)
and Julio Cortázar(short story)
Release Date:18 December 1966 (USA)
Brief Description: A mod London photographer believes that he has photographed a murder.
Julio Cortázar is an argentinian writer, of an incredible style, who made “Las babas del diablo”, from where the story was taken.
In this Film also The Yardbirds perform Stroll on, a stylish raging Mod song, a permited version of “Train Kept A-Rollin”. Originally, The Who were approached, but they declined, and then The In-Crowd had been planned but they were unable to attend the filming. The Yardbirds filled in at short notice, and the guitar that Beck smashes at the end of their set is a replica of Steve Howe’s instrument. Antonioni instructed Beck to smash his guitar in emulation of The Who’s Pete Townshend
In 1967 antonioni won the Golden Palm in Cannes for this film, and also the Critic’s Award in 1968 for Best Foreign Film.
The Cast:
Vanessa Redgrave – Jane
David Hemmings – Thomas
Sarah Miles – Patricia
John Castle – Bill
Jane Birkin – The Blonde
Gillian Hills – The Brunette
Peter Bowles – Ron
Veruschka von Lehndorff – Herself (as Verushka)
Julian Chagrin – Mime
Claude Chagrin – Mime
In this archived episode from the Movie Geeks United podcast, the hosts pay tribute to Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni days after their deaths on July 30, 2007 with guests Peter Burnett and NY Times writer Adam Bernstein.
For more information on Movie Geeks United, and to listen to our archive of over 600 filmmaker interviews, visit us at http://www.moviegeeksunited.net.
Blow-up – Antonioni (Yardbirds Scene)
Uploaded on Apr 26, 2009
Directed By Michelangelo Antonioni in (1966)
The Yardbirds (with Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck) playing Stroll On
AGE OF FRAGMENTATION
I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought
A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat): appearance and reality.
1. Problem of reality in Impressionism: no universal.
2. Post-Impression seeks the universal behind appearances.
3. Painting expresses an idea in its own terms as a work of art; to discuss the idea in a painting is not to intellectualize art.
4. Parallel search for universal in art and philosophy; Cézanne.
B. Fragmentation.
1. Extremes of ultra-naturalism or abstraction: Wassily Kandinsky.
2. Picasso leads choice for abstraction: relevance of this choice.
3. Failure of Picasso (like Sartre, and for similar reasons) to be fully consistent with his choice.
C. Retreat to absurdity.
1. Dada , and Marcel Duchamp: art as absurd. (Dada gave birth to Surrealism).
2. Art followed philosophy but came sooner to logical end.
3. Chance in his art technique as an art theory impossible to practice: Pollock.
II. Music As a Vehicle of Modern Thought
A. Non-resolution and fragmentation: German and French streams.
1. Influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets.
2. Direction and influence of Debussy.
3. Schoenberg’s non-resolution; contrast with Bach.
4. Stockhausen: electronic music and concern with the element of change.
B. Cage: a case study in confusion.
1. Deliberate chance and confusion in Cage’s music.
2. Cage’s inability to live the philosophy of his music.
C. Contrast of music-by-chance and the world around us.
1. Inconsistency of indulging in expression of chaos when we acknowledge order for practical matters like airplane design.
2. Art as anti-art when it is mere intellectual statement, divorced from reality of who people are and the fullness of what the universe is.
III. General Culture As the Vehicle of Modern Thought
A. Propagation of idea of fragmentation in literature.
1. Effect of Eliot’s Wasteland and Picasso’s Demoiselles d’ Avignon
compared; the drift of general culture.
2. Eliot’s change in his form of writing when he became a Christian.
3. Philosophic popularization by novel: Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir.
B. Cinema as advanced medium of philosophy.
1. Cinema in the 1960s used to express Man’s destruction: e.g. Blow-up.
2. Cinema and the leap into fantasy:
The Hour of the Wolf, Belle de Jour, Juliet of the Spirits,
The Last Year at Marienbad and Blow Up.
3. Bergman’s inability to live out his philosophy (see Cage):
Silence and The Hour of the Wolf.
IV. Only on Christian Base Can Reality Be Faced Squarely
_________________________________
Featured artist is Nancy Holt
Understanding contemporary art
_____________
Nancy Holt’s work is highlighted at the 9:30 point in the film above.
Nancy Holt visiting her work, Up and Under, in Nokia town in Finland
Nancy Holt (born April 1938) is an Americanartist famous for her public sculpture, installation art and land art. Throughout her career, Holt has also produced works in other mediums, including film, photography, and writing artist’s books.
Biography
Nancy Holt was born in Worchester, Massachusetts. She spent a great deal of her childhood in New Jersey.[1] She was educated at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.[1] Three years after graduating, she married fellow environmental artist Robert Smithson in 1963. Holt began her artistic career as a photographer and as a video artist. This involvement with photography and camera optics are thought to have influenced her later earthworks, which are “literally seeing devices, fixed points for tracking the positions of the sun, earth and stars.”[2] Today Holt is most widely known for her large-scale environmental works, Sun Tunnels and Dark Star Park. However, she has created site and time-specific environmental works in public places all over the world. Holt has contributed to various publications, which have featured both her written articles and photographs. She has also authored several books. Holt has received five National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships, New York Creative Artist Fellowships, and a Guggenheim Fellowship.[1] Holt along with Beverly Pepper is a recipient of the International Sculpture Center‘s 2013 Lifetime Achievement in Contemporary Sculpture Award. She currently works and resides in Galisteo, New Mexico.[3]
Artistic Style
The Land Art Tradition
Holt is associated with earthworks or land art. Land art emerged in the 1960s, coinciding with a growing ecology movement in the United States, which asked people to become more aware of the negative impact they can have on the natural environment. Land art changed the way people thought of art; it took art out of the gallery or museum and into the natural landscape, the product of which were huge works engaging elements of the environment. Unlike much of the commercialized art during this time period, land art could not be bought or sold on the art market. Thus, it shifted the perspective of how people all over the world viewed art.
Land art was typically created in remote, uninhabited regions of the country, particularly the Southwest. Some attribute this popular location for land art to artists’ need to escape the turmoil in the United States during the 1960s and 70s by turning to the open, uncorrupted land of the West.[2] Holt believes this artistic movement came about in the United States due to the vastness of the American landscape.[4] As a result of earthworks not being easily accessible to the public, documentation in photographs, videos, drawings became imperative to their being seen. The first exhibit of contemporary land art was at the Virginia Dwan Gallery in New York in 1968.[5] Other earth artists who emerged during this time include Robert Smithson, James Turrell, Walter De Maria, Michael Heizer, Dennis Oppenheim and Peter Hutchinson.
Perception of Time and Space
Holt’s works of art often deal with issues of how people perceive time and space. The various monumental works she has created blend with and complement their environment. Works such as Hydra’s Head do not merely sit in their environments, but are made of the land, stand on it and are created to be harmonious with the land. The pools in this work are at the top of concrete tubes imbedded in the ground. The land already at the site surrounds these pools. They reflect the natural landscape, while not disturbing it. Holt thinks about human scale in relation to the work she creates.[6] People can interact with the works and become more aware of space, of their own visual perception, and of the order of the universe.[6] Holt’s works incorporate the passage of time and also function to keep time. For example, Annual Ring functions so that when sunlight falls through the hole in the dome and fits perfectly into a ring on the ground, it is solar noon on the summer solstice.[6] At different times, the sun falls differently on the work and other holes in the dome align with celestial occurrences. Holt has said that she is concerned with making art that not only makes an impact visually, but is also functional and necessary in society,[7] as seen in works like Sky Mound, which serves a dual function as a sculpture and park and it also generates alternative energy.
In her works, Holt creates an intimate connection to nature and the stars, saying, “I feel that the need to look at the sky-at the moon and the stars-is very basic, and it is inside all of us. So when I say my work is an exteriorization of my own inner reality, I mean I am giving back to people through art what they already have in them.”[6] In other words, Holt is saying that people have within them a basic need to observe the sky and through her works she wants to highlight and make people aware of that need.
Collaboration
Collaboration with architects, engineers, construction crews, and the like is an essential part of creating land art. Solar Rotary is a work located on the campus of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. The work, consists of 20 ft (6.1 m). aluminum poles topped with a swirl of metal called a shadow caster, which casts a circle of light on a central seat when it is solar noon on the day of the summer solstice. On five days a year at different times, the shadow caster is designed to create a circle of light around plaques placed in the ground that mark important events in Florida’s history.[8] Thus, for Solar Rotary, Holt employed Dr. Jack Robinson, an archaeo-astronomer and professor to help her, among other things, to plot the sun’s coordinates for the work.[8] For almost all of Holt’s works, she has had some collaboration. For Dark Star Park, Holt coordinated with developer J.W. Kaempfer, Jr., of the Kaempfer Company, in integrating the design of his adjacent building, Park Place Office Building into her design for the park. She also worked in collaboration with an architect, landscape architect, engineers, and real estate developers on the work.[9] For Rock Rings, Holt searched far and wide to find the right masons to work on the piece and also had local stone called schist, which was 250-million-years old, quarried by hand for the work.[6] Despite all of the collaboration, Holt notes that she is always present for the construction of her artworks.[6] on June 2012, she completed Avignons Locators, her first site-specific work made in France on the basis of the Missoula Ranch Locators: Vision Encompassed (1972). This work, currently under finishing process,[10] involved a team of academics, teachers and students, but also an astrophysist, a surveyor, a metalworker and an architect.[11]
Analysis of Major Works
Sun Tunnels
Sun Tunnels in Lucin, Utah.
Sun Tunnels is located in the Great Basin Desert outside of the ghost town of Lucin, Utah. The work is a product of Holt’s interest in the great variation of intensity of the sun in the desert compared to the sun in the city.[6] Holt searched for and found a site which was remote and empty.
“It is a very desolate area, but it is totally accessible, and it can be easily visited, making Sun Tunnels more accessible really than art in museums . . . A work like Sun Tunnels is always accessible . . . Eventually, as many people will see Sun Tunnels as would see many works in a city-in a museum anyway.”[6]
The work consists of four massive concrete tunnels (18 feet long and nine feet in diameter), which are arranged in an “X” configuration to total a length of 86 feet (26 m). Each tunnel reacts differently to the sun, aligned with the sunrise, sunset, of the summer or winter solstice. Someone visiting the site would see the tunnels immediately with their contrast to the fairly undifferentiated desert landscape. Approaching the work, which can be seen one to one-and-a-half miles away, the viewer’s perception of space is questioned as the tunnels change views as a product of their landscape.[12]
The tunnels not only provide a much-needed shelter from the sweltering desert sun, but once inside the dazzling effect of the play of light within the tunnels can be seen. The top of each tunnel has small holes, forming on each, the constellations of Draco, Perseus, Columba, and Capricorn, respectively.[6] The diameters of the holes differ in relation to the magnitude of the stars represented.[6] These holes cast spots of daylight in the dark interiors of the tunnels, which appear almost like stars. Holt has said of the tunnels, “It’s an inversion of the sky/ground relationship-bringing the sky down to the earth.”[6] This is a common theme in Holt’s work. She sometimes creates this relationship with reflecting pools and shadow patterns marked on the ground, like in her work Star Crossed.[6]
Dark Star Park in Rosslyn, Virginia.
Dark Star Park
Dark Star Park was commissioned by Arlington County, Virginia in 1979, in conjunction with an urban-renewal project.[7] Construction of the work began in 1984. Holt worked with an architect, landscape architect, engineers, and real estate developers on the project.[7] The artwork is at once a park and a sculpture. Built on two-thirds of an acre of land where a run-down, old gas station and warehouse once stood, Holt transformed the space.[7] The park consists of five spheres, two pools, four steel poles, a stairway, a large tunnel for passage, a smaller tunnel for viewing only and plantings of crown vetch, winter creeper, willow oak, and earth and grass.[13]
The forms stand in stark contrast to the busy and highly developed commercial area that surrounds the space. There are places to walk and sit within the park, giving a passersby a chance to escape from the urban environment. Dark Star Park is more socially interactive than Holt’s other works. Holt paid attention to how people both inside and outside the park would see the spheres. The work alters the viewer’s perception by using curvilinear forms, such as the walkways that mimic the curving roads surrounding the site. Walking in the park or driving by it, viewers may mistake spheres of different sizes to actually be the same size or one sphere may eclipse another. The tunneled passages into the park frame certain sculptural elements, as do the reflections in the pools. However, Holt has made sure not to alienate the park entirely from its surroundings. The spheres are made of gunite (a sprayable mixture of cement and sand), asphalt, precast concrete tunnels, steel poles and stone masonry.[7] These materials relate the park to the buildings located near the artwork.
The work explores the concept of time and our relationship to the universe. When approaching one of the spheres, a visitor to the park might be reminded of the lunar surface[13] or when glancing at the quiet pools of water around the spheres, may relate them to craters.[7] This is no coincidence. Holt has a fascination with solar eclipses, as well as in the shadows cast by the sun on the surface of the earth[13] and the name of the park is a reference to the astronomical appearance of the large spheres that are its most distinct features. In speaking about the name Holt has said, “It’s called Dark Star Park because in my imagination these spheres are like stars that have fallen to the ground-they no longer shine-so I think of the park/artwork in a somewhat celestial way.”[6] By engaging the viewer with these spheres and the other elements surrounding them in the park, Holt brings the vast scale of nature and the cosmos back to human scale. Time is also a major part of this work. Once a year on August 1 at 9:32 am, the shadows cast by two of the spheres and their four adjacent poles align with permanent asphalt shadow patterns outlined on the ground.[7] This date was selected by the artist to commemorate the day in 1860 when William Ross bought the land that today is Rosslyn, Virginia, where the park is situated.[7]
Holt took on the challenging task of playing many roles in the park’s creation, becoming at once an artist, landscape designer, and committee member for approving plans for a nearby building. To take on all three roles possibly had never been done before by an artist, thus the park and its designer remain important to the history of art.
“I was the landscape designer as well as the sculptor, so the whole park became a work of art. And I was on the committee to approve the architectural design of the building adjacent to the park. I don’t think either of these situations ever happened before for an artist, so that was unusual, and it broke new ground for public art.”[6]
The work was surveyed in June 1995. At that time “treatment was needed.”.[9] Thus, seven years later, when the park was finally restored in 2002 it was long overdue.
Sky Mound
Located in Northern New Jersey, Sky Mound sits where a 57-acre (230,000 m2), 100-foot (30 m)-high landfill once stood.[14] The state’s Hackensack Meadowland Development Commission (HMDC) asked Holt to reclaim the site in an effort to provide an environmentally safe spot for plant and animal life to reside and for humans to enjoy.[15]
Still unfinished in April 2008, the landfill is to be turned into an earth sculpture and public park. The landfill has been covered with grass. Ten mounds stand upon the site, as well as steel poles, plants, and a pond, designed for the approximately 250 species of migratory birds that visit the area seasonally.[15] There will eventually be wind indicators and gravel paths. On several astronomically significant dates each year, the work will provide its viewer with unique views of the sun, moon, and several stars.
In addition, a series of arcing pipes will go down into the landfill, recovering methane from the 10 million tons of garbage below.[14] This will provide an alternative source of energy for those in the community.
Sky Mound’s location makes it visible and accessible to many people. Holt believes the work will increase awareness of the complex problem of how we dispose of our waste and trash.[14] It also raises questions about the sun, as every ecosystem depends on the sun and its energy for survival.[16] In 1991, funding on Sky Mound was stopped to perform a technological study at the site; currently construction remains postponed.[17]
Films
Holt has also made a number of films and videos since the late 1960s, including Mono Lake (1968) (also with artist Michael Heizer), East Coast, West Coast (1969), Swamp (1971) (in collaboration with her late husband Robert Smithson[18]) and Breaking ground: Broken Circle/Spiral Hill, a video “guided by Smithson’s film notes and drawings”[19] and completed forty years on. Points of View: Clocktower (1974) features conversations between Lucy Lippard and Richard Serra, Liza Bear and Klaus Kertess, Carl Andre and Ruth Kligman and Bruce Brice and Tina Girouard.[20] In 1978, she produced a 16mm color film documenting the seminal work Sun Tunnels.
1969 “Language III,” Dwan Gallery, New York, New York
1972 “International Art Exhibition,” Pamplona, Spain
1974 “Intervention in the Landscape,” Hayden Gallery, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
1977 Whitney Biennial, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York
1981 “Summer Light,” The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York
1983 “Monuments and Landscapes: The New Public Art,” McIntosh/Drysdale Gallery, Houston, Texas
1985 “Artist as Social Designer,” Los Angeles County Museum of Art, California
1989 “Making Their Mark,” Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio; New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, Louisiana; Denver Art Museum, Denver Colorado; Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1998 Wiener Kunstverein, Vienna, Austria
1999 “After Image: Drawing Through Process,” Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, California
2007 “Cosmologies” James Cohan Gallery, New York City, New York
Brown, Jeffrey. “Online NewsHour: Robert Smithson’s ‘Spiral Jetty’ Celebrates its 30th Anniversary.” PBS Online, May 6, 2005.
Doss, Erika. “Twentieth-Century American Art.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Grosenick, Uta, ed. Women Artists in the 20th and 21st Century. London: Taschen, 2005.
Marter, Joan. “Collaborations: Artists and Architects on Public Sites.” Art Journal 48, no. 4 Critical Issues in Public Art (1989): 315-320.
Matlisky, Barbara C. Fragile Ecologies: Contemporary Artists’ Interpretations and Solutions. New York: Rizzoli International, 1992.
McGill, Douglas C. “Jersey Landfill to Become an Artwork.” New York Times, September 3, 1986.
Saad-Cook, Janet, Charles Ross, Nancy Holt, and James Turrell. “Touching the Sky: Artworks Using Natural Phenomena, Earth, Sky and Connections to Astronomy.” Leonardo 21, no. 2 (1988): 123-134.
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : 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 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
_______________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR 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 […]
______________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer has […]
__________ A Christian Manifesto Francis Schaeffer Published on Dec 18, 2012 A video important to today. The man was very wise in the ways of God. And of government. Hope you enjoy a good solis teaching from the past. The truth never gets old. The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer How Should […]
________________________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ______________ Francis Schaeffer has written […]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer below pictured on cover of World Magazine: __________________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age […]
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__________________________
There are 3 videos in this series and they have statements by 150 academics and scientists and I hope to respond to all of them. Wikipedia notes Theodor Wolfgang Hänsch (born 30 October 1941) is a Germanphysicist. He received one fourth of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics for “contributions to the development of laser-based precisionspectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”, sharing the prize with John L. Hall and Roy J. Glauber.
DO YOU THINK THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH? ” I can’t see that for an individual.” OR THAT THERE IS HEAVEN OR HELL? “No.” WHEN YOU SEE THE PRECISION OF THE ATOM DOES THAT RELATE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR TO A RELIGIOUS APPROACH TO THE WORLD? “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves.”
I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”
Recently I noticed this comment by you Dr. Hansch:
DO YOU THINK THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH? ” I can’t see that for an individual.” OR THAT THERE IS HEAVEN OR HELL? “No.” WHEN YOU SEE THE PRECISION OF THE ATOM DOES THAT RELATE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR TO A RELIGIOUS APPROACH TO THE WORLD? “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves.”
This exact quote “Naturally all things around us look like they have been designed intelligently. So the principles that led to their being of course in some ways implies some intelligence but it may not be the intelligence in a person like being, but intelligence is it’s own. In it’s own mechanism, how nature evolves…” made me think of you when I read the book Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published lettersbecause of what Darwin said on this same issue of intelligent design.I am going to quote some of Charles Darwin’s own words and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism.
“It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide…Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world.I am aware that if we admit a First Cause,the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”
Francis Schaeffer noted:
What he is saying is if you say there is a first cause, then the mind says, “Where did this come from?” I think this is a bit old fashioned, with some of the modern thinkers, this would not have carry as much weight today as it did when Darwin expressed it. Jean Paul Sartre said it as well as anyone could possibly say it. The philosophic problem is that something is there and not nothing being there. No one has the luxury of beginning with nothing. Nobody I have ever read has put forth that everything came from nothing. I have never met such a person in all my reading,or all my discussion. If you are going to begin with nothing being there, it has to be nothing nothing, and it can’t be something nothing. When someone says they believe nothing is there, in reality they have already built in something there. The only question is do you begin with an impersonal something or a personal something. All human thought is shut up to these two possibilities. Either you begin with an impersonal and then have Darwin’s own dilemma which impersonal plus chance, now he didn’t bring in the amount of time that modern man would though. Modern man has brought in huge amounts of time into the equation as though that would make a difference because I have said many times that time can’t make a qualitative difference but only a quantitative difference. The dilemma is it is either God or chance. Now you find this intriguing thing in Darwin’s own situation, he can’t understand how chance could have produced these two great factors of the universe and its form and the mannishness of man.
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species, and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt…”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
On the basis of his reason he has to say there must be an intelligent mind, someone analogous to man. You couldn’t describe the God of the Bible better. That is man is made in God’s image and therefore, you know a great deal about God when you know something about man. What he is really saying here is that everything in my experience tells me it must be so, and my mind demands it is so. Not just these feelings he talked about earlier but his MIND demands it is so, but now how does he counter this? How does he escape this? Here is how he does it!!!
Charles Darwin went on to observe: “—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”
Francis Schaeffer asserted:
So he says my mind can only come to one conclusion, and that is there is a mind behind it all. However, the doubt comes because his mind has come from the lowest form of earthworm, so how can I trust my mind. But this is a joker isn’t it? Then how can you trust his mind to support such a theory as this? He proved too much. The fact that Darwin found it necessary to take such an escape shows the tremendous weight of Romans 1, that the only escape he can make is to say how can I trust my mind when I come from the lowest animal the earthworm? Obviously think of the grandeur of his concept, I don’t think it is true, but the grandeur of his concept, so what you find is that Darwin is presenting something here that is wrong I feel, but it is not nothing. It is a tremendously grand concept that he has put forward. So he is accepting the dictates of his mind to put forth a grand concept which he later can’t accept in this basic area with his reason, but he rejects what he could accept with his reason on this escape. It really doesn’t make sense. This is a tremendous demonstration of the weakness of his own position.
Darwin also noted, “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”
Francis Schaeffer remarked:
What a stupid reply and I didn’t say wicked. It just seems to me that here is 2 plus 2 equals 36 at this particular place.
Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.* But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Francis Schaeffer observed:
Can you feel this man? He is in real agony. You can feel the whole of modern man in this tension with Darwin. My mind can’t accept that ultimate of chance, that the universe is a result of chance. He has said 3 or 4 times now that he can’t accept that it all happened by chance and then he will write someone else and say something different. How does he say this (about the mind of a monkey) and then put forth this grand theory? Wrong theory I feel but great just the same. Grand in the same way as when I look at many of the paintings today and I differ with their message but you must say the mark of the mannishness of man are one those paintings titanic-ally even though the message is wrong and this is the same with Darwin. But how can he say you can’t think, you come from a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s conviction, so how can you trust me? Trust me here, but not there is what Darwin is saying. In other words it is very selective.
Now we are down to the last year of Darwin’s life.
* The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. “. . . in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms,and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away.'”
Francis Schaeffer summarized :
And this is the great Darwin, and it makes you cry inside. This is the great Darwin and he ends as a man in total tension.
Francis Schaeffer noted that in Darwin’s 1876 Autobiography that Darwin he is going to set forth two arguments for God in this and again you will find when he comes to the end of this that he is in tremendous tension. Darwin wrote,
At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind.
Francis Schaeffer remarked:
Now Darwin says when I look back and when I look at nature I came to the conclusion that man can not be just a fly! But now Darwin has moved from being a younger man to an older man and he has allowed his presuppositions to enter in to block his logic. These things at the end of his life he had no intellectual answer for. To block them out in favor of his theory. Remember the letter of his that said he had lost all aesthetic senses when he had got older and he had become a clod himself. Now interesting he says just the same thing, but not in relation to the arts, namely music, pictures, etc, but to nature itself. Darwin said, “But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…” So now you see that Darwin’s presuppositions have not only robbed him of the beauty of man’s creation in art, but now the universe. He can’t look at it now and see the beauty. The reason he can’t see the beauty is for a very, very , very simple reason: THE BEAUTY DRIVES HIM TO DISTRACTION. THIS IS WHERE MODERN MAN IS AND IT IS HELL. The art is hell because it reminds him of man and how great man is, and where does it fit in his system? It doesn’t. When he looks at nature and it’s beauty he is driven to the same distraction and so consequently you find what has built up inside him is a real death, not only the beauty of the artistic but the beauty of nature. He has no answer in his logic and he is left in tension. He dies and has become less than human because these two great things (such as any kind of art and the beauty of nature) that would make him human stand against his theory.
________________________
Dr. Hansch can you still look at God’s beautiful creation and say that it just appears to be the work of an intellect? If so then you like Darwin can say, “I am like a man who has become colour-blind.”
_______________________________________
IF WE ARE LEFT WITH JUST THE MACHINE THEN WHAT IS THE FINAL CONCLUSION IF THERE WAS NO PERSONAL GOD THAT CREATED US? I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life. FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.
Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. DAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
About the film:
In 1973, six guys in a local band from America’s heartland began a journey that surpassed even their own wildest expectations, by achieving worldwide superstardom… watch the story unfold as the incredible story of the band KANSAS is told for the first time in the DVD Miracles Out of Nowhere.
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
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.
(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.
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:
Steven E you are right that atheists can live a moral life. I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names. However, I will mention my good friend John George who passed away a couple of years ago after a battle with cancer.
He wrote a book published by Prometheus which was started by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz was the originator of the Humanist Manifesto II. I have corresponded in the past with him and I have found him to be a very kind man. I highly recommend his debate concerning humanism on the John Ankerberg Show.
I do not question the fact that many atheists live moral lives. However, this idea that humanists and atheists can come up with a logical moral system that rules out murder is not realistic. Rationally they can not do it. Without God in the picture then you only have this world of time and chance. If evolution teaches us the survival of the fittest then why would “might makes right” ever be wrong?
I am not going to repeat what I have said in the past about the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” but atheists can not come up with a rational reason not to murder in the same circumstances that Woody Allen presents in that movie. Here is the link:
If I am right, NO ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC REALLY LIVES CONSISTENTLY WITH HIS WORLDVIEW. IN SOME WAY HE AFFIRMS MEANING, VALUE, OR PURPOSE WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE BASIS. It is our job to discover those areas and lovingly show him where those beliefs are groundless. We need not attack his values themselves—for they are probably largely correct—but we may agree with him concerning them, and then point out only that he lacks any foundation for those values, whereas the Christian has a foundation. Thus, we need not make him defensive by a frontal attack on his personal values; rather we offer him a foundation for the values he already possesses.
I have found the appeal to moral values to be an especially powerful apologetic to university students. Although students may give lip service to relativism, my experience is that 95 percent can be very quickly convinced that objective moral values do exist after all. All you have to do is produce a few illustrations and let them decide for themselves. Ask what they think of the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms. Point out that without God to provide a transcultural basis for moral values, we’re left with socio-cultural relativism, so that such practices are morally unobjectionable—which scarcely anyone can sincerely accept….We believe certain acts to be genuinely wrong or right. Therefore, one ought to respond to the unbeliever on this score by saying, “You’re exactly right: if God does not exist, then values are merely social conventions. But the point I’m trying to make is that it’s impossible to live consistently and happily with such a worldview.” Push him on the Holocaust or some issue of popular concern like ethnic cleansing, apartheid, or child abuse. Bring it home to him personally, and if he’s honest and you are not threatening, I think he will admit that he does hold to some absolutes. Thus, it’s very important to analyze exactly what the unbeliever’s objection actually attacks before we answer.
I believe that this mode of apologetics can be very effective in helping to bring people to Christ because it does not concern neutral matters but cuts to the heart of the unbeliever’s own existential situation. I remember once, when I was delivering a series of talks at the University of Birmingham in England, that the audience the first night was very hostile and aggressive. The second night I spoke on the absurdity of life without God. This time the largely same audience was utterly subdued: the lions had turned to lambs, and now their questions were no longer attacking but sincere and searching. The remarkable transformation was due to the fact that the message had penetrated their intellectual facade and struck at the core of their existence. I would encourage you to employ this material in evangelistic dorm meetings and fraternity/sorority meetings, where you can compel people to really think about the desperate human predicament in which we all find ourselves.
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
I don’t doubt you for a minute Olphart when you assert that “The genie will not go back into the bottle because women now enjoy reproductive freedom and they’re not about to give it up.”
You may be right on that but then it is showing how SELFISH AND NARCISSIST OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME!!!!!
Owen Strachan observed:
If you missed it, the story is basically this: after months of complete inattention to the barbaric narrative of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, pro-life folks–including journalist Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Lifesite.com leaders, and Eric Metaxas–decided to do their part to raise a ruckus. Gosnell gives us a window into the gruesome world of killing babies…
But here’s the thing to note: even if these abortions had happened in the tidiest manner possible, with swarms of smiling, bright-eyed attendants working in crystal-clean conditions and a long-established doctor with a warm bedside manner, they would be no less barbaric. Abortion, we are reminded, is barbaric. Strong word, this–barbaric. Yet it fits our society perfectly. We’re drunk on the fumes of our supposedly morally advanced society, our technology with its modern advances, our bright and pampered 21st-century world which seems the apotheosis of social Darwinism. We are the ones human history has been waiting for. We’re brighter, living longer, avoiding cataclysmic world wars, spreading democracy through virtual platforms, humane, tolerant, happy, and whole.
It’s this narrative, you see, that the Gosnell murders destroy. The Gosnell murders reveal the evil heart that beats in the chest of our society. They’re unusually sordid, but the practice at their core–abortion–is pure evil, the perfect flowering of an UNBRIDLED NARCISSISM. We’re patting ourselves on our backs, but our elegantly manicured hands have blood on them.
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 ofBeing Humanon EWTN
I found out I was affected by abortion about 3 years ago. This changed my life. I had walked into theCoalition For Lifewondering 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 sayTHERE IS HOPEandthere 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.
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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/ […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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. […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
Despite the initial concerns regarding Melissa’s future after surviving the attempt to end her life and being born alive at approximately seven months gestation, she has not only survived but thrived. With a Master’s Degree in Social Work, she has worked in the fields of substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence/sexual assault counseling, and child welfare. Melissa and her husband Ryan have a daughter, Olivia, whose birth at the same hospital where Melissa’s life was supposed to end, has significantly shaped Melissa’s ministry.
The Daily Hatch 