When describing their view of government and public policy, libertarians and constitutional conservatives sometimes use a variation of this phrase: “Not everything that’s illegal is immoral, and not everything that’s immoral should be illegal.”
To put this in tangible terms, consider the fact that the EPA has penalized people who build ponds on their own property. Yet the property owners obviously haven’t engaged in any behavior that’s wrong. Indeed, it would be far more accurate to accuse the bureaucrats of behaving immorally. And Walter Williams, among others, has argued that “decent people should not obey immoral laws.”
By contrast, there are many things that we should consider immoral, such as cheating on a significant other by patronizing a prostitute, but we would argue that it’s not a proper role for government to criminalize caddish actions or victimless behavior.
This distinction between immoral and illegal is appropriate as we consider the nationwide controversy about what’s happened in Indiana.
Joining the federal government and many other states, politicians in Indiana recently passed a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that’s based on the notion that there should be some limits to government actions that hinder the free exercise of religion.
But “some limits” is not the same as “no limits.” These laws all allow government to interfere if there is a “compelling state interest.” To cite an obvious example, a crazy environmentalist couple couldn’t sacrifice their child to appease Gaia.
Since all this sounds very reasonable, why has the adoption of the Indiana law turned into a huge kerfuffle?
The answer is simple. The Hoosier statute has become a proxy for the fight over freedom of association, which also implies a right to engage in private discrimination.
Here’s some of what my colleague Roger Pilon wrote on the topic.
We find those principles in the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence…: freedom and equality. Rightly understood, they hold that we’re all born free, with equal rights to remain free. That means—to cut to the chase—that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us; but we are equally free to decline to associate with others, for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. That right to discriminate is the very essence of freedom.
He then points out that the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, errs in a Washington Post column by seeking to use coercion to criminalize private immorality.
Cook turns those principles on their head. He says religious freedom bills “rationalize injustice” by, for example, allowing a baker to decline to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He would compel the baker to accept that request, by force of law. That’s the very opposite of the freedom of association—the right to be left alone—that the nation was founded on. …I’m as offended as Cook is by that kind of discrimination. But I’m even more offended by the belief that we can force people to conform to our values when they’re asking simply to be left alone to enjoy their right to pursue their values. And precisely there is the source of Cook’s confusion, his conflation of rights and values, two very different moral notions.
Roger’s key point is that some types of discrimination are wrong, in some cases grossly immoral, but that doesn’t justify intervention by the state.
Which means a baker or florist who doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding should have the freedom to reject that business. That business owner may be doing something immoral and intolerant, just as a bigot who doesn’t want to do business with minorities is behaving reprehensibly, but people making their own decision with their own property shouldn’t be forced to adhere to other people’s values.
Writing for National Review, Deroy Murdock asks whether there are any limits to government coercion of private behavior.
The only identifiable victim of Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association clause. Like Joan of Arc, it has been burned at the stake. …What if you are an atheist who really objects to gay marriage? Must you still bake cakes for gay weddings, or will pro-shariah Muslim bakers be the only ones who can walk into court and ask to be excused from doing so? …Do we respect the Junior League’s right to choose to remain a female-only group, as it has been since 1901, or must they now accept male members? … Do we respect a gay baker’s right to choose not to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with icing that reads God Hates Fags? …Do we respect a black jazz band’s choice not to perform at a Ku Klux Klan chapter’s “Negro Minstrel Show”?
Deroy poses these questions, because there are big implications depending on how people answer.
…it is crucial to remember that behind each of these scenarios lies something deadly serious: a gun. Government equals force. Its ultimate authority stems from its ability to use coercion or blunt force to deprive lawbreakers of their freedom. …So, the real question in each of these cases is: Do you support the government’s use of coercive police power — up to and including fines, arrest by armed police officers, and imprisonment — because you reject a woman’s right to choose not to bake a cake for a gay couple?
Here’s his bottom line.
In the public sector, the government must administer equal justice under the law and treat all Americans equally. …The private sector, such as it is, is something different. Private individuals on private property should be free to associate with whom and without whom they wish. Just because someone runs a business or is part of a private group or organization does not mean that she surrenders her rights or becomes a mere appendage of government. At least that’s what the First Amendment says — such as it is. Freed of most restraints against government action and populated by citizens increasingly oblivious to this nation’s founding principles, America is slouching into tyranny. Little by little. Day by day. This is incredibly depressing. And to see gay people lead this charge into bondage may be the saddest sight of all.
What’s both ironic and confusing about this issue is that government generally has been the source of discrimination and oppression against disfavored groups.
For a long time, government criminalized gay relationships. Heck, such laws are still on the books in some places, though thankfully they’re no longer enforced (though the thugs in Iran and similar places obviously haven’t taken this step in societal evolution).
And don’t forget that the infamous Jim Crow laws were government-imposed mandates, as Nick Gillespie explains for Reason.
From a libertarian perspective, belief in the freedom of association generally trumps belief in anti-discrimination actions by the state. …it’s typically the state (whether at the local, state, or federal) that historically was doing most of the discriminating. Jim Crow was ushered in by the Supreme Court’s vile “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld a Louisiana state law barring railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to black customers. When businesses in the segregated South attempted to treat customers equally (often a good business strategy), they were typically hemmed in by specific laws preventing such things or by de facto laws enforced through brute force by various “citizen’s councils” and terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (which often included politicians and law enforcement). It was government at all levels, not local businesses, that disenfranchised blacks for decades.
Tim Carney of the Washington Examineraddresses the issue, pointing out that the cultural left now wants to coerce the traditional right.
On one side is the CEO of the world’s largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers. One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences. …an emboldened and litigious cultural Left, unsated by its recent culture war victories, [is] trying now to conscript the defeated soldiers at gunpoint. …Tolerance isn’t the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception. In Georgia, a Catholic school employed a gay teacher. When he announced he was marrying a man, the school said this violated the expectations of public behavior they demand of their teachers. They fired him. Now the Obama administration is coming after the school.
All of this is very frustrating for principled libertarians.
There are many gay libertarians, but they don’t want to coerce others into baking cakes or taking photos. They just want to live freely without excessive government coercion.
And there also are many libertarians who are traditional Christians, but they have no desire to oppress other people or to obtain coerced approval. They just want to live freely without excessive government coercion.
Unfortunately, libertarians are the exception. There are lots of other people in the world who think they should be able to impose their values on others. Oh, well, I never claimed it was easy to be libertarian.
The freedom to associate with, work with, deal with is the most fundamental rights. Let folks sort it all out on their own. If somebody doesn’t want to be bothered with me, that’s fine. It’s happened and it’s perfectly ok.
PS. “Shays’ Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.” Every morning as the proletariat awakes the first thing on their mind should be rebellion against government, all of them and completely. That makes for a great America. (And leads to smaller government and a working republic.)
This is the best single article I have seen on this subject. Very thoughtful and appreciated the links. Strongly agree with Murdock’s contention that RFRA doesn’t go far enough – nobody should ever have to do or produce anything that is against their scruples, whatever the source of their conscience. As many of the articles described, the targeting of wedding vendors who obviously could believe that a wedding is a sacred ceremony, feel they play a significant role in the event, and take pride in their work while at the same time believing a homosexual wedding ceremony is a profanation of something they hold holy was probably the impetus for the state RFRA laws. The government coercion to participate is the abhorrent value.
If we abandon the traditional core principles of morality rooted in Christian philosophy and natural law, then what determines an act or belief to be “immoral” and how do we distinguish it from being “unpopular” or “politically incorrect.”
I am a Roman catholic. Do I have a right to embrace our catechism teachings developed over many centuries, or do I have to kowtow to the prevailing elites and say I am personally offended by those who refuse to sell their goods and services for use at gay weddings? Do I have a right to maintain that marriage is a solemn and holy union between a man and a woman, and dissent with those who toss centuries of Christian philosophy aside to impose their enlightened view?
Similarly, may I continue to maintain that life is not only precious, it is more precious and profound than we can ever know, even though the enlightened elites insist I defer to the moral development of those with wombs, or those who administer death row justice, or those who allocate funds for medicare purposes and thus hold life and death power over their supplicants?
This new tactic of imposed orthodoxy in the name of tolerance is not about moral formation (or tolerance), it’s about fascist control. “Immoral” is becoming the label associated with those who resist the Regime’s dictates in some way. It is so intellectually shallow, but the prevailing dearth of critical thinking in the electorate not only makes it possible, it allows the fascism to thrive.
I had not quite realized what a sexist bigot I am.
Just think about it. When it came to the most important relationship in my life I did not even consider for a minute marrying a man. I squarely and resolutely discriminated based on gender by being dead set on marrying a woman.
Perhaps some day people will see the light and pass laws for gender neutrality in marriage. Mr Cook will be happy. Nothing too coercive. Just subsidies and perhaps some modest penalties, like excise taxes, to encourage transition to a balanced society with 25% male-male marriages, 50% male-female and 25% female-female. Or should it be 33%,33%,33% ? Tell you what. Let’s vote and whoever wins gets to impose their quota. Yes we can!
I for one believe you have every right to hold all those beliefs.
I would challenge you on the question of abortion, however, on the grounds of voluntary association, specifically whether or not force is justified to prevent it (not whether or not the act is immoral).
Voluntary association imposes a limit on contracts, namely that one may enter into contracts with others, but only to the extent the contract does not infringe upon the principle of voluntary association. For instance, one may enter into a contract to be another’s slave, but if the slave at any point decides to stop being a slave, he or she cannot be bound by the contract, because the enforcement of the contract violates the principle of voluntary association.
This principle does not, however excuse the debtor who decides to stop paying his or her creditor. The difference between these two being that in the case of the slave breaking his or her contract, the individual is simply assuming his or her own natural right to self ownership; no property of the former slave “owner” has been stolen, since his or her ownership claim on the slave was illegitimate or unenforceable. In the case of the debtor, theft has clearly occurred due to the exchange of legitimate property (loaned funds) by the creditor to the debtor. The debtor unwilling to pay back his or her debt has committed theft, whereas the unwilling slave has not.
In the case of abortion, the pregnant mother and the baby basically have an unwritten contract in which the mother will allow the unborn baby to survive inside her parasitically until the baby is ready to be born, at which point the mother risks her own death in the act of childbirth. If at some point during the pregnancy, the mother decides to end the “contract,” all she is really doing is breaking her unborn baby’s illegitimate ownership claim over her life. The mother cannot be forced to be a slave to her children, born or unborn, or conversely, the child has no right to receive life giving nourishment from his or her mother.
This is all based on the theory of natural rights, which states that no right is legitimate if it requires the services of another to exercise that right. Parents should not be forced to take care of their kids. It needs to be a moral choice.
All life is precious, but so is self ownership. Abortion is undoubtedly not something to be celebrated, and almost all believe it to be immoral. It is a terribly unfortunate situation when a parent decides to neglect a child, especially to the point of death, but the failure to act is not an enforceable crime.
Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty” delves into more detail if you are interested in this line of reasoning.
“Freed of most restraints against government action and populated by citizens increasingly oblivious to this nation’s founding principles, America is slouching into tyranny. Little by little. Day by day. ”
none of this is about morality… or equality… it’s about creeping fascism… political advantage… and ultimately nullifying the constitution… the objective is to create the American Reich… every detail of American life controlled by the political and bureaucratic elite… the nature of religious affiliations… business practices… personal finance… education and socialization…. all the privy of the ideologically insane…
“Indiana Pizzeria Owners Go into Hiding”
by
Rick Moran
“The online threats haven’t stopped since Crystal O’Connor told a South Bend TV station that she wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. In fact, the ugliness has gotten so bad, that the family has gone into hiding.”
the same tactics were in use Europe in the 30s… in those days they called themselves the “Pretorian Guard…”
What seems to be missing from these arguments is the fact that people are discriminating against a behavior, not a person. Societies discriminate against deviant behaviors and relationships all the time. This is different from civil rights cases where a superficial quality was the basis for judgement, i.e. skin color. You can’t tell a gay person from a straight person if they walk through your door. They have to tell you they engage in a specific behavior.
I’d like to know why more people don’t consider homosexual behavior as a moral hazard. Their behavior puts themselves and others at risk with the costs being mitigated by society. Look up the STD infections among gay men compared to the general population. Although not always illegal, we don’t encourage or reward moral hazard behaviors.
The starting point for so many of these arguments is that homosexuals are just another disenfranchised group like blacks or women but there is a natural reason why this group makes up such a small percentage of the population. Being black or female is not a defective condition. Homosexual relationships are a biological dead end. They have zero potential for producing offspring. One way of defining marriage is a social constraint on the two people who have the potential to produce children. The mother and father are known quantities who assume responsibilities for the child they created. A gay couple do not meet this criteria therefore has no need to marry. Why redefine marriage in order to include a non-normal population subset? Why give this group a special set of rights when no other non-normal sexual relationship has them. How can one say discriminating against an immoral behavior is also immoral?
________ Dan Mitchell quotes from Milton Friedman video on his blog!!! Wise Words on Regulation and Consumer Freedom from Milton Friedman December 26, 2014 by Dan Mitchell It’s time to correct a sin of omission. In five-plus years of blogging, I haven’t given nearly enough attention to the wisdom of the late (and great) Milton Friedman. […]
Open letter to President Obama (Part 687) Milton Friedman (Emailed to White House on 6-25-13.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to […]
___________ Milton Friedman rightly pointed out that the crisis of the Great Depression was not a failure of the free market system but of government and Dan Mitchell concurs!!! Statist Policy and the Great Depression September 17, 2014 by Dan Mitchell It’s difficult to promote good economic policy when some policy makers have a deeply flawed […]
Open letter to President Obama (Part 558) (Emailed to White House on 6-10-13.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get […]
Dan Mitchell on privatizing the post office!!! Time for a Free-Market Postal System March 25, 2014 by Dan Mitchell It’s not often that I agree with the Washington Post, but a government-run monopoly is not the best way to get mail delivered. Moreover, it’s not often that I agree with the timid (and sometimes reprehensible) […]
________ Dan Mitchell is right and we must reduce the size and power of Government!!!! Thanks to Obamacare and the IRS, You’re at Risk of Having Your Identity Stolen and Your Bank Account Emptied December 3, 2013 by Dan Mitchell There are many reason I don’t like Obamacare, including its punitive impact on taxpayers and the […]
________ Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has noted, “I’m all in favor of bringing federal government spending back down to about 18 percent of GDP, which is where it was when Bill Clinton left office.” The Rise (and Upcoming Fall) of the Welfare State in the Western World November 12, 2013 by Dan Mitchell I […]
I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism, Greece, welfare state or on gun control. It is sad to see our federal government spend away our children’s future but when some of the states are doing that […]
I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism, Greece, welfare state or on gun control. Government Stupidity Defies Satire When a $50 Light Bulb Wins an Affordability Prize March 16, 2012 by Dan Mitchell I’ve written about the […]
I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism, Greece, welfare state or on gun control. Two More Excellent Political Cartoons April 26, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I praised Michael Ramirez a few days ago for his clever political cartoons, […]
Trevin Wax: James K. A. Smith makes the case that worldview analysis isn’t enough when it comes to discipleship, since we are formed by cultural liturgies, not just philosophical beliefs. What are the limits of worldview training?
Nancy Pearcey: The issue raised by James K. A. Smith is whether we are shaped less by belief than by practice — by ways of life or what he calls “liturgies.” The idea of the primacy of practice comes out of postmodernism, which claims that people’s beliefs are shaped by the patterns of life embodied in their communities. On one hand, that seems obvious. On the other hand, when we borrow an idea from an existing intellectual tradition, we must analyze it carefully to make sure we are not absorbing non-biblical assumptions in the process.
The idea that individuals are constituted by their communities is a common theme in a philosophical tradition called continental philosophy. The theme can be traced back to the German philosopher Hegel, who taught that the real actor in history is not the individual but a Universal Mind, a kind of collective consciousness. As philosopher Robert Solomon explains, the Universal Mind creates the world “through the shared aspects of a culture, a society, and above all through a shared language.” Individuals are constituted by the customs, values, and habits of the groups to which they belong.
Over time, Hegel’s Universal Mind was dropped, but what remained was the idea that individuals are shaped by communal forces. They are not producers of culture so much as products of a particular culture with its forms of life.
In our own day, this has led to the postmodern claim that ideas are merely social constructions stitched together by cultural forces. Individuals are little more than mouthpieces for communities based on race, class, gender, ethnicity, and sexual identity. The implication is that people believe what they do not because they have good reasons but because they are black or white, male or female, Asian or Hispanic, or whatever.
This is radically dehumanizing. It implies that individuals are powerless to rise above the communities to which they belong. It is a form of reductionism that dissolves individual identity into group identity. Christian philosopher Dooyeweerd called it the “ideology of community.”
In Finding Truth, I argue that every worldview gets some things right, which means we can be open and respectful, gleaning what is good wherever we find it. Postmodernism has been a helpful corrective to modernism. It has done good service in countering the lonely individualism of the Enlightenment’s autonomous self. It rejects the modernist project of thinkers like Bacon and Descartes to start history over from scratch within the isolated individual consciousness.
But just as we should not uncritically accept Enlightenment-inspired philosophies, so we should not uncritically accept postmodernism.
Postmodernists reject the Enlightenment ideal of neutral, objective knowledge on the grounds that everyone’s perspective is “situated” in a context that is particular, local, and historically contingent. But they often overlook the fact that their own claims are likewise situated. After all, where did postmodernism come from? As we just saw, it is a strand of modern European intellectual history, stemming from post-Hegelian continental philosophy with its claim that consciousness is shaped by communal ways of life. Postmodernists are just as restricted by their own historical horizons as the more traditional people whom they tend to look down on.
Finding Truthgives guidelines for practicing biblical discernment with any set of ideas, identifying what they get right and where they go wrong.
Trevin Wax: You present a five-step approach to apologetics:
Identify the idol.
Identify the reductionism.
Test the worldview.
Show how it’s self-defeating.
Make a case for a Christian worldview.
How did you develop this approach, and why do you believe it is a helpful way of conversing with unbelievers?
Nancy Pearcey: Romans 1 describes the dynamics of the person struggling to avoid God. It unfolds a series of actions — a drama of divine-human interaction — that is the source of all worldviews, from ancient times to our own. The great plot line of history is the tug of war between God and humanity. On one hand, God reaches out to humanity to make himself known. On the other hand, humans desperately seek to avoid knowing him by creating God substitutes.
When conversing with non-Christians, then, we can start where Paul does: with general revelation, a body of knowledge that is available to everyone because it is part of universal human experience. An important aspect of that knowledge is our direct awareness of human nature. As philosopher Étienne Gilson puts it, because humans are capable of choosing, the first cause that created them must have a will. Because humans are capable of thinking, the first cause that created them must have a mind. In short, because a human is a someone and not asomething, the source of human life must also be a Someone. As the Psalmist says, “Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?” (Ps 94:9)
When humans create God substitutes, however, those lead inevitably to a lower view of human nature. The technical term is reductionism. Those who exchange the glory of God for something in the created world will also exchange the image of God for something in creation.
For example, take materialism, since that is the dominant worldview in the academic world. Its idol is matter. Everything else is reduced to material objects produced by material forces. Anything that does not fit in the materialist box is dismissed as an illusion, including free will, mind, spirit, soul, consciousness. Humans are said to be essentially robots — complex biochemical machines. Reductionism is a strategy for suppressing the truth: For if we can reduce humans to machines operating by natural forces, then we can explain their origin by purely natural forces.
But can anyone actually live like a machine? Of course not. Philosopher John Searle jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.” It seems to be part of undeniable, inescapable human experience that we have the power to make choices, that we are not robots.
In Finding Truth, I give several astonishing quotes by leading scientists and scholars who admit that their own worldview does not fit the world as they themselves experience it. The example my students always remember best is Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is just “a big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. It is difficult to actually see people that way, he admits. But “when I look at my children, I can, when I force myself … see that they are machines.”
But is that how Brooks treats them? Not at all. “I give them my unconditional love,” even though love has no “rational analysis” in his worldview. It sticks out of his materialist box. Robots don’t love. Brooks’s philosophy is too limited to account for reality as he himself experiences it.
So the Romans 1 strategy equips us to dialog with non-Christians because it incorporates what everyone knows by general revelation. The person before you has a profound experiential knowledge of being made in God’s image—and that knowledge keeps breaking through even when his worldview tells him he is a machine made in the image of matter.
Trevin Wax: Worldview analysis has been offered in other books. What’s really new here, and how can we use it with non-Christians?
Nancy Pearcey:: There are two major ways to test a philosophy or worldview: (1) Test it externally against the world and (2) test it internally for logical consistency. These are the same questions we raise in testing any idea — whether in a science lab, a court of law, or when asking a friend why she showed up late.
What makes the Romans 1 approach unique is that it tells you why these tests work.
We can be confident that every non-Christian worldview will fail the first test. Why? Because, as we already saw, every non-Christian worldview is reductionistic. As Romans explains, those who reject the Creator will idolize some part of the created order. You might think of it as trying to stuff all of reality into a box. But a part is never enough to explain the whole. Something will stick out of the box. The theory does not match the real world.
We can also be confident that non-Christian worldviews will fail the second test. Why? Again because of the reductionism. When you hold a lower view of humanity, that will include the human mind—our cognitive faculties, rationality, reason. Yet how does a worldview support itsown case? By using reason. Thus when it discredits reason, it undercuts its own case. It is self-refuting. It commits suicide.
The technical term is self-referential absurdity, and you will see it applied regularly by philosophers and apologists — but with no rationale or method. What is unique about the Romans 1 approach is that it tells you why it works and how to apply it. Find the reductionism: That’s the point where it will commit suicide.
The Romans 1 strategy works with non-Christians because it relies on what everyone recognizes as good reasoning. Even the term “idols” is used by secular thinkers (ever since Nietzsche’s famous essay “Twilight of the Idols“). Afterward, we can draw back the curtain and explain the deeper metaphysical grounding: The Romans 1 narrative, with its dramatic account of idols and suppression, is the larger framework that gives these strategies their theological rationale and weaves them into a dynamic unity.
To quote one of my students, using the strategy in Finding Truth ”is like the difference between driving around Los Angeles with just a set of directions (turn left, turn right) compared to having a map of the whole city. The map gives you the overall perspective.” The five principles provide a map to navigate any system of ideas.
Trevin Wax: Several of the chapters in this book deal with both Enlightenment materialism and postmodernism, which critiques the hubris of Enlightenment philosophy. Which of these two philosophies do you believe is ascending today?
Nancy Pearcey: In the modern age, Western thought and culture has split into two streams. In the 20th century, they were labeled the analytic and the continental traditions. The analytic tradition traces its roots to British empiricism and is associated with philosophies that claim to be science-based, such as materialism and naturalism. The continental tradition traces its roots to the Romantic protest against the Enlightenment, and includes philosophies such as idealism, phenomenology, existentialism, and postmodernism. (I describe these two traditions in much greater detail in Saving Leonardo, showing how each give rise to distinctive schools of art, literature, and music.)
Analytic philosophy is taught in some 90 percent of American philosophy departments, so it is more familiar to most people (even if they don’t know the name). Continental thought, on the other hand, has swept through the humanities: English, history, theology, ethics, the social sciences, and so on.
Perhaps the best way to understand their relationship is summarized in the fact/value split: Modernism lays claim to the fact realm, while postmodernism is rampant in the value realm.
The upshot is that Christians need to know how to interact critically with both of these philosophical traditions, gleaning what is good while sorting out what is contrary to a biblical worldview.
_________________
__________
Interview with Nancy Pearcey; 23 February 2015
Published on Feb 23, 2015
In conjunction with WORLD Magazine, Patrick Henry College presents its interview with Nancy Pearcey as a part of the Newsmaker Interview Series with Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief at WORLD and Distinguished Chair of Journalism and Public Policy at PHC. For more information on Patrick Henry College, visit our website here http://www.phc.edu.
______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: The Beatles […]
________________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. The Beatles: The Beatles and their album St. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club […]
__________________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. The Beatles are featured in this episode below and Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s […]
_______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. Great Album The Beatles are featured in this episode below and Schaeffer […]
_______________ 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 […]
________________ 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 […]
“Many of Allen’s films wrestle in a complex way with core moral themes, such as the nature of forgiveness, what to do with sin, whether life can have any meaning without God. And he does this as an agnostic,” Michelle Boorstein writes in the blog post.
“It’s just an accident that we happen to be on earth, enjoying our silly little moments, distracting ourselves as often as possible so we don’t have to really face up to the fact that, you know, we’re just temporary people with a very short time in a universe that will eventually be completely gone…And everything that you value, whether it’s Shakespeare, Beethoven, da Vinci, or whatever, will be gone. The earth will be gone. The sun will be gone. There’ll be nothing. The best you can do to get through life is distraction. Love works as a distraction. And work works as a distraction. You can distract yourself a billion different ways. But the key is to distract yourself.”
“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” Graham quoted Jesus from the Gospels. “The soul exists and we are not just an accident of time or matter or space. We are created by God for an eternal purpose, therefore we do matter.”
“You matter to God, we matter to God,” the former Southern Baptist Convention president went on. “Because not only were we created by God but in Christ we are recreated to have an eternal life with him.
“So how sad, how tragic that so many people like Woody Allen, whether they can express it like that or not, are just living for self, and living for pleasure and living for things.”
“That’s the sadness of the lostness of people all around us,” he concluded.
Graham suggested that Christians need to get more “aggressive” in building relationships with people who seem hopeless.
HOW SHOULD WE APPROACH SHARING CHRIST WITH THE LOST AROUND US?
I have long had this gnawing sense in me that evangelism among Fundamentalists has something inherently wrong in terms of methodology. Many “evangelicals,”, some even in the Southern Baptist Convention, will yell and scream the Word of God to lost people — acting as if the quoting the Bible will bring about a change in the hearer. There are even some commentors on this blog who are in the habit of telling others they are “going to hell” or have “never been saved” or are “in need of Jesus” and glibly quote a Bible verse as if making some kind of shocking statement and backing it up with words from Scripture will lead someone to be converted. It reminds me of street preachers who yell “REPENT” to passerbys and then shout “JESUS IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE” as if somehow, almost magically, those words will bring salvation.
In the interview between Richard Land and Eric Metaxas (who by the way, is the author of the new fantastic biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer), Land asks Metaxas how he would share Christ with Woody Allen were he to sit beside him on a plane. The first paragraph of Metaxas’ answer is worthy of your close examination.
I have to somehow figure out how to connect with him. . . . If you come across as morally superior, that’s unbiblical, that’s wrong, it’s a lie, so you’re confused. But also you’ll push the person away. You’ve got to find a point of connection, otherwise they won’t hear you. If you walk around New York you might see someone, semi-homeless, almost always from out of town, with a hat and a Bible “preaching the word” on the street. Nine times out of 10 they are not preaching the Word any more than Satan was when he was quoting the Bible to Jesus in the wilderness. The words are not magic. Some people will respond, “The word of God will not return void,” and yes, the capital-w Word of God, the Logos, will not return void—but the words of the Bible can certainly return void unless they’re anointed by the Holy Spirit. Many people think that if they just spew out Scripture or something that people are hearing them, but it’s not true. Jesus never did that. He always connected with everyone around him.
Well stated, Eric. Would to God we worked on our connections with people instead of coming across as morally superior.
_______ Woody Allen’s New Film Is Called ‘Irrational Man’ Posted on Friday, January 30th, 2015 by Angie Han 85 SHARES TwitterFacebook Woody Allen‘s latest film finally has a release date and a studio. Irrational Man will be distributed by Sony Pictures Classics, as were Allen’s last six films.Emma Stone, Joaquin Phoenix, Parker Posey, and Jamie […]
__________________ Top 5000 Irrational Man (2015) 24 July 2015 (USA) Not yet released (voting begins after release) On a small town college campus, a philosophy professor in existential crisis gives his life new purpose when he enters into a relationship with his student. Director: Woody Allen Writer: Woody Allen Stars: Emma Stone, Joaquin Phoenix, Jamie […]
___________ Sony Acquires Woody Allen’s IRRATIONAL MAN – AMCi Published on Feb 5, 2015 Sony Pictures Classics has acquired the North American rights to Woody Allen’s next film “Irrational Man”. This marks the eight collaboration between Allen and the studio. Few details are known about the film to date but it is said that it […]
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 […]
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 […]
______________________ Woody Allen: “the whole thing is tragic” July 20, 2012 Mr. Allen, do you truly believe that happiness in life is impossible? This is my perspective and has always been my perspective on life. I have a very grim, pessimistic view of it. I always have since I was a little boy; it hasn’t […]
___________ 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 […]
____ Woody Allen’s past movies and the subject of the Meaning of Life examined!!! Out of the Past: Woody Allen, Nostalgia, the Meaning of Life, and Radio Days Kyle Turner Jul 25, 2014 Film, Twilight Time 1 Comment “I firmly believe, and I don’t say this as a criticism, that life is meaningless.” – Woody […]
__________ I wrote on this yesterday and will continue to write on it for a while. Below is a very fine article by Mike Huckabee on the subject. American people have to take up the slack for absentee president. (Photo: Philippe Wojazer, AFP/Getty Images) 3237CONNECT 21TWEETLINKEDIN 35COMMENTEMAILMORE Woody Allen said that “80% of success is […]
40 songs from Past Woody Films plus song I suggested for Woody Allen’s new film from Pee Wee Spitelera (Clarinetist at Al Hirts’ Club, New Orleans) ___________ Woody Allen – Songs from Woody Allen’s Films Published on Oct 7, 2013 Woody Allen – Songs from Woody Allen’s Films Upload the album here :http://bit.ly/17BenPD iTunes […]
Watch Taylor’s new video for “Blank Space”. No animals, trees, automobiles or actors were harmed in the making of this video. Taylor’s new release 1989 is Available Now on iTunes http://www.smarturl.it/TS1989.
Taylor Swift – Shake It Off
Published on Aug 18, 2014
Taylor’s new release 1989 is Available Now featuring the hit single “Shake It Off” and her latest single “Blank Space”. http://www.smarturl.it/TS1989
Music video by Taylor Swift performing Shake It Off. (C) 2014 Big Machine Records, LLC.
Taylor Swift – Style
Published on Feb 13, 2015
Check out Taylor’s new stunning video for “Style”. Taylor’s multi-platinum release 1989 is Available Now on iTunes http://www.smarturl.it/TS1989.
_____________ Dennis Jernigan – You Are My All In All Uploaded on Oct 18, 2009 Dennis Jernigan – You Are My All In All __________________________________________ Dennis Jernigan: Freedom From Homosexuality (LIFE Today / James Robison) Published on Apr 12, 2013 A man caught in homosexuality reveals the process by which he found deliverance and freedom. […]
Wikipedia’s top 18 songs of the Velvet Underground and Nico _____________ Nico – My Heart is Empty Uploaded on Feb 25, 2010 Nico – Camera Obscura [1985] Nico Icon (Documentary)part 5 The Very Best of The Velvet Underground From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search There are Velvet Underground compilation albums with similar […]
All Tomorrow’s Parties” and “Sunday Morning” are two of the best songs by the Velvet Underground and Nico!!! Nico Icon (Documentary) part6. _________________ The Velvet Underground-Sunday Morning _______________ Velvet Underground-All Tomorrow’s Parties Sunday Morning (The Velvet Underground song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search “Sunday Morning” Single by The Velvet Underground from the […]
Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not to be confused with Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us or Nothing’s Gonna Stop Me Now. “NOTHING’S GONNA STOP US NOW” SINGLE BY STARSHIP FROM THE ALBUM NO PROTECTION B-SIDE “Layin’ It on the Line” RELEASED January 30, 1987[1] FORMAT 7″ single & 12″ single RECORDED September 26, […]
My friend Sean Michel had an uncle named Pee Wee Spitelera and you will notice Pee Wee at the 4 minute mark take off on his clarinet in this video below on the Dinah Shore Show in 1960. Al Hirt on the Dinah Shore Chevy Show 1960 Blue Clarinet-Pee Wee Spitelera Uploaded on Aug 16, […]
Tribute To The Seekers ~ Kumbaya Uploaded on Dec 2, 2007 Tribute To The Seekers The Seekers were a group of Australian folk-influenced popular musicians which was formed in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in 1962. They were the first Australian popular music group to achieve significant chart and sales success in the United Kingdom and the […]
Little Rock native David Hodges co-wrote Avril Lavigne song “Hello Heartache” Avril Lavigne – Hello Heartache (Lyric Video) Avril Lavigne, ‘Avril Lavigne’: Track-By-Track Review Articles Reviews By Jason Lipshutz, New York | November 04, 2013 4:33 PM EST “A first taste like honey, you were so yum/Can’t wait for a second, cause it’s so fun,” […]
Little Rock native David Hodges co-wrote the Avril Lavigne song “Give you what you like” Give You What You Like – Avril Lavigne (Sub. English-Español) Here are the lyrics: If you give me what I want Then Ill give you what you like When you turn off the lights I get stars in my eyes […]
___________ One of my favorite groups growing up was ABBA. Here are some of my favorite songs: Liberals hate tax deductions even if they are legitimate!!! ABBA and the Story of the Most-Inane-Ever Tax Controversy February 18, 2014 by Dan Mitchell The tax code is a complicated nightmare, particularly for businesses. Some people may think this is because […]
In conjunction with WORLD Magazine, Patrick Henry College presents its interview with Nancy Pearcey as a part of the Newsmaker Interview Series with Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief at WORLD and Distinguished Chair of Journalism and Public Policy at PHC. For more information on Patrick Henry College, visit our website here http://www.phc.edu.
Ever since I was a teenager, I have benefited from the work of thinkers like Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey. Their book How Now Shall We Live? forced me to examine assumptions and answer the question of whyI believed Christianity to be true. Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth was also an important book in my spiritual development. It pointed me in the direction of Francis Schaeffer and led me to a deeper consideration of philosophy and worldview analysis.
Trevin Wax: Nancy, It’s been more than ten years since Total Truthcame out. How has the landscape in North America changed, and how have recent trends shaped your work in Finding Truth?
Nancy Pearcey: Total Truth makes the case that Christianity is a worldview that is meant to be applied not just to religious life but to all of life. Finding Truth gives people the tools to do it.
Christians are often stymied because they simply don’t know how to apply biblical truth to all of life. As a result, they are continually in retreat before competing ideas. The dominant theories in virtually all fields are secular, and sometimes explicitly anti-Christianity. In order to obey the cultural mandate, we need a strategy that empowers us to show where those theories are mistaken, and then to craft positive biblical alternatives.
Finding Truth offers a 5-part strategy that equips us to penetrate to the core of any worldview and weigh its claims. As one of my students said, “Your book is different from any other book I’ve read on apologetics. Other books are informational; they tell us about various worldviews. Your book teaches us how to actually do apologetics.”
Trevin Wax: You write: “Churches have an obligation to equip their congregations to answer the questions that inevitably arise from living in a post-Christian society.” What are some of the common questions you find churches have a difficult time answering?
Nancy Pearcey: The core question is the same one that I wrestled with as a teenager: How do we know that Christianity is true? We should be Christians only because we are persuaded that the gospel is true.
When I stumbled upon L’Abri in the early 1970s, I was a young adult steeped in relativism and skepticism. I had to be persuaded that there is such a thing as truth before I could even consider whether Christianity might be that truth. Today relativism is far more widespread. Polls show that even in the church, teens are likely to say that there are many ways to God, or to say that statements about God’s existence are subjective, based on emotional experience.
Yet church youth groups rarely teach apologetics, majoring instead on games and goodies. The goal seems to be to engineer events that ratchet up emotional commitment, as though sheer intensity of experience will compensate for intellectual doubts. But emotional intensity is not enough to block out teens’ questions. If anything, it leads them to redefine Christianity in purely emotional terms —which leaves them even more vulnerable when they finally do face their questions.
Finding Truth equips young people — and their parents, pastors, and teachers — to craft answers to the many competing worldviews they encounter, whether secular or religious.
Trevin Wax: Many people, especially in the Reformed world, are questioning the role that worldview training plays in discipleship. How do you respond?
Nancy Pearcey: There are many levels of Christian discipleship, but clearly the first one is to stay Christian.
Many Christian homes, schools, and churches are not equipping young people to maintain even the basic conviction that Christianity is true. Sociologist Bradley Wright at the University of Connecticut asked former Christians why they de-converted. The researchers expected to hear stories about people leaving the church because they had been hurt or emotionally wounded — relationship issues. To their surprise, the reason given most frequently by former Christians was that they could not get answers to their doubts and questions. In fact, they could not even get the church to treat their questions seriously. A former Southern Baptist (obviously still angry) said, “Christians always use the word ‘faith’ as their last word when they are too stupid to answer a question.”
Christian Smith, a sociologist at Notre Dame, reports similar results. In Soul Searching, he found that the reason given most often by teens who left their religion was that they had unanswered doubts and questions. I hear the same story far too often myself.
Recently a mother told me with tears in her eyes that her son had lost his faith at a state university. Her son was a psychology major, and ever since Freud, most psychological theories have treated Christianity as a symptom of neurosis, an infantile regression, the projection of an imaginary father figure in the sky. The young man came from a strong, warm Christian family and church, but he was completely unprepared to critically evaluate the theories he was learning in the classroom. Within a semester, he had abandoned his religious upbringing altogether.
How can we help a psychology student respond to Freud’s charge that religion is a symptom of emotional immaturity? An English student seeking to answer Foucault’s charge that truth claims are merely power plays? A law student whose professor insists that law has no relation to morality? A unique feature of Finding Truth is that it teaches a strategy that can be applied universally. No more memorizing specific arguments for each theory. We can be confident that Romans 1 applies to all of them.
Trevin Wax: Your book is primarily focused on the flaws in prevailing philosophies. But you also recognize that most people don’t think, “I need a personal philosophy” for life and then sign up for a course. Much of our outlook on life is absorbed through books and movies and music.
Nancy Pearcey: You’re alluding here to cultural apologetics. It was Francis Schaeffer who first taught evangelicals the value of cultural apologetics — of tracing ideas as they permeate society through the arts, literature, and pop culture. This is where most people pick up their ideas about life. My earlier book, Saving Leonardo, interacts deeply with the arts: I argue that it is imperative for Christians to learn the skill of deciphering worldviews when they come to us not in words, where they are easier to recognize, but in the idiom of image, plot line, composition, and characterization.
Yet to recognize worldviews embedded in art forms, obviously we must first be familiar with those worldviews. And we must have the skills to critically assess them.
Those competencies are what Finding Truthteaches. Since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I offer what my students have said. An undergraduate wrote, “The method of critique you taught in this class has been incredibly helpful to me, not just in class but in my life — reading books and watching movies.” A master’s student wrote, “When watching television or movies with my family, I used to be afraid of secular ideas seeping into my psyche, but now I finally have the skills to identify and critique them. My kids are intrigued and delighted.”
Once you master the five principles from Romans 1, you will be equipped to think critically and creatively about any theory in any field.
Trevin Wax: Tomorrow, my interview with Nancy Pearcey will continue. We will discuss James K. A. Smith’s critique of “worldview training,” and how we engage in apologetics in a postmodern age.
______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: The Beatles […]
________________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. The Beatles: The Beatles and their album St. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club […]
__________________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. The Beatles are featured in this episode below and Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s […]
_______________ I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. Great Album The Beatles are featured in this episode below and Schaeffer […]
_______________ 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 […]
________________ 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 A. Schaeffer (transcribed from various texts)
“Logical positivism claims to lay the foundation for each step as it goes along, in a rational way. Yet in reality it puts forth no theoretical universal to validate its very first step. Positivists accept that, though they present no logical reason why this should be so, what reaches them from the ‘outside’ may be called ‘data’, i.e. has objective validity…At once I said, ‘How do you know, on the basis of logical positivism, that it is data?'”
“[I]n practice a man cannot totally reject the methodology of antithesis…unless he experiences the total alienation from himself caused by some form of mental breakdown.”
“Probably the best way to describe this concept of modern theology is to say that it is faith in faith, rather than faith directed to an object which is actually there.”
“[Leonardo da Vinci] understood that man beginning from himself would never be able to come to meaning on the basis of mathematics. And he knew that having only individual things, particulars, one could never come to universals or meaning and thus one only ends with mechanics…Everything, including man, is the machine.”
“What is despair? It arises from the abandonment of the hope of a unified answer for knowledge and life…Modern man has given up his hope of unity and lives in despair – the despair of no longer thinking that what has always been the aspiration of men is at all possible.”
“[T]he basis of [Marquis] de Sade’s sadism was his concept of determinism. De Sade’s position was that what is, is right.”
“The soul is not more important than the body. God made the whole man and the whole man is important.”
“People today are trying to hang on to the dignity of man, and they do not know how to because they have lost the truth that man is made in the image of God.”
“The result of seeking for a unity on the basis of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is that freedom does not exist.”
“At Berkeley the Free Speech Movement arose…At first it was politically neither left nor right, but rather a call for freedom to express any political views on Sproul Plaza. Then soon the Free Speech Movement becamse the Dirty Speech Movement, in which freedom was seen as shouting four-letter words [swear words] into a mike. Soon after, it became the platform for the political New Left…”
“[E]verything is not the result of the impersonal plus time plus chance, but…there is an infinite-personal God who is the Creator of the universe, the space-time continuum.”
“…no one has yet shown how man could have been brought forth from non-man solely by time plus chance.”
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 […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
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:Professor Sir John Ernest Walker (born 7 January 1941) is an Englishchemist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1997.[3] He is currently a group leader at the MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit in Cambridge, and a Fellow of Sidney Sussex College. Walker was born in Halifax, Yorkshire, the son of Thomas Ernest Walker, a stonemason, and Elsie Lawton, an amateur musician. He was brought up with his two younger sisters in a rural environment and went to Rastrick Grammar School. At school, he was a keen sportsman and specialized in physical sciences and mathematics the last three years. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from St Catherine’s College, Oxford.[4]
He began study of peptide antibiotics with Edward Abraham at Oxford in 1965 and received his DPhil in 1969.[4] During this period, he became interested in the spectacular developments in molecular biology. From 1969 to 1971, he worked at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and from 1971–1974 in France. He met Fred Sanger[5] in 1974 at a workshop at the University of Cambridge. This resulted in an invitation to work at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology of the Medical Research Council, which became a long-term appointment. Among the other staff was Francis Crick, who was well known for his discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. At first, he analyzed the sequences of proteins and then uncovered details of the modified genetic code in mitochondria. In 1978, he decided to apply protein chemical methods to membrane proteins.
He shared his Nobel Prize with the American chemist Paul D. Boyer for their elucidation of the enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate. They also shared the prize with Danish chemist Jens C. Skou for research unrelated to theirs (Discovery of the Na+/K+-ATPase). Sir John was knighted in 1999 for services to molecular biology. He is a member of the Advisory Council for the Campaign for Science and Engineering,[6] a fellow of the Royal Society London. a Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences and an Honorary Fellow of St Catherine’s College, Oxford.[7]
_______________
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 126th 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)
Had an early association with the church but like most people who become interested in science there is a conflict between the Christianity you were brought up with and has become part of you and the logic of science and that has to be resolved. It took slightly longer than some people to resolve it. I came under fire and I tried to protect my position as a believing Christian as an undergraduate from other people who made me think about it and ultimately decided they were incompatible, so lost my religion and that is my current position; however, I still enjoy going to Chapel and taking part in the service, though not participating properly, but participating in a ritual that is part of me but which I cannot resolve; now decided that I don’t want to resolve it. I think Richard Dawkins would give me pretty short shrift for retaining those views, but I think it is part of my make up and I don’t want to get rid of it. ; I do get some spiritual satisfaction in a way that I can’t fully explain, so don’t apologise for going to Chapel in Sidney where we now have very fine music; I read novels and also biographies of scientists; interested in the history of science and history in general; still very much imbued with something that comes from my mother, that you should be improving yourself all the time; want to learn about things I didn’t know so learning Italian at the moment to improve my ability to listen to Italian opera;
______________
JUST LIKE CHARLES DARWIN DR. WALKER GAVE UP HIS CHRISTIANITY WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY AND BELOW IS MY RESPONSE TO DR WALKER WHICH I MAILED LAST MONTH TO HIM:
February 23, 2015
Dear Sir Walker,
Recently I read that you knew Francis Crick, Sidney Brenner, Hugh Huxley, Fred Sanger, Max Perutz and Aaron Klug; I must that was a very amazing group of scholars to be around.
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 watched a lengthy interview you did on You Tube with Dr. Alan Macfarlane and I was very interested in this quote from you:
Had an early association with the church but like most people who become interested in science there is a conflict between the Christianity you were brought up with and has become part of you and the logic of science and that has to be resolved. It took slightly longer than some people to resolve it. I came under fire and I tried to protect my position as a believing Christian as an undergraduate from other people who made me think about it and ultimately decided they were incompatible, so lost my religion and that is my current position; however, I still enjoy going to Chapel and taking part in the service, though not participating properly, but participating in a ritual that is part of me but which I cannot resolve; now decided that I don’t want to resolve it. I don’t know Richard Dawkins but I think Dawkins would give me pretty short shrift for retaining those views, but I think it is part of my make up and I don’t want to get rid of it. ; I do get some spiritual satisfaction in a way that I can’t fully explain, so don’t apologize for going to Chapel in Sidney where we now have very fine music; I read novels and also biographies of scientists; interested in the history of science and history in general; still very much imbued with something that comes from my mother, that you should be improving yourself all the time; want to learn about things I didn’t know so learning Italian at the moment to improve my ability to listen to Italian opera;
________
I just want to say that Alan Macfarlane’s series on You Tube has been so enjoyable to watch and I have got some much out of them. Thank you for taking the time to sit down with him and give such a thorough interview. I especially enjoyed hearing about your interaction with Jacques Monod the famous evolutionist. You noted Jacques Monod was aloof but this was a difficult financial period for the Institute which he was trying to resolve; one of his ideas was to sell the buildings which were on a valuable site in Paris and to move the Institute to the Cote d’Azur; managed to get Government funding in the end. You pointed out that there was NO WAY THEY WERE GOING TO CLOSE THE PLACE WHERE PASTEUR WAS BURIED (The Pasteur Institute).
Let me tell you something: Dr. George Wald–Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University—he won the Nobel Prize in Biology in 1971—writing in Scientific American on the origin of life, has said this—and I want you to listen carefully: “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose: One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution. The other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility.” And, we would all say amen. Either God did it, or it just happened accidentally. All right. But now, let’s go on. So far, he’s doing good. He said there’s no third possibility. “Spontaneous generation, that life arose from nonliving matter, was scientifically disproved 120 years ago”—that was 120 years from when he made this statement—“by LOUIS PASTEUR and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion: that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.” So far, so good. But now, tune your ears, and don’t miss this. I want you to hear what this Nobel Prize winning scientist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard, said. Now remember, he said there are only two possibilities: Either there’s a creative act of God, or it is spontaneous generation that arises or moves to evolution. He said—and I’m continuing to quote: “I will not accept that…”—what that is he referring to? That it is a supernatural creative act of God—“I will not accept that philosophically, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe what I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” Two theories: God did it; it just happened. “To say it just happened is impossible, but I believe it, because I don’t want to believe in God”—written in Scientific American. (I actually corresponded with George Wald several times and I sent this above quote to Antony Flew in 1995 and he referred to it in his book “There is a God” in 2007.)
———-
I THINK DARWIN OPENED UP ABOUT HIS MOST INNER FEELINGS MUCH MORE THAN HE HAS BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR AND THAT IS WHAT I WROTE YOU ABOUT TODAY SINCE YOU ALSO DEALT WITH THIS SAME ISSUE OF LOSING YOUR BECAUSE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!!
Just like Darwin you lost your faith not overnight but it was over time. Also your love of music 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 about science causing him to lose hisaesthetic tastes. 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.
“I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did….My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive….The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
This is the old man Darwin writing at the end of his life. What he is saying here is the further he has gone on with his studies the more he has seen himself reduced to a machine as far as aesthetic things are concerned. I think this is crucial because as we go through this we find that his struggles and my sincere conviction is that he never came to the logical conclusion of his own position, but he nevertheless in the death of the higher qualities as he calls them, art, music, poetry, and so on, what he had happen to him was his own theory was producing this in his own self just as his theories a hundred years later have produced this in our culture.
“I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
Francis Schaeffer asserted:
What we find now is that he comes to the place in being agnostic, but as we read through this section on religion what we find is in reality his reason leads him against this position, which is interesting but his theory makes him accept the position of agnosticism….. I think what you have in Darwin is a magnificent example, although a sad one of what I lecture on in apologetics, and that is if a man takes a set of nonchristian presuppositions he is forced eventually to be in a place of tension. The more consistent he is with his own nonchristian presuppositions the more he is away from the real world. When he is closer to the real world then he is more illogical to his own presuppositions.
“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.”
Francis Schaeffer observed:
So he sees here exactly the same that I would labor and what Paul gives in Romans chapter one, and that is first this tremendous universe [and it’s form] and the second thing, the mannishness of man and the concept of this arising from chance is very difficult for him to come to accept and he is forced to leap into this, his own kind of Kierkegaardian leap, but he is forced to leap into this because of his presuppositions but when in reality the real world troubles him. He sees there is no third alternative. If you do not have the existence of God then you only have chance. In my own lectures I am constantly pointing out there are only two possibilities, either a personal God or this concept of the impersonal plus time plus chance and Darwin understood this . You will notice that he divides it into the same exact two points that Paul does in Romans chapter one into and that Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) will in the problem of existence, the external universe, and man and his consciousness. Paul points out there are these two steps that man is confronted with…
______________
Here below is the Romans passage that Schaeffer is referring to and verse 19 refers to what Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man” and verse 20 refers to Schaeffer’s other point which is “the universe and it’s form.”Romans 1:18-22Amplified Bible (AMP) 18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. 19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], 21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor andglorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile andgodless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]
“Mr. Darwin…considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God.”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
You find a great confusion in his writings although there is a general structure in them. Here he says the word “God” is alright but you find later what he doesn’t take is a personal God. Of course, what you open is the whole modern linguistics concerning the word “God.” is God a pantheistic God? What kind of God is God? Darwin says there is nothing incompatible with the word “God.”
” Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation.”
Francis Schaeffer observed:
So he has come to the place as an old man that he doesn’t believe there has been any revelation. In his younger years he held a different position.
So you find that as a younger man he did accept the Bible. As an older man he has given up revelation but he is not satisfied with his own answers. He is caught in the tension that modern man is caught in. He is a prefiguration of the modern man and he himself contributed to. Then Darwin goes on and tells us why he gave up the Bible.
I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1836, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible.
Francis Schaeffer asserted:
Darwin is saying that he gave up the New Testament because it was connected to the Old Testament. He gave up the Old Testament because it conflicted with his own theory. Did he have a real answer himself and the answer is no. At the end of his life we see that he is dehumanized by his position and on the other side we see that he never comes to the place of intellectual satisfaction for himself that his answers were sufficient.
“BUT I WAS VERY UNWILLING TO GIVE UP MY BELIEF; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.
Francis Schaeffer commented:
This is very sad. He lies on his bunk and the Beagle tosses and turns and he makes daydreams, and his dreams and hopes are that someone would find in Pompeii or some place like this, an old manuscript by a distinguished Roman that would put his stamp of authority on it, which would be able to show that Christ existed. This is undoubtedly what he is talking about. Darwin gave up this hope with great difficulty. I think he didn’t want to come to the position where his accepted presuppositions were driving him. He didn’t want to give it up, just as an older man he understood where it w—-ould lead…
“But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. THE RATE WAS SLOW that I felt no distress. Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life,”
Francis Schaeffer commented:
So there is something deficient in his position from the beginning. The word of God if it is going to mean something, must mean a personal God. The word “God” is without much meaning otherwise.
_________________
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.
________________
Darwin like you was consistent with his view of the UNIFORMITY OF NATURAL CAUSES in a closed system and it cost him the love of music, art and the beauty of nature. TWO OTHER ALSO HELD THIS SAME view of uniformity of natural causes in a closed system in 1978 when their hit song DUST IN THE WIND rose to the top 10 in the music charts.
_______________________________________
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.
_____________________________
Adrian Rogers on Darwinism
The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19thCentury English historian and prolific writer, held a pervasive anti-Biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the Book of Acts were written in the mid-2nd Century. Ramsay was skeptical of Luke’s authorship and the historicity of the Book of Acts, and he set out to prove his suspicions. He began a detailed study of the archaeological evidence, and eventually came to an illuminating conclusion: the historical and archaeological evidence supported Luke’s 1st Century authorship and historical reliability:
Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the accurate description of historical events and settings. Ramsay wasn’t the only scholar to be impressed by Luke’s accuracy:
“One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned . . . Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until 22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paullus whom they met . . .’ (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 82).
Luke’s narratives include detailed and specific descriptions related to the locations, people, offices and titles within the Roman Empire. In fact, many of Luke’s claims were eventually confirmed by archaeological discoveries:
Related to Quirinius Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1–3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.
Related to Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.” A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.
Related to Lysanias Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14–37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.
Related to Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.
Related to the Pool of Bethesda John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.
Related to Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).
Related to the Pool of Siloam John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam” (John 9:1–12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).
Related to Pontius Pilate For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26–36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.
Related to the Custom of Crucifixion While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype” tomb.
Related to Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor” rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.
In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:
Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)
_____________________________ 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 […]
In my opinion, these are some of the best apologetics works that Christian and seekers need to read.
If you are having trouble with your belief, “apologetics” is the defense of the Christian faith. Each of these books defends the Christian faith in different ways, from different perspectives, from different people, dealing with a variety of issues.
Apologetics alone will never convince anyone of the truth of Christianity because people’s beliefs are not determined by reason and human wisdom, but as reason and human wisdom are used by the Holy Spirit to change a life. These works qualify as those that follow the path of 2 Pet. 3:15 “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you.” God uses apologetics to changed the the hardened heart.
These are numbered one to fifteen in importance. Drum roll please . . .
Pascal’s book is as timeless and as relevant as many ancient proverbs. In fact, it serves more like a proverbial apologetic work with short pithy statements of life and truth designed to get one to think. Not an apologetic work in the classic sense, but one for those who are looking for a different approach through the path of wisdom before reason. Pascal was Catholic, but, as one Catholic has put it, too Protestant to be Catholic.
An incredibly engaging work that is a published account of Greg’s letters back and forth with his father who was an unbeliever at the time. While I disagree with Boyd’s contention that God does not know the future in his defense of evil, it is a great book and will make you think and believe more deeply.
Paul Copan deals with common objections to Christianity that most Christians find hard to answer. From “Animals have rights just like humans do” to “You can’t prove that scientifically” Paul helps the Christian as well as the skeptic get answers that represent a Christian worldview.
This is a general apologetic work that comes from a philosophical perspective. J.P. Moreland is one of the most prolific and able defenders of the faith and this work is his most comprehensive achievement in the area of apologetics.
This represents a lifetime tour de force of Norman Geisler. Just about every topic in Apologetics is covered in this massive work, from “Presuppositionalism” to “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions.” This is a significant reference work no matter what tradition you are from.
This is a great book for the Christian or the seeker. It is probably the most popular apologetic work over the last decade, taking the title away from Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
According to many, this apologetic work by Keller is the apologetic for the postmodern generation. Whether this is true or not, it presents a solid, popular-level work that can be given to non-believers.
Although not as popular as it once was, for the last quarter of a century this work has served as the primary “go-to” apologetic for Evangelical Christianity. It is still a must have.
This will be a much more advanced work for those who are dealing with deep philosophical thinking. Plantinga has been hailed as one of the world’s greatest living philosophers. This is a basic reader to get you familiar with his works.
The best book for one who’s desire it is to understand not only what apologetics is, but how it is to be done. The authors give a great overview of all the different Christian apologetic methods asking the question “How are we to defend the faith?” They then discuss and defend Presuppositionalism, Fideism, Evidentialism, and Classical approaches to the defense of the faith. For the young, aspiring apologist, this is the first book that should be read.
Simply put, this is the most comprehensive work on the resurrection of Christ ever produced. Whatever you think of N. T. Wright, there is no debate that this is an immensely valuable contribution to the Christian witness.
Simply a must have for everyone. The resurrection of Christ is the central issue of Christianity. If Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true; if he did not, it is false. Everyone needs to have a good defense of the resurrection and this work represents the best of the popular options. Get it!
How can I do justice to what might be the most significant and influential apologetic work in all of Christianity? All I can say is that if you have not readMere Christianity, shame on you.
Did I miss any? Please make your list (I don’t care how many).
About C Michael Patton
Th.M. Founder/President of Credo House Ministries and creator of the Theology Program. He is the most frequent writer for the Parchment and Pen. Michael is married to Kristie and they have 2 daughters and 2 sons.
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 […]
I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]
I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King’s Show. One of two most popular posts I […]
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it’s precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 1) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]
Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Great article by Adrian Rogers. What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God’s Word? I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the […]
Is there any evidence the Bible is true? Articles By PleaseConvinceMe Apologetics Radio The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy Jim Wallace A Simple Litmus Test There are many ways to verify the reliability of scripture from both internal evidences of transmission and agreement, to external confirmation through archeology and science. But perhaps the […]
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 […]
Here is some very convincing evidence that points to the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible Archeology consistently confirms the Bible! Archaeology and the Old Testament Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place […]
Who on earth, could comfort me
and love me like You do?
Who could ever be more faithful true?
I will trust in You; I will trust in You, my God
There is a fountain who is a King
Victorious Warrior and Lord of everything
My Rock, my Shelter, my very own
Blessed Redeemer, who reigns upon
the throne
Living water, rain down Your life on me
Cleasing me, refreshing me with life abundantly
River, full of life, I’ll go where You lead
I will trust in You, I will trust in You, my God
The “Break My Heart O’ God” album, written by the talented Dennis Jernigan, has been a source of healing and comfort in my family for many years. Therefore, I’m grateful for YouTube as a way of sharing this anointed music with those who may not of heard it yet. May you feels God’s Love for you as you listen to this music written by and from Dennis Jernigan’s heart.
For many years and generations, our society has been losing a most valuable ingredient. Why do we see so many perversions come to be accepted as “normal” and “natural?” I personally believe that men don’t know how to be men and fathers don’t know how to be fathers to their children. I believe women long to be women but men have run away from their responsibilities leaving the women to be both mother and father. This will never work. A child, whether a son or a daughter, gains his identity from his or her father. If the father is not there, either physically or emotionally, how can he instill any worth or identity upon the child? Our only hope is in learning how much our heavenly Father desires a close and intimate relationship with His children and becoming the children He says we are.
What you are about to read is a story of hope…and the reason we sing…the reason we will never stop praising the Lord Jesus Christ. The following is our personal witness of the love and power of Jesus Christ in our lives. As you read, we are asking the Lord to break your heart by the things that break His heart. And may you realize your Father’s great love for you! You see, it’s time for the Church to be honest. If we can’t be honest then how can we be healed? And if we can’t love one another enough to see healing in our own lives, how can we love a lost and dying world enough to see healing in their lives? No sin is too little or too big. They are all filthy before Him! All we know is we have been called to bring hope and healing to the lost and dying! How He loves you, child!
Dennis & Melinda Jernigan
DJ’s Testimony
We Have Believed A Lie!
Before I begin my story, you must know that I desire to bring honor to my earthly father and mother as well as to my heavenly Father. The reason I share the things I am about to share with you is because I believe many people will be able to identify with what I have “gone through.” My greatest desire is that you would come to know the Father even more intimately than I have. Because we are all born sinners we all have some very basic needs. Yes, we have physical needs. But I’m referring to the many emotional and spiritual needs we are born with. Little children gain their identity through their father. I can remember being a little boy and desiring my daddy’s approval and acceptance for every area of my life. Being a father of both boys and girls myself I can see not only how my sons need me to help them realize “who they are” but my daughters as well. One of my daughters may “do” her own hair and come to my wife, Melinda, and ask how it looks. But it takes dad’s stamp of approval before she will really believe that it looks acceptable. And isn’t that the way it should be with our heavenly Father? I desire to gain my worth and acceptance from my heavenly Father? I desire to gain my worth and acceptance from my heavenly Father and who He says I am. As a father, I desire to nurture my children in such a way that they do not become dependent upon me but are able to transfer their deep needs to their heavenly Father. I realize I will never be perfect as a father, husband, worship leader, or person. But my Father is perfect–in every way! My healing has come and will continue to come as I seek an intimate and life-giving relationship with Him.
I was born in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. Soon after my birth, my parents moved to the farm my grandparents (Samuel Washington and Myrtle Mae Snyder) had built…the farm where my father was raised. We lived three miles from the small town of Boynton, Oklahoma (Pop. approx. 400) where my brothers and I attended school. The Lord gifted me from an early age to play the piano. By the time I was nine years old I was regularly playing for the worship times at First Baptist Church. This was also the church my grandfather Herman Everett Johnson had pastored. This was the church where my parents, Samuel Robert Jernigan and Peggy Yvonne Johnson, had met. My father had also “led singing” here from the earliest I can remember (as he presently does today). When I was about six or seven years old, my grandmother Jernigan moved back to the farm in a trailer next to the old farmhouse where we lived. And each day after school I could be found at my grandmother’s house practicing piano conveniently forgetting about my chores.
It was through my grandmother Jernigan that the Lord taught me to play the piano. Since we lived so far from any town with a music teacher, I had to learn to play by ear. My grandma was very patient with me and taught me how to “chord” for “church playing!” It was also my grandma who told me there was more to a relationship with Jesus than getting saved. She once told me that she would know my grandpa Jernigan when she got to heaven because the Lord had told her his “new name in glory!” I was in awe! God spoke to my grandma…but I could never hear him speak to me. Needless to say, I grew very close to this godly woman. It would be many, many years before I would begin to realize the full impact that she was to have and is having on my life.
My relationship with my parents, from talking with many others over the years, was quite typical for my generation. We were not an affectionate family. While I did feel affection from my mother, I never remember receiving physical affection from my father or among my brothers and myself. My daddy was very hard working. We were not poor…but we were not rich monetarily. In addition to working the farm, my dad was employed by a utility company and eventually worked as a mechanic for many years. Since I have gotten older, God has reminded me of many ways my father expressed affection and love for me as I was growing up. My problem was not my father. My problem was that I believed a lie. Once Satan got his foot in the door of my heart, any rejection – no matter how big or how small was perceived as a lack of love from my dad (or whomever I felt rejected by at the time).
Looking back, I realize that I was a very selfish child. From the earliest I can remember, I found it hard to believe anyone loved me. I felt worthless. Since I didn’t believe anyone loved me, I couldn’t really receive love. What I did discover, though, was that if I did something well, people would like me. So, I tried to be the best in whatever I did: schoolwork, basketball, music, etc….But I became so frustrated because no matter how well I performed, it never seemed to be good enough. I was very miserable and felt all alone (even though I wasn’t alone!). Sports and grades weren’t giving me any hope…neither was music. Because I made choices based upon how or what I perceived people thought of me, I became a very selfish person…usually at the expense of others and most often as the expense of my little brothers. What people thought was so good, my outward performance, soon began to hide the deepest hurts and failures of my heart. And I must add that my daddy and mama never missed one single event I was involved in while growing up, this should have spoken volumes to me. Still I chose to believe a lie.
Now I need to tell you about what I consider to be the most painful part of my life, a part I tried to hide. Since I felt so rejected, I allowed it to permeate every part of my life. What I didn’t realize was that Satan was lying to me, all the while trying to keep me from God’s plan for my life. This included the sexual part of my life. In this area I felt so ashamed and afraid of rejection that I became even more selfish and perverted in my way of thinking. As a boy I needed a role model to show me the way to manhood. But because I felt rejected by the main man in my life I, in turn, rejected him and began to yearn for intimacy with a man in perverse ways. Because of this wrong thinking I came to believe I was homosexual. It must have begun early in my life because I remember having those feelings for the same gender at a very early age. I hid this from others through high school and through my four years at Oklahoma Baptist University even though it wasn’t hidden from those I had relations with. I might add that even though I was involved in homosexuality through my college days that I still regard that time with fondness. It is in looking back that I can see the awesome and mighty hand of God ministering His love to me in the midst of my sin and confusion. Because of my lack of musical training while growing up, my musical studies at OBU were like learning a whole new language. To be able to actually read and write the music I could see or hear was like a whole new world opening up to me. This would be very valuable later in my life as I began to express my heart and my feelings in song.
Upon my graduation from OBU in 1981, God began to move in supernatural ways that even I couldn’t see! One of these instances was a simple music concert. A group called The Second Chapter of Acts was going to be in concert in Norman, Oklahoma, and I knew that I was supposed to go. By that time in my life I was looking for anybody who was real, someone who had a real walk with the Lord. Among Christian musicians, I was looking for more than entertainers. So, I went to their concert. I knew by the words they said and the music they sang that these people were genuine, and the message was born out of times of desperation in their own lives. I needed hope. As I listened to Annie Herring speak and sing I was overwhelmed by the love she spoke of. This was the love I had dreamed of but still couldn’t believe was available to me! So I listened very intently with great expectation–until she came to the song *”Mansion Builder.” This song caught my deepest attention because of the simple phrase, “Why should I worry? Why should I fret? I’ve got a Mansion Builder Who ain’t through with me yet?” All of a sudden she just stopped in the middle of the song and said, “There are those of you here who are dealing with things that you have never told anyone and you are carrying those burdens and that’s wrong–that’s sin and you need to let those hurts go and give them to the Lord. We are going to sing the song again and I want you to lift your hands to the Lord–and all of those burdens that you are carrying, I want you to place them in your hands and lift your hurts to Him.” This was all new to me–worship and praise. I had always thought before that this was just an emotional response that didn’t really mean anything. But you know what it did for me? As I lifted my hands, God became more real to me than I had ever imagined! The lifting of my hands was more than a physical action. My hands were an extension of my heart! I realized that Jesus had lifted His hands for me–upon the cross. I realized that He truly was beside me a nd that He was willing to walk with me and carry me and just be honest with me. And I could be honest with Him! At that moment, I cried out to God and lifted those burdens to the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, I can’t change me or the mess I’ve gotten myself into–but you can!” And you know what? He did change me!
At that time I acknowledged the fact that I was totally helpless and I turned everything in my life over to Jesus–my thoughts, my emotions, my physical body…and my past. Basically, I took responsibility for my own sins and yielded every right to Jesus–my right to be loved, my right even to life. Because of my choice to sin, I deserved death and hell–and that’s where Jesus came in. At that point, something wonderful began to take place in my life…I began to hear the Lord speak to my heart–“Dennis, I love you. I have always loved you! Dennis, you are my child–I love you no matter what. Dennis, I will always love you!” It was then that I lost the need to be accepted or loved by others because I realized Jesus would love me and accept me no matter what, even when I was rejected by others! It was also at this same time that those sexually perverse thoughts and desires were changed…and He began to replace them with holy and pure thoughts about what sexual love was all about. You see, the sexual drive is a creative drive and Satan knows that if he can pervert that drive, he can kill and pervert God’s creativity in us.
This all seems to fit in place for me now. For when I was about nine years old, I felt the Lord speak to me that I would someday have a large family of my own…with nine children! I thought, “Lord, You must be crazy. How can I have children if I have homosexual (unnatural) desires?” Do you see what Satan was trying to do? Not only is God blessing me with a wonderful marriage and many children, He continues to pour out His music in my heart. It is out of the gratefulness of my heart towards the Lord that I will have all the children He will bless me with and I will never stop singing praise to His name. The secret–the key for me is knowing that Jesus loves me and that I need Him desperately more every day…and realizing that He wants to change me–to change my heart–every day. My desire is to come into His presence (lay myself on the altar) that He might change me into His own image. You see, when I was nine years old, Jesus began calling me to Himself. On September8, 1968, I asked my mother how to be saved. She explained the plan of God’s salvation–that we were all sinners and that we deserved to perish in hell. I was saved that Sunday afternoon and baptized that same evening. I believe that I was saved when I was nine years old, but because I looked and perceived my heavenly Father through my own perverted image of my earthly father, I couldn’t fully receive all He had in store for me–like acceptance and forgiveness. It is so amazing to me that He loved me enough to preserve my life the way he has in this day and age of promiscuity, perversion, and sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. One thing that kept me going during the early years of my life when I felt like giving up and living in sin, was the fact that Jesus kept calling me. If He was God then there was truly hope for me! The most precious thing of all is that He loves me with all His heart…and that’s how I want to love Him. Because of this relationship with Jesus, my healing has been and will be a continual process…until the day I die and can see Him face to face!
Another major point of change for me came during this same time in 1981–yet another divine setup! A close friend found out about my past. I knew I would be disgraced and rejected now! When he confronted me, I ran from the house and continued to run until I could run no more. At that point, I simply cried out to God to speak to me. At the same, my eyes were directed to look into the darkness of the evening sky where I was drawn to a puffy white cloud floating above. This cloud looked like an old man with a beard and outstretched arms. Near this cloud was a smaller cloud in the shape of a lamb. As I watched, the bearded man engulfed the little lamb in His arms. I knew immediately that God was speaking to me…that this was what He wanted to do for me in this time of need. I then had the grace to return and “face the music.” But that’s not what happened! This friend was a true friend. He told me he loved me and was willing to stand with me as I walked through this time of deliverance in my life. And you know what else happened? God began to bring others into my life who were willing to love me unconditionally and to walk with me through the trials of my life–no matter what–for my complete healing.
In 1983, God called me to marry my wife, Melinda. I assumed that since I considered myself to be healed that there was no need to share my past with her. But I soon realized that I was really still trying to hide–which meant I still carried a burden and that I was still more concurred with what man thought of me than what God thought of me. Soon after we were married, the babies started coming! And with the babies, the added pressure of responsibility to deal with the real issues of total healing in my life. Hiding the truth would keep me from the healing God wanted for me in my life.
Because I hid these things from others, my relationships could never truly be what God wanted them to be–because in true love there is no fear. I was always afraid to tell anyone because I thought no one would love me. Why am I telling you now? Well, on July 13, 1988, I realized God wanted to take the greatest failures and weaknesses of my life and make them my greatest strengths–and that Satan wanted me to keep them hidden so he could use them against me. But like the prostitute, Mary Magdalene, I realized that to hide those things kept me from fellowship and freely loving the One I loved the most–Jesus. Not only this, but if I confessed my past freely, Satan would have no ammunition against me. So here’s what I did. In July of 1988, I shared what I just told you (in a much more brief way!) with my church…and something beautiful took place. People began to come out of the woodwork who had been hurting just like me and even more so, men and women who were involved in homosexuality (sodomy), women who were abused by their fathers, those who had been raped and never told anyone, and even those who had abortions, etc. As they confessed their sins and hurts, Jesus was able to begin healing all their past. On that day, I publicly laid down my life and my reputation to serve Jesus in an awesome way. However, I want my life to be broken and poured out life the perfume Mary Magdalene used to wash Jesus’ feet even though they said she was foolish. I want to lay down my life and reputation for others just as my Lord Jesus did for me. Imagine that–the perfect King of the Universe humbled Himself and gave up all His power and glory because He loves me! I can do no less!
Since the day I first shared my past publicly, God has called me to tell others what He has done for me–to lead and call others into intimacy with Jesus through the avenue of music and worship. It was after such a time of sharing in my hometown of Boynton in 1989 that I began to realize the true depth and extent of God’s great love for me and the calling upon my life and the role of my grandmother Jernigan’s vision and prayer upon my ministry. After leading worship at the Boynton Community Center, one of my grandma’s old prayer partners said to me, “Isn’t it wonderful how your grandmother’s prayers have been answered?” Amid feelings of shock and tears of joy, I asked, “What prayers?” And she answered, “Didn’t you know? Your grandmother told me how she would stand behind you as you practiced the piano at her house each day and would ask god to use you mightily in His kingdom to lead in music and worship! And He has answered her prayers!”
Your circumstances, your sins, your wounds, etc., may all be different than mine, but the answer is still the same–Jesus.
Your circumstances, your sins, your wounds, etc., may all be different than mine, but the answer is still the same–Jesus. You may have been sinned against and wounded very deeply. For those times you are not guilty! If you have been used or abused in any way, you can be healed. Do not receive the false guilt that Satan would try to put on you because of circumstances that were beyond your control. I urge you to deal with your own heart and the things you were (and are) responsible for–like attitudes, actions, thoughts, and feelings! There is hope for the hurting. If you are like me, you may need radical surgery. Surgery may take more time than it takes to put a Band-Aid on a wound. But surgery generally gets to the cause and doesn’t just cover up or pacify the symptoms of the wound. If you are willing, you can get to the root(s) of your sin(s). I urge you to get to the root of and deal with whatever you may be facing.
I’ve been there and found the way out, and I must share my story–the story of Jesus with those who are hurting. Aren’t we all hurting in one-way or another?
The bottom line is this: I can’t make it one day without the Lord. I ask Him to fill me with His spirit day-by-day and moment-by-moment and to lead me. You see, we are all helpless and in need of a Father to care for us. And He is the Father Who will never leave us or forsake us. He is the Father Who enjoys our presence more than we could ever enjoy His! I am no longer afraid of what others think of me (at least I’m asking the Lord to help me in that area!). Please pray for me and my family as we seek God’s direction for our lives. I love you.
__________ “How He Loves” – Live Performance Video Published on Jan 22, 2013 John Mark McMillan – How He Loves (Live performance video from Threshing Floor Studios in Lincolnton, NC) __________________________ The Heart of John Mark McMillan The singer-songwriter talks about "How He Loves," needing to have tragedy in worship music and authenticity. By Kevin […]
______ Christians should obey the Lord in the area of sexuality too!!! Earlier I wrote about Rebecca St. James and his “True Love Waits” movement and how God will bless those who seek to wait for marriage to be sexually active with their spouse. Today I am going to highlight one of my favorite songs […]
______ Cary Grant as Cole Porter night and day-you do something to me song Uploaded on Dec 4, 2009 http://download21th.blogspot.com/ you do something to me song from night and day.Night and Day is a 1946 Technicolor Warner Bros. biographical film of the life of American composer and songwriter Cole Porter. It was directed by […]
Cole Porter’s song “True Love” in the movie HIGH SOCIETY sung by Bing Crosby True Love .. Grace and Bing .. Full scene. ____________ True Love (song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see True love (disambiguation). “True Love” Single by Richard Chamberlain from the album Richard Chamberlain Sings B-side […]
Cole Porter “Let’s Do it, Let’s Fall in Love” in the movie MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Midnight in Paris – Let’s Do It Let’s do it : Cole Porter.( Midnight in Paris ) Celebrate Wikipedia Loves Libraries at your institution in October/November. Let’s Do It, Let’s Fall in Love From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: […]
Cole Porter’s song “Anything goes” was also used in the Francis Schaeffer film WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? _______________ It’s De-Lovely – Anything Goes.mpg Anything Goes (song) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the Cole Porter song. For other songs with the same title, see Anything Goes […]
Ethel Merman and Bing Crosby Sing “You’re the Top” which is great song written by Cole Porter ________________ Ethel Merman and Bing Crosby Sing “You’re the Top” You’re the Top From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search “You’re The Top” is a Cole Porter song from the 1934 musical Anything Goes. It is […]
Jim Morrison’s sad drug death was followed by Pamela Courson’s sad story!!! pamela courson/ jim morrison interview Interview with Jim Morrison’s father and sister Uploaded on Aug 9, 2010 This interview is from “When You’re Strange” DVD bonus material. I do not own this video and own no rights to it! Pamela Courson Uploaded […]
The life of Lou Reed (includes videos from 1960′s and 1970′s) ____________ Rock & Roll – Velvet Underground The Velvet Underground – Venus in Furs – Live 1) Lou Reed – Sweet Jane – live in Paris, 1974 Velvet Underground-”Sunday Morning” from “Velvet Underground and Nico” LP Lou Reed From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump […]
Now, moving from public schools to private schools, what is the priority? Notice I am not saying Christian schools, but all private schools, including Christian schools. If you are really going to do something here, you have to think larger than your own interest. What we must do in the private schools, including the Christian schools, is to stand against those who have done so much to ruin our public schools in not allowing them to get a hold on the private schools, and specifically, the Christian schools, through a control of the curriculum. What we should be doing is struggling to see that the Christian school’s curriculum is not controlled by those who have with their world view ruined the public schools.
This does not mean that the state does not have a legitimate interest in the safety of the pupils in such a thing as a firedoor. There are Christian schools that have said the state has no right even to tell them not to have a fire trap. That is not so. The state has a responsibility to say that a group of people meeting in a building like this we are meeting in have exit signs around the room, so that if there is a fire you will not all burn to death, and that is equally so for the kids in school. So the issue is not something like fire doors. The issue is that they must not begin to bring the same destructive teaching into the private schools by the back door of curriculum control that they have brought so dominantly into the public schools. We must not allow them to bring in through the back door a control of the curriculum and especially at the very point where the Bible’s content is denied and contaminated. Therefore, the protection of the Christian school curriculum is another one of the priorities, which Christians ought to be consciously and intelligently standing for.
However, let me say another side of this question of the Christian school and our protection of it. While we are saying that the Christian school is not to allow its curriculum to be corrupted, we must also say that the private school, and specifically the Christian school, should give a good education.
We are to say we are going to control the curriculum. We are not going to let the state bring in the materialistic view as the final reality through the back door. But if we are going to say that with any validity the Christian schools must be giving a really good education. It should not just be a matter of not teaching what is wrong in a twisted education that rules out a Creator. Our Christian schools should not primarily be negative oriented. It is to be positive.
It is not just to be negative. It should be a superior education, if you are going to really protect the Christian school. It should certainly teach the students how to read and write and how to do mathematics better than most public schools enjoy today. It should do that but it should also appreciate and teach the full scope of human learning. Christian education is indeed knowing the Bible, of course it is, but Christian education should also deal with all human knowledge. We can think of what I said previously about the humanities. Christian education should deal with all human knowledge – presenting it in a framework of truth, rooted in the Creator’s existence, and in his creation. Real Christian education, if we are going to protect our Christian schools, is not just the negative side, it is positive, touching on all human knowledge; and in each case, according to the level of the students, showing how it fits into the total framework of truth, the truth of all reality as rooted in the Creator’s existence and in His creation. If the Judeo-Christian position is the truth of all reality, and-it is, then all the disciplines, and very much including a knowledge of, and I would repeat, an appreciation of, the humanities and the arts are a part of Christian education. Some Christians seem absolutely blind at this point.
If Christianity is not just one more religion, one more upper story kind of thing (as I speak of it in Escape From Reason and in my other books) then it has something to say about all the disciplines, and it certainly has something to say about the humanities and the arts and the appreciation of them. And I want to say quite firmly, if your Christian school does not do this, I do not believe it is giving a good education. It is giving a truncated education and it is not honoring to the Lord.
If truth is one, that is if truth has unity, then Christian education means understanding, and being excited by, the associations between the disciplines and showing how these associations are rooted in the Creator’s existence. I do not know if you know what you are hearing or not. It is a flaming fire. It is gorgeous if you understand what we have in the teaching and revelation of God. If we are going to have really a Christian education, it means understanding truth is not a series of isolated subjects but there are associations, and the associations are rooted in nothing less than the existence of the Creator Himself.
True Christian education is not a negative thing; it is not a matter of isolating the student from the full scope of knowledge. Isolating the student from large sections of human knowledge is not the basis of a Christian education. Rather it is giving him or her the framework or total truth, rooted in the Creator’s existence and in the Bible’s teaching, so that in each step of the formal learning process the student will understand what is true and what is false and why it is true or false. It is not isolating students from human knowledge. It is teaching them in a framework of the total Biblical teaching, beginning with the tremendous central thing, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It is teaching in this framework, so that on their own level, as they are introduced to all of human knowledge, they are not introduced in the midst of a vacuum, but they are taught each step along the way why what they are hearing is either true or false. That is true education. The student, then, is an educated person. I just say in passing, John Harvard understood that when he founded Harvard University. It was founded with this whole thing in mind. The student, then if he is taught this way, is an educated person, who will have the tools to keep learning and enjoy learning throughout all of life. Is life dull? How can it be dull? No, a true education, a Christian education, is more than the negative, though that is there. It is giving the tools in the opening the doors to all human knowledge, in the Christian framework so they will know what is truth and what is untruth, so they can keep learning as long as they live, and they can enjoy, they can really enjoy, the whole wrestling through field after field of knowledge. That is what an educated person is.
In short, Christian education should produce students more educated in the totality of knowledge, culture and life, than non-Christian education rooted in a false view of truth. The Christian education should end with a better educated boy and girl and man and woman, than the false could ever produce. Protecting the Christian school must carry with it more than the negative; it should produce a superior education in all areas of. knowledge, and notice I am saying all areas of human knowledge.
Permission is granted in advance by the author to anyone who wishes to reproduce this speech in part or in full provided that the following credit is given wherever it appears:
Copyright by Francis A. Schaeffer, 1982, “Priorities 1982”. Two speeches given at the L’Abri Mini-Seminars in 1982.
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 […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Joining the federal government and many other states, politicians in Indiana recently passed a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that’s based on the notion that there should be some limits to government actions that hinder the free exercise of religion.
Here’s his bottom line.
They just want to live freely without excessive government coercion.
Print 
PDF
AWESOME commentary!! Thank you!
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]
The freedom to associate with, work with, deal with is the most fundamental rights. Let folks sort it all out on their own. If somebody doesn’t want to be bothered with me, that’s fine. It’s happened and it’s perfectly ok.
[…] WordPress Blogger Dan Morris writes this in his blog entitled, “Liberty, Morality and Discrimination.” […]
One of your better posts Mr. Dan.
I am curious about one thing, though. What do these RFRA laws accomplish that the First Amendment hasn’t already covered?
@Richards, signifies the State’s interest in pursuing the right rather than awaiting the inefficient, political warped, misguided action of the corrupt Fed.gov. Dismiss the adjectives if you must, but truth outlives all sheep. ©2015
“compelling state interest” is a judicial fraud on the Constitution and The People; clearly the limited rights of government found in the Constitution did not grant such fabrication. The concept arose out of a politically charged case in which the government could not get its way (the government always steals rights when the asses in charge can’t get their way), so the not-so-supreme court was pressured into a non-existent, unsupportable, bogus concept that an inanimate object had some intelligence (something those running government lack as is evidenced every day) that granted consciousness to extent of conceiving and having “an interest”, an otherwise entirely human emotion/concept. The judge was (and still is if you can understand the founding documents) of poor intellect, and politically weak, to pass this bullshit off as law. The only conception government has is the will of The People; all others are without constitutional ground and no validity–and should be ardently rejected by The People in strong Jeffersonian style. ©2015
PS. “Shays’ Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.” Every morning as the proletariat awakes the first thing on their mind should be rebellion against government, all of them and completely. That makes for a great America. (And leads to smaller government and a working republic.)
This is the best single article I have seen on this subject. Very thoughtful and appreciated the links. Strongly agree with Murdock’s contention that RFRA doesn’t go far enough – nobody should ever have to do or produce anything that is against their scruples, whatever the source of their conscience. As many of the articles described, the targeting of wedding vendors who obviously could believe that a wedding is a sacred ceremony, feel they play a significant role in the event, and take pride in their work while at the same time believing a homosexual wedding ceremony is a profanation of something they hold holy was probably the impetus for the state RFRA laws. The government coercion to participate is the abhorrent value.
I hope Mr. Cook is understanding of my choice to associate with android but not Apple.
If we abandon the traditional core principles of morality rooted in Christian philosophy and natural law, then what determines an act or belief to be “immoral” and how do we distinguish it from being “unpopular” or “politically incorrect.”
I am a Roman catholic. Do I have a right to embrace our catechism teachings developed over many centuries, or do I have to kowtow to the prevailing elites and say I am personally offended by those who refuse to sell their goods and services for use at gay weddings? Do I have a right to maintain that marriage is a solemn and holy union between a man and a woman, and dissent with those who toss centuries of Christian philosophy aside to impose their enlightened view?
Similarly, may I continue to maintain that life is not only precious, it is more precious and profound than we can ever know, even though the enlightened elites insist I defer to the moral development of those with wombs, or those who administer death row justice, or those who allocate funds for medicare purposes and thus hold life and death power over their supplicants?
This new tactic of imposed orthodoxy in the name of tolerance is not about moral formation (or tolerance), it’s about fascist control. “Immoral” is becoming the label associated with those who resist the Regime’s dictates in some way. It is so intellectually shallow, but the prevailing dearth of critical thinking in the electorate not only makes it possible, it allows the fascism to thrive.
I had not quite realized what a sexist bigot I am.
Just think about it. When it came to the most important relationship in my life I did not even consider for a minute marrying a man. I squarely and resolutely discriminated based on gender by being dead set on marrying a woman.
Perhaps some day people will see the light and pass laws for gender neutrality in marriage. Mr Cook will be happy. Nothing too coercive. Just subsidies and perhaps some modest penalties, like excise taxes, to encourage transition to a balanced society with 25% male-male marriages, 50% male-female and 25% female-female. Or should it be 33%,33%,33% ? Tell you what. Let’s vote and whoever wins gets to impose their quota. Yes we can!
Reblogged this on Brian By Experience.
Good post and good comments.
[…] « Liberty, Morality, and Discrimination […]
Mark,
Great questions.
I for one believe you have every right to hold all those beliefs.
I would challenge you on the question of abortion, however, on the grounds of voluntary association, specifically whether or not force is justified to prevent it (not whether or not the act is immoral).
Voluntary association imposes a limit on contracts, namely that one may enter into contracts with others, but only to the extent the contract does not infringe upon the principle of voluntary association. For instance, one may enter into a contract to be another’s slave, but if the slave at any point decides to stop being a slave, he or she cannot be bound by the contract, because the enforcement of the contract violates the principle of voluntary association.
This principle does not, however excuse the debtor who decides to stop paying his or her creditor. The difference between these two being that in the case of the slave breaking his or her contract, the individual is simply assuming his or her own natural right to self ownership; no property of the former slave “owner” has been stolen, since his or her ownership claim on the slave was illegitimate or unenforceable. In the case of the debtor, theft has clearly occurred due to the exchange of legitimate property (loaned funds) by the creditor to the debtor. The debtor unwilling to pay back his or her debt has committed theft, whereas the unwilling slave has not.
In the case of abortion, the pregnant mother and the baby basically have an unwritten contract in which the mother will allow the unborn baby to survive inside her parasitically until the baby is ready to be born, at which point the mother risks her own death in the act of childbirth. If at some point during the pregnancy, the mother decides to end the “contract,” all she is really doing is breaking her unborn baby’s illegitimate ownership claim over her life. The mother cannot be forced to be a slave to her children, born or unborn, or conversely, the child has no right to receive life giving nourishment from his or her mother.
This is all based on the theory of natural rights, which states that no right is legitimate if it requires the services of another to exercise that right. Parents should not be forced to take care of their kids. It needs to be a moral choice.
All life is precious, but so is self ownership. Abortion is undoubtedly not something to be celebrated, and almost all believe it to be immoral. It is a terribly unfortunate situation when a parent decides to neglect a child, especially to the point of death, but the failure to act is not an enforceable crime.
Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty” delves into more detail if you are interested in this line of reasoning.
“Freed of most restraints against government action and populated by citizens increasingly oblivious to this nation’s founding principles, America is slouching into tyranny. Little by little. Day by day. ”
none of this is about morality… or equality… it’s about creeping fascism… political advantage… and ultimately nullifying the constitution… the objective is to create the American Reich… every detail of American life controlled by the political and bureaucratic elite… the nature of religious affiliations… business practices… personal finance… education and socialization…. all the privy of the ideologically insane…
“bye-bye miss American pie…”
Reblogged this on a political idealist..
“Indiana Pizzeria Owners Go into Hiding”
by
Rick Moran
“The online threats haven’t stopped since Crystal O’Connor told a South Bend TV station that she wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. In fact, the ugliness has gotten so bad, that the family has gone into hiding.”
the same tactics were in use Europe in the 30s… in those days they called themselves the “Pretorian Guard…”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/04/indiana-pizzeria-owners-go-into-hiding/
Reblogged this on Beware the Fury of a Patient Man.
What seems to be missing from these arguments is the fact that people are discriminating against a behavior, not a person. Societies discriminate against deviant behaviors and relationships all the time. This is different from civil rights cases where a superficial quality was the basis for judgement, i.e. skin color. You can’t tell a gay person from a straight person if they walk through your door. They have to tell you they engage in a specific behavior.
I’d like to know why more people don’t consider homosexual behavior as a moral hazard. Their behavior puts themselves and others at risk with the costs being mitigated by society. Look up the STD infections among gay men compared to the general population. Although not always illegal, we don’t encourage or reward moral hazard behaviors.
The starting point for so many of these arguments is that homosexuals are just another disenfranchised group like blacks or women but there is a natural reason why this group makes up such a small percentage of the population. Being black or female is not a defective condition. Homosexual relationships are a biological dead end. They have zero potential for producing offspring. One way of defining marriage is a social constraint on the two people who have the potential to produce children. The mother and father are known quantities who assume responsibilities for the child they created. A gay couple do not meet this criteria therefore has no need to marry. Why redefine marriage in order to include a non-normal population subset? Why give this group a special set of rights when no other non-normal sexual relationship has them. How can one say discriminating against an immoral behavior is also immoral?