Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Sandinista Communists STILL Torture Citizens
I guess these things only mattered there if the Contras did them during the Reagan Era.
Maybe Obama can pander to this scum when he goes on the next leg of his "We're Sorry To Be America" world tour.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Obama Advocates Nuclear Disarmament
This pinko lunatic pulls America yet closer to its demise. The glow won't be from the warmth of our moral superiority should we pursue this policy.
Breeding Themselves Silly
NPR investigated a subset of the Evangelical movement referred to as the Quiverfull movement.
Taking as their inspiration where in Psalm 127 it says, "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them", its adherents shun birth control and instead max out their fecundity.
While that Biblical axiom is true, it also says that if you can't provide for your children that you are worse than an infidel.
Maybe that verse should be expounded from the pulpit also.
God does indeed control how many children you have, however, He also provides most with enough common sense not to screw themselves away from the dinner table.
Advocates of this procreative mindset point to the growth of Islam in Europe as to why a similiar baby boom must take place among Western nations.
However, one must ask if most European nations weren't such naive social democracies that give out welfare payments to every deviant that can't control themselves, would Muslims be flocking to these lands?
Some might respond but these people aren't on welfare.
Oh really, from the NPR article, it is pointed out that one of the families profiled regularly seeks assistance from a seminary foodbank.
Is that really anymore honorable or noble? Shouldn't such eleeomysnary be reserved for those that have fallen upon hardtimes for reasons other than those of their own foolhardy decisions?
Tell me, why is it my responsibility to pick up the food bill for your kid either through private or public sector charity?
by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
For The Sake Of Eternity Christians Need To Better Understand The Future
The church was instituted by God in part to stand as a defensive bulwark to protect against erroneous doctrine and spiritually damaging heresies from contaminating the minds of believers and thus to an extent soften the blow of a continually degrading culture. However, often those in positions of religious leadership are so hopelessly detached that when confronted with warnings as to the spiritual dangers threatening both the individual and society they offer little in the way of a viable response grounded in a Christian worldview and instead prattle on about matters few actually care about at best or at worst condition the average congregant to eventually acquiesce to the expanding technocollectivist agenda. This trend is evidenced in the inordinate emphasis upon COMMUNITY rather than Scripture as the authoritative source of values in an increasing number of ecclesiastical circles.
In my column “Just Because You Don’t Understand Doesn’t Mean Its Not Real: Most Epistemologically Unprepared For Bioenhancement Nightmares”, I went into lengthy detail how the Transhumanist movement presented not only a threat to traditional conceptions of liberty as it simultaneously veered off into either total anarchy or nearly absolute control but also threatened what it means to be a human being itself. As an important message I felt the broader church might be in need of hearing, I decided to post it at a website where pastors, ministers, and Christian researchers of various types could publicize their homiletic endeavors to share with their peers and other interested believers.
Though my essay did not contain a single profanity and was completely nonpartisan as it did not mention a single word about Democrats or Republicans but instead focused on the moral implications of the Transhumanist philosophy, the site administrator responded, “It appears that you have some great points and some powerful truths that perhaps should be considered. However, I am unable to approve it for posting to your contributor page at this time because it is simply not a sermon of a type that would be useful to very many other pastors that use our website.”
Frankly, other than the campaign to remove God and Christ as the basis of our cultural foundation and to forbid the utterance of these holy names so that souls might be damned, what other issue is more relevant to the 21st century pulpit than the efforts to undermine innocent human life and now the very creation as we know it? Furthermore, this simmering contempt for the distinct uniqueness of human life stretches all the way to the highest levels of government, industry, and academia.
Several years ago, I attended a PCA congregation for a while where it seemed week after week, month upon month that the pastor went on and on about the life of David. This series was not from the standpoint of how the strengths and weaknesses of this particular leader might be applied or avoided in the life of the believer as this highly (one might say overly) degreed pastor made it explicitly clear that it was not his place to highlight whatever underlying object lesson might be there in the text but rather to simply to go verse by verse irrespective of whether or not the passage had any actual spiritual significance for the Christian rather than as information provided more as a background setting but nothing the average person would miss out on if somehow glossed over. For this reason coupled with the fact that I was made out to be the bigger reprobate for not ceremonially surrendering to the dictates of the group through formalized membership than those that made it known that booze would be available at Sunday school get togethers I eventually parted ways from that congregation.
Is the serious believer going to tell me that such trivialities devoid of an applied context have more relevance to their Christian walk than whether or not you and your family are going to be permitted to remain what has traditionally been classified as normal human beings? Though this threat sounds so off the wall as if it had been lifted straight from the pages of a comic book or a Star Trek marathon, credentialed scientists and other speculative academics are subtly starting to move the public conscientiousness away from seeing bioenhancement or genetic technologies as a way to correct the ravages of disease but as a way to enhance otherwise sufficient human beings.
As I stated in my previous examinations of this topic, during the 1990’s about the scariest villains in popular science fiction has to be the Borg from Star Trek’s The Next Generation and Voyager as those belonging to this species has a considerable percentage of their biological anatomy replaced with mechanical components in large part to eliminate individuality and to replace this mode of perception with a unified group consciousness. In other words, the Borg were the ultimate Communists. However, now that some time has elapsed, it is now not all that uncommon to find in popular science magazines articles extolling the wonders of the Borg as the next step in human evolution.
One such article is titled "Is There A Borg In Our Future" published in the Fall 2007 issue of "Ad Astra". The authors write, "For years, the most devoted advocates of robotic and human cooperation have envisioned mechanical devices and human beings exploring space together; but even in this vision, the two remain separate entities --- master and servant, owner and slave, flesh and machine. Technological developments now beginning to take place in some settings might permit a true merger --- humans equipped with robotic parts or machines possessing sentient qualities."
Thus, as man is reduced to the level of a biological machine as a result of materialistic evolution, the naturalist naturally begins to wonder why ought man to consider himself superior to the gadgets he employs to better enjoy his existence.
The implications of this are startling and are hinted at in the very next paragraph of the "Ad Astra" article. The article says, "The social metaphor for future space exploration may not be Luke Skywalker and his amusing companions R2-D2 and C-3PO but the Terminator." Does anyone seriously want to live in the world of the Terminator?
The article downplays this particular speculative milieu by admitting, “The merger of human features and machine parts has negative consequences in The Terminator.” That’s putting it mildly.
In “The Terminator” series, a nuclear war is commenced by a defense computer called Skynet that becomes sentient. Its robotic constructs proceed to wipeout the surviving humans.
All of the Schwarzenegger versions of Terminators were robots with human skin stretched over their bodies. Is this what the authors of the "Ad Astra" article aspire to?
The authors attempt to calm the reader of the “negative consequences” they quickly gloss over by assuring that the horrors depicted in these films need not end up being reality. Ironically, those with their heads stuck in so-called “make believe” may have a more accurate understanding of human nature than those claiming to be more sensible in their approach.
The article concludes, “...if the Borg really are us, they need not be feared.” However, it is precisely because they could be us that they need to be feared.
A creation can never be morally superior to or better than its creator. Though created perfect, from the Book of Genesis, the Bible student gets the impression that it was not long before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and opened the floodgates to the evil and suffering making up the primary forces of history.
One could debate until blue in the face whether or not a robot was really alive or not. But imagine how much quicker then if allowed to make their own moral decisions until these independent artificial consciences will turn on their metaphysical progenitors in much the same way we all do on a daily basis into what use to be called “sin”.
If the authors of the "Ad Astra" article are so keen on the amalgamation of man and machine beyond that of perhaps the replacement of a failing organic limb or organ for the purposes of alleviating suffering rather than to alter innate humanness beyond something intended by the design of providence, perhaps they should be the first to volunteer. Nothing to fear from the Borg; perhaps these authors would like to have their innermost thoughts scrutinized by the collective consciousness of that species. That will be, however, a hell these postulators would rather inflict upon those they categorize as the lesser breeds of men (in other words, the rest of us).
Sometimes, the overly pious or those merely afraid of losing their tax exempt status (though you might be surprised how often these two constituencies often overlap) might claim, "Oh, even if all that is true, we only address spiritual and religious matters and don't soil our hands with politics or even scientific matters." However, Transhumanism has permeated theological and religious thought as well.
One religion in particular, though most of its adherents would not necessarily be deceived by Transhumanism's bizarre allure, would seem to have a unique affinity for Transhumanism as one of its foundational doctrines is that God was once a man from the planet Kolob (sounding disturbingly like Battlestar Galactica's Cobol [especially in relation to the 70's version]) and that you too can become your own God if you try hard enough.
At the website of an adherent of this particular faith that was dedicated to the advancement of Transhumanism, my initial commentary on the subject is referred to for daring to point out the movement's communalist dangers as well as acknowledging how others have taken it in a radically individualist direction. This critic snaps, "Which is it? Are Transhumanists all radical individualists or radical communitarians?
The answer is not all that simple. Usually, the leftists that embrace nonsense like Transhumanism like to pat themselves on the back for being so broadminded as to be able to hold two logically contradictory notions all at the same time.
Yet they so easily dismiss the notion that Transhumanism can be both radically individualistic and collectivistic at the same time. For it is not a movement that is either/or but rather of one feeding into another.
In "The Children Of Darkness, Richard Wheeler writes, "Burke's implication is that a society of guiltless unfettered men is one ungovernable or at least governed by a tyrant (22)." Thus Transhumanism can simultaneously for now appeal to two constituencies with seemingly divergent agendas.
For example, in its initial stages, Transhumanism can appeal to freaks like those occasionally featured on the Discovery Channel who surgically alter themselves to look like tigers, lizards, or whatever other barnyard whatnots happy to catch their fancy. Albert Mohler mentioned in his examination of this subject someone who wanted to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated so this person would not have to be a source of “biopower for the state” (in other words, this lazy bum wanted to lay around all day no doubt collecting a check from the state he otherwise despises).
However, these dupes no matter how much they claim to be standing for liberty, since they are desiring to take liberty past a point to which it was never intended, are merely the pawns of the collectivists who quietly manipulate things behind the scenes hoping things will grow so marked by disorder and confusion that the masses will clamor for an iron fist to tighten around their necks.
Either as a result of willful ignorance or because they are just so burdened by the concerns of the present, the average Christian may have little idea of the dangers to both the individual and society barreling down the pike. However, those either deriving hefty salaries or at least job satisfaction from being one of those charged with watching over the Lord's flock need to take this charge seriously from wherever the danger arrives from along the timeline or get out of the pulpit.
by Frederick Meekins
Mohler Says Church Leadership To Determine If You Spend Too Much
This comment was made around the 33 minute mark.
Everything you own might belong ultimately to God, but it does not belong to the church, many of which these days exhibit a greed that surpasses anything manifested in the heart of the average American.
Atheist Pastor Retains Pulpit
Sounds like the return of the "Death of God" theology from the 1960's.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Al Gore Ignores Earth Hour
Guess environmental solidarity is not something to be imposed upon the Hegelian overclass.
Albert Mohler Endorses Working The Elderly To Death
Well, more that he is opposed to retirement. Is all well and good if you have a job you enjoy, but frankly, what about those of us who despise our day jobs and the fact that like it or not, eyesight fades and backs break? Not everyone gets to sit around in an air conditioned radio studio like he does.
Stimulus Funds Spent On School Sports
A real comfort to those on the verge of homelessness, starvation, and increased tax bills in troubled times.
Tolerancemongers Denounce Southern Heritage
Wonder if they are as quick to condemn the shortcomings of Shaka Zulu, Winnie Mandela, and Che.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Kay Warren Gripped With Guilt For Being A Suburban White Mom
Why is it that the suburban Whites always have to apologize for who we are?
RaidersNews Posts My Transhumanism Column
A word of gratitude to Tom Horn at RaidersNewsNetwork for posting my column on Transhumanism.
To let you know how up on things the staff at RaidersNews is, I sent them an email this morning about the commentary only to find further down in my email inboxes that they had already posted it before I had even sent them word.
Be Sure To Keep The Lights On
From 8:30 to 9:30 the night of 3/28/09, environmental dupes around the world plan to douse exterior ligthing as a show of solidarity agaisnt global climate change.
As a luminous thumbed nose poking upward into the night opposing this stupidity, patriots everywhere should turn on as many lights as possible in a display of freedom against the New World Order.
One should also ask how many lights will be on in the White House and Al Gore's numerous residences during the appointed hour, but I guess since those two are so much more important than the rest of us, they should by definition ought to be exempt.
by Frederick Meekins
Congresswoman Barney Frank
In a press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Congresswoman Banrey Frank. Shouldn't there be as much outrage regarding this slip of the tongue as the time Dick Armey accidentally called the Mass. representative Barney Fag?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Headline Potpourri #1
Urban school children are being forced to toil in the White House garden. Well, things are not quite that bad, but can you imagine the feigned Sharptonian outrage that world erupt had Laura Bush rather than Michelle Obama instigated the project? The purpose of the garden is to provide vegetables for the White House kitchen to in part browbeat the American people into consuming only locally grown produce. No word as to whether or not crop yields will be sufficient to supply the lavish Wednesday parties the Obamas are becoming noted for.
A group of environmental researchers were trapped by a blizzard while on an expedition to the artic to study global warming.
President Obama belittled the disabled during his appearance on Jay Leno. While the comment was not that offensive as Obama said his bowling score in the 120's was like something out of the Special Olympics, had Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter said it, they world be deemed hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Therefore, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard? And more importantly, in light of healthcare proposals on the part of Obama allies such as Tom Daschle that the elderly should just learn to live with their deteriorating conditions, one has to wonder what plans are being made for those of less than ideal health and vitality. Given Obama’s giggle fits regarding the deteriorating economy during his "60 Minutes" interview where reporter Steve Kroft asked the President if he was punch drunk, one could justifiably deduce he holds the remainder of us in the same degree of contempt as he does the mentally challenged.
Representative Nancy Pelosi before an audience gathered in a church heralded America's Hispanosupremacist conquerors as patriots and the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws as un-American. However, should these new arrivals become Branch Davidians or picket outside of abortion clinics, I am sure the Speaker of the House will change her mind.
Florida horse owners are living in a state of fear. Poachers are stealing the beloved steeds and butchering them for the black market as the meat is a delicacy among growing immigrant populations.
Obama's brownshirts may come to profoundly influence the 2010 Census. ACORN, the leftist community organizers with a history of voter fraud, hopes to assist in recruiting the 1.4 million temporary workers that harass people door to door asking the most private of questions such as how many bathrooms are in your house and how many miles you drive to work each day. The Obama administration has tried to politicize the constitutionally mandated tabulation by moving oversight of it from the Department of Commerce directly into the White House.
The Federal Reserve has just performed one of the greatest magic tricks in all of history. It has pulled one trillion dollars out of the rear-ends of the American people for the purposes of stimulating the U.S. economy. Students of history will recall that similar shenanigans in Germany led to the fall of the Wiemar Republic. This time around it seems those pulling the strings from behind the scenes want their figure head in office before the collapse, perhaps making things easier to control on their part.
Bastards are proliferating. 40% of children today are born to unwed parents. Ironically, though I use the word in its technical sense, there will be more condemnation of me using it than of those procreating outside the bonds of matrimony even through the word is used in the Bible, the real ones anyway and not necessarily those newfangled feel good versions.
The United States is facing a number of violent threats such as Islamic terrorists and Latin American drug gangs, but they are not of much concern to Missouri law enforcement. A report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” urges police there to instead focus on those displaying the American flag and Ron Paul bumper stickers.
The Sith apprentice seeking forgiveness kneels before his master. Barack Obama met with Mikhail Gorbachev in the hopes of buttering up to the Russians in a new spirit of appeasement.
A pack of Kangaroos is on the loose in France. The marsupials were set loose from an Australia-themed park by property destroying Vandals.
by Frederick Meekins
Mohler Still Riding His Delay Of Marriage Fetish
This time around Albert Mohler links the delay of marriage with a lack of church attendance.
Frankly, what single is going to want to attend a church where this matter not mentioned is constantly harped upon?
I also find it interesting how Mohler is not man enough to always bash lazy young men but never utters a word about sleazy young women.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Urban School Children Forced To Toil In White House Garden
Well, maybe it is not as bad as the headlne makes it out to be, but can you imagine the outrage if Laura Bush had little Black school children grow vegetables for her?
Obama Belittles The Disabled
While the comment was not that offensive, had Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter said it the politically correct would deem them hatemongers no longer worthy of employment. Thus, shouldn't the messiah of the radically tolerant be held to the same standard?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Does "The Shack" Undermine Sound Doctrine?
click on the following link:
mms://radiolibertyarchives.gsradio.net/radioliberty/030609b.mp3
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Recession Hits Sesame Street
No wonder Oscar is forced to live in a trashcan. Must have fallen behind on his mortgage. Bet he wants a bailout.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Cause For Celebration: An Examination Of The Cosmological Argument
Often the classics rank among the best. Even though time passes and intellectual fashions change, certain insights and perspectives address something so profound they forever earn a place as a steadfast pillar among sifting seas of opinion. Much of what comes after such a point simply serves as either confirmation, renunciation, clarification, or criticism. Though he lived and labored during the Middle Ages in the 1200‘s, the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas has withstood the test of time as one of those stalwart pillars of the mind pointing to a rational basis for belief in God.
Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Christian Philosophy” states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.
This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith“, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.
Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.
The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.
According to James Sire in “The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog“, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”
Thus, as David Noeble of Summit Ministries responds in “Understanding The Times“, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.
David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.
While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in “Reasons For Faith” that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).
The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.
Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.
Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology “Evidence For Faith” these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).
The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.
These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.
It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.
Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.
If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in “How I Know There Is A God“, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”
Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”
Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.
The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.
This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.
As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).
While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".
Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.
Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective“, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.
Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?
The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.
Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.
Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.
In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.
Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”
The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Will There Be A Double Standard For Elites?
Now that it has been announced that Bristol Palin will not wed the father of her baby, I wonder if Dobsonians and Mohlerites such as J. Budziszewski will argue that the baby must be put up for adoption.
Before you start sending me hate mail as to what an intolerant bigot I am for questioning this, the reader should be told that he and I clashed a few years back where I criticized him over his insistence that those having children outside of marriage that don't get married are under the obligation to put their progeny up for adoption.
I argued that a child would be better off with a mother that learned from her mistake and remained unmarried then to marry a total slacker and heel of a man.
My position remains consistent. It is those that change their standard when their favored celebrities are involved that are the hyprocrits.
Hoof Hurler Gets Off Easy
Liberals and related anti-Americanists thinking the incident where two shoes were hurled at President Bush was humorous might think three years for the perpatrator is a bit harsh, but I ask you how well would this malcontent faired if he had tossed the footwear in question at Saddam Hussein?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Womens Shelters Toss Teen Boys Into The Streets
Those endorsing the practice are likely the exact same ones that went into hissies about Promise Keepers at its peek.
And frankly, any mother that would take such as a condition of shelter is hardly worthy of the respect that comes with the maternal title.
Furthermore, this policy is nothing but anti-male prejudice bent on breaking up the family.
For unless the woman in question has small children, wouldn't the more objectively humanitarian thing to do be to provide shelter to someone under the age of majority irrespective of their gender?
Monday, March 09, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Obama Is Not America's Hope
During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.
That was not the disturbing part even to someone that did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance. Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope Of America".
As the new President, even Americans that did not vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified context in regards to those duties delineated within the confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that he is the head of state of the country in which we live. However, he is not America's hope.
Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all things consist.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive you of your sins.
It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the whole world in His hands.
Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your world has been shattered and you don't know what can be done to make things right.
Even for those uncomfortable about making public acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American people ought to look to before Barack Obama.
For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in government all the way from the President down to the youngest private in the U.S. army.
It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of a few through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law (note does not grant) a number of rights the individual possesses as an individual created in the image of God. Barack Obama cannot do this.
Secondly, the American should look to himself for hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen, you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.
Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority. Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene in those areas of life where the physically able ought to provide for themselves.
by Frederick Meekins
