Trump's War: His Battle For America

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Headline Potpourri #89

President Obama remarked in light of the Brexit decision that it is more efficient to negotiate trade deals with blocs of nations rather than one at a time. Since when did he care about government operating efficiently?

A congregation was instructed to pray that a forecasted shower would be directed towards other towns so as to avoid raining during the scheduled vacation Bible school. But what if churches in these other vicinities also have vacation Bible school scheduled for this particular evening?

Is speculating Britain leaving the European Union might bring that confederation back down to the ten prophesied to grant authority to the Beast anymore worthy of a condescending snort than a sermon series on the Book of Revelation ascribing most of the upheaval described within to Muslims or that tornadic calamity befalling America's agrarian heartland classes is the fault of foreign policy elites in their Foggy Bottom offices failing to pander to Zionist interests? Perhaps this is why some don't usually open their mouths in church if sincerely responding to what one thinks about what is going on in the news is going to lead to feelings of derision and borderline belittlement.

A prayer thanking the Lord that a VBS mishap wasn't too bad sounds suspiciously similar to “Lord, thank you that there likely won't be a lawsuit.”

It was remarked in an opening prayer that, in some churches, the formalized weekly hootenanny begins with an invocation asking God to be with the proceedings but that in this particular church such was not required because He is wherever two or three are gathered in His name. If God already knows what is going on in other churches, is there really a need to remind Him of this publicly? Doesn't this prayer translate as, “Lord, the way we do things here is so much better than everywhere else. Thank you, Lord, that we are not like other men.”

A sermon on Genesis 41:38-53 was titled “Joseph's Reward From The Lord.” If this text is approached from the standpoint of what believers can also expect from the Lord, does that possibly include a heathen wife from a family benefiting from a polytheistic religious power structure? After all, it says in the passage that Joseph's wife was the daughter of a priest of On. I guess this is one of the things you aren't supposed to notice in the text. Mind you, to many of the hardline fundamentalists you are violating the injunctions about being unequally yoked if you just go out on a date with a Methodist or some manner of Charismatic.

If you point out that the King James says butler but the idea is more cupbearer, aren't you saying that the King James might not be the most accurate English translation out there after all?

It was said in a sermon that some that don't like police officers because such people usually want to commit crimes. True to an extent. However, for the sake of accuracy, shouldn't if such a remark is delivered from behind the so-called “holy desk”, shouldn't it also be recognized that some sincere people are not that found of law enforcement because of the disturbing percentage within that profession that like to throw their weight around?

A hymn often sung on Mothers and Fathers Day with the lyrics altered to fit the respective parent being celebrated is “Faith Of Our Fathers/Mothers”. One verse reads, “Our Fathers/Mothers chained in prisons dark, were still in heart and conscience free. How sweet would be their children's fate if they, like them, could die for Thee.” So aren't what you are asking for essentially that your children be executed for their faith? Seems to me does not Scripture counsel pray that you get to live a quiet and peaceable life with that being one of the primary reasons Romans 13 urges submission to temporal authorities?

A UNICEF commercial begs for money from viewers. In other words, an appeal to the free market to alleviate the suffering largely the result of socialist or command economies.

Given with what is being done with Marvel superheroes, the great prize to be claimed throughout the multiverse to be valued even more than the Infinity Gauntlet will eventually be the last remaining drops of testosterone.

Sulu is to be revealed to be homosexual in the upcoming Star Trek film largely because George Takei, who originally portrayed the character in the original TV series, is himself gay. Applying this logic, should it be concluded that the character of Willard Deckard from Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a child molester since it was later revealed that actor Stephen Collins exhibited that particular inclination on a number of occasions?

Regarding the Archbishop demanding that divorced remarried Catholics live in a celibate state without carnal relations. Wonder if he is as condemnatory of his fellow clergy with a hankering for underaged minors.

In light of the terrorist attack against police in Dallas, those questioning the militarization of law enforcement are now being categorized as subversive. Police should be granted access to the equipment that will protect them. However, citizens are rightfully concerned when the federal government has often told these departments that not even the municipalities that provide the civilian oversight of these agencies is to be told that the agencies now possess this equipment.

If Fox News analysts are going to insist that nothing critical of law enforcement should ever be verbalized for fear that such remarks might spark violence against police, does the network intend to extend such protective linguistic deference to other civil servants such as revenue officers and environmental regulators?

Hillary Clinton said White Americans need to do a better job of listening. Does she also plan to say that Black people need to do a better job of not destroying property when confronted with a story in the news that they find upsetting?

Matt Damon has called for the systematic confiscation of firearms across the United States. So in the upcoming Jason Bourne film, does the character intend to appeal solely to reason and warm sentiments in approaching conflict? And in failing to reach an amicable compromise, does the character intend to peacefully surrender in deference to the superior wisdom of collectivist institutions?

In a podcast regarding the demise of Christian Conservatism, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson spoofed the number of activists advocating this particular ideology that fell into sexual sin. Does he include within that criticism his own good friends and allies such as Doug Phillips of Vision Forum and his own former sidekick Dave Beuner? Contrary to the racial guilt peddled by Southern Baptist bigshot Russell Moore, one fails to see how middle aged and geriatric working class Whites that have never committed a crime are at fault for minority youth that lack the basics of self control.

A meme with a quote attributed to Dr. James White reads, “I have no interest in fireworks because my country has indeed declared its independence from God.” Maybe so. But does it follow from that statement that everybody else's party needs to be pooped on? Things are indeed likely descending into Ghenna in a wicker transport receptacle. However, that does not mean one can't take a celebratory day to both recall times past and to enjoy what good things still remain in America. Secondly, Dr. James White has positioned himself as a foremost Reformed Calvinist theologian. As such, if America has declared its independence from God, as White suggests, isn't that God's responsibility for imposing the inability to head anywhere but in that lamented direction?

Home school activist Kevin Swanson claimed that there is a push to allow the transgendered to use their bathroom of choice because Christian parents have not taught their children the law of God. But apart from an activist cabal demanding such a level of debauchery and their handlers among the New World Order elite, what normal everyday people support this policy innovation? Given that Swanson is himself a Christian parent, are we to assume that because this is transpiring that he ranks among those that have not properly taught his children?

Echoing the spirit of the FBI's disposition of the Hillary Clinton investigation, try telling the IRS that in failing to file your tax return that you did not intend to defraud the government of any income in that the government had already preemptively confiscated what it was owed to begin with and see what happens to you.

In a discussion with Albert Mohler regarding our fractured society with political theorist Yuval Levin, it was decreed that we ought to be more invested in our COMMUNITIES. And what if the respective institutions at that particular level of social organization don't really want your involvement?

Given that the one shooting victim was selling videos in a parking lot, couldn't it just as legitimately be viewed as an assault against capitalism? Interesting how the leftwing media never plays up that angle.

Hillary Clinton has said that Whites need to put themselves into the shoes of Black people. By that, she is probably referencing so-called criminal justice disparities. As such, the very first she needs to redress is her own case in which anyone else in a similar situation would have been tossed in the slammer for decades probably.

If a Lutheran church building has two distinct congregations of the same denomination meeting on the property and one is specifically advertised as “multiethnic”, are those that decide to attend that one berated and chastised for not wanting to be around White people?

If Obama believes in class integration of neighborhoods to the point where his regime threatens to erect ghetto enclaves in middle class areas, why is he planning to move to ritzy sections of Northwest, DC rather than somewhere like Suitland, Glennarden, or District Heights?

The Mormon Church condemned its member Ammon Bundy for his occupation of a federal wildlife preserve in Oregon. Does the organization issue press releases regarding the questionable actions perpetrated by its other members? Did the Latter Day Saints release official declarations at the point in Mitt Romney's political career when he supported the right to an abortion? Did the church issue an epistle in condemnation of obscure presidential candidate John Huntsman's support of gay marriage? And perhaps most importantly, how was Bundy's “militia” any worse than the armed gangs raised by Mormonism's “prophet” Joseph Smith?

On an episode of “Standing For The Truth”, it was suggested that the only thing that will likely bring revival to America is persecution. However, it was lamented, the attitude of the average American is to avoid suffering. Such a statement raises at least two observations. If persecution breaks out in America and we are expected to view that as the Yankee getting what's coming to him and we'll be better off as a result, why isn't the same thing being said regarding other nation's such as Syria? For did not the Christians martyred there also fail to exhibit a faith pure enough if they are enduring such obvious affliction? Secondly, if only Americans seem to run from hardship and misery, why are hordes of refugees pouring over the borders of modernized nations?

In a Berean Baptist Church podcast, it was countered that to counter transgender restrooms, Christians ought to open up their homes to be used as alternative public facilities. It was also decreed that any believer unwilling to allow total strangers to urinate or defecate in their homes were selfish. So what is to prevent deviants from getting hold of a list of citizens providing this service and using the document for nefarious purposes such as robbery or sexual assault? Will this church pay the legal bills of homeowners defending themselves or is it still more glamorous to finance missionaries ?

Those that oppose investment in fossil fuels certainly don't mind reliance on the numerous devices that depend upon such resources in order to remain functional.

Michael Savage has said that survival is more important than civil rights. For a certain extent that is correct. But what if Savage was one of the ones locked away without trial with no concrete charges filed against him. After all, didn't Savage toss a fit when he was banned from entering the United Kingdom, a country he admitted he had no desire to visit in the first place?

During a sermon on Joseph, it was remarked how some emulated the Hebrew patriarch and lived up to their responsibility to teach vacation Bible school. Good for them. But from that, it does not follow that those that did not participate were somehow shirking responsibility. How does the pulpit exegete know that others did not having more pressing responsibilities to attend to during that period?

In a church where the vast majority that attend are elderly, on what grounds can it be said that few children in the congregation is evidence that parents aren't fulfilling their obligations? Can it be said for certain that children in the area don't attend other congregations?

It said in a church bulletin that over $200 had been donated for Syrian refugees in the Middle East. If offerings are now being bequeathed with strings attached, what if someone targets funds for outreach to Geeks at Comicon, bikers at Sturgis, or flea market vendors at swapmeets? After all, sociologists will likely concur that each of these is its own valid subculture.

It was remarked from a pulpit that, from what has been said by certain members of the congregation, a number of these believers seem to think Heaven is going to be similar to Earth. Given that humans as of yet really have no other geographical reference to relate in that most have not yet visited another planet or dimension, can people really be blamed if they think of this eternal destination in terms of the best that this particular reality consists of. Despite such beratings, leadership probably no doubt baffled why Sunday school attendance is down.

Regarding theologians and Bible scholars that mock those concerned as to whether or not we will recognize loved ones in Heaven, aren't you really ridiculing God who designed familial and relationship bonds to be so strong?

That's quite a hermeneutical homiletical stretch to reference Joseph's reunion with his brothers in Egypt as a springboard to mock those longing to be reunited with departed family in eternity.

It was said that dogs can't go to Heaven because they have a soul but not a spirit. As such, shouldn't evangelists be referred to as “spirit winners” rather than “soul winners”?

Newt Gingrich remarked that White Americans just can't comprehend what it is like to be Black. Wonder if he would ramble on in a similar progressivist manner if the road being blocked was one that his third Mrs. Gingrich traveled over to get to wherever it is one purchases those expensive Tiffany lamps she's reportedly so fond of?

Wonder if the media propagandists heralding as heroic the activists blocking access to public roadways would be as celebratory of pro-lifers blocking access to an abortion clinic, Tea Party demonstrators delaying access to the Food Stamp office, or a Christian baker standing by their own particular convictions denying a gay couple a wedding cake.

Featured on the August 2016 issue of Architectural Digest is a cover story titled “Anderson Cooper's Brazilian Paradise”. So apparently it is acceptable for this mouthpiece of the global elites to own multiple dwellings scattered across remote corners of the world. But if you reside in a single family dwelling in a suburb rather than a highly controlled multi-purpose highrise in a ghetto neighborhood you are accused of endangering planetary ecology.

Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that the nation needs men willing to put in tens of thousands of hours into the lives of the sons of single mothers. But isnt that more the fault and responsibility of the men that already put their something into these single mothers?

In his analysis of a mother arrested for beating her sons over burglarizing a neighbor, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that often these African American single mothers are the last line of social stability in the lives of these children. Does he also intend to admonish and chastise these Black women for their poor taste in breeding partners? After all, any other time Swanson is part of the chorus insisting that young women should rarely be allowed outside of their parents' home for the purposes of advanced education or even employment and are to be allowed minimal say as to whom their husbands will be.

“Reboot” means that producers lack the creativity for anything other than a rehashed origins story.

It is being insisted that using the police robot to expedite the Dallas gunman onward to his eternal reward was inappropriate because he was a veteran. That is really a moot point. This terrorist forfeited any respect due such when he turned his weapons on unsuspecting Americans.

Jeb Bush has announced that, in good conscience, he cannot vote for Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. So why are the remainder of us obligated to enthusiastically fall at the feet of his particular crime family or to surrender to them our hard earned resources simply because their minions drop a direct mail fund raising letter into our mailboxes.

Addressing the assassination of police officers in Dallas, President Obama said that “we ask too little of ourselves.” Maybe so of Obama's core constituencies that demand the world as their oyster and not lifting a finger for it with the exception of looting the property of others. The rest have already been asked of enough as they comply with assorted taxes compelling surrender of nearly 50% of what we own accompanied by threats of the brutal police state tactics the President otherwise opposes when applied to his beloved shiftless deadbeats.

A Louisiana mother arrested for whipping her sons after they burglarized a neighbor's house is being lauded as an ideal parent by a number of public officials. Yet the same ones praising her disciplinary methods would probably rank among the chorus that would condemn those wondering if the lack of character in the mother's own life was what led her to take such drastic steps in the lives of her children. For example, is she even married to the father of whom it was revealed is himself in the penitentiary?

In a sermon, it was suggested that, because Jesus did not utter condemnatory words during His trials and mistreatment, we are also obligated to emulate similar linguistic surrender when we find ourselves verbally attacked and berated. But is this exhortation about cultivating Christian virtue or more about letting the leadership have its way with a congregation? For in other instances, did not Christ give people a piece of His mind when He spoke in reference to the moneychangers in the Temple and when He said to the Pharisees that they were as whitewashed sepulchers? In addressing the Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter, how was comparing her to a dog little different than referring to someone as a “bitch”?

In a New York Times interview, Jimmy Carter categorized Donald Trump's mere advocacy (to say nothing of actual implementation) of a border wall and the banning of Muslims from entering the United States as human rights violations. Does the former president intend to speak out as forcefully against his allies in Hamas for producing Sesame Street-style programming indoctrinating toddlers regarding the glories of killing Christians and Jews in suicide attacks? Does Carter intend to renounce his friendship with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia? For in that regime, one can be executed for converting to another religion and women severely punished for being seen in public with a man that they are not related to. For supposedly being against the death penalty, Jimmy Carter certainly associates freely with rather bloodthirsty and murderous people yet rarely utters a word critical of these assorted atrocities.

Vocalizing criticism of the police is different than advocating violence against them.

It was said in a sermon that one ought not criticize a preacher until one has himself preached. However, it is doubtful that the ministers admonishing such would allow pulpit time to those that differ with them in opinion though still within the boundaries of orthodox theology. For when are the available opportunities, especially when what was billed as the first annual talent knight has not been held since its inaugural debut over two years ago? And where does it say that someone adept at the written word cannot critique something they encounter aurally?

It seems that these tragic assassinations of police officers are to serve as broad generalizations justifying sweeping changes in the course of public policy. If so, it would seem that the problem is not so much firearms in the hands of lifelong civilians but rather apparently in the hands of those supposedly trained by the government on how to handle a weapon.

CNN propagandists insist that Hillary Clinton's affinity for Saul Alinsky is no big deal since that was back in 1969. Wasn't that about the same time that Paula Deen is alleged to have verbalized the “N-word” in the privacy of her own home after being robbed at gunpoint? So if Paula Deen is to be punished over the articulation of a single phrase around which she did not build her life's work, shouldn't Hillary Clinton be ostracized even more so for a lifetime of striving to implement Alinsky's revolutionary totalitarianism?

In his upcoming book “Liars”, does Glenn Beck include Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

On Fox News, anchor Shannon Bream corrected Alan Colmes that being in favor of a business owner's religious liberty did not necessarily make one anti-gay. The leftwing pundit snapped back that such was a cold-hearted understanding of religious liberty of a kind that he did not believe in. Where does it say in the Constitution that such liberties are to be extended only to those that agree to implement those protections in an sufficiently warm or flaming manner?

It has been suggested that Hillary Clinton's email improprieties should be overlooked in large part because she likely did not intend any harm. Given that her actions were of even lesser consequence, why doesn't this same sense of magnanimity extend to Melania Trump in regards to her plagiarizing Michelle Obama's own convention oration?

Fuss has erupted that Melania Trump's Republican Convention speech might have been plagiarized. Is that all that big a deal if a potential First Lady confines herself to a traditional role? For her primary responsibilities would consist of seeing that her husband's clothes are cleaned, that he has been adequately fed, and sufficiently sexed.

If Megyn Kelley now insists sexual advances made by Roger Ailes over a decade ago are now somehow out of line, why didn't she leave before being given her own show that bumped Hannity to the 10 PM slot? How do we know she did not like it at the time until she found out she wasn't the only news skank that he had the hots for?

The forty-seventh anniversary of the Lunar Landing. That was back in the day before NASA's primary mission, according to President Obama, was to make Muslims feel positive about ancient contributions to math and science.

Throwing his weight around, Governor Chris Christie decreed that Ted Cruz is obligated to endorse Donald Trump as allegedly promised or that Cruz is not the person he presented himself to be to the American people. But given that Christie has condemned those believing that constitutional liberties are irrevocable absolutes, why is Cruz obligated to keep his alleged word when Christie does not believe that the government is obligated to keep its world?

If Cruz was allowed to speak at the Republican convention without endorsing Donald Trump, for the dimwits in the audience, that means he was not obligated to endorse Donald Trump. How is the approach taken by Cruz any different than Reagan not endorsing Ford? Yet from the esteem in which many of these same political operatives hold Ronald Reagan, one might easily conclude that the Gipper's flatulence exuded no aroma.

The verbal formulations selected by Cruz at the Republican convention have been categorized as “petty” and “classless”. His remarks were no more classless than Trump's remarks regarding Cruz's wife and those insinuating that Cruz's father played a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.

If Ted Cruz is obligated to endorse Donald Trump despite Trump insulting both Cruz's wife and father, how is this different than the mindset of cultic Obama worship that conservatives have condemned for nearly the past decade?

Leftwing propagandists are concerned that the Republican chant of “Lock her up” could lead to a mob mentality that might result in violence. Yet just recently CNN pundits insinuated that Black Lives Matter agitators should be allowed to rampage and destroy property as desired.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Didn't Pious Ideologues Lay Foundation Of Trumpism?

Syndicated Columnist Cal Thomas has published a commentary critical of presidential candidate Donald Trump titled “The itching ears of Trump fans”.

In the piece, Thomas astutely points out where the billionaire's bold promises often lack specifics as to how the proposals could be implemented in a way that would minimize the disruption from an uncooperative opposition as epitomized by the Occupy movement and BlackLivesMatter not above the use of what most Americans would categorize as violence in the attempt to sway public opinion and policy.

But did not Thomas himself play a part in paving the way for the ascent of Trumpism?

In “Blinded By Might”, Cal Thomas admonished how the truly devout ought to dichotomize their worldviews to separate what constitutes spirituality from what constitutes competent political leadership or governance.

Now that droves of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have flocked to a candidate that might not abide by Biblical behavioral norms in his personal life but who not only speaks bluntly about the nation's problems but in a manner that does not act like everything wrong in the world is America's fault, theologians and even conservative pundits that set this ball in motion nearly twenty years ago stand gapping in dumbfounded amazement.

In his commentary, Thomas levels condemnation at Donald Trump for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

But isn't Thomas a bit guilty of this himself?

In referencing the cruel things Trump's disturbingly fanatic supporters have called Thomas, the witty correspondent confesses being called “old” probably hurt worse than even being called a sack of excrement.

But of that particular verbal put down, Thomas writes, “Remember when age used to go with wisdom unless proven otherwise?”

Yet any other time in his desire to gain the favor of the media elite, Thomas has mocked both Tea Party gatherings and Trump rallies for being composed primarily of elderly White faces.

But one cannot get much more elderly and White than Cal Thomas.

Does he intend to consistently live by the principles he now professes by surrendering the place he does occupy in the media or the no doubt hefty check he receives for doing so?

By Frederick Meekins There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Columnist Compares Candidate To The Son Of Perdition

In a commentary transcript, columnist Cal Thomas compared the rise of Donald Trump with the rise of the Anti-Christ.

The consideration of such is always good discernment on the part of an Evangelical public intellectual when a political figure begins to accumulate a devoted following.

However, out of curiosity, did this commentator make an as bold a statement regarding President Obama?

After all, there was a point when church worship bands and elementary school choruses alike were singing songs of praise in homage of the forty-fourth president.

Thomas observed that at one time a divorced man could not expect to be elected President but that Evangelicals are now comfortable with a candidate that has been married three times and can barely quote a single Bible verse.

But didn't Thomas himself help get this kind of ball rolling when he co-authored “Blinded By Might”?

In that work, Thomas advocated the thesis that Christians shouldn't really get that involved in politics.

Instead, believers ought to recognize a distinction between an individual's personal sense of piety and their ability to govern effectively.

Interesting how such a directive is rescinded as soon as average Christians are considering a candidate that does not spew the social justice platitudes infiltrating religious circles to an ever increasing degree.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Minding The Times: An Exposition On Postmodernism

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, "For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not 'post' anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174)." In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook's Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data.

Even though the Modernists sought to set out on their own without holding God's hand, many of them endeavored to maintain a system of behavioral standards and social norms reflective of the Judeo-Christian ones embedded in the cultural consciousness but now resting on an alternative foundation. Rather than seeing the niceties governing civilized conduct as arising from the character of God and discoverable through the study or application of His Holy Word, these courtesies were seen as coming about through the unfolding of trial and error, a process most akin to biological evolution. While most Evangelicals are aware of the links between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism (both vile forms of totalitarianism), most are not as cognizant of the links between this theory of origins and what many would consider stereotypical British traditionalism. Alister McGrath writes in Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths, "Darwinism achieved popular success in England...because Darwin's ideas happened to coincide with advanced Whig social thinking relative to matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle class...Darwin's science provided a foundation for Victorian liberalism (161)."

It did not take long for the hopes, dreams, and promises of Modernism to break down and disappoint many of its enthusiastic adherents. Psalm 127:1 says, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain (KJV)." Instead of utopian brotherhood as promised by Marx, millions found themselves enslaved behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Instead of the sexual liberation promised by the likes of Freud, for tossing aside restraint and embracing the wilds of passion, just as many found their bodies rotting under the curse of diseases unheard of just a few decades ago. Still others discovered that a life of constant entertainment was not quite as entertaining as originally intended. As John Warwick Montgomery so eloquently summarized through his courses in Apologetics at one time offered through Trinity Theological Seminary, in the nineteenth century God was killed and in the twentieth century man was killed.

Thus, with the realization that finite man was incapable of establishing any enduring standard, the Postmodernist decided that the best that could be hoped for was a kind of compulsory hypertolerance all must ascent to and embrace in order to be recognized as full members of the community. Not unlike the Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were pretty much free to practice whatever religion they wished so long as there was room enough within their beliefs for the emperor as an object of worship, those existing under hypertolerance's prevailing rule find themselves free to believe whatever they would like provided they are publicly willing to admit that what the next fellow believes is just as valid, no matter how strange or unorthodox it might seem to be.

Such an approach of live-and-let-live might work between neighbors who agree to keep their differences on their own respective sides of the fence for the sake of community tranquility. However, there are instances in life where matters cannot be glossed over simply by closing the door behind you and retiring to your living room, especially when how controversial issues are approached will end up impacting the way in which people live.

After all, the idea of absolutist tolerance exists for purposes beyond mediating athletic rivalries among coworkers and arbitrating those heated debates as to whether chocolate or vanilla is the better flavor of ice cream. The concept, to the Postmodernist, becomes the central organizing social and cultural principle. Harold O.J. Brown notes in The Sensate Culture, "...postmodern man is beginning to create for himself a world filled with...all manner of beliefs that would have been dismissed as absurd superstitions only a few years ago (55)."

Since Postmodernism seeks to rest asunder traditional dogmas and orthodoxies, it inevitably ends up emphasizing outlooks and perspectives not regularly brought before the public's attention. Sometimes this can be beneficial in the sense that information once overlooked is brought to light that provides a more fully-orbed picture as to what really happened such as when historians expand the scope of their research outward from diplomatic or military concerns to embrace the social realm as well. However, the approach has often sparked more trouble than what it is worth in terms of the conflict that has arisen and the rights that have been trampled upon as activists jockey for position in this moral and intellectual free-for-all.

It is this propensity for Postmodernism to deny the existence of established objective truth that makes the system so dangerous. However, it can also be this aspect that works out to be the Christian's unwitting ally in the apologetic struggle.

To the Postmodernist, what we construe as knowledge is in reality mere interpretation; the fact is, facts do not exist. Chuck Colson writes in A Dance With Deception: Revealing The Truth Behind The Headlines, "The carelessness about factual accuracy didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a shift in educational theory...Educators began to downplay facts and focused instead on changing students' values to solve social problems (47)."

The result of this has been the ascension of increasingly bizarre academic theories and assertions more about promoting trendy causes than expanding the horizons of human understanding. For example, one Feminist professor contends that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is actually about pent-up sexual energy that "finally explodes in the...murderous rage of the rapist"; others of similar mind oppose the scientific method as an approach to acquiring knowledge, claiming the method is based on the subjugation and control of sexual domination (Colson, 55).

Some of this might be cute for a good laugh if it confined itself among a few lunatic professors who were trotted out before the students for an occasional lecture or to write articles for publication in journals barely read by anyone. Like most thinkers, Postmodernist scholars hope to exert influence over minds other than their own. Postmodernists, however, want to do more than alter the focus of classroom textbooks. Dr. James Kennedy warns in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul, "In fact at the bottom of the 'change' movement is a deep desire to dismantle this nation and to sever average Americans from their heritage of faith and freedom (74)."

It is said nature abhors a vacuum. Something will eventually step in to take the place of something else that has been removed.

In the film "The Neverending Story", the amorphous adversary known as "the Nothing" operates on the assumption that those without hope are easy to control. Postmodernists might claim to be creating a community of tolerance and inclusion free of artificial hierarchies, but end up imposing a regimen more doctrinaire than anything even the most tightly-wound Fundamentalist would devise.

This is because of what Francis Schaeffer termed "sociological law", defined in A Christian Manifesto as "...law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41)." This principle results in a mass of seemingly contradictory policies that are unified only in their opposition to the divine order of innate human dignity. The individual is reduced to the level of a mere cog to be tinkered with to improve the engine of the overarching societal machine.

For example, in the name of elevating minorities, certain programs such as campus speech codes and preferential employment practices turn around and infringe upon the traditional rights of those just as innocent as those these convoluted regulations claim to protect. Conversely, those justifying this social manipulation by such utilitarian standards could just as easily alter their position and justify the wholesale slaughter or detention of entire ethnic groups as in the case of Nazi Germany.

According to the Washington Times, Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard argues for the abolition of the White race. So long as Western institutions continue to embrace such blatantly pragmatic standards, one can no more count on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the precepts of liberty in the end than the Chinese Community Party since, no matter how much we try to dance around the issue, both ultimately draw upon the principle of the state as the final authority. They only interpret it differently at this given time.

The human mind and spirit cannot endure for very long the chaotic vacillation of such lawlessness before the individual eventually cries out for answers to the extremes of licentiousness and total control. Throughout much of the Modern Era, the Christian apologist could appeal to a shared respect for historic and scientific fact common to both Christianity and commonsense realism. Today, the Christian must first reestablish why anyone ought to believe in anything at all and then assert how the Biblical approach provides the best possible explanation for the condition in which man actually finds himself and the facts as they are rather than how he might like them to be.

The apologist must begin this process by exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Postmodernist system. James Sire writes in The Universe Next Door, "If we hold that all linguistic utterances are power plays, then that utterance itself is a power play and no more likely to be more proper than any other (187)."

This claim by Postmodernists that all utterances are merely power plays fails the test of systematic consistency where a philosophical proposition must square with the external world as well as logically cohere with the other statements comprising the set of beliefs under consideration. But more important than the sense of satisfaction resulting from the discovery of this contradiction allowing for a degree of one-upmanship in the battle of ideas is the realization that this contradiction exposes the unlivability of a particular worldview.

Big deal, the Postmodernist might quip in response to this inconsistency since they are not known for their devotion to logical argumentation. Try as they might to gloss over this oversight with platitudes honoring the glories of relativism and tolerance, Postmodernists still deep down possess that human yearning for a universal justice. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..."

It might not be fashionable to contend that there is no such thing as right and wrong and often believing such is even an occupational requirement in certain academic and governmental circles. But when it comes down to it, no one really wants to be treated as if that was the case. C.S. Lewis was fond of noting that those among us preaching the loudest in favor of relativism would cry bloody murder just like the rest of us if egregiously wronged. Just see what happens the next time the faculty nihilist is denied tenure when up for review.

Once it is established by our own existential makeup that there is something to right and wrong beyond the whims of those strong enough to have their way with the weak, it needs to be highlighted where these standards come from. John Frame in Apologetics To The Glory Of God writes, "Now, where does this authority of the absolute moral principle come from? Ultimately, only two kinds of answers are possible: the source of absolute moral authority is either personal or impersonal (97)."

This means that the ethical framework of the universe either arose within its own structure on its own or through the conscientious ordering of a higher organizing mind. Since we ourselves possess consciousness, by default the source of this moral order would have to be aware since it is impossible for the unaware to give rise to the aware or even to establish an ordered universe since that which is not guided and directed is haphazard and random.

If the Christian has been successful up to this point, the Christian has aided the Postmodernist in realizing that there is purpose and direction in life. The next step in the process involved proving to the Postmodernist that the Christian faith is the correct system of thought and meaning. Now the Christian can reintroduce a more traditional apologetic since the Postmodernist is now capable of stomaching objective fact.

The task of the Christian Apologist is to show the unbeliever that the Christian faith is the most viable religious option. This is accomplished by emphasizing the validity of the Biblical account. The first hurdle to overcome regards the historical legitimacy of the Gospel records. To accomplish, Winfried Corduan provides the following checklist of questions in No Doubt About It: The Case For Christianity: "(1) Are the accounts written by people closely associated with the event? (2) Are our present versions of the Gospels what the original authors wrote? (3) Are the accounts so biased as to be unbelievable? (4) Do the accounts contain impossibilities (186)?"

By answering these questions, it is discovered that the Gospels are remarkably well off. The Gospels are themselves written by eyewitnesses or contain the testimony of eyewitnesses. Corduan writes, "Matthew and John were disciples...Mark was a native of Jerusalem and present at the Gospel events...and reported the reminisces of Peter. Luke...was not a disciple...Yet tells of the research he did (189)."

Regarding the quality of the Gospel manuscripts, so many have come down to us in the present day with so few variant readings that there is little chance of some textual huckster committing documentary fraud without someone catching wind of it. As to the matter of bias, while the Gospels and the Bible were written to advance a certain perspective the same as any other book, it is remarkably blunt in cataloging the shortcomings of its most beloved protagonists. Most memoirs and autobiographies go out of their way to cast their subjects in the most favorable light possible even at the expense of factual accuracy.

Lastly, as to whether or not the Gospels record impossibilities is a matter of preconception in the mind of the beholder. One can either maintain the Humean notion that miracles do not occur because miracles do not occur or abide by the canons of historical research and accept these extraordinary events as they come since the rest of the document passes muster.

Since the Gospels are deemed as historically reliable, it would follow that those studying these document should look to those spoken thereof in its pages to provided the content and meaning of these events addressed. After all, the Founding Fathers are still looked to as important sources for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and for what was intended for the early American republic.

Likewise, to comprehend fully the significance of Jesus, the sincere student of history ought to consider what this historical figure said about himself. Jesus says in Matthew 12:39-40, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign. But none will be given except for the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and nights in the heart of the earth." From later passages detailing the Resurrection, we see that he carried through on this promise.

In Matthew 16:13-17, Jesus asks His disciples who they think He is. Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus did not chastise Peter for idolatry; instead he ratified the Apostle's assertion by replying, "Blessed are you, Simeon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

An apologetic designed to address the concerns raised by Postmodernism presents a number of possibilities as well as challenges to the Christian seeking to reach those trapped by this subtle but pervasive mindset. Crafting an apologetic addressing the spirit of the age to an extent makes the evangelistic task somewhat easier.

Postmodernism already wrests asunder most metaphysical pretensions as linguistic obfuscations protecting the powerful. Therefore, the Postmodernist has already done a portion of the Christian’s work by exposing the invalidity of most intellectual systems. The Christian can therefore rush in and expose the contradictory nature of outright nihilism without first having to tear down incorrect theologies and the faulty ethics arising from them. As a result, the Christian can then show how the alternatives found in the Bible strike the proper balance between the liberation and conformity tearing at the heart of contemporary culture and individual well-being.

However, these characteristics can also serve as drawbacks when employing an apologetic addressing Postmodernism. Even though the Apologist does not have to deconstruct (to use a term popular in Postmodernist circles) faulty conceptions of God when dealing with these thinkers, the Christian has to take the time to reestablish why anything matters at all. With those hovering around the periphery, it might be relatively easy to lure them back onto the solid ground of commonsense founded on Christian absolutes; however, those at the heart of this movement churning out its lies and deceptions will be considerably harder to convince and will continue to ensnare unreflective minds.

It is in the campaign against this ongoing subversion that the Christian waging a defensive action to preserve the remaining shreds of moral sanity can get bogged down and neglect the distinctives of the Christian faith in favor of a less offensive set of principles common to various religions and ideologies shocked by the ethical brutality of the contemporary era.

Of the crop of books over the past few years by figures such as Bill Benet, Robert Bork, and James Q. Wilson that bemoan the decline in social morality, Hugh Hewitt writes in The Embarrassed Believer: Reviving Christian Witness In An Age Of Unbelief, “But there is no apologetic content to these writings. And they are mute on the ultimate question, they are ineffective. In fact, they might actually be harmful (154).” The Christian accomplishes little of lasting impact if the message is watered down to attract allies or spends inordinate amounts of time addressing the symptoms of the disease rather than the cause.

Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual darkness in high places.” The Christian is involved in a grand spiritual conflict all around him. As in all wars, weapons and tactics change over time as each side engages in a spiraling exchange of point/counterpoint as each side tries to best the other.

In the Modern era, the Christian utilized an apologetic appealing to a common respect for objective factual knowledge shared with the broader culture. However, in the change to Postmodernism, the Christian has had to alter the apologetic to show how life without objective truth is unlivable. From that point the Apologist can go on to show how what Francis Schaeffer termed “true truth” indelibly points towards Christ.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Faith On The Final Frontier

“The final frontier” --- since the mid 1960’s these words have characterized Star Trek’s perception of the adventure and the discoveries to be found in the distant reaches of outer space. Yet can this vast interstellar ether really be said to be the final frontier in terms of providing an ultimate foundation or purpose? For despite all its wonder, at its core the cosmos is not that much different than ourselves in that its external composition is simply another manifestation or component of the physical universe.

Thus, no matter how far man might one day voyage beyond the confines of the earth, he will still require belief and value systems through which to process and understand the role of the mysteries he is likely to encounter both within the human mind and those external to himself with which he has had little prior experience. Often the fields of science fiction and future studies are used as tools by which to forecast scientific and technological developments. However, in Religion 2101 A.D., Hiley H. Ward shows these speculative methods can be used to gauge the form religion might take in the distant future.

According to Ward, the astounding breakthroughs of the future will force humanity to rethink the most basic of concepts as these will be stretched beyond traditional understandings in light of extraordinary circumstances and conditions. For example, Ward points out that the very concept of what it means to be human might be altered beyond current recognition. With the advent of artificial organs and the possibility of growing replacements in a laboratory, there could come a day when death might be delayed indefinitely.

Many would no doubt embrace existence as a cyborg (an organism half biological and half mechanical in its physiology) if the interchangeability of parts presented the likelihood of staving off the grim reaper as long as possible. Eventually, man might no longer have to endure the inherent limitations of an organic body as range, perception and locomotion could be enhanced by directly interfacing the brain with a computer controlling an array of exploratory robotic sensors (28). In essence, some could live out their lives as a stationary central processing unit while their secondary android bodies simultaneously explored both the depths of the ocean and the peaks of Mars all at the same time.

Ward predicts that these kinds of innovations will spark profound renovations in man’s religious consciousness. Faced with the overwhelming enormity of the universe, man may feel forced to cope with the daunting fruits of this exploration by downplaying his individuality by fully embracing his place as an insignificant cog in a machine. In biological and sociological sciences, this theory is known as “macro life”, the propensity to view the individual in society as analogous to a single cell in an organism (30).

Such a framework places worth and value instead on the overall group as a whole. Ward foresees this prospect taking more concrete expression in the form of a hypothetical spaceship whose command decisions are arrived at by electronically tapping into the thoughts of the crew and melding these divergent consciousnesses into a single imperative authority greater than the sum of the component perspectives. Even though Religion In 2101 AD was published in 1975, this suggestion foreshadowed its fullest development in science fiction in the form of the collective consciousness of the Borg, the cybernetic aliens from Star Trek that perceive themselves as a single entity and who value the individual members of their society as little more than drones. This concept of all taken as a singular mind bears a striking similarity to pantheism in the realm of religious studies.

The diminution of individuality will not necessarily be heralded as a bad thing by those clamoring for its demise if it can be marketed as an elevation in consciousness as an ontological unification with the universal totality. There are few greater ego boosters, after all, than considering oneself God (or at least as some tiny part of the divine intelligence).

Regarding this perception, Ward provides insightful comments from some of science fiction’s most prominent names. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry says, “Man will come to see himself properly as part of God. God is the sum of everything, all intelligence, all order in the universe...It is not inconceivable that as intelligent beings we are part of and ultimately become God, and ultimately create ourselves (Ward 136).” Harlan Ellison, author of I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, adds to this perspective: “I guess I worship man. Each has the seed of God in himself (Ward, 136).”

While the religious philosophy of the future will strive to approach the majesty and wonder of outer realities by turning inward, many adherents of the coming cosmic confession will still feel the traditional need of experiencing the divine through a relationship with or by receiving guidance from what they perceive to be an intelligence or symbol objectively transcendent from themselves. Seldom can man pull himself up by his own metaphysical bootstraps.

But whereas the so-called God of old is seen as standing distinct from His creation but actively sustaining it by His loving hand and revealing His message through angels and prophets and later revealing Himself in the form of His Son Jesus Christ, the God of Tomorrowland will employ different couriers and manifest Himself in ways actually less personable. Erich Von Daniken in Chariots Of The Gods hypothesizes that UFO’s and extraterrestrials may serve as an explanation for the supernatural phenomena occurring in ancient times when these harbingers of universal wisdom appeared bearing enlightenment. Von Daniken does not believe in the traditional conception of a transcendent God. Rather he believes in a God composed of the sum of all knowledge in the universe, of which each individual is an autonomous piece of information akin to a bit within a computer to be reunified into the singular totality once the evolution to a state of pure energy has taken place (Ward, 129).

And speaking of computers, eschatologists might take note of the role of these devices in future religious thought as considered in dramatic speculative literature. One cannot dismiss such claims on the part of the likes of Hal Lindsay or Jack Van Impe as outright exaggeration. In David Gerrold’s When Harlie Was One, the Graphic Omniscient Device (G.O.D.) is a supercomputer capable of solving all problems and answering all questions. In the novel The Fall Of Colossus, Colossus is a computer designed to administer functions on earth and is ultimately deified as part of a new religion. Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling observed, “...with increased dependence of technology, we will find ourselves worshipping at the altar of machines (Ward, 133).”

Ward does an impressive job culling through the religious insights found across an impressive array of objective analytical forecasts and fictional literary accounts. Yet it is in the final chapter where Ward synthesizes the observations found in the preceding study into his own narrative vignette that the reader gets the best feel for where these cultural trends might take humanity in the year 2101 AD. It is at this point the reader becomes most engrossed in the issues under consideration.

In the year 2101, humanity’s major religion is the Church of the Celebration of the Holy World Cosmos whose members are called “Celebrators”. Celebrators strive to embrace all the latest fads in religious thought and philosophy such as panantheism, extraterrestrial wisdom, theories of multiple Christs and avatars, and claim to value harmony and expansive tolerance above all else (Ward, 217).

The Celebrators are opposed by religious traditionalists derisively referred to as “Pewsitters” because of their insistence upon utilizing pews and other ancient religious traditions such as monotheism. The reader would initially suspect the Celebrators to be the heroes of the story since they are depicted as the vanguards of progressivism and enlightenment. However, the church to which they belong is as conniving as the most reactionary of ecclesiastical authorities.

Through an agreement worked out with the government, Celebrators are forbidden from traveling, must be free of political ambitions, and have their minds telepathically scanned to prevent disharmonious thoughts. Pewsitters forced to attend Celebrator services face possible disintegration by a laser beam if they disrupt the proceedings.

Despite the facade of technology and innovation surrounding the philosophy of religion underlying much of the science fiction addressing these kinds of questions, man cannot seem to escape his most basic requirements and desires --- no matter how much he might try to suppress them --- regarding his need for a personal God. In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, God or the “First Speaker” is depicted as a kindly, elderly gentleman who travels the universe helping where he is needed (Ward, 115).

Ward puts his own spin on this concept in his fictional vignette postulating a God dwelling anonymously among humanity as an inconspicuous New York cabbie. Fortunately, the Bible teaches that not only did a loving God come to dwell with men upon the earth in the form of His Son Jesus Christ but that He also provided for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life while He was here through His sacrificial death upon the cross and His resurrection from the dead. If that is not good enough for either the literati of speculative narrative or the mundane realist alike, that is their choice and they must live with the consequences.

When contemplating literary undertakings addressing the philosophy of religion, science fiction with its accompanying connotations of laser guns, rocketships, and creepy aliens does not initially come to mind. However, as Hiley Ward points out in Religion 2101 AD, this particular genre known for stretching the limits of perception can serve as an excellent conceptual mechanism through which to explore intimidating themes of belief we might otherwise be reluctant to approach.

By Frederick Meekins

A Christian Analysis Of Atheism

If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.

As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way.

As stated elsewhere within these introductory comments, atheism did not suddenly appear on the doorstep of the twentieth and twenty-first century fully formed demanding things like the removal of school prayer and the enshrinement of evolution as biological dogma. Rather like a weed strangling the other plants around it, today's culture of unbelief sprang from the soil in which it was planted. While atheism can trace its pedigree back throughout much of human history, a number of modern thinkers have ensured this system a place of prominence within the cultural consciousness.

One pivotal intellect laying a foundation for atheism was Ludwig Feuerbach. In "The Essence Of Christianity", Feuerbach set out to undermine the claims of the supernatural by providing religious belief with a naturalistic basis postulating that the idea of God is merely a mental projection of the goodness and nobility residing within man's own bosom (McGrath, 95). Once mankind realizes that there is no transcendent deity to rely on, Feuerbach argued, his sense of alienation could be overcome by reembracing the notions of perfectibility once reserved for God as an integral component of human nature (Lawhead, 399).

Attempting to solidify these claims regarding man's position atop a materialistic universe through a veneer of science was Charles Darwin. According to "The Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy", Darwin was among the first to popularize theories of materialistic gradualism or evolution with a naturalistic mechanism, namely the process of natural selection where adaptations are accumulated in surviving organisms and passed on to succeeding generations (177-179). According to Darwin in "The Origin Of Species", it is through the accumulation of these adaptations in response to varying environmental conditions that biologists find the diverse plethora of organisms that inhabit the earth today. Alister McGrath points out in "Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths" that "The Origin Of Species" and its ensuing theory of evolution was not accepted as much for its scientific insight than for its justification of passionately believed ideological assumptions such as the free trade policies of the English Whig Party, various strands of socialism, and assorted theories regarding the perceived hierarchy of human races and ethnic groups (161).

Standing upon thinkers such as Feuerbach and Darwin who provided atheism with theoretical and allegedly scientific justifications were other formidable intellects pursuing the implications of a social order divorced from the influence of God. One such figure drawing upon the fonts of atheism for such a purpose was Karl Marx.

Marx served as a kind of intellectual middleman between the theoretically-inclined such as Feuerbach and Darwin and the later activists such as Lenin and Mao who would adapt Marx's own writings for the actual political arena. Borrowing from the materialism of Feuerbach, Marx believed that religion and the notion of God were devised by bourgeois elites in order to subjugate the proletarian masses. Borrowing from Darwin's theory of growth through conflict, Marx believed these religious notions would have to be swept away along side with most forms of private property in order to make a way for the pending socialist utopia. Marx's call for action and summary for analysis were sounded in "The Communist Manifesto"; his beliefs received further exposition through the massive "Das Kapital", much of which was compiled by Friedrich Engels after the death of his comrade.

Another prominent twentieth century thinker dedicated to the cause of atheism was Bertrand Russell. Though best remembered in academia as a foremost philosopher of mathematics, it could be argued that Russell's most widespread contribution remains as an influential proponent of applied atheism.
The core of Russell's objections to Christianity can be found in his "Why I Am Not A Christian", which seeks to justify his religious stance as well as highlight the ramifications of such beliefs as epitomized by Russell's sexual ethics sanctioning arrangements such as trial marriages and recreational promiscuity. Russell's views regarding family life were further elaborated upon in "Marriage & Morals", a publication whose radicalism contributed to costing Russell a professorship at the City College Of New York.

Russell's primary intellectual motivation was a burning contempt for God and His divine order for man. This conclusion can be drawn from Russell's social views, which were an eclectic mixture of totalitarian and anarchistic impulses.

On the one hand, Russell supported the establishment of a world government so intrusive it would decree who would be permitted to have children. Yet Russell participated in acts of outright civil disobedience in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, thinking that the modern state had grown too powerful and destructive for mankind's own good.

In most Christian investigations into atheism, it is common to highlight the affinity between contemporary sociopolitical leftism and religious atheism. However, the increasing popularity of intellectual iconoclast Ayn Rand proves that atheism can also serve as a temptation for those more prone to classify themselves as conservatives and libertarians as well.

Calling her philosophy Objectivism, Ayn Rand argued for the primacy of reason and the individual over all other human faculties and institutions, prompting some to characterize Star Trek's Mr. Spock as the embodiment of her worldview. However, in her quest to emancipate humanity from the dangers of totalitarianism, Rand went too far in elevating reason at the expense of faith and by characterizing the living God of the universe as just another dogma bent on enslaving the minds of men not all that unlike Marxist Communism.

Ayn Rand's thoughts find expression in a number of novels and polemical discourses. "Atlas Shrugged" is remembered as Ayn's signature work extolling the virtues of nonconformity and radical individualism in the guise of a novel about an architect bending to no standard but his own. In the novel "We The Living", Rand warns of the dangers posed by collectivism to the well-being of the individual. Rand's nonfiction works include "Philosophy: Who Needs It", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and "The Virtue Of Selfishness".

Of Ayn Rand, it says in "Christianity For The Tough Minded", "her attempt to formulate a philosophy of creative selfishness will make no great impact (227)." Yet her impact cannot be denied be denied as her portrait adorns the walls of the Cato Institute and key national leaders such as former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas count themselves among her admirers.

Looking at the matter from a certain perspective, the beauty and appeal of atheism can be found in its ability to adapt to the needs of those building systems of thought and seeking to justify individual behavioral practices. Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky realized that, if there is no God, anything is possible.

The diminished guilt available through atheism may serve as a greater incentive to those flocking under its banner than any of the answers the system might provide to the universal questions asked by thinking individuals. D. James Kenendy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that Bertrand Russell may have been an atheist as much to ease his conscience regarding his numerous affairs and seductions as out of a desire for alleged rational consistency (173). The idea of God posits the notion that the right to order the moral structure of reality resides in a power beyond the level of the finite individual's control.

And control is the one thing the individual atheist is loathe to relinquish. Though one can't fault her, Ayn Rand was fifty-eight years old before stepping aboard an airplane for fear of giving up control over her own destiny to the pilots and mechanics she claimed possessed a faulty "modern psycho-epistemology" (Branden, "The Passion Of Ayn Rand, 318).

Anarchist Segei Nechayev wrote in "Catechism Of A Revolutionist", "The revolutionist knows only one science, the science of destruction which does not stop at lying, robbery, betrayal and torture of friends, murder of his own family." How much easier it is to topple the tower of morality once its foundation of concrete theism has been removed.

A classic truism teaches that if wishes were horses beggars would ride, and another piece of cherished wisdom reveals wishing for something does not make it so. These same principles apply to the longing for a deity-free universe as expressed by the thinkers profiled throughout this exposition. For even though atheists have gone to considerable lengths to implement their systems, Communists going so far as to slaughter millions of innocent individuals, atheism fails to standup to closer scrutiny on a number of grounds.

Try as the atheist might to manipulate objective data to fit their hypothesis with some evolutionists going so far as to invoke the law in order to suppress perspectives conflicting with their origins account, the assumptions of atheism fail to square with the facts of nature and with the revelation of nature's God. At one time earlier in the modern era, it was quite common for the atheist to portray himself as the true friend and ally of science. However, as impartial observational science has probed deeper onto the macroscopic realm of cosmic space as well as the microscopic world of the subatomic particle, this relationship once prided by the atheist turned out not to be as solid as originally thought.

The scientific establishment and the philosophical elites once derided the so-called "theistic proofs" for the existence of God as the outdated wisdom of a less-enlightened era. It turns out, however, that these time-honored arguments may be as relevant as the latest academic journals.
The cosmological argument, perhaps the best known, states that all finite realities and structures have a cause. Therefore, ultimately there must be an uncaused cause complete in itself in order to get the proverbial billiard ball rolling; this the theist declared to be God.

Naturalistic cosmologists steeped in atheism such as Carl Sagan once tried to dance around the issue by saying that the cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be. But it seems that the laws of physics don't exactly have a record of contributing to their local PBS station.

The Laws of Thermodynamics declare that, left to themselves, systems degrade to the maximum level of entropy; or in laymen's terms, things wear out. Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.

It has been noted that the theistic proofs do not necessarily reveal the God of Judeo-Christian adoration but at best point the seeker in His direction. Likewise, the findings of science point the individual in the direction of a yet more definitive source of knowledge standing in opposition to the claims of atheism.

Scripture strikes the decisive blow against those daring to spit cognitively in the face of God. Psalms 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
Until the scientist can replicate life on his own from nothing whatsoever, that verse settles the issue of whether the universe sings the praises of an omnipotent Creator or testifies to the cruel fact of an arbitrary universe devoid of plan or purpose. Some will no doubt continue to insist upon their own path of stubbornness despite what the very molecules they are breathing might be telling them.
Of those failing to be persuaded by the evidence, Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Webster’s defines fool as “a person devoid of reason or intelligence.” Either the educated person assents to the reality of God or his so-called “education” is not worth the value of the parchment the big-shot degree is printed upon.

If the skeptic still refuses to abandon atheism in light of the objective evidence, one is left with no alternative but to drag out the rotten fruits produced by this faulty system in terms of ruined lived and fallen nations. For instead of establishing a set of moral values resting upon a foundation apart from divine revelation as originally postulated by the adherents of early atheistic modernism, one ends up with an ethical system based upon the absolutist relativism of postmodernism where almost anything goes except daring to set forth some kind of behavioral standard binding upon all.

According to Chuck Colson in "Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages", in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God, there is no legitimate ground in which one can exclude the arguments and proposals of Nazis, serial killers, and pedophiles (47). From today's headlines, the nation is coming to realize in the most brutal of ways that these ideas do not confine themselves to academic journals or newspaper opinion pages. And in the case of school shootings such as Columbine High, this radical antipathy towards God can in fact turn deadly.

If the lawlessness of atheism can wreak havoc upon individual lives, just imagine its affects magnified across entire societies. The major dictatorships of the twentieth century testify to this blood-soaked historical truth. Founded upon assorted atheistic ideologies, these totalitarian regimes promised secular heavens on earth but instead dragged their nations down to the very borders of hell.
Unfettered by eternal external standards, those holding the reins of power in such societies had nothing to hamper the implementation of their most extreme policy whims, not even the value of innocent human lives. For example, Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China slaughtered five million of his own countrymen in pursuit of his Cultural Revolution and related kinds of Communist nonsense.While the United States has not yet eliminated that many (at least among those fortunate enough to escape the womb alive), the Orwellian day is here when good will be called evil and evil called good. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett aptly noted on an appearance on "Meet The Press" that, had the Columbine killers greeted one another with "Hail the King of Kings" rather than their trademark "Heil Hitler", school officials would have intervened since an affirmation of theism --- especially of a Christian variety --- is the one thing an atheistic educational system cannot tolerate. School officials did not intervene and the rest is history, with organized unbelief claiming yet a few more in its unrelenting war upon God and humanity.

As public rhetoricians are fond of pointing out, mankind stands at a crossroads. The choice, however, goes to a level deeper than the choice between Democrats and Republicans that Americans must make on election day.

The decision to be made transcends the limited purposes of institutionalized politics to embrace fundamental issues of worldview and belief. The nature of this conflict can be discovered in a comparison and contrast between atheism and Christianity.

From the fundamental postulate regarding the nonexistence of God, atheism attempts to formulate a comprehensive framework upon which to hang its understanding of mankind and the universe. Without God to account for the cosmos in which they find themselves, atheists argue that the complexity of nature arose through a process of gradual evolution governed by the rules of chance.
This process of evolution, to the atheist, serves as the dynamic against which man strives to find and determine his role upon the earth. As such, everything is thus in a state of flux and nothing is fixed as man struggles to figure things out against the backdrop of a cold and purposeless void.

Not even fundamental issues such as individual rights, personal ethics, or social institutions can afford to remain fixed and stagnant. And if innocent human lives are ruined or destroyed, that may seem regrettable at this moment along the long evolutionary chain, but mankind will ultimately get things worked out and the piles of corpses littering history’s ditches will not seem so nauseous upon further enlightenment.

Of these ideas, Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Any history book objective enough to attest to the horrors of the twentieth century testifies to this startling truth.

Standing in contrast to the lonely pointlessness of atheism is Judeo-Christian theism recognizing God as the fundamental proposition of the universe. Like atheism, the Judeo-Christian tradition builds its system around its conceptual foundation as well. But since its basis is drastically different from that of atheism, the conclusions drawn by Christianity are considerably different.

Christianity holds that, since the universe was created from nothing through the Word of God, all creation is dependent upon Him at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “...by him all things consist.”
Since man is God’s creation, it is therefore God’s right to determine the standards by which man shall conduct his own affairs. And since God loves His creation, it follows that His standards are for the benefit of His children. These standards are communicated to mankind in a number of ways.
One such way is through individual conscience. Romans 2:14 says, “For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” While God has written the Law across the heart of man, man has suppressed this truth through sin.

God has overcome this development by making Himself known in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and through the direct propositional revelation of His Word and the Holy Bible of which II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” It is within this framework of Law and Grace that the balance between the individual and society is found as this system and the objective standards established by it protect the individual since it recognizes the worth and fallen character of each. That is why Psalms 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Atheism remains one of the most serious intellectual challenges faced by the contemporary Christian. Despite its obvious scientific and sociological shortcomings, the powerful adherents of this system positioned in influential sectors of society such as government and academia have enshrined this worldview as the official dogma of civilization nearly as stifling as anything allegedly imposed by the medieval Catholic Church.

Yet despite considerable efforts to enforce this system as an orthodoxy that goes so far as to jail students daring to pray around a flagpole, like its sister system in the former Soviet Union, Western atheism is a decaying ideology. It is amid this decay often resulting in social and individual ruin that the Christian is able to proclaim the superiority of the theistic alternative and the God of its adoration.

by Frederick Meekins