How to Win Plants and influence Animals

How to Win over Plants and influence Animals . 


I think what I would like to question is the idea of projection in Religion. The idea of projection is interesting and I will limit myself to that for now at least..That would seem to indicate that the writer or writers (on the presumption that there is no God) had so many psychological problems that they should have or could have been locked up long ago. For being guilty of the propagation of which is obviously for some people according to the theory of projection  a  delusion held by a group or and an individual.. However since the writers of the Bible for example to mention but one religious book appear to have written it at different times hundreds of years apart that particular conclusion remains problematic. In fact of course the ideas expressed in this projection if that is indeed what it is are so preposterous as to be laughable,bushes not being consumed by fire as in the story of the burning bush in the story of Moses. Everyone knows combustible material will burn away in the presence of fire given no retardants are present.. There surely can be no other possibility. at least naturalistically speaking..Of course the making of the world ex nihilo ie out of nothing when every sensible person knows according to the conclusions of the projection theory that indubitably the world came about by time-plus chance plus nothing and the stellar dust or matter has always been in existence eternally one might say.The Big Bang put the planets almost mathematically in or about given a few light years here or there in their place and the known Universe having come about by time plus chance plus nothing(let's make it nothing nothing as Dr Schaeffer would say:makes it more exciting does'nt it.!))we can  despite that even make calculations on observable data and that science is objective and is not and does not have prior presuppositions attached to it and that scientists never never never have personal pre scientific opinions about their scientific endeavours. (See Michael Polanyi “Personal Knowledge” for a thoughtful examination of that very point.) and that only time plus chance plus nothing is the ONLY way the Earth could have come into being and no other idea by law should be or is allowed to be taught especially in America in especial Creationism or Intelligent design.I myself am not commited to either camp  for I have a view ofScripture and by text and context with good exegesis of passages I somehow navigate my way by the Grace of God. Of a certainty too of course we would certainly think the Founding Fathers statement in the USA would not have been so foolish as to necessarily imply the actual existence of God and any evidence to the contrary in the Bill of Rights is obviously a case of verbal gymnastics as is for example in the statement issued in Vatican Two when liberal theologians and the Conservative Orthodox were evenly balanced and what you read can be read in a different way entirely. Alice in Wonderland lives again, a word means what I want it to mean linguistic practice and verbal gymnastics and verbal inflation being one of the symptoms of the age. Football teams get reported as having been massacred and the whole losing team troops of the pitch nothing worse for wear except in the score.Having a wicked time as these dating ads we are assualted with late at night means having a good time.A good time means of course in that context and with that implied sexual innuendos means for Christians that they would indeed have a wicked time and also that God would not hold them guiltless,that being the case of course that He is there and He is not silent.  Obviously natural selection as Darwin outlined it is an explanation one would say as a projection theorist and not an explanatory theory and as evolutionary biology would atempt to postulate a line or lines of Progress. (Now, there's a word worth contemplating.). Some of course would say that the presence of the possibility of natural selection itself is unverifiable, unknowable and unprovable. Of course it must have happened that way as Darwin said and after all it is not his fault no one thought of it before him except Huxley of course and what will we say of these millions who believed otherwise and were prepared to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs and often did. Most of the gospel writers were crucified. The very idea of the story of the Tower of Babel story accounting for language difference and language structure is of course totally improbable and wildly erratic.It must be a projection because of course a priori there is no God. Of course Noam Chomsky makes some interesting points re language(see the little article byAaron Stark) but after all not all of us are fans. Everyone knows that mankind first appeared in one place and they just decided it would be better if everyone spoke differently with different languages, different dialects,different cultural meanings even attached to the language they use.Of course language aqquisution is problematic too but"light will be shed..) Darwins great Pumpkin will gain the power of speech and all will be revealed in the great nineteenth century tradition of the inevitability of progress.The twentieth Century was a rude awakening for many. The evidence for the last hundred  years or so points to a wildly different conclusion. Of course who needs good evidence when bias and pre scientific presuppositions can guide us to the conclusions we so ardently desire. These things language, etc, the idea that humanity is better,different,more able, than it's cousins as Dawkins claims who preceded it is going to in and of itself  aid peaceful living is worthy of a Karl Jasper.It is so much bigger,brasher and without foundation of all the projection theories put together including  Marxism which is a Christian heresy.It is the last gasp leap of an optimistic evolutionary humanism of man being the measure of all things which the breezy Dawkins holds on to without a quaver in his voice amazingly since the Twentieth century just passed has probably been the worst centurythat mankind has ever known for the concentration of hatew and worlwide slaughter on a scale unimagineable before.Of course if we go to the original scenario as postulated by Darwin (Hitler found the theory handy).for of course they found themselves continually fighting and generally wreaking havoc amongst themselves because of the survival of the fittest which happily for some resulted in the survival of the fittest which of course meant that the fittest survives. Ce la vie..Even though the amoeba down the road was a fellow traveller on this ever optimistic road from Brigadoon to Glockamorra that seems to lead nowhere, that has no guides,in order to lead only to a big cliff that we must all fall off one day except of course Enoch who walked with God,amazing,Lazarus who was raised from the dead,astounding, and the Christ,the son of the living God who after three days was resurrected and appeared to over five hundred people with even his digestive organs intact for He ate some fish. Give me a break for everyone knows that some God figure cannot come back from the dead unless He wants to. Also that about donkeys speaking, like Balaam's ass did , give me a break,everybody knows it could only be a God that could get an ass to speak and that he,we are asked to believe he spoke in a logically coherent manner.. Since we assert there is no God it clearly is quite impossible a priiori .As for the Israelites escaping from Pharaoh and the pursuing Egyptians getting drowned in the Red Sea with their chariots and then sometime this year someone finding Chariots in the Dead Sea well that' is just the long arm of coincidence. Why there would have to be a God who could do that and of course anyway God does not love us as anyone who knows of Jesus Christ,the king of the Jews, as the Romans named him dying on the cross for sinners like ourselves could say.Well what a load of nonsense for everyone knows God is not like that,He is a far off God who does not give one hoot about human life. Of course other people say that we are trying so hard to escape from reason. That there is the God who is there. That He is there and He is not silent,that there is a Genesis in space and time, that it happened in space-time history as Dr Schaeffer and the Bible say. That God walked with Adam in the cool of the day because He simply loved him as another person.After all they say He had plenty of experience.each other- a person to person relationship that Adam and Eve had before the historic space time fall and God loved it, not because he lonely for He was not. He enjoyed human company. We do. Why should God be denied the possibility. God took a day off not because He needed it but because His creation did. That creation  is not all powerful and self sustaining like Him. He sustains it then and now or so the theory goes we say.

It is I must admit evidential, not compelling but worth a Pascal kind of bet I would say if you decide in favour after weighing all the evidence. It is after all an evidentially based religion unlike others which are either infinite but impersonal, personal but finite and ours of course which iws based on a God being there who speaks about who He is,What man is, where the world its order annd conformity to established laws and even given the historic space-time fall still retains a deep down beauty as Gerard Manley Hopkins would say. Optimistic evolutionary humanism may seem faith based at times but of course it is always  chance+time =plus nothing,always the same regardless of its formulation and leading of course via natural selection, survival of the fittest, the selfish gene,regardless of the religious crutch as if we were limping, leading to the conclusion that we as secularizers, and being naturalistic allies rationalistically seek with the idea of inevitable human progress to the bright sunny hills beyond where the Wizard of Oz will supply our every need..

Every other God I notice though does not come down and be born of a virgin be a man and live an innocent life,claim to be God, and make the lame walk, the blind see,the thirsty fill with better wine made from water at Canaan,save a woman from stoning for adultery, forgive her her sins,turn the rich man away because he would rather trust in riches than in God,raise Lazarus his friend from the dead,claim Divinity with His Father,be judged by a kangaroo court,illegally meeting in the night, with not enough present at the meeting,be turned over to the Romans, the occupying powers for sentence and Him being declared innocent and the Judge washing his hands of the case saying "what is truth" and being betrayed by all His followers, betrayed by His own people who bayed for His blood to be shed, who would rather free a criminal than have an innocent man not suffer,to want Him to be scourged illegally,mocked unmercifully,with a crown of thorns forced on His head,to be crucified,a cursed death, to hang in agony for hours and then freely give up the Ghost. If He was God He could not be killed. And then rising again appearing to people, eating some fish and rising to Heaven in the transfiguration .And not to mention coming again about icing on the cake. That is a real stunner. That was a nice touch,very skilful. For a fiction, for a projection, the Bible is remarkably crafted no wonder it is the most popular book in the world. Easy Booker Prize winner, an Oscar winner made into a film. Outright winner of the Cannes Foreign Language film in New Testament Greek and to say that He Jesus wanted all this suffering and so did His Father in order to take the sins of the world on Himself Jesus and make man free. What kind of love is this. Who would or could conceive such a plan,die on the only evidence provided by His life and works and words of being good and performing miracles,so be judged innocent and handed over to a mob to be killed. It's obviously nonsense isn't it. Non- sense. Why the whole population of the Earth all die and are replaced entirely in 130 years or less allowing that they live near that long with good health, no war, or famine ,disease, or die of thirst or bad management of resources. What would be the point of His sacrifice anyway. if that is the case and it is.It's not as if the saved are going to live for ever and the guilty suffer the punishment they so richly deserve. Bring back Hitler, not in my watch, I hear them say. Death is always the end of course there can be no doubt of it, we arrive in pain and the first thing we get is a smack and we are innocent then we die sans teeth,sans eyes,sans everything and no significance can be safely attached to either event so we say. Everyone knows that trees evolved,why you only need to look at them to see that, to produce oxygen and the algae to eat up carbon dioxide. Evolution the great white black, yellow ,red ,pink and points in between made it that way. And man's identity,personality and creativity,coming from God :of course not, for everyone knows that man's identity and longing for significance comes from single celled organisms that somehow appeared on the land and grew wings from legs,oops of course they grew legs first and perhaps then they developed eyes and hollow bones so they could fly. Scientists these Bible believers point out tried to prove aeronautically that what we know here as bumble bees in Britain cannot fly but the trouble is that the silly bumble bee does not listen to scientific opinion and flies anyway. Bumble Bees obviously do not listen to evidence and continue to fly. Of Course everyone knows that all laws too are man made and that the Bible-oops I nearly said inspired came up with some good ones (good-what is that-don't ask me- I might be tempted to tell you.)and of course all laws are man made and do not reflect inalienable rights because of course they can be taken away by statistical averages, the fifty-one percent vote,or by oppressors or ruling intellectual elites. Why even now it is the West's reliance on population control by natural selection that keeps the African continent lagging behind. The so called third world, when if you ever deigned to ask them you find that they want the same things that we want, good earthquake proof housing in affected areas, good housing generally,good food, clean water,good government,peace and tranquillity, good medical services,good law, no military or other coups,protection for the sick and poverty eradicated,an end to unclean water carrying killer diseases like cholera etc.,better protection for women,better flood control, better management of natural resources including good management and protection for animals and plants. and the Brazilian Rain forest in South America to mention somewhere else. Better drug control of research drugs for health and controlled substances like heroin.. All that sounds like us. What if they were like us would our life as we know it be affected? What if one day they compete.?,It is better for us if they are called third world and that then creates a nice buffer Zone that no one ever talks about and we are absolved of responsibility for them .Let's scrap the second commandment, we should never have written that down. People might take it seriously. All the above being missing is effectively keeping them under control. Every five seconds it succeeds. All hail natural selection we know inevitably as the rationalist humanist that he is will march on in a bright sunlit path to the unknown future. Dawkins believes it,Dawkins believes he is the cousin of an ape, so my question is to him, why does he not  insist that he wants to be treated like one. Of course he could be,in another presuppositional apologetic as a human being ,made in the image of God cogently, responsible, able to use and understand language effectively,able to create far more ,to a greater extent than anything else on the planet, even to aggree like for some of us to want a relationship which is what our religion is.. Can Dawkins be true to his presuppositions and live out in the real world without demanding things like freedom and responsibility?.Why should we let him wander free. Things like him belong in Zoos where we can admire his nineteenth century optimistic evolutionary stance. We should have him of course if he does not confess, in a cage with Darwin's motto inscribed and I quote”Light will be shed..He is obviously a danger to society being what he claims he is..However I have to admit I am a born again believer so I would hope his heart could be changed and do the honourable thing and invite him in  to my house to discuss with meand offer him a banana.  Francis A Schaeffer did not believe it was all a projection and put forth cogent reasons as to why not.,Doug Groothuis does the same and he is no slouch, and he like Francis Schaeffer is no slouch. Hans Rookmaaker did not believe it,J P Moreland does not either,Nancy Pearcey (and see her book(Total Truthfor Nancy's viewpoint) ,Alvin Plantigna does not believe it either,(do a Google search on these names if your thick hairy appendages will let you Mr Dawkins. And of course my readers too to whom I would extend the same advice. Of course these are only names to readers and what does anyone know of anything anyway since knowledge is debatable. Epistemological basis for belief is impossible some say and anyway what does it matter,the rat is in the trap until it dies, sans teeth,sans eyes sans everything. Man as Sartre says is a useless passion. I hope you make the right choice for there is a choice to be made..There is a story of a man who jumped from a fifty story window and tragically the story of jumping from great heights is fraught with difficulties. However this particular man as he was falling down was heard to mutter"so far,so good". As I say with John Three and Sixteen in mind I hope you the reader make the right choice.make the right choice .

He either fears his fate too much or his deserts are small
Who will not put it to the touch,to win or lose it all.
See Pascals Pensees for further details.

Modesty,Maidenhood, the Hidden Art of the Feminine with a word to Men.
First of all greetings to all
of you, in the name of our beloved Saviour,Our Lord Jesus Christ to whom we owe everything. For the male readers I would simply say that we need to greet each other and assert ourselves in a compassionate, and firm and gentle way to each other as men within the Christian community of brothers and sisters in Christ. That we should wish to learn yet again to value the feminine,( see my article here called More Enlightening News) for girls are not,lays one nighters,,and all the other nasty stuff in words and deeds that are paraded around by men as being somehow manly. It most definitely is not. It is demeaning, nasty and rude and we should weep with repentance before the Throne of God for it. If you looked for me in that throng some time ago sadly you would have seen my face. Girls I apologise. You are not candidates for the big brass bed as Dylan used to say, (I am not sure what he says now?)but of course within the marriage vows including trust,honour and love, where there is mutual agreement and no cruelty etc. etc. there is biblical room for love, for sensation for enjoyment.
As the Bible itself says and do not forget this is God himself speaking to mankind."The marriage bed is undefiled." So girls if your gentle and considerate and hopefully Christian husband wants to enter the bedroom in a glorious and unusual way to display how much he loves you swinging on the chandelier in his smalls and exclaiming in glad tones " Thank God for donated ribs" fear not gentle damsel for God smiles on him no doubt with possibly an admonition to watch out for the safety only of the roof. For you,He smiles on you too in your clothing or lack of it with perhaps the only admonition that the chandelier should not be over the bed but some distance from it to allow for your safety. Perhaps a spare mattress could be provided under the chandelier to avoid injuries to a ultra keen husband.
I am thrilled to be a man,I am excited to be a man , I am glad to have in my heart and a desire to see in general culture a high place, a high place that the Biblical narrative can provide,the high place e that some misplaced feminist ideology has taken away from women. Power for a man or a woman is not necessarily hardness, and hardness of heart too. Who is the most powerful man ever to be then or ever on Planet Earth?.It was Jesus. Who was the most compassionate man in the New Testament that took steps to save the woman caught in adultery and forgive her sins and set her free without asking for sexual favours I might add. It was Jesus. Who was moved so much by the woman who bathed His feet,dried them with her hair,and nourished and cared for them by the use of a fragrant and very expensive ointment with love and humility. It was Jesus. Who was it that wept and we do not know the duration or extent of that weeping (and He was angry too,at death, as the original text in Hebrew Aramaic makes plain),there is our model. Jesus. He is our standard for belief, for behaviour, for honouring women. For the girls now for I have delayed speaking of you for a reason. When at the wedding in Canaan they were short of wine Jesus made the water into wine and one guest said something like this " ah you have kept the best wine until the end",going from plonk to champagne. You are the champagne in life, you are the cream in our coffee, the milk in our breakfast cereal,the icing on the cake. You are what keeps the human race alive. Men cannot do it. As ones who spread the evangel, the good news of Christ the Messiah, we all can sow seed in the dark,hidden in the ground,and the ground of your being,but it is God Himself who gives the increase. So it is with you, you give the increase by the Grace of God..
The next abbreviated and sadly true story is for background only to my next point. I live alone now. Since 1990. Not a situation I welcome. God is discreet at times and in the watches of the night when sadness and loneliness threaten to overwhelm He sends me the Comforter who gives me songs in the night even before I think of praying,even while the tears come. I asked the Lord a long time ago that He would make my desert blossom as the rose and my situation has been relatively unchanged since 1994 but He has taught me,He has like the Good Shepherd he is,left the flock to find the single sheep that was lost and swept it up into His arms and has carried it ever since. He still does bless Him. My wife was unfaithful and cruel,she she still is as my ex-wife and she said she was a Christian. As the good book says "ye shall know them by their fruit".I have two children from the marriage who I can never see and three grandchildren who I have never seen. I was betrayed by my best friend from Bible College days and I came in early and found him in a place where he had no right being being intimate with my wife. This is not to express my grief,God watches over me and I am grateful for my tears,it has taught me compassion for which I praise God. It is an illustration from true life to partly at least express graphically the damage that happens through ill thought sexual liaisons to which I have heard described as slam,bam,thank you mam, and please forgive the crudity expressed there .It is no part of me thank God. That action and attitude does great and lasting damage to women and to men too though they need educating about it. The damage is spiritual not physical unless there are STD's present in which case for many in Africa for example for men and women it can be fatal. Men's brains are low slung from birth and it usually takes some time for them to reach their heads. Their thought patterns are located often between their hips. Not all men are like this but a distressing amount are. Men sometimes too are emotional dwarfs. I would recommend a Scottish Film put out on worldwide release called "Gregory's Girl" which illustrates the whole point in a very funny and sensitive way which is not rude,smutty, or foul-mouthed and treats girls with honour respect and sensitivity which I am sure all may enjoy. I would suggest that you take it out on loan and watch it together,have a nice laugh and discuss it in the light of scripture. The film is by Bill Forsyth. I have wandered but the point is in all this that marriage is a divine institution invoked and honoured by God and it provides both safety,love,encouragement,forgiveness and good nurture for children who come from the union. Virginity then is a great boon,innocence is not naivety,Jesus was innocent but not naive. Virginity preserves you for someone who loves you above the waist,above the breasts, for someone who cannot think of anything apart from His love of God himself to have you as his blushing bride. For better,for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health and forsaking all others and to honour you,love you,respect you, adore you as long as you both shall live so help you God. To mention men again briefly,men react badly to indiscreet clothing choices by women. Same for women. Or to put it another way we all need water,life is impossible without it. New Orleans was devastated by the levies breaking and there was many deaths because of the floods. In other countries when Tsunamis have struck because of earthquake tremors there far out at sea there has been devastation of lives and many deaths. Unbridled lust has the same effect. So you can possibly imagine my delight when I came across a particular site called http://feelinfeminine.com/ with such beauty in feminine clothing like that womanhood becomes fascinating again, it is like imagination and mystery and beauty and truth restored to the world. The difference if you like between Lord of the Rings and Jerry Springer. Why do I say that you might well ask,it is because of the clothing,no longer contours to distract but character to enjoy (contours are still noticed and delighted in even by a sixty year old like me)but they do not invade my space, they do not introduce smut into my life by kicking in the door to help let lust come charging in. It is grace that greets me,I love clothes like that preserving the proprieties but leaving a little bit of magic and mystery behind for the male imagination. The reason is that men are very visually oriented. So to continue I by the way would heartily recommend the books by( the Schaeffer's, Francis A Schaeffer and Edith his wife) but in particular Edith Schaeffer whose books "L'abri","Hidden Art" and "What is a Family" are very helpful for family life. The home schooling books by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay based on the Charlotte Mason method could also be useful as you think through the idea of marriage and family life. Perhaps a critic might say in terms of my choice of feminine clothing I would have liked for my daughter Rebekah I suffer from too much Jane Austen ,Emily,Dickinson,Little House on the Prairie. Edith Nesbit,my friend Irina (Ratushinskya),in nourishing in your children to be a love for the arts and humanities,these things are not wrong in themselves necessarily. We bow to scripture properly understood,text and context. She like me writes poetry but her own is light years away from mine in quality. These people may have a point,I don't care. My hope is fixed on nothing less than the restoration of a high view of women,where honour and respect for each other is encouraged and enhanced,where women again find their true place,women were not made from man's feet to be ruled by men, they were not made from man's skull to rule over men,they were made from man's side, to be a companion,a friend, to be co-equals to His Grace and to have friendship with God again now through our Lord Jesus Christ who in His substitutionary death made a way for us back to God.. We were not worshipping God as such in Genesis but we were friends with God. He did not limit himself in his Godhead walking in the Garden of Eden but He loves His creation for the same reason we love ours and that is because we made them ourselves. We are personal, we share the capacity of personal beings like God for we are made in His image. We are not Infinite, as He is infinite, we are not all powerful as He is all powerful but the reason He made mankind was not because He was lonely. He is a Trinitarian God,God the Father,God the Son,God the Holy Spirit. It pleased him to make us. Where it all goes wrong is in the historic space time fall where mankind sinned. Then all including the Earth goes all pear-shaped . That is the reason why the husband has the place he has, it is not because he is better, it is because of sin. That is the same reason why the wife has the place she has, it was constituted as a protection for both until full redemption is gained partly by Christ's life, death,and resurrection,partly by future events that God will be in charge of. Meanwhile for us we are sealed for redemption now and glory in due time. but the point is that even in this life we can work together towards our final restoration which is promised. The Lion will lie down with the Lamb praise God. Proverbs 31 is helpful in showing that where women can be strong,buying and selling land etc. and so can their husbands and there can be mutual care,love and faithfulness and respect between them. The family who prays together bonds better and increase their chances of staying together even in the world we live in now where divorce is considered normal. It is not. Normal is God's will. Anything outside that is not. This is where a man calls himself blessed when he has found a good wife for her price is far above rubies. When they stick by each other, are faithful to each other and their children are safe,nurtured and blessed and grow up to make wise choices and good marriages if they marry and if not that can be fine too .The readiness is all for both possibilities,Then the parents can feel blessed by God and so they are. Others might have different blessings now. We all have an individual life to lead whatever our situation. May we by the Grace of God see this happening in our lifetime and may God bless us and keep us in His so glorious redeeming love.

Escalator,Stairs and the Third Way to God

People choose the stairs or the escalator for the benefits that accrue to them or the bother they can avoid if lazy. Apologetics in a way starts off in the very basics by people being presented with the clearly evidentially laden indications of God's existence in the Universe that is made, that is our dwelling place,in its form and order and in what Dr Schaeffer would call the mannishness of man,his character,his personality,his capabilities,his language skills, his creativity,his cruelty,his nobility etc and etc .The Earths continuance in relative stability speaks from itself that the God who created and sustains it is (Infinite) and that He(personal) ,the infinite/Personal God from His word,the revelation of God to mankind is a rewarder of those that seek Him. If my own earthly and beloved father (named Francis too ) ever sent me to the shop as a young boy for shopping for the family he would sweeten the task by saying I will give you threepence ( a now discarded coin with fond memories for me) and I would be smiling to myself, running all the way (even though that was not necessary nor in the instructions) and with the shopping get my self a McCowans Toffee or a Tobermory Tattie which was a slightly hard sweet with a little toy inside which you had to bite into to get the toy out to play with. If my father ever forgot to give me the gift which he did not ,Mary ,my mother (also the name for the mother of Jesus) would have done so .The stairs or the escalator in I hope the accompanying short video are like all the other faiths in the World where on one side you have to work to get to God i.e. the stairs,the other choice is where you are carried along and upwards you give up then your free choice,your free will,( which in a way is a misnomer since we are all marred by the historic space time fall and therefore are no longer free both to know or and to choose correctly) and get carried along by sensation,by emotion, by indoctrination, as in the Divine Light Mission ,(which I was in )by disturbing our categories as in Zen Buddhism (which I was involved with ,both of them Eastern religions of a sort.etc. Our God .the Judaic-Christian God,the God who answers by fire,the One I returned to like the prodigal son I am for I was reminded that He is the only God that is recorded as coming down and dying for us .He comes down to us for He unlike all others knows we are war wounded,He knows we cannot help ourselves, He knows that we now have a disposition to hate Him since the historic space -time fall of Adam spoken about in the first chapters of Genesis and He uses that hatred of Him we have for we are willing to and did put Him to illegal trial,illegal punishment,illegal crucifixion of an innocent man by a kangaroo court convened at night,betrayed by His own,(Judas )Disowned by His own, three times (Peter) condemned by His own people the Jews to send His love and forgiveness and restoration and blessing for his own people the Jews, for us as Gentiles too now grafted into the vine,all to save us in and through the works and the person of Christ His only begotten son,Our Saviour and Lord. Our hate was be used by God at tremendous cost to Himself for our Redemption by His sacrificial substitutionary death on the Cross and his glorious Resurrection. Rembrandt did a painting of the Crufixion scene with his own face among the throng.If we had lived at the same time I would have asked him if he would put mine.My song then is love known,not totally for I and we all shall never know the full extent of the cost of His love for us. Such things are beyond us all to bear or understand. But more than enough is testified of and known to me to have me kneel gladly before Him in love and adoration and acclaim Him Lord of all . This is the greatest love story ever told This unlike the film "Love Story" is being sorry, being forgiven for we need to confess , the prodigal son rejoiced over at his shamed return. He made the blind to see, the lame to walk, the hungry fed,the thirsty at a wedding given the best wine made from water by Him and their thirst quenched,the dead friend wept over, then raised from the dead, the woman caught in adultery saved from being stoned and being forgiven, the sinner forgiven, the poor in heart given the Kingdom of God,the rich being warned of the taint of riches used selfishly,the strangers to each other being made a band of brothers by blood spilt and iron nails driven in to open and willing hands and feet, the Devil himself faced down,proved false and faithless and impotent to destroy Christ. If we cannot weep with joy unspeakable and full of glory and gladness and learn to worship this God who has defeated death already and will do once more and forever, as John Donne says Death thou shalt die. A God that heals broken hearts and Heads and I know,O how I know the truth of that every single day then no amount of reasoning will compel by apologetic method someone into the Kingdom of Christ our Lord.Finally it is always love that brings the lost sheep home, I know for I was one (I've got a ram's horn on my stick to prove it-smile) finally it is Love that has the last word for God himself is love

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary Theory

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary Theory
Share
Monday, 21 September 2009 at 03:22 Edit note Delete
Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary TheoryShareMonday, 21 September 2009 at 03:22 Edit note DeleteAs evolution via natural selection as a theory is based on the operation of time and chance plus nothing it is extremely unlikely that life forms if ever they existed via this theory would ever move from simple to complex forms and we see in nature the opposite is true so this whole theory must be regarded with the suspicion it deserves.Trees are interesting in terms of evolutionary theory There seems no reason in evolutionary theory for the list of benefits both tangible and intangible, that trees give us. First of all, as we all know, trees are the most important and the only natural source of oxygen in the atmosphere. Without oxygen, life is not possible on earth. Trees consume the carbon dioxide from the environment and give out oxygen which balances the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxidein the atmosphere. In addition to this, the wood that we obtain from trees is used in making paper, building houses, making furniture etc. Some trees even have medicinal value. Roots of trees under the surface are a natural water cleaning system. Trees are the reason all human life exists on earth.Did these involve from a survival of the fittest.Did these give medicinal value as a part of "natural selection".Did they learn how to get energy from the sun as the result of millions of years of development.What meaning does it all have if so.What purpose if any does it have except the survival of the fittest which means the obvious fact that the fittest survive.Wasn't it handy for the Earth that trees presumably evolved to give us oxygen especially when you consider every type carries out the same function.How convenient too for the Earth that the Sun on which we depend stay pretty close to us for a almost indefinite period and I have never heard any idea that the position of the Sun in relation to the Earth be anything other than probably time plus chance plus the presumed big bang .Have morals evolved and if so they it could be argued must be adaptable to individual social situations and not necessarily to group more's..Words,grammar, languages,belief systems,literature,drama, art etc etc nothing is outside its reach.If it is thought so true so why then do evolutionists still rely on everything in their scientific attitude,lifestyle, form of Government in the West that originally flowed from a Judaic-Christian base.Could they be secretly afraid of De Sade's dictum that"Whatever is,is right."Could they be afraid that Christianity is true and that the great Pumpkin in the sky is really responsible for it all.Everything based on the idea of one man.Why even Judaism,even Christianity,even Judaic-Christianity is not based on one man alone."Llight will be shed..."mutters Darwin in a triumphal last second burst at the end of the famous book born of unfounded optimism of nineteenth century humanism.Of course I have to believe like Darwin that light indeed will be shed but the quality and source of that light I expect will come from quite another direction.Isaaih was quite fulsom about it in his time ,so is John in the book of Revelation.

Some preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary Theory

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary Theory
Share
Monday, 21 September 2009 at 03:22 Edit note Delete
Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evolutionary Theory ShareMonday, 21 September 2009 at 03:22 Edit note DeleteAs evolution via natural selection as a theory is based on the operation of time and chance plus nothing it is extremely unlikely that life forms if ever they existed via this theory would ever move from simple to complex forms and we see in nature the opposite is true so this whole theory must be regarded with the suspicion it deserves.Trees are interesting in terms of evolutionary theory There seems no reason in evolutionary theory for the list of benefits both tangible and intangible, that trees give us. First of all, as we all know, trees are the most important and the only natural source of oxygen in the atmosphere. Without oxygen, life is not possible on earth. Trees consume the carbon dioxide from the environment and give out oxygen which balances the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxidein the atmosphere. In addition to this, the wood that we obtain from trees is used in making paper, building houses, making furniture etc. Some trees even have medicinal value. Roots of trees under the surface are a natural water cleaning system. Trees are the reason all human life exists on earth.Did these involve from a survival of the fittest.Did these give medicinal value as a part of "natural selection".Did they learn how to get energy from the sun as the result of millions of years of development.What meaning does it all have if so.What purpose if any does it have except the survival of the fittest which means the obvious fact that the fittest survive.Wasn't it handy for the Earth that trees presumably evolved to give us oxygen especially when you consider every type carries out the same function.How convenient too for the Earth that the Sun on which we depend stay pretty close to us for a almost indefinite period and I have never heard any idea that the position of the Sun in relation to the Earth be anything other than probably time plus chance plus the presumed big bang .Have morals evolved and if so they it could be argued must be adaptable to individual social situations and not necessarily to group more's..Words,grammar, languages,belief systems,literature,drama, art etc etc nothing is outside its reach.If it is thought so true so why then do evolutionists still rely on everything in their scientific attitude,lifestyle, form of Government in the West that originally flowed from a Judaic-Christian base.Could they be secretly afraid of De Sade's dictum that"Whatever is,is right."Could they be afraid that Christianity is true and that the great Pumpkin in the sky is really responsible for it all.Everything based on the idea of one man.Why even Judaism,even Christianity,even Judaic-Christianity is not based on one man alone."Llight will be shed..."mutters Darwin in the triumphal burst of unfounded optimism of nineteenth century humanism.Of course I have to believe like Darwin that light indeed will be shed but the quality and source of that light I expect will come from quite another direction.Isaaih was quite fulsom about it in his time ,so is John in Revelation.

A Christian Manifesto -Francis Schaeffer

A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTOFrancis A. SchaefferCHAPTER ONEThe Abolition of Truth and MoralityThe basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals. They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in world view - that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people's memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different - toward a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. They have not seen that this world view has taken the place of the one that had previously dominated Northern European culture, including the United States, which was at least Christian in memory, even if the individuals were not individually Christian. These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results - including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law. It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results. Why have the Christians been so slow to understand this? There are various reasons but the central one is a defective view of Christianity. This has its roots in the Pietist movement under the leadership of P. J. Spener in the seventeenth century. Pietism began as a healthy protest against formalism and a too abstract Christianity. But it had a deficient, "platonic" spirituality. It was platonic in the sense that Pietism made a sharp division between the "spiritual" and the "material" world—giving little, or no, importance to the "material" world. The totality of human existence was not afforded a proper place. In particular it neglected the intellectual dimension of Christianity. Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a small, isolated part of life. The totality of reality was ignored by the pietistic thinking. Let me quickly say that in one sense Christians should be pietists in that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, even the right doctrines. Every doctrine is in some way to have an effect upon our lives. But the poor side of Pietism and its resulting platonic outlook has really been a tragedy not only in many people's individual lives, but in our total culture. True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful - which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual. Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ's miracles, Christ's substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths. When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality - the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth - Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually - and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is - brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results. Now let's go over to the other side - to those who hold the materialistic final reality concept. They saw the complete and total difference between the two positions more quickly than Christians. There were the Huxleys, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), and many others who understood a long time ago that there are two total concepts of reality and that it was one total reality against the other and not just a set of isolated and separated differences. The Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933, showed with crystal clarity their comprehension of the totality of what is involved. It was to our shame that Julian (1887-1975) and Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), and the others like them, understood much earlier than Christians that these two world views are two total concepts of reality standing in antithesis to each other. We should be utterly ashamed that this is the fact. They understood not only that there were two totally different concepts but that they would bring forth two totally different conclusions, both for individuals and for society. What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth with inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law. There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty because what their liberal theology really is, is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms. An example of this coming down naturally on the side of the nonreligious humanists is the article by Charles Hartshorne in the January 21, 1981, issue of The Christian Century, pages 42-45. Its title is, "Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View." He begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion is, "Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants." He then, logically, takes the next step: "Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does." No atheistic humanist could say it with greater clarity. It is significant at this point to note that many of the denominations controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and strongly, in favor of abortion. Dr. Martin E. Marty is one of the respected, theologically liberal spokesmen. He is an associate editor of The Christian Century and Fairfax M. Cone distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago divinity school. He is often quoted in the secular press as the spokesman for "mainstream" Christianity. In a Christian Century article in the January 714, 1981, issue (pages 13-17 with an addition on page 31), he has an article entitled: "Dear Republicans: A Letter on Humanisms." In it he brilliantly confuses the terms "being human," humanism, the humanities and being "in love with humanity." Why does he do this? As a historian he knows the distinctions of those words, but when one is done with these pages the poor reader who knows no better is left with the eradication of the total distinction between the Christian position and the humanist one. I admire the cleverness of the article, but I regret that in it Dr. Marty has come down on the nonreligious humanist side, by confusing the issues so totally. It would be well at this point to stress that we should not confuse the very different things which Dr. Marty did confuse. Humanitarianism is being kind and helpful to people, treating people humanly. The humanities are the studies of literature, art, music, etc.—those things which are the products of human creativity. Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things. Thus, Christians should be the most humanitarian of all people. And Christians certainly should be interested in the humanities as the product of human creativity, made possible because people are uniquely made in the image of the great Creator. In this sense of being interested in the humanities it would be proper to speak of a Christian humanist. This is especially so in the past usage of that term. This would then mean that such a Christian is interested (as we all should be) in the product of people's creativity. In this sense, for example, Calvin could be called a Christian humanist because he knew the works of the Roman writer Seneca so very well. John Milton and many other Christian poets could also be so called because of their knowledge not only of their own day but also of antiquity. But in contrast to being humanitarian and being interested in the humanities Christians should be in alterably opposed to the false and destructive human' ism, which is false to the Bible and equally false to what Man is. Along with this we must keep distinct the "humanist world view" of which we have been speaking and such a thing as the "Humanist Society," which produced the Humanist Manifestos I and II (1933 and 1973). The Humanist Society is made up of a relatively small group of people (some of whom, however, have been influential—John Dewey, Sir Julian Huxley, Jacques Monod, B. F. Skinner, etc.). By way of contrast, the humanist world view includes many thousands of adherents and today controls the consensus in society, much of the media, much of what is taught in our schools, and much of the arbitrary law being produced by the various departments of government. The term humanism used in this wider, more prevalent way means Man beginning from himself, with no knowledge except what he himself can discover and no standards outside of himself. In this view Man is the measure of all things, as the Enlightenment ex' pressed it. Nowhere have the divergent results of the two total concepts of reality, the Judeo-Christian and the humanist world view, been more open to observation than in government and law. We of Northern Europe (and we must remember that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are extensions of Northern Europe) take our form-freedom balance in government for granted as though it were natural. There is form in acknowledging the obligations in society, and there is freedom in acknowledging the rights of the individual. We have form, we have freedom; there is freedom, there is form. There is a balance here which we have come to take as natural in the world. It is not natural in the world. We are utterly foolish if we look at the long span of history and read the daily newspapers giving today's history and do not understand that the form-freedom balance in government which we have had in Northern Europe since the Reformation and in the countries extended from it is unique in the world, past and present. That is not to say that no one wrestled with these questions before the Reformation nor that no one produced anything worthwhile. One can think, for example, of the Conciliar Movement in the late medieval church and the early medieval parliaments. Especially one must consider the ancient English Common Law. And in relation to that Common Law (and all English Law) there is Henry De Bracton. I will mention more about him in a moment. Those who hold the material-energy, chance concept of reality, whether they are Marxist or non Marxist, not only do not know the truth of the final reality, God, they do not know who Man is. Their concept of Man is what Man is not, just as their concept of the final reality is what final reality is not. Since their concept of Man is mistaken, their concept of society and of law is mistaken, and they have no sufficient base for either society or law. They have reduced Man to even less than his natural finiteness by seeing him only as a complex arrangement of molecules, made complex by blind chance. Instead of seeing him as something great who is significant even in his sinning, they see Man in his essence only as an intrinsically competitive animal, that has no other basic operating principle than natural selection brought about by the strongest, the fittest, ending on top. And they see Man as acting in this way both individually and collectively as society. Even on the basis of Man's finiteness having people swear in court in the name of humanity, as some have advocated, saying something like, "We pledge our honor before all mankind" would be insufficient enough. But reduced to the materialistic view of Man, it is even less. Although many nice words may be used, in reality law constituted on this basis can only mean brute force. In this setting Jeremy Bentham's (1748-1842) Utilitarianism can be and must be all that law means. And this must inevitably lead to the conclusion of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935): "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." That is, there is no basis for law except Man's limited, finite experience. And especially with the Darwinian, survival-of-the fittest concept of Man (which Holmes held) that must, and will, lead to Holmes' final conclusion: law is "the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others." The problem always was, and is, What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny? In contrast to the materialistic concept, Man in reality is made in the image of God and has real humanness. This humanness has produced varying degrees of success in government, bringing forth governments that were more than only the dominance of brute force. And those in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view have had something more. The influence of the Judeo-Christian world view can be perhaps most readily observed in Henry De Bracton's influence on British Law. An English judge living in the thirteenth century, he wrote De Legibus et Consuetudinibus (c. 1250). Bracton, in the stream of the Judeo-Christian world view, said: “And that he [the King] ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, whose viceregent on earth he is, for though many ways were open to Him for his ineffable redemption, of the human race, the true mercy of God chose this most powerful way to destroy the devil's work, he would not use the power of force but the reason of justice.” In other words, God in His sheer power could have crushed Satan in his revolt by the use of that sufficient power. But because of God's character, justice came before the use of power alone. Therefore Christ died that justice, rooted in what God is, would be the solution. Bracton codified this. Christ's example, because of who He is, is our standard, our rule, our measure. Therefore power is not first, but justice is first in society and law. The prince may have the power to control and to rule, but he does not have the right to do so without justice. This was the basis of English Common Law. The Magna Charta (1215) was written within thirty-five years (or less) of Bracton's De Legbus and in the midst of the same universal thinking in England at that time. The Reformation (300 years after Bracton) refined and clarified this further. It got rid of the encrustations that had been added to the Judeo-Christian world view and clarified the point of authority—with authority resting in the Scripture rather than church and Scripture, or state and Scripture. This not only had meaning in regard to doctrine but clarified the base for law. That base was God's written Law, back through the New Testament to Moses' written Law; and the content and authority of that written Law is rooted back to Him who is the final reality. Thus, neither church nor state were equal to, let alone above, that Law. The base for law is not divided, and no one has the right to place anything, including king, state or church, above the content of God's Law. What the Reformation did was to return most clearly and consistently to the origins, to the final reality, God; but equally to the reality of Man - not only Man's personal needs (such as salvation), but also Man's social needs. What we have had for four hundred years, produced from this clarity, is unique in contrast to the situation that has existed in the world in forms of government. Some of you have been taught that the Greek city states had our concepts in government. It simply is not true. All one has to do is read Plato's Republic to have this come across with tremendous force. When the men of our State Department, especially after World War I, went all over the world trying to implant our form-freedom balance in government downward on cultures whose philosophy and religion would never have produced it, it has, in almost every case, ended in some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism. The humanists push for "freedom," but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that "freedom" leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and society. CHAPTER TENBy Teaching, by Life, by ActionWhat does all this mean in practice to us today? I must say, I really am not sure all that it means to us in practice at this moment. To begin, however, it certainly means this: We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth totally different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more certain than in law and government - where law and government are used by this false view of reality as a tool to force this false view and its results on everyone. It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; it was not only in 1776 where he was right: he is right in our century. All we have been saying is relevant for the present moment, and especially in such areas as abortion. You will remember, however, that the primary consideration we have been dealing with is the possibility that the window which is now open might close. But the First Track is based on the window being open at the moment and our taking advantage of it. We must not be satisfied with mere words. With the window open we must try to roll back the results of the total world view which considers material-energy, shaped by chance, as the final reality. We must realize that this view will with inevitable certainty always bring forth results which are not only relativistic, and not only wrong, but which will be inhuman, not only for other people, but for our children and grandchildren, and our spiritual children. It will always bring forth what is inhuman, for with its false view of total reality it not only does not have a basis for the uniqueness and dignity of the individual person, but it is totally ignorant as to what, and who, Man is. As we think about these things, we must think about one other factor: Those who have the responsibility as Christians, as they live under Scripture, must not only take the necessary legal and political stands, but must practice all the possible Christian alternatives simultaneously with taking stands politically and legally. In Whatever Happened to the Human Race? we stress this in regard to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia of the old - that Christians must not only speak and fight against these things, but then must show there are Christian alternatives. But it must not only be in regard to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia that alternatives are practiced. They must be practiced in all areas. This is so, and especially so, even when it is extremely costly in money, time, and energy. As a positive example, the Christian Legal Society has set up a service for mediating disputes. I would say that is a Christian alternative. In a number of places crisis pregnancy centers have been set up. That is a proper alternative. We should be practicing these alternatives in all areas even as we stand legally and politically against our present society's and government's wrong solutions for the ills of humanity. We indeed are to be humanitarians in living contrast to the inhumanity brought forth by materialistic humanism. Now I must quickly say there are going to be people who say, "don't use the legal and political means, just show the Christian alternatives." That is absolutely utopian in a fallen world, and specifically in a world such as ours at the present moment.But while it is utopian to say, just use the Christian alternatives and do not use the political and legal means, on the other hand, it is also incomplete and wrong only to use the legal and political means without showing forth the Christian alternatives. It is incomplete in conviction and will be incomplete in results; and it is wrong to the reality of the God we say we are obeying. If we do not practice the alternatives commanded in the Scripture we are not living under the Scripture. And if we do not practice the bottom line of civil disobedience on the appropriate level, when the state has abrogated its authority, we are equally not living under the Scripture. I would conclude by summarizing this Manifesto as follows: 1. The Reformation in Northem Europe not only brought forth a clear preaching of the gospel, but also brought forth distinctive governmental and social results. Among these was a form-freedom balance in government with its series of checks and balances. There was great freedom without the freedom pounding the order of the society to pieces because it was contained by the Christian consensus. 2. In the middle of the last century, groups began to enter the United States in increasing number which did not have the Reformation base. These enjoyed the freedom, though their base would not have produced it. 3. The greatest shift came with the rise of the material-energy, chance view of final reality. This view was completely contrary to that which had produced the form-freedom balance in the United States with its resulting great freedom. This mistaken view of what final reality is leaves no room for meaning, purpose, or values in the universe and it gives no base for law. This view brings forth its natural results in all fields, and these results are the opposite of the natural results of the final reality being the personal God. The humanistically-based view of final reality began to be influential in the United States about eighty years ago. Its control of the consensus has become overwhelmingly dominant in about the last forty years. The shift has affected all parts of society and culture, but most importantly it has come largely to control government and law. These, then, have be come the vehicle for forcing this view (with its natural results) on the public. This has been true in many areas including, especially, the way it has been forced on students in the schools. A media which almost entirely holds the same world view has added to all this. 4. The world view which produced the founding of the United States in the first place is increasingly now not allowed to exert its influence in government, in the schools, or in the public means of information. The result of the original base in the United States gave the possibility of "liberty and justice for all." And while it was always far from perfect, it did result in liberty. This included liberty to those who hold other views—views which would not give the freedom. The material-energy, chance view has taken advantage of that liberty, supplanted the consensus, and resulted in an intolerance that gives less and less freedom in courts and schools for the view which originally gave the freedoms. Having no base for law, those who hold the humanist view make binding law whatever they personally think is good for society at the moment. This leads increasingly to arbitrary law and rulings which produces chaos in society and which then naturally and increasingly tends to lead to some form of authoritarianism. At that point what the country had in the first place is lost and dead. 5. What is now needed is to stand against that other total world view. We must see and make clear that it is not the truth of final reality; and we must understand and show that it is producing its own natural results which are opposite to those upon which the United States was founded. It is opposite to the great freedoms produced which everyone now enjoys. What is needed at this time is to take the steps necessary to break the authoritarian hold which the material-energy, chance concept of final reality has on government and Law. 6. The result would be freedom for all and especially freedom for all religion. That was the original purpose of the First Amendment. 7. With this freedom Reformation Christianity would compete in the free marketplace of ideas. It would no longer be subject to a hidden censorship as it is now. It can and would give out the clear preaching of God's "good news" for individuals, and simultaneously it is also the view which gives the consistent base for the form-freedom balance in government and society - the base which brought forth this country with its freedoms. It is the responsibility of those holding this view to show it to be unique (the truth of total reality) for individual salvation and for society - by teaching, by life, and by action.

Some Thoughts on Rock Music

Some thoughts on Rock Music
Share
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 07:24 Edit note Delete
Here are some thoughts about music and in particular Rock Music for that has in a sense laid down the background for the Zeitgeist for the age we are in. Francis Schaeffer speaks of several prominent rock and roll musicians in his writings, notably The Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, and others. Early Christian rock musicians, such as Larry Norman, also credit Schaeffer with encouraging and influencing their work. Schaeffer did not disparage the music of the 1960's and 70's, but rather used the lyrics and personal lives of the musicians to highlight faulty perspectives on life and Christian alternatives. Schaeffer was known for listening carefully to the messages of both the cultured elite and the popular culture, and discovering both positive and negative qualities therein. He was also one to affirm creative expressions by Christians that emphasized a more adequate world-view. Several musicians--and broader trends in music they exemplify--are not specifically named by Schaeffer, yet who represent some of the ideas expressed by Schaeffer about modern Western culture in general. A distinction can be made between the form or structure of rock music, and its lyrics or content. Such a distinction is important since the verbal content of music can be subjected to literary and philosophic critique, whereas style is more likely to be evaluated subjectively. At the time of Schaeffer's early writing, many in the church condemned rock music as inherently decadent. Too often that critique was more of a reaction to unfamiliar and undesired music forms rather than serious study of the lyrics and world views they reflected. Rock music comes in many varieties, thus making a comprehensive definition difficult. Common among most rock music is a heavy beat, often accentuated by drums and/or bass guitar. A second characteristic is the generally loud public performance of rock musicians, although there are exceptions to this tendency. Third, the guitar is basic to most rock music, again with exceptions. From the inception of rock music in the 1950’s these traits have generally characterized this form of music. Yet within that form, there is considerable freedom, to use Schaeffer’s terminology. The form can make the music predictable, as well as providing a context for resolution, yet the freedom within that form gives variety and makes it interesting to those who appreciate the form. Similarly, Schaeffer seen that freedom within form is as essential to a Christian base for music and diverse areas of human life, including government, art, and other areas. In rock, the freedom of variation often moves to the limits of the form by means of unusual resolutions within and at the conclusion of a song. Occasionally one finds rock music without resolution at the conclusion, or perhaps with only partial resolution. This can leave the person with a sense of incompleteness. However, full resolution is more commonly found, as it is the case in most Western music styles. Generally rock accentuates notes just prior to the beat or "the off beat," characteristics also found in jazz and some classical music. Casual observation by some has provoked the comment that there is a violation of the form (the beat), but careful listening would suggest otherwise. The sequence is predictable, and the beat is not lost in the process. In reality, this characteristic is actually a form within a form, a music form adapted from earlier styles of music such as trad jazz and spirituals. Occasionally the form may be described as replacing the content (lyrics) of rock music, illustrated by lengthy instrumentals or distorted lyrics. This practice may at times in modern classical music appear to be an attempt at expressing "a universal" or "upper story" experience as described by Schaeffer as noted in his studies on Karl Jasper for example in philosophy. A "total experience," mystical in nature, is similar to Jaspers thinking in philosophical terms in music which is produced by the overwhelming beat and distortion. One feels as much as hears the music. Lengthy rock songs often have a thundering conclusion, suggestive of an absolute expression of truth, much as Schaeffer describes Jasper’s "final experience."One aspect of rock music performance, only peripherally related to the music form, is the costume of the performer. These may reflect the values of the performer, or at least the values the performer wishes to project as a part of his or her image. Expensive costumes reflect the value of prosperity, while casual clothing may express a reaction to formality or even materialism. Perhaps unusual clothing may reflect a rejection of the then norms of society. Several trends are found in rock music which have been repeated a number of times in its history. Perhaps the most common is romanticism,which is still a strong influence in today’s rock. Most of the early rock musicians, including Elvis and the Beatles, expressed romanticism in their lyrics, portraying an extremely idealistic and often self-centred love. Such romanticism reminds us of Michaelangelo's "David" which Schaeffer says represents a person that has never existed nor could ever exist in this fallen world because of its perfection. As a result, the youth seek an idealistic love in ideal circumstances which is far from what can be reasonably expected in normal human relationships. Attempts to apply such idealism to relationships inevitably results in failure, as all human love is marred to a greater or lesser extent by the fallen nature of mankind and nature. Of course failure of love also constitutes a key theme in modern music. Romanticism from its nineteenth century roots developed into a bold eroticism in rock music.. Elvis may have been a major contributor to this trend, as he combined wholesome lyrics with actions considered suggestive at the time. Because of his sensuality, he was often filmed only from the waist up. One of his nicknames for example was Elvis the Pelvis In a sense, this can be seen as an expression of hedonism, with sexual pleasure – implied by the performer’s actions or lyrics – being regarded as the ultimate value. Schaeffer saw the contradiction between Elvis’ suggestive actions and relatively innocent lyrics as indications of a deeply divided man. This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when one considers the regular use of drugs during Elvis’ later life, while simultaneously releasing records with religious content. Later, rock lyrics implied that sex provided meaning. Yet such a conclusion has little to support it; sex in itself can be only physical activity without meaning or purpose, an activity humans hold in common with animal life. Sexuality becomes beautiful and meaningful only with a sufficient Biblical basis (love) and within a Biblically mandated context (marriage).Another trend of the early 1960’s was that of social activism. Peter, Paul, and Mary, as well as Bob Dylan, exemplified the movement toward "relevance" in music. Yet many of the concepts used were borrowed from political left wing ideology and sometimes from Rousseau’s humanist Enlightenment philosophy. The quest for the "noble savage" surfaced in the accompanying hippy movement and in the Woodstock festival. A great deal of positive value can be seen in the social activism of the 1960’s. Racism was exposed and deplored, a problem long ignored by the Christian church.However the deaths which saw the Hells Angels involved and the toll of sorrow from heroin addiction etc etc showed tragically that though the protests were valid reactions to what was going on they had an insufficient base and were bound to fail. Indeed speaking of racism there was and still is a significant problem of racism(1) in many churches. However, as Schaeffer states, when the church has failed to confront this problem, it not only went against Biblical values but also against the historical record of Christians fighting injustice. An outgrowth of the activist trend in music was the anti-war statements found in much of the music in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. This movement underscored the value of human life, a value too often ignored today by the pro-choice movement. The inconsistencies of the older generation and their bankrupt values of personal peace and affluence needed to be pointed out, as Schaeffer states. Unfortunately, the assessment was accurate but the solution they offered was insufficient, Schaeffer concludes. From social activism came a darker revolutionary stream of thought in the music of the late 1960’s. The leftist stance implicit in many of the lyrics of this time – such as John Lennon’s "Imagine" – is itself without an adequate philosophical base. Schaeffer called Marxism a Christian heresy – the humanitarian words were stolen from the Bible, which set apart from a Christian framework can only produce totalitarianism. The lyrics of some rock music may be understood as a correlate of philosophical existentialism. In the face of the view held of an irrational universe without meaning, the individual may make a "leap of faith" i.e. Soren Kierkegard which can seem to create a sense of meaning for a particular person, although ultimately meaninglessness remains. Songs such as "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas express the meaninglessness of the universe, while "Bridge Over Troubled Water" by Simon and Garfunkel suggests that another person can become one’s source of meaning. An ultimately humanist idea. Both Judy Collins and Simon and Garfunkel illustrate attempts at deep sharing of feelings, and the result can be seen as very beautiful lyrically,yet vague notions of existential meaninglessness come through now and then (see "Patterns" by Simon and Garfunkel).Simon and Garfunkel included many themes commonly found in the literature of existentialism, such as death and suicide,(2) and residing in the background is the lack of ultimate meaning in life. For example Sartre is quoted as saying "Man is a useless passion "The beauty of their expressions belies the despair of their conclusions. Paul Simon continued to produce reflective music as a soloist in the 1970's, then fell into acute depression in the early 1980's. It was not until his widely popular "Graceland" album (recorded with a South African Christian group, with a title that he emphasizes speaks more of a state of grace that he once again gained the spotlight. Two of the following albums in the 1990's have emphasized occultic mysticism and inner city decadence (the latter including many of the worst possible expletives. The value of mystical experience became prominent in rock lyrics as early as the late 60’s in some of the lyrics of the Beatles, when they were visiting Eastern gurus such as the Maharishi. The non-rational thought forms of Eastern thought, both that of a religious and a philosophical nature, made many question the value of Western logic and philosophy. A well-known group of this era, the Moody Blues, spoke often of the mystical "OM" the impersonal god found in Eastern literature. Mysticism could also be artificially induced with the use of drugs. In the early 1970’s radio stations were forbidden to play songs glorifying drug usage,Such as the Beatles in their music of that time expounding the use of LSD a theme very prevalent in the rock music of that era. Music by groups such as Pink Floyd intensified the popularity and the influence of drugs. Occultic music joined the stream of mystical rock in the 1970’s. Groups such as Black Sabbath sang of the "Master of the Universe," in which the master was Satan. The rock music of the 1970’s included most of the trends mentioned thus far, and a new disturbing direction surfaced in the development of "punk rock" and its variations. This trend reflected a much more pessimistic outlook than the earlier music, a nihilism lacking any trace of optimism.The roots of punk rock go back to an often overlooked genius of the 1960’s and 1970’s, Frank Zappa. In his music, Zappa seemed to perceive the irrationality and inconsistency of any optimism in music. He indicated this by mocking the 1950’s and 1960’s styles of rock because of its empty romanticism. He deplored the "flower power" of the hippies. In 1967 he produced an album, a "Sergeant Pepper" lookalike which he titled "We’re Only in it for the Money," implying his perception of the motivation for the Beatles’ work. Zappa satirized the Rousseau-like optimism of the day by placing vegetables on the cover picture where flowers had been on the Beatles album, and replacing the picture of the Beatles in band uniforms with his own male musicians dressed in drag.Early in the 1970’s Zappa began exploring what Schaeffer calls "electronic music," essentially random sounds of instruments and other sources of noise, often lacking resolution. Zappa called his music "dada rock" after the fragmented art form by that name, and eventually made a movie – 200 Motels – in which he attempted to visually portray the meaninglessness and fragmentation of being on the road. "Electronic music" also was used experimentally by the Beatles: "Revolution Number Nine" on their white album.Zappa’s quest later deteriorated to sheer absurdity and finally to pornography – he has the dubious distinction of being among the first to record the worst possible obscenities in the late 1960’s. The use of obscenity was an expression of opposition to society’s values and thus similar to the "dirty speech movement" which derived from the earlier "free speech movement" that Schaeffer describes. This philosophy of negation rather than affirmation of some alternative seems fundamental to modern punk rock. Today with the proliferation of permissiveness, Zappa’s music has lost much of its shock value; he is now just another musician not much different from the others. In the years before his death in the mid 1990’s, Zappa addressed congress in his attempt to keep restrictive labels off of obscene and profane albums. Zappa’s early experiments and insights caused him to look widely for rock groups which departed from the mainstream. He founded his own record label, "Bizarre," and signed on such unusual groups as Wild Man Fisher, who could spend several minutes mouthing unusual noises into a microphone and pass it off as music. In Zappa’s effort to offend he also introduced an all lesbian group, an innovation unheard of in the early 1970’s.Another group Zappa associated with was Alice Cooper, which used violence on stage, such as killing live chickens, portraying the nihilistic stream of his thinking. Zappa was reacting to the meaninglessness of his parents' nominal Catholic faith, and extended that anti-religious zealousness to religion in general. Yet the alternative he offered was not always clear. Not all of the rock musicians of this era were content with emptiness and decadence. In the early 1970’s Noel Paul Stookey broke with his group – Peter, Paul, and Mary – after a conversion experience. In his public testimony of that era, he spoke of his quest for truth and meaning,which eventually led him to talk with Bob Dylan. At that time not a Christian, Dylan pointed Noel to the Bible. Stookey withdrew from the music scene for several years before returning to release only Christian music. Others, too,reportedly turned to the Christian faith, such as Barry Maguire and more famously Bob Dylan. Stookey has since done concerts of folk music, with an occasional folk gospel song, And, of course, the 1970's, 80's, and 90's saw the emergence of Christian rock and roll as an alternative industry, with a few artists of note such as Stryper and Petra. In general, the Christian rock groups have tended to be heard only on the Christian radio stations operated, supported, and listened to by Christians. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s many in the liberal churches accepted rock music without much question, particularly that which confirmed its own left wing orientation. Most evangelicals, on the other hand, held back from involvement or dialogue because of fear. Few understood the content of the music, and the thought forms were quite alien because the church had stopped listening long ago to what the world was saying. Since there was no true dialogue with the musical philosophy of its time – with a few exceptions such as Francis Schaeffer.. Paul knew the Greek philosophy of the time, and challenged those who worshipped the unknown God on Mars hill . Yet he did so without compromise. What a vivid example for the church today as we speak to the thought forms of our day, so often reflected in the language of rock music. The church’s response to rock’s godless effusion has itself often been godless, showing God’s hatred for sin but not his love for sinners… Absent is the approach of the apostle Paul, who reasoned with sceptics… Absent is the desire expressed by Peter, that his readers should always be prepared to explain their hope. Absent is the attitude Francis Schaeffer displayed in his booklet "Art and the Bible." Looking at Giacometti’s sculpture portraying man’s alienation, Schaeffer said, "I can understand what he is saying and I cry." Some walls are so thick that only God’s love can break them down.Many of the themes Schaeffer develops in his books are reflected to a greater or lesser extent in the popular music of the 1960's and 1970's. Others, too, have noted that the music of that era reflects many philosophically-relevant themes (see Philosophy at 33 1/3 RPM by James Harris, for example). The music and other creations produced by an era tends to reflect the major concerns of that era, as Schaeffer brilliantly stated in the first paragraph of How Should We Then Live?:There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind--what they are in their thought-world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity. The same applies to classical music and to sociology and Avant Garde music. the philosophic world view people hold will determine to a greater or lesser extent will show eventually in their music .John Cage for instance believes in chance and so his music reflects that conviction. Leonard Cohen is another well known singer whose despair shows in many of his lyrics. I enjoy rock music but I have learned to listen better as I realise now that many of the ideas expressed within it and my experience of it was at times an unthinking one and that was a failing, a failing to accept the Lord had his proper place as the Lord of all of life and rock music as one part of a greater whole.

Notes
1 see Sylvester Jacobs book "Born Black" for a personal account of what it is like to be born black.

2.In music " Needle of death" by the Scottish musician Bert Jansch speaks of the tragedy of heroin addiction.