Bad Magicians Monday, May 11 2009

Evolution is quite a hot topic in the socio-political realm of America. The debate normally centers around what we as a nation are going to teach our children in public schools while we as a nation would do better to worry about what we are teaching them in private homes. Like any other bipartisan American debate, the debate must inevitably become political and along with modern politics must come science to verify anything. Therefore, the religious right has their panel of scientists and the liberal left theirs. But my problems with the arguments from proponents of evolution do not have much to do with science. I do not wish to join the ranks the “Intelligent Design” movement. Though I believe basically everything they believe and I am sure there is plenty of evidence suggesting a designer, I cannot bring myself to fight science with science. The problems with evolution are much less complex than comparing an Evolutionist’s intricate scientific notes with a Creationist’s.

The Scientism that engulfs this age is a wasteful and sometimes destructive idolatry. Men become depressed and seek the medicine men of this age and culture to cure themselves. Similar to any other primitave role of medicine men there is not much regard for the side effects of the cure and even less regard for evidence showing the cure to hardly even cure. I have noticed a recent commercial stating that 2 out of 3 people on depression medication still suffer the symptoms of depression. I would normally think it a skewed statistic that is an attack from people like myself  who dislike the entire profession of psychiatry. This commercial, though, was an advertisement for yet another depression medication. The biggest problem with modern science is that it offers more of what obviously is not working. For the massive amounts of time and money poured into fixing depression I only see the world getting more depressed. For the massive amounts of antibiotics that the diseases are beginning to grow immune to, I only see more diseases. I by no means wish to say that science is failing in all respects. It certainly succeeds in saving lives, but it fails when the world puts on its back the overwhelming load of saving humanity.

Science is now worshipped. If something is going to be fixed, we believe science will fix it. If something is going to be invented, we believe science will invent it. But most often science fixes what is not the real problem and invents something that is either useless or that can create as much evil as good. Science can invent all the green energy it wants but I am sure the green tycoons will be as greedy as the oil tycoons. Science can create the newest and most expensive technologies for luxuries that create even more vices. Science can figure out how to keep everyone alive while everyone goes on still  not knowing how to really live.

Humanity expects from science something it never should have been intended to deliver. Men seem to ignore the fact that science is a tool used by men. Or rather they forget that men who use tools are either evil or good. Men ignore the bad science. The accidental creations of new diseases or the evil science of dictators. Other than humanity remaining completely oblivious to science being vulnerable,  the most annoying part is the scientist (and I mean the devout evolutionist) having a massive hatred for religion by ignoring all the good that has come of it. They seem to always have problems with religion (specifically Christianity) and never take any time to notice the good of the Christian church in history. They constantly bring up the evil deeds done in the name of Christianity and recognize the good only as instinct. Aside from it being a very arbitrary dichotomy, the biggest problem I have with it is that such a mindset fails to recognize one of the most central points of Christianity which is that, just like its founder, the Christian faith made itself vulnerable to all the evils created by men. That just as Christ himself was tempted by sin, so the church itself is tempted by sin. I defend religion in general, but also realize that, like science, it is a tool used by men. Christianity has willingly thrown itself into the pile of tools that make up the world’s religions, but, unlike the other tools of the world, I have found Christianity to be the right tool for fixing humanity.

Among the evolutionists poor attempts to speak about religion there are constantly poor attempts at philosophical inquiry in general. Most of the scientists leading the charge with evolution have placed themselves in the difficult philosophical position of being strict materialists. Materialism has been criticized for being a stark and bleak ideology. I can only agree. In fact, I will make the sweeping statement that most of humanity agrees. That there is matter and only matter really is a “long corridor of darkness” as I once heard it described. It is such a dark corridor that even the scientists who believe in it cannot walk down it. When most scientific materialists are called out on this they resort to some form of the modern atheism known as existentialism. That we might make our own meaning. That we as humans can generate from our beings some type of purpose or hope to make ourselves greater. This ends up being the general belief of the materialists. The problem is they have to stop being materialists to do it. They have to suspend the dogmatic rules of scientific experimentation for a few moments because they realize they cannot experiment in ideologies and philosophies. They all of the sudden “believe” in generating meaning from our own beings without any of their precious peer reviews or evidence to uphold such a belief. But those same peer reviews and that same evidence is paramount when it comes to a discussion about the existence of God.

I am sure that they can explain to us how their scientific discoveries are of dire importance, but they have to momentarily stop being strict materialsts to do it. They must at some point do something other than find evidence. They at that point become philosophers. They leave the courtroom they spend so much time in claiming that science, under no exceptions, has the order. Then, unnoticed, they sneak into the courtroom where science has merely a vote.  

As a proponent of religion I extend scientists the courtesy of discussing science without holding ONLY bad science against them, but they do not extend the same courtesy to religion. Evolutionary scientists have gotten a huge vote in the realm of discussing philosophy even when they are not very good at it. Why modern scientists hold so much weight in the two realms of religion and philosophy perplexes me greatly. Their two cents has become four. Because they deal with matter their certainty and knowledge is more valued even when the discussion deals nothing with matter. It is my conclusion that modern science is like a bad magician. If everyone stops gawking at his supposed power and pays even child-like attention we all see that he is doing something other than magic right in front of us.

Comments Off

 

Fire and Pocketknives Thursday, Apr 30 2009

When I was young, a great deal of men and their sons on my father’s side of the family would take camping trips. These trips were some of the most enjoyable times for both of us. It is interesting though how camping is described as relaxing when it is actually men ridding themselves of all the conveniences of life and having to do more work to survive. Two tools that seem to be eternally necessary for such survival are a pocketknife and a fire. Blades, in some form or another, have existed for a very long time. Fire from what I understand has been manipulated by men since the dawn of civilization. This is for good reason. The practical uses and versatility of both are unmatched.

I have used a pocketknife for an array of activities. I have tried my hand at art or passing the time by widdling pieces of wood. The pocketknife can make open things that need to be open. I have sliced things open and pried things open with it. It can cut away excess and waste.  I have used it as a screwdriver to tighten what should be tighter. It can certainly be used as a weapon to defend oneself against enemies. When dressing game it makes it easier for men to get to the meat. It is concealable and not easily taken.

The fire is a comfort for the camp. It is like the mother of men in the camp be they soldiers, hunters, travelers, or simply campers. It is the last thing most of the men in a camp see before the dark night. Men gather around it for warmth. It can prepare the men food and make light in the darkness. It can destroy all that is unwanted or unnecessary. It can be a warning signal or even a weapon. It is not stationary. Wherever the fire is there also is the camp. It is the marker for where everyone will inevitably gather.

The versatility of these things is interesting. They are many different things because they are one simple thing. A pocketknife is not versatile like a Swiss army knife is versatile. It is not many different tools by posessing a conglomeration of many different tools in one contraption. It is simply a blade. For all that you can use it there is probably a tool out there made specifically for that use. The pocketknife is always a make-shift something or other. It is not versatile because it is many things but because it is one thing. The same is true for fire. It is so many things, paradoxically, because it is merely one thing. Its constant state of burning is the tool of tools. Its movement and action make it seem practically alive which is comfort itself when alone in the wilderness. It is always being one thing. And that one thing is needed in so many different ways.

The pocketknife is a sword. Its sheeth is inherent. As small a sword it may be it is quite effective for many differnt things. Fire is active and moving. Even if it dies it can certainly come back to life. Fire and pocketknives are useful and their usefulness exists because they are constantly only one thing. They have been useful for ages for all the same reasons and same needs humanity has had for ages. However useful all the modern tools may be they are usually only able to conveniently do one thing. Remote controls, microwaves, transmissions, lamps, massage chairs, flatscreen tvs, light switches, etc… Fire and pocketknives do and have always done the same things which seem to usually be the most needed things at the time of survival. Especially in this time of dwelling in the ruthless wilderness of secular humanity, I find it no coincidence that we as a Christian faith refer to our Scripture as a sword and the Holy Spirit as fire.

Comments Off

 

The Better Part of Valor Tuesday, Apr 14 2009

“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own.” – G.K. Chesterton

The Christian church has always been a proponent of humility because the humility of it’s founder is so extraordinary. I can never detest humility. It is a quality all men should strive for. It is a quality the church should strive for because pride can destroy any church so easily. However, I find the problems with the modern church are rooted not in being too proud, but in, if possible, being too humble.

The new objective of the modern church has transformed from getting it’s regular attendence to take something deep and sacred outside it’s walls. The objective now is to get it’s irregular attendence to see something shallow and trite inside it’s walls. This new objective is most easily attained by not offending any of the prospects it wishes to see sitting in the aisles. This avoidance of stepping on the toes of secularized humanity has created a Christian church lacking valor for the things it holds sacred. For the sake of not offending anyone, the modern Christian defends nothing. The modern Christian, if he knows anything of his own beliefs, is never very proud of his own beliefs. The false and circular virtue of open-mindedness is battered over the heads of “religious” folk by the ogre of secular humanity who now humbles the church more than anything else. The church has taken in secular humanity’s idea of humility and ignored the thing that humbled in the first place.

When it comes to other cultures and  religions, men praise characteristics of closed-mindedness. When it comes to Christianity, men despise them. We love the Irish because of their reputation as proud and fighting folk. Native Americans are adored because of their festivals remembering their honored traditions. Society, especially modern American society, relishes when other religions or cultures embellish in their rituals and activities. Muslim and Hindu doctrines are defended more by people who are not Muslims or Hindus. The pinnacle for it all is the bringing together of all these ways of life and putting a new marketing tool called diversity on the event or establishment. Society feels it has achieved something by putting a group of completely different individuals together and basking in the fact that they are different. Society no longer dwells on whether or not they are doing anything worthwhile. Diversity is meaningless unless there is a unified goal amidst the differences. Otherwise it is simply a diverse lot of people, as close-minded as Christians they hate for being so, running around ecstatic about only being a diverse lot of people …it’s America.

The biggest problem with this situation is the lack of valor on the part of the Christian church. It is possible to go into a modern Christian church and not learn anything having to do with Christ. The churches wish to resemble nothing like the beautiful and rich history of it’s past; so it does not. Churches are as recognizable as any office building is. The church has hidden the creeds, dogmas, and sacraments that were once sacred. It has offered secular society an invitation to a rock show and a motivational speaker. The church is not proud of how it arrived here so it humbles itself to any newcomer along with arbitrary beliefs. This is only possible by way of the modern churche’s beliefs, if any, being so vague that any pagan could accept them. New preacher after new preacher is “emerging” the massive churches into the secular world so much so that one is getting closer to not being able to tell the difference. And with attendence being the new currency, the mid-sized churches slowly but surely follow behind. With all the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings fighting the good fight against the staleness of the elders of the churches, there is a new trend away from anything that might actually pose a newcomer with a responsibility or decision. As long as they show up.

We the church have been too humble in our beliefs. We seem ashamed. Our beliefs that actually carry any sort of conviction are rotting away while we ignore them. We are convinced that if we make our beliefs vague enough we can save the world. The great monster of secular society has reared its ugly head angry with all it thinks it knows about our beliefs. We, the peasant called Christianity, have fearfully have bowed our head and opened the door to for anybody to believe anything as long as they walk through the door. In the case of modern Christianity and its precious “relevancy” to humanity, I think by observing closely we learn that a certain old saying changes as drastically as the church itself has. Discretion is not the better part of valor.

Comments Off

 

Judgement Wednesday, Apr 1 2009

The misunderstanding of a number of concepts is one of the biggest faults of the modern thinker. It is not because of their stupidity or ignorance that certain subjects go completely  misunderstood but mostly their blatant denial of common sense. One subject that is in massive need of rethinking is the subject of judgement. The common question of people backed into corners on their personal morality is “who are you to judge?” There is a misunderstanding of the concept of judgement that is thrown around like a weapon that destroys any debate worth having. The problem is that the weapon is very hollow.

Judgement inherently involves some type of consequence. If it does not involve punishing somebody for their actions or beliefs then it cannot be considered judgement. The young adults who throw around this hollow defense draw such an idea from the Bible. It is probably the only time they enjoy mentioning the Bible, and it is normaly to defend actions that are blatantly spoken against in the Bible. They are right in saying that scripture does tell you not to judge on multiple occassions. They are wrong in thinking that a man verbally disagreeing with them is judgement.

The first and obvious problem with this mode of thought is the obvious begging of the question. To find men at fault for finding other men at fault creates a circular argument that constantly re-emerges in society today. Jones tells Smith he is wrong. Smith thinks that Jones is judging him and thinks judgement is wrong. So Smith tells Jones he is wrong. In which case, Smith seems guilty of  judgement as well. This situation takes shape in many heated conversations involving religious and political issues. It repeatedly becomes repetitive.

Secondly, and with respects to the Godhead, there is a problem when it is assumed that scritpure defines judgement as simply telling the person they are wrong. The instance mentioned normally is the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned by the masses and Pharisees. Jesus was asked for His two cents. He said “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.” He spoke against the punishment, not for the crime. She was obviously sinning. The crowd knew that, and even the Christ Himself implicitly admitted such when He told the woman “go and sin no more.” The instances in scripture that speak against judgement speak against some type of consequence. Judgement day is mentioned in scripture as the day that God gives the world whatever it has coming to it. It is spoken of as a day that consequences will be handed out, and not as a day that God decides what is right and what is wrong. We should hope He already knows that.

Men used to suffer greatly for their beliefs. Some still do. But I find it difficult to think of this society as included in that group. I never hear of burnings at the stake, lynchings, feedings to lions, or cruel and unusual punishments as everyday American practices of judgement. The Klan used to judge men by tarring and feathering  them. Now they feebly ”judge” them with their little protest signs in hopes to offend (because simply getting offended hurts much more than boiling tar). Entire nations in the past have been put into gas chambers and mutilated for their beliefs. Civilizations past have been wiped out before because of their beliefs. It is hard for me to find instances of truely cruel and violent intolerance  in everyday American society. It is when I read history books and comparably look around that I believe this American society knows nothing at all of being truly judged.

When people understand judgement as involving a consequence, then and only then can we have an beneficial conversation about morals, religion, and personal values. I judge a man if I hit him for his beliefs not when I debate him about them. Men used to debate all types of issues with such an understanding and there even used to be public debates where people would go to enjoy a good argument. Yes, people can enjoy arguments. Men used to debate with each other and it was seen as honest care for the other to not miss out on the truth. Now, debate is commonly seen as a destructive activity with no good coming from it. The academic and political realms call it debate. The ancients called it the dialectic and thought of it as the only way to learn. We in modern society pridefully tuck tail (as if we do not deserve to be told we might be wrong) and hide behind a hollow social sin we call judgement.

Comments Off

 

Too Big and Too Small Tuesday, Mar 17 2009

The men that re-affirm the Christian faith no longer exist in the world of Christian literature where men attain rich living from massive amounts of poor writing. The men that continually re-affirm my faith in Christ are actually the men who continually attempt to destroy my faith in Christ. It is not the miracles of modern day Christianity that my faith is motivated by but rather the madness of modern day Paganism. They are constantly destroying Christian ideas with weapons so large and effective they destroy the ideas of their colleagues as well. The re-affirming part is that Christian ideas, so much like their maker, have a habit of resurrecting.

            It is the common “intellectual” whom you may find in the corners of coffee shops. It is those opinionated people roaming about college campuses everywhere. It is the historic atheist. It is the agnostic who is the now bitter and once ill-educated Christian. It is the man with the fancy cigarette that speaks his philosophy on why he is against dogma, and he is surprisingly dogmatic about it. It is the skeptic who will proudly question everything except his reasons for doing so.  It is these men that concern themselves so much with seeking out the contradictions of Christians that they do not mind contradicting themselves.

            Throughout the history of this world there have been many things criticized about Christianity. To some, Christianity was too feeble and weak to fight back when it caused the Fall of Rome. To some of those same people it was too war-like when it was behind the violence of the Crusades. I have heard Christianity be criticized for being too divided with the denominations of the Church and from the same people I have heard it criticized for being too unified in its exclusivity of thought. In one conversation, Christians can be found at fault because the Bible is inaccurate and mistranslated right before the Christians are found at fault for not living up to the accuracy of the morals of the Bible. Christianity is not artistic enough and has been too influential in the history of art. Christianity is not credible in the history of science because too many Christians were in the ranks. Now Christianity is not credible in contemporary science because there are not enough Christians in the ranks. Christianity is too conservative and binding with its beliefs in old rotten dogmas, but too liberal and free with its beliefs in miracles and supernatural beings. Christianity is oppressive to women by not allowing what very few women desire like church leadership roles. It is oppressive still when it promotes what most all women do desire like motherhood or decency. It is the most genius of all evil conspiracies. It is the most blundering creation of unthinking simpletons. It is too old and stale. It is too new and trendy. It is too big and too small.

            My personal favorite is to hear people who disagree with Christianity passionately call Christians hypocrites. They claim that Christians they have known are failing at living up to the Christian standard. As true as this may be in any situation it makes no sense as a criticism from a pagan viewpoint. Those critics say that Christians wrongly go about living out the faith the critics think is wrong in the first place. For all the pagans know they may be doing something right in doing Christianity wrong. It is like Jones criticizing Smith for wanting to go to Smithville and then criticizing Smith even more for going the wrong way there. Christ passionately called the Pharisees hypocrites, but only because He believed what they believed. The same applies to us. If I disagree with a thief on what he does I am not too concerned with how bad he is at thievery. A more lively and purposeful discussion would be inquiring if it is right to be a thief.

            The purpose here is not to discuss the truth or falsity of any of these things, but to make known the fact that all these things are or have been criticisms of Christianity. All of these criticisms, and many more, go against either what the critic himself said or what the critics before have said. Whether or not these things were claimed by the same people is not even important. The fact is that men end up refuting each other, or worse yet themselves, when they try to refute Christianity.

            Reason seems to be too conservative a weapon for attacking Christianity. It is thrown to the wind for flagrant inconsistency. Men hate Christianity in one age then hate it in the next age for the opposite reason. Secular mankind has it out for Christianity, it just can not decide why. Men oppose murder because they enjoy being alive. They criticize theft because they enjoy possession of something. They hate losing a loved one because they love them. Men find the same reasons to oppose the most tragic or evil activities. Men agree on these reasons. They can mount a full frontal attack on most true evils. If all men are firing forward at it they have no risk of shooting each other even if they miss. Men only shoot each other when something is fired at from all sides.

 Since Christianity has been attacked from all directions, only one of two things can be concluded about it. One is that it is more terribly wrong than all the other disgusting inventions of the world. It is the monster of monsters. Even the unified army of Mankind will fight it in so much of a panic that they will fight irrationally. They will swing their chains around so hard at the head of Christianity that the chain will come back and hit their own head. It causes humanity to fight like an angry man who has lost his cool and forgets all learned skills of fighting. It is the final scene of the village versus the villain. The only other time such irrational fighting takes place is in the opposite case. That case could only be if we were a world full of villains attacking the village…with one saving hero left in it.

Comments Off

 

Lovers And Fighters Saturday, Mar 14 2009

My wife loves puppies. I certainly hear about it everyday. I usually hear the narrower version of the fact that she wants one. If we were to have one…oh I’m sorry, I meant: when we get one, she will love it I am sure much more than puppies in general. In that respect she will be a lover of that puppy. She is a lover. But if the situation ever came up where some fool attempted to harm that puppy she would undoubtedly and wholeheartedly fight the fool. She is a fighter.

This modern era has become very efficient at severing things. The idea of being a lover and a fighter can be thrown in to the mix of what has been severed. People try to claim that they are one or the other but it is my conclusion that being one inherently involves being the other. A man who fights for his country inherently loves his country no matter how much fight is in him. A man who loves his wife will fight for his wife, no matter how much fight is in her. I am willing to submit that all fights usually involve the love of something. It might be the love of their own pride, their child, their right to be alive, or the shirt that the idiot spilt beer on. A man loves something if he is fighting. The question is not whether the world should be more of a lover or a fighter but when and how to love as well as when and how to fight. This not only applies to loving and fighting, but applies also to a great deal of characteristics that have been severed and thrown out this modern era.

The relationship of new and old has been severed. There is a new and thoughtless hatred for things being old. The absurdity lies in the general disdain for anything old. If it fits into the category it must now be thrown out. This is never a healthy or productive way to go about life. Men love children and flowers because they are new, but men love scotch and grandfathers because they are old. There are a great deal of things that are better because they are old. In the church this seems to be a massive dichotomy with ideas and rituals. The church is now constantly trying to make itself newer and younger as if it were a cardinal virtue. Congregations cannot get rid of the stale rituals or seperate the services fast enough. The old songs are dying a quick death. I am afraid soon enough even all the old people will be rid of for the horrific fact that they are old. All for the sake of something new the good old things in the church are dying. I am not suggesting that all old things are good and true but I am suggesting that most things good and true come from an old song, old ritual, or old soul no matter how many new people re-do it. It is the songs that get to me the most though. Even the pagans love and know our old music. It is that good. But there are large portions of Christians that do not even listen to our new music. It is that bad.

The same goes for many other characteristics like open-mindedness, that modern modern obsession. However it has become a virtue, and there is no possible way that being constantly open-minded is a good thing. There is a sane case for being honest in every situation or courageous in every situation, but there is no sane case of being open-minded in every situation. I will wholeheartedly be close-minded to you buying my wife or sacrifing my pets. The same should probably go for a bulk of church doctrine being betrayed in recent times. A great man once said that an open mind is like an open mouth. You want to close it on something solid and worthwhile. It is not that we be one or the other. It is that we place both in their proper place and time. Virtues are the only things we should strive to be all the time and vices we should fight against all the time.

Ecclesiastes rings true with this idea. There really is a season for everything. To over-emphasize the virtue of one characteristic is foolish and to rebel by doing the same with the opposite characteristic is just as foolish. Men will always love something at some point and those same men will always fight something at some point. This is true no matter how much of a pacifist they wish to be or no matter how much of a hot-head they are. We as humanity are already both. We cannot escape that. The true quest is not to decide between the two but to decide what is worth loving and what is worth fighting.

Comments Off