This meme (above) popped up on my Twitter feed today.
I was not sure if the person who posted it was seriously asking this question, or was just trolling those of us who believe in Special creation and reject Evolution.
It matters not, for irrespective of the motive for making this post I took the opportunity to throw in my personal opinion about Evolution as being pseudo-science…
This quickly solicited a response that inferred the Evolution hypothesis could be falsified…
I was able to rebut this assertion with little fuss on my part.
Did my accurate rebuttal phase my antagonist in any way? No.
He simply repeated his original claim. So I expanded my original rebuttal.
Unflinching, he continued to spiel unsubstantiated evolutionary jargon as if it was science…adding he thought Darwin’s ignorance of genetics to be ‘irrelevant’!
It’s far from ‘irrelevant’ for it was only in the vacuum of ignorance about genetics that Darwin’s bunk ideas were able to take hold of the imagination.
He then tried to justify evolution by suggesting that getting new genes was not necessary for evolution (below)!!
I immediately pointed out the error of his contention, and that in fact this was more evidence against evolution…
Mutations do not result in new Genes. There has never been a new creature discovered via Mutation. Even Darwin recognised Mutation as having massive negative impacts on the fitness of Species. The math is so far against the claim that mutations are an evolutionary force as to render the postulate utterly delusional.
Evolutionists clutch at such straws notwithstanding.
Like a stuck record… and he even admitted such (saying for the third time) he repeated what he had already repeated… but also threw in some Ad Hominem attacks on my personal intelligence and learning! That’s what these people do!
This is a signature characteristic of an indoctrinated mind. When confronted with cogent arguments that are completely at variance with what they themselves have been led to believe. Instead of taking time to cognate the plausibility of what they have been proffered, instead they start to assume this line of reasoning can only come from ignorance of what they have assume to be unquestionable truths.!
At this point the poor fellow started to implode… denying his original proposition!
Realising nothing I marshalled would penetrate the stone walls of his fortified mind I felt best to draw this thread to a close… yet not without firing the obligatory parting volley!
Yet not to be bested he fired his own… not realising he again shot himself in the foot by re-asserting the notion that *Evolution would be falsifiable* *if only there were no variations*! This is a falacy of circular reasoning…
“Evolution could be falsified if we found no variations, yet because we find variations Evolution cant be falsified!”
When he said “For the third time: evolution is the change in heritable characteristics in populations of organisms…” The sneak snuck in quite a significant modification to his original contention.
At least he was trying another more nuanced approach. Yet alas thereby he sinks his own ship…
Most of you will be familiar with how Social media debates play out. They do not always flow in a linear fashion from point A to Z as it is possible to read, and re-read the debate and randomly throw in commentary as and when we feel moved to do so. This means the debate can ‘jump about’.
In this Blog article I have done my best to present the argument fairly, yet as a matter of course I have juxtaposed the screen shots in a way that best suits my argument. not in real linear time. I do not mean to disadvantage my antagonist by not declaring this home advantage I have…
Ultimately if this guy wanted to be both honest and maintain his integrity, After I had shown him how variations are explicable without any evolution, he simply ought to have retracted his original claim that Evolution could be falsified via the means of *no variation*. That is patently false. Not only that yet he set up a standard that could not be falsified… as variation is a fact.
If Evolutionists want to defend their Mythical tale as an actual scientific theory they will have to find a better argument for it’s falsifiability.
So my Premise stands… Evolution is Pseudoscience because it is unfalsifiable.
I’d be happy to accept any challenges to this Granite solid proposition.
I informed ‘Fortune’ that I had turned our debate into a Blog article and that if he did not think I represented him faily that he should write a retort in the comments (below) and that I would let it stand as his right of reply. this was his response…
Ask yourself why is it necessary to cast slurs on a person’s character simply because they rigorously oppose something you hold to be true?
Is it not possible to disagree yet remain civil?
This is a requisite IMO for a free and enlightened society.
I have watched a fair chunk of both Rogan and Peterson materials… and have enjoyed a great portion of it all. I believe they both make very valuable and insightful contributions in the realm of thought…yet I am not a sycophant. I give praise when I believe praise is due, yet I will also call out BS when I see it.
Please watch the video below.
Man has been defined as ‘The worshipping Animal’.
The title of this video is misleading in that the question is only relevant if it pertains to Moses and the Bible rather than a generalised ‘Origin of the Religious sense in humanity’ because we have solid evidence that some Pagan religions are born of or at least make use of psychedelics as mystical practices.
But should a person then believe this is a sound explanation for what is written in the bible?
That is the question I want to address… the rest is moot IMO because it is non-contentious.
Drug taking is a fact of human history.
I don’t buy this sort of ‘Rationalist’ speculation of apostate Jewish scholars who deny their own faith (Rogan’s opening statement was that some Rabbis had claimed Moses was trippin).
I would never deny these are questions worth discussing… they clearly are worth it… I don’t have a problem with the questions… I just find Rogan and Peterson’s conclusions… or lack thereof disappointing.
I guess these guys are still wandering in the wilderness.
It is true that many people have equated psychedelic’s trips to having a religious experience complete with meeting spirit beings.
Indisputably some Psychonauts looking for meaning in life believe they have ‘found’ something real in the psychedelic experience that transcends this material universe (consciousness itself is fundamentally transcendental) . Scientists and psychologists are beginning to appreciate that going on a trip can even bring peace of mind to the terminally ill… alleviating some from the fear of death.
They experience an opening door to greater realities.
Joe Rogan himself talks a lot about this.
In my youth I experienced this very thing too.
I was already a Christian and yet magic mushrooms were mind expanding.
Modern science is today catching up to the many beneficial and therapeutic qualities of Psilocybin.
Contrary to long held phobias and prejudices Magic Mushrooms can be good for the brain and the spirit.
Caveat: Beware! Psilocybin Magic mushroom are currently illegal in New Zealand, and if you ingest a poisonous look-alike that could be a fatal mistake.
One day this will change, and as is the case now in Canada, you will be able to buy safe tripping mushroom’s from the shop.
I recently had a surprising conversation with a old friend who had always been hard of heart when it came to discussion of religion, yet had recently had what she described as a religious experience from a psychedelic trip.
This experience completely shifted her opinion about transcendent reality.
Such experiences may help people to escape the box of materialism yet it is still a long journey to the way, the truth, and the life.
I am hoping my now more open minded friend will look further afield contemplate the bigger questions for which the Bible alone has the Truth.
Her spiritual pilgrimage has only just begun.
I pray God sends her knowledgeable servants to help guide her to the truth.
We all must see the light of truth to be saved. It is one thing for me to know this (I’m alright Jack!), the problem I have is that most of the people I care about are closed off to the possibility that they are lost sinners who need Christ.
Still I must try to reach anyone who is not hard of heart.
Back to Rogan and Peterson. What grinds my gears about these two guys in particular is despite being well aware of a massive corpus of piece-meal facts that are scattered across a broad spectrum of subjects guys like Rogan and Peterson fail to think holistically and refuse to draw the most obvious conclusion about ‘the religion’ of the Bible… from a totality of what is known… that it is based upon *Real events*…. *Empirical facts*.’That is the most obvious conclusion that best fits all the hard corroborating evidence.
Instead they choose to be vain in their imaginations and flog their favorite hobby horses. Rogan likes to attribute stuff to tripping. and Peterson enjoys fabricating overly sophisticated psychological bents that make the great men of the past look like Psyche patients.
This is a well understood penchant of ‘specialists’… their tunnel vision that can only interpret reality through their narrow lens of ‘training’… exposing their bents.
Gullible people mistake their own wild ‘rationalisations’ as being valid excuses for doubting the veracity of the Bible when in reality they are feeble and fail to explain the known facts.
Doctor heal thyself!
I assert the simple truth is that the great famous men of the Bible… Moses, etc had real experiences with God Almighty. Ie The Bible is literally true.
On a psychological level we can appreciate why human beings don’t want to face the simple truth…. because it would call an end to their pet delusions… an existential crisis….
But if you admit to yourself the bible speaks of real events … the moral implications will demand you change you whole outlook on life… and call you to prostrate yourself before the Almighty.
And above all things mans pride and his desire to be his own God prevents him from acknowledging his subjection to the Divine Authority.
What is appealing to people like Rogan about the psychedelic experience is that he can make it mean whatever he wants to believe.
Sinful lost human beings are alien to the truth. They are opposed to it. many will choose to believe almost anything rather than the truth. They cannot bear it.
In this way Human beings are the children of the Devil. This is not freedom but slavery to a lie. This will damn your soul.
As a Christin it is my duty to both God and my fellow man to witness for the Gospel.
Be honest to yourself. Believe the scriptures. The truth will make you free. Look to the Cross of Christ and his resurrection… there our salvation is found… for free.
Space in this post has not allowed me to lay out all the evidence that ought to compel reasonable people into accepting the historical validity of the scriptures.
Please do not be too disappointed about this short fall.
I am aware of it, yet anyone who thinks my failure to provide such a detailed exposition makes my contention a hollow claim is not a reasonable person.
The subject is massive. and involves virtually every branch of knowledge… and this is my main contention against the proposition Rogan and Peterson are making in the featured video. It is naïve.
I will provide links to where an investigation of the facts can be started….
IMO the greatest hurdle for an entrenched Atheist materialist that prevents them from being able to grasp the validity of the Bible is their *Ideological Blindness*… an intellectual incapacity to be able to contemplate for even a moment that Spiritual realities might really exist… and that the Biblical miracles actually happened.
I am not seeking to belittle anyone… I’m pointing out the massive paradigm shift required to be able to honestly consider the alternative view.
I know this from my own prior atheist experience. I know how the Materialist mindset is utterly consumed by weak rationalisations that are fabricated to maintain the Atheist cognitive dissonance.
It is an addictive habit of the mind that most atheists mistake for intelligence and reason.
It is folly!
Materialism is founded upon the archaic and childish delusions of Scientism… a belief that empirical science can (and does)explain everything.
This is an untenable position in 2023.
“Seek and ye shall find.”
The first step to seeking the light must be an opening of the mind.
A large portion of my work published on Eternal Vigilance Blog is laying out the case for Christianity and Biblical faith. I am not a great writer, yet the hundreds of posts I have done on a broad spectrum of issues form my testimony as to why I believe the Bible is true. Thus I point to them as an archive of evidence to support my claims I am making today. Anyone with a seeking heart might do worse than to spend some time following links I post below.
A final word…
When I dabbled in psychedelics I never met any spirit beings, yet as I said above I was a wayward Christian.
I wonder if that kept them at bay?
I do not encourage anyone to take drugs, and posit the long held warning that Christians have historically associated ‘Phamikea’ with Sorcery and Witchcraft… which is understandable given the Pagan usage of psychedelics.
The Bible instead promotes the Sober mind.
And if the assertions of the Christians are correct in these matters, the spirit beings encountered while tripping could be dangerous Demons pretending to be Angels of light… and I suspect that is the case.
Before I was a Christian, in my late Teens I did have an experience… It is called ‘Entity Attack syndrome’… historically called Incubus/ Succubus encounter, yet modern rationalists call it ‘Sleep paralysis’ … my account of that can be found here…
Further thoughts that continue on from Part 1 here.
Science is no escape from the human condition… that gospel purported by many…is false.
Though we may increase in mastery over nature…certainty will always escape us… thus science is a pragmatic pursuit, not a source of absolute knowledge.
With every new answer comes new questions.
We will always rely on axioms and presuppositions… we cannot escape the need for faith… which underpins what we think we know… even the things we are most sure about….
I guess my original post could have been called… ‘Beware of Scientism’.
History shows you can ‘prove’ almost anything by fiddling with numbers.
It must be understood that not even math escapes the human condition… I know many people will be loosing their lunch over my impertinence… yet with time I hope to explain the many ways math can be corrupted.
When reading about various types of weird ‘inferred postulates’ like Dark Matter, The Big Bang, etc we always find two camps of thought.
Simpletons who think the said phenomena are rock solid facts and proceed to treat them as such in all their forthcoming activities… and others who have the intellectual depth and integrity to admit these cherished theories are full of holes… and proceed with caution in any further speculations that could follow.
It depends on which article you read as to whether or not you are encouraged to accept such phenomena are real … or to remain skeptical.
It is particularly scary when the political class pick up on certain theories… because they suit their political agendas… and begin to compel whole populations into accepting them as indisputable… and then using usurpatious powers proceed to embed them in Laws and institutions… Pouring Tax billions into the pockets of scientists who just so happen to produce politically correct ‘findings’… while critics are deplatformed and thrown out of Seats of learning… and making it nearly a crime to question ‘the official line’.
Science has died.
The Balance has been skewed.
What we are left with is Pure Pseudo science… very much like the Social Darwinism of the Nazis which Sub-humanised the Jews.
What is funny is that so many people naively assume such shocking corruption is not going on today!
The truth is there are many factors that can corrupt science… Money and political agendas being two biggies… and anywhere the State is pouring money into ‘research’… it becomes highly dubious.
Another funny yet erroneous stereotype that was born of the Materialist religion of ‘Scientism’ is the image of Doctors and scientists in white lab coats with thick reading glasses… and expressionless demeanor.
The psychological impact of this upon gullible minds is the impression that scientists are not only way smarter than other mortals… but esp that they embody a ‘Spock-like’ power of Objectivity… that all their utterances are devoid of personal prejudices… all this is designed to get the gullible to trust them.
Their white overcoats serve the very same purpose as the priestly gab of any religious cult!
The truth is the exact opposite.
You would struggle to find in any other area of life a more opinionated, conceited, biased, Vain, Greedy, unprincipled, and obstinate bunch of human beings than you find in science departments!
Pseudo-science are myths dressed up in Scientific Gab/ jargon.
Is it any wonder why there are so many pseudo-scientific ideas that hold sway among the masses???
When false postulates and theories are accepted as fact whole magnificent edifices are constructed upon these corrupt foundations.
Entire lifetimes, and reputations, and industries can be wasted building ‘White Elephants’… and strong vested interests assemble to carry on the lies… because the longer the sham continues… the bigger the mess when it topples… and people fear facing the ugly truth… and paying the price of correction.
The lies become so embedded that it seems like madness to question them…. Cognitive dissonance becomes the norm… an incapacity to acknowledge uncomfortable novel truths.
Progress has always had to battle with entrenched Mass-held delusions. What is funny/sad is so many Moderns only apply this precept in their warped conception that Science has always struggled against religion… a very inaccurate and simplistic apprehension of history… utterly failing to guard themselves against all the other personal bents that can prevent them from grasping new and challenging evidences.
esp their own modern post-Christian quazi-religious bents.
I ask people if they dare to entertain any controversial propositions that are at variance with the mainstream?
For it is a signal of an independent mind to walk it’s own path and have the courage to diverge at certain points from the herd.
The herd has been trained to pour derision and hate upon anyone who steps out of line and does not submit to the ‘orthodoxy’ of their times.
It may amaze people that I am talking about *The scientific community*… not some religious sect.
Understand that the scientific community is as prone to Backwards, erroneous dogma as any other Human endeavor is.
What is essential then is to write a code of ethics of which the scientific method is just one aspect of what entails the correct mental processes that are conducive to the scientific enterprise.
. to guard ourselves from slipping into a mire of our own subjectivity… eg with the interpretation of evidence.
Ultimately all we can do is acknowledge the human factor will always be lurking about… like a madman.
It is my opinion that while she is correct about the Ideals of Capitalism and Freedom, Ayn Rand’s philosophy ‘Objectivism’ takes individualism to perverse extremes and in so doing has committed great disservice to the Libertarian cause.
She was a Megalomaniac says the late Nathaniel Branden, and by my reckoning… a Narcissist… and her cult attracts a high percentage of Disciples with similar Sociopathic tendencies.
Unfortunately The reputation of Objectivism has become entangled with that of the Libertarian movement.
Having usurped a position of authority in the Libertarian movement Objectivist teachings and character have caused the Libertarian movement to stink… All the High Ideals of Libertarianism have been sullied because of the delusion that Libertarians are selfish and dont give a toss about the poor, and as long as this is how the Voting Public veiws Libertarianism… There will never be a Libertarian Government elected into office.
Objectivists tend to drive out other types of Libertarians as it takes a very thick skin to bear their Obsessive derision of Religion and glorification of egotistical arrogance.
The accusation that ‘Libertarians are selfish bastards who dont give a shit about the poor’ is a characteristic easily assumed by Socialists and others who have the unpleasant misfortune of talking with an arrogant Randiod Egoist.
Though it is a terrible accusation… this sort of Critisism is often received by an Objectivist as a badge of Honour to be worn with pride! They think concern for others is a vice.
They assume they are imitating their Glorious master who teaches them to be absolutely impervious to the opinions of others.
Central to her Philosophy is also Militant Atheism…’Religion is the root of all evil’ type mentality that is not only overt, but also needs to be appreciated to understand that her Individualism is underpinned (and distorted) because of her Atheism.
Ironically I was prompted to write this blogpost critisising Rands contention that ‘selfishness is a virtue’ after having a Facebook conversation with an Objectivist who shares few (if any) of these common Objectivist traits, and is prepared to Diverge from Rand’s Rabid Anti-theism… Australia’s Colourful champion of Liberty… Prodos Marinakis.
From his comment below you can see for yourself he is willing to be honest and critical about the Objectivist movement.
He’s a very likable Guy.
As Facebook friends I saw one of his posts on ‘The political Compass’ which is a better ‘graph’ on which to plot peoples Political persuasions rather than the ridiculously simplistic Far Left to Far Right Linear graph that is adored by the Mainstream who only seek to maintain the two party system.
These ‘Left and Right’ parties dont like the ‘political compass’ because it outs them as anti-freedom Authoritarians.
Having answered a questionnaire to ascertain his political leanings… the result was plotted on the compass. Below is Prodos result…. and I’ll let our conversation carry on from here… yet for the record I myself am a Bible believing Christian and an Independent Libertarian activist.
Political Compass Test — just for fun.
Mine is below. Similar score to Milton Friedman.
More “conservative” than “libertarian”.
I’m not surprised by your result Prodos given how highly you regard Rand.
I think she distorts peoples views about the virtue of Charity and the vise of selfishness, whereas I highly Regard Jesus Christ and St Paul… and it will be no surprise to you that I usually register as a left leaning Libertarian.
And yet now having completed this test (above) I too have come out a Right leaning Libertarian … making a mockery of my earlier comment… 🙂
In fact We virtually got the same coordinates…[ Both Libertarians rather than Authoritarians …I was slightly to the left of Prodos… yet still on the right side of the spectrum]
Like me you were probably uncomfortable with the Direction of some of the questions and were forced to make some choices without the opportunity to explain your reasoning…
Tim, thanks for sharing your Political Compass results & for your comments — both before and after doing the “Political Compass” test.
I’m very glad to see that we got such similar results. You are more surprised by that than I am, since I believe I understand you, better than you understand me.
You wrote, regarding Ayn Rand:
“I think she distorts peoples views about the virtue of Charity and the (vice) of selfishness …”
Well, to talk about Ayn Rand (or Jesus) and not get bogged down, it helps to have specific quotes and to also put them into the proper context. True?
Personally, I consider Charity to be a virtue — provided it’s not tainted by the Kantian notion of altruism (which, despite the modern Church’s reliance on this evil concept, is in fact a post-Christian and anti-Christian invention of Auguste Comte from the 1830’s).
As for “selfishness” as a motive … that term, in Ethics, usually refers to a bad motive.
Calling someone “selfish” usually means that they’re benefiting themselves — even when it’s at the expense of others. And they’re benefiting themselves in a way that’s indifferent to other people.
Yet, there is nothing in Ayn Rand’s fiction or non-fiction that advocates or esteems THAT kind of “selfishness”.
On the contrary, being “selfish” in the Ayn Rand sense — as she explained in The Virtue of Selfishness and encapsulated in her saying: “There are no conflicts of interests among rational men”.
Not to mention the whole model of Free Market Capitalism.
It is true, however, that Objectivism tends to underrate the value and virtue of Charity.
When a writer uses a word (or an expression) it’s important to understand what THE WRITER meant by that word (or expression).
When Jesus says “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” … we need to study what Jesus meant.
For instance he didn’t mean (as one of my colleagues recently argued) that Jesus is a supporter of taxation and “Big Government”.
(better leave it there for now as I have to cook dinner!)
Prodos, I think you have a better grasp than the average Objecitivist because you differ from the average in two aspects.
1. You dont have an innate hatred of religion and so you dont ‘need’ to ‘prove’ it is ‘Evil’… and that gives you a far more objective view when discussing such matters, and (2) this is a corollary (or complimentary) of the fact that you are not afraid to diverge from the Orthodox dogma of the Cult.
Now One of the reasons I accuse Rand of Sophistry is because she trains her disciples to Bastardise the English language by arrogantly abandoning accepted meaning of terms… Re-defining words to mean something other than what they have been historically understood to mean and then proceeds to pretend she can prove the whole world was wrong … *and that she is some sort of Mega-genius* when in fact she is a fraud who has literally re-written the rules.
…often giving terms the very opposite meaning… and most importantly… she has ‘Pre-loaded’ the new meanings so that they will now appear to mathematically add up to the conclusion she wants to achieve… eg ‘that selfishness is now ‘a virtue’…. Objectivists dont even speak the same language… they are disconnected from the historical dialogue and dont even realise they have been swindled… mainly because they share Rands hatred of Christianity and are consumed by their own Egos… and think they too are super geniuses… ‘John Galts’ far above the average savage…. This is not the mentality of ‘Objectivity’… but a type of psychosis that blinds the mind of those who are not aware of what game she is playing.
Now though I know what her nefarious motives were… to discredit Charity… esp religious charity … therefore casting a devious lie to destroy faith in the goodness of Christ and the Christian faith… I can entertain her ‘Revisions’ and understand her silly definitions of ‘Rational selfishness’ vs ‘Irrational selfishness’ …(obviously by her reckoning the historical meaning of selfishness *was this irrational selfishness* and nothing more… not independence… not self-reliance… not self responsibility… and certainly not slavery to the collective!), yet her distortions of Egoism and selfishness, and twisted ideas about altruism as a form of slavery rather than voluntary Individual virtue of charity have contorted the average Objectivists views on Capitalism and Voluntary community Action.
Objectivists are always praising Blatant *Greed*… Rand has crippled their minds so that they are incapable of forming moral arguments that condemn Largess by CEOs at the expense of the well being of the average worker … because the average Objectivist cant understand that simply because a person may have the liberty to act a certain way… that this does not of necessity make it Just, or wise, or of Good character.
Likewise Objectivists tend excuse themselves from supporting worthy voluntary associations and community activities under the pretense that to ‘feel obliged’ to contribute is some sort of ‘psychological slavery’…. yet if any free society is to function it will rely Heavily on exactly these sorts of virtues and voluntarily self imposed moral duty’s.
These are my thoughts on why I suggested that On the Libertarian spectrum I would expect myself to be to the Left of you (Prodos), though I appreciate you are not ‘the average Objectivist’…. yet still your thinking will be ‘coloured’ to some degree by Rands Bents.
I have seen many of your posts that I have enjoyed very much in particular many that could not have been written by the’average Objectivist’ because they are Antireligious-lite… even commending… and that is not a common trait in the Cult.”
That is where I’ll finish this dialogue with Prodos.
I think think he is is a very interesting, and intelligent Man… a Champion of Liberty… a Man of Reason… who in my opinion avoids sycophantic Rand worship.
Someone a Christian can have a meaningful discussion with… free of petty conceit.
Despite the fact that Long Blog posts are unpopular, I do need to make one further clarification, and that is to say that though Christianity regards Charity as one of the highest virtues, and that People tend to associate this as a mentality common among left leaning political supporters, that it is a grievous error to automatically assume this means Christians ought to be socialists!
The notion that Christ was a socialist has been around for a long time, yet was systematically propagated and grew predominant among Western Christians in the 20th century when Communists infiltrated the churches and began to systematically sway Christians into supporting socialism… despite their Nations Prosperity,Freedom and capitalism being founded upon Christian protestant political reforms and values of Individual Rights, Private property, Hard work, Thrift, Voluntary charity, Honest Free-trade, etc.
This is quite a complex conundrum to untangle, yet when properly understood the confusion and false teaching gives way to definite clarity and broad understanding.
The Key is to understand the dispensational scheme of the scriptures and how things fit in properly with the plan of God.
Reading the Bible there are verses in the Gospels, and early Acts that appear to the unlearned to support the idea that Jesus was anti-wealth and promoted ‘Communism’… yet such an interpretation fails to take into account what Jesus was offering the Jews at the time, and that these instances… such as when he told the Rich young man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor… and follow him… are not representative of the future Kingdom Christ had come to establish but was a special time of transition … from the Kingdom of Mammon… into the Messianic Kingdom of God on Earth whereby these injunctions were tests of worthiness to enter his kingdom… repentance for rebellion and sin… and a willingness to forsake the gains achieved under Mammon.. wealth… power… social status… and to enter the kingdom ‘Naked’… fully trusting that Christ would reward them when he had overthrown the Romans and established his rule in Jerusalem.
And here is the real Jam: Christs Kingdom will not be a Communist Utopia!
There will be private property!
The Lazy will not reap the harvests of the Virtuous and hard working, etc!
So the Important thing to appreciate about Christs Message to the Jews at that time and his injunctions to Sell their possessions, and have all things common, and to Turn the other cheek, and to endure persecution unto the end were not instructive of how his Kingdom would function… but tests of Faith and repentance… ie to be found worthy to enter his Kingdom The Jews had to have faith Plus works!
When this is understood the claim that Jesus promoted Socialism collapses… and is exposed as a wicked false doctrine used to deceive Christians for Evil political ends.
Sadly this False doctrine has been very successful with millions of Deceived Christians voting for Big Government Nanny State socialist Tyranny instead of for Liberty and self responsibility guided by personal ethics.
How Ironic that these Christians fail to see they are unwitting supporting Leviathan… enthroning the all powerful State as God… Mammon!
As this Blog post is already too long I will simply ad links to some of my other Blogposts that go into more detail about Christs Kingdom ministry to the Jews… and how that differs from the Christian Age of Grace that we live in today… which is a different dispensation, and has a different gospel..
And finally below is a Link to a speech I delivered in 2006, at the Tenth anniversary of the now disbanded New Zealand Libertarian party… ‘The Libertarianz’ in which I tried to expound why I thought Rabid Objectivism needed to take a back seat to a more Humane and tolerant activism if the party was to have any hope of success at the polls… as can be seen from the date posted to the blog was in 2012… and I was still very angry about what had happened to the Libertarianz party… I was of the opinion that Objectivism was/ had suffocated the party.
I saw the party as becoming little more than a propaganda machine to further the Atheist Cult of Rand… I had already walked away from it by then.
Fanatical Objectivists have convinced themselves that by coining the phrase ‘Egoism’ that they can escape the the accusations of Egotism! another example of Rand’s Sophistry are work!
Egoism… self worship…they say is the highest Individual character trait!
New Zealand still needs a Libertarian Political Choice… yet if this is ever to rise again lessons need to be learned from the Objectivist Dominated Libertarianz party.
If a New Libertarian party is to rise it cannot become a recruitment tool for the Cult of Objectivism… Rands Philosophy cannot be adopted as the last word on Party Policy… and certainly Objectivist Intolerance towards religious views or Charity… cannot be allowed to set the tone of Party Literature and conduct.
A far more Libertarian and enlightened Character and charter needs to be set and presented to the voting public…one in which Libertarianism is expounded that shows Liberty is far more compassionate and Humane than Socialism ever was… and when you Look a a guy like Prodos Marinakis and his moderated style of Objectivism compared to the Rabid Rand worshiping Egoist and Millitant Atheists… the contrast is stark.
Its the difference between an enlightened and Tolerant, and thinking Libertarian… from an indoctrinated Fanatical Zealot of a God hating Cult of selfish arseholes!
This Caricature of Rand and Objectivism may be an exaggeration yet it is not wholly Unjustified as anyone who has had anything to do with the Objectivist movement will tell you… and you can read about just how delusional Rand was in person by one of her closest and most dedicated disciples… Nathaniel Branden… Read “My Years with Ayn Rand”.
When Judgement day comes for Any Rand she will be exposed as a fraud… In Reality she was not Great at all but a Delusional Woman full of the worst Character traits… and her toxic beliefs bring out the worst in those that are deceived by her.
Fortunately there are some New Zealand Objectivists and Libertarians who share the same virtues as Prodos… those that are prepared to think for themselves more and quote Rand less.
Any New party would need to maintain a separation of the Church of Ayn Rand and State… as much as a separation of any other personal ideology.
This is where hope lies and could be the basis for Cooperation between Libertarians of all persuasions.
Getting things all in their correct context and this way Libertarianism will have a much broader appeal… including winning Christians and others out of Socialism and into supporting Freedom where they ought to be. This will only happen when Egoism, and Atheism, and Selfishness are not the defining traits of the Libertarian party… But Enlightened tolerance and adherence to just principles, equality before the Law, and a desire to downsize Government and abolish unjust tyrannical laws and taxes… “He who governs best… governs least”. Thomas Jefferson.
Maybe sometime soon Kiwi Libertarians can have a Reunion… a few Beers… and talk about what could be… what should be in the near future.
This question (above) was asked on a facebook debate page and my answer follows below.
This is a subject fundamental to why/ how I myself abandoned atheist evolution and became a Genesis literal bible believer… I Followed the evidence…..
The following is my reply to the above moot….
This is basic Biology.
Not hard to understand… even though so many Atheist evolutionists certainly dont get it.
Firstly… appreciate the fact that science has already admitted *all humans come from a single pair* Read more *here*
Its a fact… yet you still may need to know *how the differences happen*
Its written in our genes…. there is only *One human Race*
(Genus) yet there are basically three subgroups (species) Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid… all Humans (and groups) today being explicable in terms of ratios of these sub groups… that have come about by sexual reproduction either in Segregation or hybridization (mixing).
*No New Genes* are required to create the distinct characteristics… this happens via *combinations of dominant and recessive genes (Mendels Law)
Why are you and your Brother and sister different and not identical?
Do you know that the potential genetic variation between just a single couple is they could hypothetically have several Billion children… all slightly different genetically!
So When God separated the great mass of Humanity at the Tower of Babel… different goups began to migrate throughout the world *separating* themselves into *Gene pools*… each with different sets of dominant and recessive genes… and the further they separated… the more they interbred and the Dominate Genes started to develop *Physical Traits* that were peculiar to each gene pool (while the underlying fact that we are all still humans never altered and is why we can still interbreed… a Nordic Giant can still produce offspring from a Hottentot… because we are all still a single *kind* …. human beings. )…
From Babel… thousands of years ago… some who traveled in one direction became white… some who traveled in another became black… etc etc… yet we are still fundamentally the same…underneath the skin….
And these genetic laws have been understood for millennia even before Mendel proved scientifically *why*.
Farmers have always taken their best animals and bred them together… etc etc… and this is how we have different *breeds* of Dogs, cattle, etc etc.
This is just a basic outline of why…. there is much more… yet this will suffice.
Christian Libertarian Dispensationalist 1611 King James Bible believer.
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
“If somebody says something to me particularly stupid, yet they say it with Proper Grammar… Then I immediately assume the following…What Graduate school did you attend?…”
“The Chaotic forces have taken over education…”
Watch this great video (below)
Idiot hippies are calling this “Environmental art…
You superstitious fools!
Atheist *Scientists* argue… and they would know… because they are so much smarter than idiots who believe in ‘Intelligent design’… and…. you are not *qualified enough* to have any contrary opinion of weight…. they say this is ‘simply’ a natural occurrence… no design… fully explicable via the laws of gravity, mass, motion, etc.
Pay Homage to Multiverse theory!
We just so happen to live in a universe where this happened…. randomly… without a creator…
Dont argue… you are ‘Anti-science’… (and probably a terrorist)
I have just started reading Christopher Hill’s ‘God’s Englishman’ Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution and from the very start I find the Biblical political Ideology and dynamics within the Reformation that led to the full exposition of the Just limits to Kingly or Popish powers, and the inalienable nature of the God given rights of every Individual.
The Author introduces his readers to ‘Thomas Beard’.
He was Schoolmaster in the Free school of the Town of Huntington attended by Oliver the Boy… and is a person whom Hill says history records as a greater influence on the young O.C than his own father.
There is a vital truth in all this for the factual historic argument that Libertrainism was born of Protestant Christianity.
An unassailable fact that has been utterly bamboozeled by that commonplace naive and ignorant Atheist delusion about a historic battle between science and religious superstition.
The modern world and esp Western Freedom and prosperity are not the fruits of any supposed ‘triumph of secular materialist rationalism’.
It was not the growth of Materialism them gave birth to the ideals and principles of Liberty… but all the struggles for power and tyranny between the Religious factions , and the arguments the Protestant theologians found in the bible… that justified their calls for Freedom of Religion, private property rights, freedom from excessive taxation…. etc.
Thus the Doctrines of the equality of Humanity and the God given inalienable rights of the individual, and the limited just powers of government.
You have to be ignorant of a massive amount of the history of western civilisation to maintain that tired fantasy that enlightened progress and prosperity in the West is due to atheism and the abandonment of religion.
The Protestant Reformation was a doctrinal and political revival of the true faith …it stands opposed to the absolute power of either State or the Church.
So far I am only up to page 40… 250 more still to go so no doubt I will blog a many more comments on this book before I am through… so epic were the game of thrones at this time… for real.
The Right of Revolution….even Regicide.
So Thomas Beard is yet another example of this Protestant Christian Libertarian Enlightenment.
It’s King James Bible Time.
Today I want to make my rebuttal of a friends defense for Larkin Rose’s expressed position on God/ Deism.
Larken Rose Recognizes the fingerprint of Intelligence within the incredible design of living things yet appears ambivalent towards any further thought or discussion about the ramifications of this Revelation.
He reminds me of the late A Flew… the once High priest of Atheism who in the face of the discoveries of Modern science esp the complexity of living things abandoned his Atheism for belief in Intelligent design… yet never made the full traverse to Bible believing Faith in THE LORD.
Flew was an honest thinker yet ran out of Time…whereas Larken Rose still has time to discover the truth… yet his attitude appears to me to be that of a Man who does not really want to go down that road…and I question his motives.
I argue why Deism may once have been forgivable/ understandable in the distant past, yet is inexcusable today, and that now Reason and Logic are on the side of the Theist.
While both entail the belief in a Creator God, what distinguishes Deism from Theism is that Deism rejects Divine interventions in the affairs of Men… No Miracles to circumvent the laws of Nature… and esp No Divine special Revelations to mankind.
It will be necessary for me to skip over large portions of history and related material for the sake of brevity such as the Deism of the 18th century.
(I will have to do a separate Blog post on these important aspects of this topic at some later date, and insert a link to it here)
Watch Larken Rose Here…
Ten or more years ago I was asked to debate Hamilton based Atheists for the existence of the Christian God.
One of my opponents was Garry Mallett from Act.
Now The only reason I have mentioned this debate is because the 2nd part of my argument was the logical assumption that *If there is in fact a God (in the Full context of the word) and that he made us human beings…as Rational, conscious beings… that it would be a reasonable assumption to think that surely he would communicate with us some how… who he is… why he made us…etc rather than just leaving us Ignorant about such things.
That was my premise for why it is rational to at least consider the possibility that the Bible’s claim to be the Divine Revelation from the Creator of the Universe to be a plausible possibility at least… and that the honest thinking person having first concluded that the Universe and Living things are best understood as the products of intelligent design… that following upon that, that The Bible answers the questions that naturally flow on…. The *Who* is this Great designer of the Universe… and what message does he have for us… his Conscious Rational Moral Free Agent Creations… and most importantly… that such a Revelation is precisely what the rational mind would expect from the God who is there… rather than silence.
This is an argument that places Theism as superior to mere Deism and in fact renders belief in Deism today to be a cop out…poor reasoning at best… mostly willful ignorance.
Deism and Theism both draw upon what has been described as ‘Natural religion’… Ideas about God derived from looking at Nature… looking at what has been described as ‘The Book of God’s works’.
Yet Theism makes an additional claim that we have a second Book that we may also gain direct and infallible knowledge about God.. The Book of his actual words.
Deism/ Natural Religion is great up to certain point, yet severely limited as it can never tell us Human beings *who God is*… only that he is there… and that he is super intelligent and super powerful, and that there is some sort of Objective moral law which We Human beings ought to at least try and live by… that gives our Moral sence some legitimate foundation and purpose… rather than simply being some sort of illusion… mere sentiment… mere feelings.
An Idea such as ‘Kharma’, or ‘Reaping what you sow’… These are the sorts of ideas human beings have arrived at via contemplating nature… ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’ … ‘Be Good’… we know that’Theft is evil’…because we hate it when someone steals from us… so dont steal from others… yet still none of this has anything higher than our own opinion to rest upon… or the opinion of ‘wise others’… and is therefore not impervious to arguments of evil men that assert that all such moralizations are vacuous.
Dark minds may posit the question… Maybe the Deity is Malevolent?
Do not Floods and Earthquakes signal that our creator is far from a caring God! ????
Is the only Moral Rule …contrary to what the wowzers would have us believe…that the Strong may subject the weak?
Are they trying to subject the strong to whiles of the weak?
What the heck is really going on?
Deism cant definitively answer this… yet it gives those whom cling to it a certain self-justification for not being Nihilistic… for claiming they are Moral and good. (something that is necessary because of what the bible describes as our innate knowledge/ consciousness of Good and evil)
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:…”
St Paul. Romans 1:20.
Yet Deism says *Nobody can claim to really know*.
Now I love many of the Great heathen thinkers of classical times, whom both believed a God exists, and that Humanity should be moral, and because of the times and places in which *they lived* I accept that they really had taken ‘Natural religion’ to its highest forms and that they had no ‘Rungs upon which they could possibly ascend higher and closer to God’, and that they were Good, wise, Moral men…In the context of how good any man might be under such circumstances. (Separated/ aliens from Israel, mostly living before the advent of Christ)
It is at this plateau that many of the Great Heathen moral thinkers had arrived.
The Stoic Marcus Aurelius is supposed to have said…
Though Aurelius lived post-Christ and had ‘herd’ about the Christians and held negative opinions about them, I am not sure to what degree he had any real first hand communications with them, or any familiarity with the Old testament/ Book of Genesis, thus I tend to consider his situation as very similar to that of the *Pre-Christ* Gentile thinkers… Aliens from the Divine revelation.
He was a very interesting thinker…God will judge him. Here is an interesting link to this Topic
Now As a Christian Theist who believes the Bible, I know there are Mountains of the most vital truths missing from this Natural/Deistic Faith position because I have the Divine Revelation… The Holy inspired and preserved words of God Almighty himself esp the Facts That Humanity is under a curse because of our Sin, and that our Sin separates us from God and puts us in danger of His Judgement and Damnation.
*It is possible*… because it is so obvious… without the aid of scripture to apprehend by the power of reason alone Humanities fallen/ sinful condition… our wickedness… our depravity… our Cruelty…. and perhaps from this a rationale may be conceived of the need to somehow appease the anger of the God(s)… for justice sake… all sorts of weird Ideas have been proposed… *Yet via reason it would be impossible to conceive of the doctrine of Christs virgin birth, and substitutional atonement for our sins, and resurrection*…from nature alone.
Indeed many Naturally minded people find these Doctrines repugnant… which leads to my main contentions for this blog about Deists living today in western civilization… and their willful ignorance/ rejection of the Divine Revelation… the Bible in which all these doctrines are laid out in the most Logical fashion from the very beginning in Genesis.
As I have said Deism is severely handicapped to what degree it can reveal the nature of God to us… limited in its certainty of moral precepts, etc, none the less *Today*…far from these limits as being considered by trendy thinkers as pitfalls… these people actually *enjoy* them!
Most of these are people *Today* … follow a trend that became fashionable from the end of the Great reformation who… for various reasons…good or bad… *hate organised religion* (which tends to be where Theistic claims of having ‘Divine revelation’ are most prevalent) … they also enjoy what they see as ‘the Freedom to do as they please… the only moral restraints being their own conscience… and esp that Deism can make no emphatic claims of Divine Judgement for moral failures… it cant even emphatically state the validity of any Human Judgement derived from Nature.
They will say that ‘Reason’ is the only Authority they will subject themselves to, and as they have reached to limits of Reason… they cannot be subject to any higher Moral authority or law.
Philosophers love to quote Hume … “you cant get an ‘Ought from an Is”.
Its Funny though that ordinary people seem to be able to do just that without much trouble appealing to sentiment… they are not moved by arguments that say we can have no confidence in these… in fact to my thinking …the rational approach to this mystery of consciousness to the ideas of Good and evil is not to say ‘We cant ever know’… but instead to set out *in faith* on a Pilgrimage to discover some means by which our sentiments can find Objective validation… It is a quest of discovery for the Divine revelation from the Intelligent Creator whose existence is testified to by his Natural handiwork.
And It is an Irony that in a work by the great skeptic himself David Hume called ‘Dialogues concerning Natural religion’ in which there is a debate about the existence of God, in which Hume deploys his skeptical arguments in the person of ‘Philo’, yet stunningly… in the final analysis his Book ends by giving the victory to the Theist ‘Cleanthes’!
My contention at the Debate was that not only did the Deity Communicate his existence and expectations of Humanity via Prophets and the written word… He intervened into Human affairs in the Most personal manor…. He visited us… and Walked among us… God was manifest in the flesh.
“Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:…”
Now when you add up all the components I have briefly discussed above you ought to be able to grasp why it is that I myself am a Theist… a Bible believer… That the fact that we westerners have easy access to the King James Bible and the book of Genesis therein, that willfully seeking to remain ignorant of the Divine revelation is inexcusable… and why it is that I have a pet dislike for modern Deism… esp its corruption/heresy of what I call Christian Deism which I see as a pathetic retreat from true Christian Theistic faith…caused by a weakness in faith and Bad reasoning… in the face of Atheist sophistry. (Topic for another Post)
I actually struggle to contain my contempt!
I need to take 5… and chill… and remember that it is only by Gods grace that I myself am a Christian at all.
I need to remember *How alien* I once was… How utterly incapable of apprehending the existence of God let alone the truthfulness of the Bible!
It is with all this in mind that I decided to keep calm and write this post..
Recently A friend of mine tried to justify the Deism of one of his Favorite thinkers Larkin Rose, which I had critisised as being pathetic… because he refused to make the most basic inference that Intelligent design demands *GOD* and that from this obvious conclusion… if he was an honest thinker… would demand he then begin a personal pilgrimage to discover *Who* this Grand designer is.
My friend began to repair to the arguments *of Classical Deism* and the limits that Logic faced in that direction… as if that excuse… which of course appears quite valid when looking back to heathen lands… and times before Christ… aliens to the Divine Revelation, Yet This blogpost is my express rebuttal to that argument when applied to modern thinkers like Larkin.
It is invalid for Thinkers today to simply rest on that ancient Plateau… because they live post Christ and have access to the Bible and history.
This makes them fully culpable for rejecting Jesus Christ.
Socrates on the other hand was not privy to the Bible… and I even conjecture that he would have become a Christian had he been given the opportunity… so many of his conclusions about Divine things being in perfect harmony with the scriptures… that he never had opportunity to read.
I say that If Socrates would have considered the Gargantuan explanatory power for the first chapters in the book of Genesis…plus all the rest… the Biblical explanation for the existence of Evil…The explanation of why God has separated himself from mankind… why we die… why there are Natural disasters, etc etc that it is very possible that he would have realised that this divine revelation gives a great logical basis for Biblical theistic faith when one applies it to the world about him.
That in fact the Bible *Is the Revelation* of the Intelligent designer of everything…his message to us his creatures… esp telling us *Who he is*… and what is *Really* going on.
So I question why it is that though Larken Rose sees through the delusion of atheistic evolution, he still is apathetic towards discovering *Who God is* and challenge him to Read the King James Bible… to really contemplate it’s message… and that in doing so he would no longer be in a position to argue that Logic ends at the plateau of Natural religion.
The Bible is a logical extension from the Plateau at the top of the Mountain… upwards out of the stratosphere all the way… a direct line of communication to the Deity… a logical vindication of Bible believing christian Theism.
Of course Satan and his minions have been attacking the Bible, and via sophistry undermining faith in its veracity as The Bible is the Ultimate Fortress of God for the believer. It is the Ultimate Lighthouse in the storm of life Shining its beams upon the treacherous Rocks of peril, and a Guide of Safe passage… salvation to every soul who sees its light and navigates into the Harbour of God’s love and Grace.
Satan is the enemy Of God and Men’s souls…The Father of Lies… it was by cunning craftiness that he was able to deceive Eve, and get her to disbelieve Gods word and to Eat of the forbidden fruit, and he has been at this game the whole time… Deceiving… yet the word of God remains like a Rock
Happy Resurrection Day!
Protestant, 1611 King James Bible believer, Dispensationalist, Christian Libertarian.
The last paragraphs of Humes Dialouges concerning Natural religion…
If the whole of Natural Theology, as some people seem to maintain, resolves itself into one simple, though somewhat ambiguous, at least undefined proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect as it is, can be carried no farther than to the human intelligence; and cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs; and believe that the arguments, on which it is established, exceed the objections, which lie against it? Some astonishment indeed will naturally arise from the greatness of the object: Some melancholy from its obscurity: Some contempt of human reason, that it can give no solution more satisfactory with regard to so extraordinary and magnificent a question. But believe me, Cleanthes, the most natural sentiment, which a well-disposed mind will feel on this occasion, is a longing desire and expectation, that heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least alleviate this profound ignorance, by affording some more particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our faith. A person, seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: While the haughty Dogmatist, persuaded, that he can erect a complete system of Theology by the mere help of philosophy,
disdains any farther aid, and rejects this adventitious instructor. To be a philosophical Sceptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian; a proposition, which I would willingly recommend to the attention of Pamphilus: And I hope Cleanthes will forgive me for interposing so far in the education and instruction of his pupil.
Cleanthes and Philo pursued not this conversation much farther; and as nothing ever made greater impression on me, than all the reasonings of that day; so, I confess, that, upon a serious review of the whole, I cannot but think, that Philo’s principles are more probable than Demea’s; but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth.