SILENCE OF THE SHEEP

NASA’S CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR – A SPACE CADET!

2010-07-06T16:34:00.000-07:00

When Charles F. Bolden, Jr. was asked by President Obama if [he] wanted to lead, and forward the great accomplishments of NASA, Mr. Bolden must have thought Obama said Nasser (the second president of Egypt), when accepting the assignment. After all, how else can one explain Charles Bolden’s description of his current, “Foremost” mission, as helping Muslims, “… feel good about their historic contribution to science…” [sic]. Mr. Bolden could not possibly think he had a case to make for the exceptional strides made by Muslims on behalf of air travel?!? As a matter of fact, everyone knows that Muslims are awful pilots; they cannot seem to keep their aircraft from crashing into things. And, the alleged deftness with which they steer flying carpets – well, that is just a myth!

Again, it seems that President Obama has placed another co-ideologue, and sycophant, in a prominent government position. The United State's space program is now precipitously dangling over the valley of oblivion. With only two more shuttle flights approved by President Obama, future travel to the International Space Station (ISS), will require American astronauts to thumb a ride on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft, at a cost of $50,000,000.00 per passenger. Since when, should America rely on a foreign country to travel into, and explore, space? Additionally, NASA Chief Administrator Bolden has cancelled plans to return to the moon, and eliminated the Constellation program, which included the production of new rockets and spaceships. This should help grow jobs in America! So, what is left of our space program, and a prominent element of America’s "Exceptionalism?" Promoting Muslim self-esteem, of course!

Does this new direction, by NASA, offend the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Is NASA, thus, our government, promoting a specific religion? Well, if the U.S. government promoted policies to make Christians feel good about themselves, [that] issue would certainly be vociferously posed by the progressive Democratic Party. I doubt we will hear from them in this present case.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

2010-04-20T18:25:00.000-07:00

When I first heard the news that U.S. District Judge, Barbara Crabb, had ruled, THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I actually felt more amusement than anger. Don’t get me wrong; this is serious stuff. It’s just that the insincere and fatuous premise applied by Judge Crabb, and those of her ilk, in reaching such conclusions, has become tedious.

The “religion clauses” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution consist of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Together, they state that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These clauses clearly set government boundaries, precluding the establishment of a national religion (the preference of one over another) and, the subjugation of individual religious thought and expression. Prayer is not establishing a religion; [it] is merely the free exercise thereof. No reasonable person can come to any other conclusion. Those who do, must abandon intellectual honesty to forward their sinister objective of removing all religious thought and principles from the public square.

So that you are aware of the major players in the effort to eradicate religion in America, I have identified them below. I strongly advocate knowing from where secular activism emanates:

I first must mention the Warren Court of the 1960’s. Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the Supreme Court’s ruling to deny prayer in public schools. Justice Black wrote the decision in Engle v. Vitale, deeming prayer in the classroom to be unconstitutional. This decision in 1963 set the stage for an unprecedented attack on religion in the United States. From this Court’s ruling, came the now infamous phrase, “separation of church and state.” I challenge anyone to find that phrase in the U.S. Constitution!

The organization that brought the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER case to the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin, is the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Based in Madison, Wisconsin, the FFRF has an Honorary Board consisting of such luminaries as Mike Newdow, the misguided activist whose attempts to remove the word “GOD” from the Pledge of Allegiance have continually failed; Ron Reagan, Jr., the failed talk-show host and object of a pernicious forceps birth; Richard Dawkins, the world’s foremost authority on Atheism; and, Christopher Hitchens, the prolific writer and “angry” atheist. FFRF was founded in 1976 and boasts some 13,000 members.

Another major antagonist of Christian expression is, ironically, the Reverend Barry W. Lynn. Lynn is the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. [This] organization is affiliated with the non-inspired United Church of Christ, which favors progressive views on civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, and abortion. Whenever there is national discussion on issues involving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Barry trots out on his tired, sweaty, one-liner horse to proclaim, ad nauseum, “there is constitutional support for separation of church and state; brush it down and put it away, Barry! Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded in 1957 and claims a following of approximately 1,000,000 converts world-wide (counting Barry and his family).

Probably the best-known proponent of secular-progressive ideas is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In reality, the ACLU was formed with the intention of destroying the American capitalistic society. It was founded in 1920 by a self-described socialist named Roger Baldwin, and his partner in crime, Crystal Eastman, a zealous feminist and great admirer of the Soviet revolution. Roger had spent time in Russia, post formation of the ACLU, studying and admiring Stalin’s government structure. At a time when President Hoover was exporting American ideas and values, the Soviets were espousing a collectivism economic model - a model, Roger Baldwin wished to promote in the United States. Baldwin was a great admirer of the Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, who advocated selective breeding (eugenics), and abortion on demand. Roger also called a marriage between a man and a woman, “a grim mockery of essential freedom.” The fundamental concepts of Roger Baldwin thrive today in the tenets of the ACLU.

What is the best weapon to thwart these active, progressive groups? - A national day of prayer!

DID SCOTT BROWN RECEIVE ASSISTANCE FROM ABOVE?

2010-01-29T16:11:00.000-08:00

Was Scott Brown’s recent U.S. Senate seat victory in Massachusetts a fluke, or did God have a direct hand in the outcome? This win by Mr. Brown brought about an abrupt and timely cessation to the imminent passing of federal policies, which would grow government, and by doing so, limit the freedoms of this nation’s citizens. Assuredly, no one saw this one coming!

So many individuals, around the world, pray daily for God’s intercession and protection of the United States. They know that God has richly blessed America, but fear that our contemporary leaders have moved away from the guiding principles that have served this country so well. [Those] principles, established by the word of God, permeate America’s constituted foundation, making the United States the most humane and charitable nation on earth. Among God’s abundant and absolute answers to prayer, one should consider that the recent appropriation of the democratically controlled Senate seat by Scott Brown was providential. This divine intervention is revealed by God’s consistent use of “extremes” to instruct and direct His children

In my on-going reading of the Holy Bible, I am continuously struck by God’s manner of applying “extremes” in communicating lessons and instruction to His followers. God performs miracles every day, and uses ordinary people and unlikely circumstances to fulfill them.

It is not my purpose, in this writing, to interpret God’s intent for His use of “extremes;” I simply want to establish the connection of the unlikely victory in Massachusetts with the manner in which God often reveals His active and guiding hand in our lives. There are far too many examples of improbable players and circumstances in the Bible to disclose them in this format. So, let’s review a couple of well-known instances:

Jesus, the Son of God, was born into this world in a cave shared by barnyard animals. [His] birthplace, Bethlehem, was under the dominion of the “Madman,” Herod, who enjoyed the backing of Rome. The Jews expected a great military king to be their promised Messiah – one who would overthrow Rome’s control of their people. A carpenter, born in a cave, did not provide the royal image the Jews were certain their Messiah would possess.

Sarah wanted to give Abraham a son, but at 90-years old, understood she was well passed a fertile age. However, God promised Abraham his own nation, inhabited by many descendants through his marriage with Sarah. Abraham and Sarah conceived a son, Isaac, when Abraham was 100-years old. Several years after Isaac’s birth, God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his only son with Sarah as a burnt offering. God was testing Abraham’s obedience to make clear that Abraham loved God even more than his promised and long-awaited son. In the end, God spared Isaac’s life. God did not just ask a righteous man of younger years, with many sons, to sacrifice a single son. God instructed a man beyond child-seeding years, to sacrifice his only son.

Moses delivered two million Israelites from slavery in Egypt to self-determination in Israel. This unlikely emancipator was the adopted grandson of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. God used an inarticulate royal family member of Egypt to become the spokesperson for the liberation of His chosen people.

A mere boy, and the youngest of eight brothers, David killed the 9-foot tall Philistine soldier (Goliath), who was taunting and challenging the entire Israelite army. Upon witnessing Goliath’s demise, at the hand of a boy, the Philistine army retreated, in fear, from the Israelites. David later succeeded Saul as the greatest king of Israel.

The Apostle Paul shaped the early Christian church more than any single individual, other than Jesus, himself. By following Jesus’ instruction to spread the Gospel throughout the world, Paul offered Christ’s salvation to the gentiles. Prior to meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul (then named Saul) was a Pharisee, dedicated to persecuting those who followed Jesus’ teachings. Paul was zealous in his hatred of the Christian faith; he sought and obtained authority from the Jewish high priests to capture and arrest Christians in Damascus, so that he could return them to Jerusalem for prosecution and death-sentencing.

These are just a few examples of God selecting the most unlikely individuals and circumstances to reveal His truths.

Just thirty days ago, only a relatively few knew the name Scott Brown. Yet, today, Mr. Brown is a national hero to many. A month ago, Scott Brown was 30 percentage points down to his rival, heir apparent, Martha Coakley. To make the argument for God’s use of “extremes,” and thus, His hand in this process, it was ostensibly impossible for a conservative Republican to take a Senate seat (held for forty-two years by a Democrat) in the most liberal, progressive – secular state in the union. Thank you, Jesus, for your answers to our prayers!

KICK LARRY DAVID TO THE CURB

2009-11-01T11:19:00.000-08:00

In a recent episode of the HBO series, “Curb your Enthusiasm,” writer and producer, Larry David inadvertently urinates on a picture of Jesus. The picture is hanging on a wall in the guest bathroom of a home he is visiting. Larry David’s urine, which continues to drip down the picture, subsequent to Larry’s departure from the bathroom, makes it appear to the homeowner and her mother (who later witness the scene) that Jesus, is weeping. The two women, in a state of awe and reverence, kneel before the picture and pray. The naïve homeowner and her mother (as depicted) believe this event to be a miracle. The miracle, as I see it, is that a sixty-two year-old man could pee more that three inches up a wall. Larry is fantasizing again! While doing so, however, L.D. has desecrated an image of deity, most sacred to the Christian faith.

The obvious question is, would Larry David perform the same shtick with a picture of Allah? Probably not; characterizations of Allah are forbidden by Muslims. How about a likeness of Mohammad? Sure, at the risk of a Rushdie-style contract on Larry’s head. I do not think Larry David is that brave, nor is Islam Larry’s concern. I doubt we would ever see Larry David urinating on a picture of Brahman, a Hindu god, Buddha, the Maharishi of TM, or Yoda, for that matter. Why? Because none of the gods, representing these religions, are threatening to Larry’s secular, humanistic lifestyle. I am certain Larry’s god is exempt from his micturition splatter, as well. Can you imagine Larry’s rage should he witness someone pissing on a picture of a dollar bill?

There is a battle currently raging between worldly, “New York – Hollywood” philosophy and Christ’s message. Larry David understands this, only too well! Jesus Christ and His followers are the enemy of the humanist perspective – a view and lifestyle, which Larry David holds dear. The pee fest, exhibited in Larry’s recent show, was a deliberate and calculated effort to offend those, who he believes are challenging his philosophy of life. His efforts were successful, in a most base and un-cultured manner. I was greatly offended and outraged when I saw a clip of the episode. Apparently, so were many other Christians. Their immediate verbal and written response to Larry’s crude and disrespectful act caused HBO to release a statement that Larry was just acting “Playful.” If HBO actually believes that ridiculous explanation of Larry’s sacrilege, they should warn Larry’s two daughters to wear heavy rain gear upon visitation.

Some who have defended the episode in question, say that Larry David offends everybody?!? That’s a nice human quality! And, how does that make me feel better about his abhorrent act? Additionally, there have been those who place the blame of Christian outrage on an inability to show tolerance, “as the Bible teaches.” Nice try! As the Bible does not teach “Tolerance,” this transfer of responsibility does not work (please read my posting on “Tolerance,” dated, October 30, 2008). It also demonstrates the ignorance of Bible scripture by those who pose this fallacious argument.

As Christians, we must rebuke the kind of behavior displayed by Larry David. My recommendation is to write a letter to HBO, 1100 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 and express your outrage, primarily by cancelling your subscription; make yourself heard! Additionally, should you be a fan of "Curb your Enthusiasm," don't admit it and stop watching!

SELF-REALIZATION ETHICS

2009-09-08T13:48:00.000-07:00

This topic represents the last in my series of moral and ethical thought, which has molded the contemporary culture in which we live.

The philosophy of self-realization proclaims divinity as part of the self. Its commandments declare: feel and realize thy divine nature; thou art the master of your destiny; have a new angle of vision; arm yourself with discrimination, cheerfulness, discernment, alacrity and an understanding spirit. Anyone remember Erhard Seminars Training (EST) in the 1970’s and 1980’s? Self-realization promises: a glorious brilliant future is awaiting you; let the past be buried; you can work miracles; you can do wonders; do not give up hope; you can destroy the harmful effects of unfavorable planets through your will-force; you can command the elements and the nature; you can neutralize the effect of evil influences and the antagonistic dark forces that may operate against you; destiny is your own creation; you have created your destiny through thought and actions; even if there is an evil or a dark antagonistic force to attack you, you can diminish its force by resolutely denying the existence of evil or turning your mind away from it. Did you happen to notice this pervasive theme in the Star Wars film series? Yes, George Lucas realized his “Divine Nature” a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Self-realization teaches that there is no such thing as sin. Sin is only a mistake. Sin is a mental creation. The baby-soul must commit some mistakes during the process of evolution; mistakes are the best teachers! OK, let me see..., "Teachers are good; mistakes are teachers; therefore, mistakes are good!?!" "Russian roulette is a mistake; mistakes are good; let’s play Russian roulette. Bam!!! That will teach me!"

To attain self-realization, one must rely on self only; destroy the inferiority complex, draw power, courage, strength from within, and lead a life of non-attachment. This ambition offers the diametric objective of what Jesus Christ wants for his children. Accordingly, stop worrying about your crummy self-esteem!

This fatuous philosophy of ethics completely eludes rational thought, the reality of life, and most importantly, God’s obvious truths. It only deserves mention in that it is the conglomeration of humanist subjectiveness, and has captured many lost souls in an expanding realm of “New Age” ethics and religion.

RELATIVISM ETHICS

2009-06-21T18:01:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of my series on the origins and tenets of contemporary philosophies of morals and ethics:

According to the view of the relativist, the awareness of societal customs, and not moral truths, are the only standards for achieving situational harmony. These customs are not sanctioned, for that would imply an independent standard of right and wrong. As there can be no independent standard, every standard is culture-oriented.

For the relativist, the study of history and culture, establishes that past behavior throughout the entire world was fostered by madness; man always thought that he was right, which led to wars, persecutions, slavery, racism, etc. The relativist is not compelled to learn from the mistakes of the past to be right; rather, [he] is unencumbered by an obligation to be right at all.

Relativists do not believe that there are self-evident moral principles that are true for everyone. [They] say that the customs and traditions for the society in which they live determine one’s moral judgments. These judgments may have been handed down for centuries, but their age or past application does not secure them as true standards; they are simply norms that certain society has developed for itself. What is right, is what society says is right, and whatever is considered good for society, must be right.

The relativism philosophy advances the notion that moral problems arise out of a conflict of impulses or desires. Therefore, the goal of moral deliberation is to find a course of action that will turn a conflict into harmony. Each individual problem must be viewed in the light of the actions necessary to solve it, with some understanding of the consequences, which naturally follow the actions. A choice is right if it leads to a solution of the specific conflict; however, there is no absolute right or good, as every successful solution gives rise to new problems that must be evaluated on their own terms. Moral rules are only hypotheses, or tentative assumptions, which have been found to work in certain circumstances. Accordingly, there are no principles or standards that are right for all people at all times. New situations demand new approaches. What was once valid may be inappropriate now.

In the relativist’s view, one ought to do whatever fulfills the highest moral rule in a situation. When this is done, such action is right, and in no way can be wrong. Within this context, there are no tragic moral dilemmas. The lesser of two evils is a misnomer because the relativist argues, the lesser evil is actually good!

EXISTENTIAL ETHICS

2009-04-16T14:06:00.000-07:00

It is my intention, in presenting the various societal philosophies, to offer an awareness of the foundations of thought, relevant to the establishment of today’s ethical standards. In this respect, one may better understand the root causes, and therefore the effects, of contemporary thinking and actions:

Existentialism is a philosophy of several varieties. Its general theme focuses concern on human existence, hence, the name “Existentialism.” The concern is not upon some kind of abstract principle of metaphysics, or of God, or things of that nature, but the concern is with human beings, and what it means to exist as a person in this world. Existentialism, in fixating on the predicament of the individual, tends to be pessimistic and atheistic.

The most basic tenet, common to the many uses of the term [existentialism], is that man is entirely free and wholly responsible for himself. In this light, mans’ imperfection is suddenly obvious, to which follows a sense of anguish and helplessness. To the existentialist, this is roughly the point of “Awareness.’

Existential awareness can logically lead in several opposing directions, all of which are captured by the term. For some, anguish leads to loneliness and despair, possibly resulting in nihilism (belief that societal conditions warrant destruction). For others, meaningless prevails, and life is simply inconsequential. Yet, others perceive the imperfection of man as merely a changeable facet of his character; for with total freedom and total responsibility, comes limitless potential. The human condition, therefore, is neither absolute nor entirely understood. Improvement can come through the emphasis of different or new human attributes. The individual is free to be whom he chooses.

Existentialism as a philosophy, or world and life view, is largely a 20^th century phenomenon. [It] is the very antithesis of Christian belief, by asserting the total autonomy of man. Hence, it is one of the most virulent forms of humanism. Existentialism has spread rapidly because its proponents often convey their message in more artistic form, rather than in dry philosophic tomes. Their medium is often novels, plays, art, and movies, which are often profoundly moving and entertaining, as these works speak to real human conditions. The influence of existentialism is pervasive, and often subtle, in our society. The violence and breakdown of modern culture can largely be attributed to the philosophy of existentialism.

The root of existentialism is autonomous thinking. It is man yielding to the satanic temptation of desiring to be as God, i.e., rejecting all outside or transcendent sources of authority. Man does not discover values; he creates them. Since there is no standard to live well, then man should live much. For the existentialist, it is mans’ feelings and passions, which make him a man. Feelings are the standard for truth, e.g., “It is true if I feel strongly about it.” “If it feels good, do it!”

If there is no infinite, personal creator-God who transcends His creation, then there is no infinite reference point, which can give meaning to the particulars of life. Man is alone; there is only the cosmos, and mans’ consciousness of himself. A man, therefore, is the sum total of the acts that make up his life – no more, no less! When a man is alive, he is a subject; when he is dead, he is an object.

IS BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE NECESSARILY A BAD THING?

2009-03-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

At various times in our lives, we have all been chastised and denounced as hypocrites. Certainly, being labeled with that moniker was not meant to edify your behavior or intellectual posture. On the contrary, it is most often used to eliminate one’s credibility as a legitimate contributor to a philosophical debate. In these times of growing secular positioning, the word [hypocrite] has gained accelerated, liberal acceptance as an expedient means of claiming victory in any discussion of social values.

I am going to go out on a limb on this one and say, it is not necessary a bad thing to be called a hypocrite. To understand my thinking, one must consider the path to avoiding the purposed pejorative – simply claim no principles.

The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines “Hypocrite” as: One who feigns to be what one is not; assuming a false appearance of piety and virtue; insincerity; pretending goodness or religion. Clearly, pretending virtue or goodness is not an admirable personal attribute, but labeling someone as described, can be a subjective or intended misrepresentation of character. I would posit that more often than not, this would be the case. You may have noticed that Christians tend to be frequently targeted for this belittling stamp. Belly-dancers, Congressmen, and lawyers generally get a pass.

Prior to Jesus’ arrest by Pontius Pilate, had the disciple Peter been feigning love for his Savior? Was Peter, in fact, a hypocrite [note: The descriptive noun did not exist at that time] for denying his association with Jesus? Or, had Jesus merely predicted mans’ weakness when separated from God? God understood the intrinsic nature of man and sent His Son as a sacrifice for mans’ sinful behavior. Jesus knew Peter’s impetuous heart and his human frailties, yet Peter was the disciple whom Jesus told to “Feed my lambs” (John 21:15). If in the eyes of others, Peter was a hypocrite, it did not appear to disqualify his appointment by Jesus as leader of the disciples.

As Christians, we understand the sinful nature of man. We know that our sins are only forgiven by God’s grace and mercy. Does this knowledge suggest that we continue to live as God has instructed us, or yield to the imminence of future sinful behavior to avoid the dreaded “H-word” slander? Sadly, the fear of hypocrisy keeps some from making a commitment to Jesus in the first place. Interestingly, it is often a self-inflicted burden. But is putting one’s faith in Christ (for seeking wisdom and righteousness on earth) hypocrisy, when comprehending mans’ true nature? Certainly not! Should we hide our faith in Christ from others for fear of being called a hypocrite? In this context, it is not necessarily a bad thing to be called a hypocrite.

HEDONISM ETHICS

2009-02-23T17:20:00.000-08:00

To help illuminate the bases by which individuals establish their values, I have promised to present the most prevalent ideologies, which have fostered our current cultural thinking in America. This posting is part of a series of core behavioral principles known as, “How people define what it is to be ‘good’,” “Christian Ethics,” “Humanism ethics,” “Hedonism ethics,” “Existentialism ethics,” “Relativism ethics,” and a proclaimed state of mind identified as, “Self-realization.” As Christians, I believe it is important to be knowledgeable of these fundamental belief systems in order to more effectively promote God’s truth within our society:

Hedonism is a philosophy in which the highest good is pleasure. The hedonist decides between the most enduring pleasures or the most intense pleasures, whether present pleasures should be denied for the sake of overall comfort, and whether mental pleasures are preferable to physical pleasures.

The term “Hedonism” means an ethical system based on pleasure instead of rules or consciously chosen values. This system argues that what is moral, in any context, is whatever gives the moral actor the most pleasure. The problem with this concept is that it forgets that men have control over what gives them pleasure, what a person perceives as his values affects what gives him pleasure. A person feels pleasure when he achieves what he believes to be his values. Ethical hedonism is silent on this critical point. Man, in order to practice hedonism, must take his already formed perceptions of proper human values as cast in stone and simultaneously as flexible, [at his whim]. Because hedonism is powerless to tell men what their values are, it fails as an ethical system. Additionally, hedonism robs human beings of volition. It argues that humans, in fact, do not have true volitional power; they automatically choose whatever will give them the most pleasure. Believing this, its adherents cannot argue that the tenets of hedonism are in fact true, but only that it gives them the most pleasure to believe and argue that they are true..

HUMANISM ETHICS

2009-01-25T15:22:00.000-08:00

The ancient Greeks were probably the first humanists. Protagoras wrote, “The human is the measure of all things.” Sophocies expounded on that notion by saying, “Of all the many wonders of the world, there is none so wonderful as the human.”

Today, humanism is an orientation and an approach with applications in virtually all professional disciplines, including education, counseling, law, and medicine. Elizabeth Campbell, a past executive director of the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP), wrote that, “Humanistic psychology holds a hopeful view of people and their ability to be self-determining, self-actualizing, and capable of making choices.” In addition, she listed the likely results of humanism:

1. Promotes human growth and transformation;

2. Provides priority to human needs;

3. Holistically insists on looking at all-encompassing systems;

4. Honors the subjective and the intuitive in the study of humans; and,

5. Supports self-disclosure, trust, and openness as ways of being in the world.

Campbell’s description fits closely with assertions made in the Humanist Manifesto, a collaborative effort written in 1933. The writings declare that the purposes and practice of humanism is to:

1. Affirm life, rather than deny it;

2. Seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and,

3. Endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely the few.

This philosophy of life asserts that human beings are responsible for their own destinies.

From the Humanist’s perspective, principles are chosen where their ultimate value is not determined, nor is the value-determination possible. Such ethical philosophy usually equates satisfaction in life with prudence, power, or pleasure but it is basically derived from belief in the ethical doctrine of natural human fulfillment as the ultimate good. Those lacking motivation to exercise preferences, may be resigned to accepting all customs and, therefore, develop a philosophy of prudence. They live in conformity with a mix of ethical standards, popular with society at the time. Where power is considered the highest attainment for man, competition is identified as the motivating force of achievement. Because each victory tends to raise the level of competition, the logical end of such a philosophy is unlimited or absolute power, which of course, is not possible. Power seekers may not accept customary ethical rules but may conform to other rules that can help them become successful. They will seek to persuade others that they are moral in the accepted sense of the term, in order to mask their power motives and gain the ordinary rewards of morality.

Kenneth W. Phifer, a Harvard University educated Unitarian minister in Massachusetts, affirms his humanistic philosophy of life by articulating, “I have faith in that part of humanism, which sees the human being as the highest form of life; an end, not a means; the creator of moral values; the maker of history.” Odd, that a Harvard educated, Massachusetts citizen would hold counter-cultural views!

The contrast of Minister Phifer’s humanistic philosophy can be no more striking, than when it is compared with the Apostle Paul’s writing in the book of Galatians: “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissention, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these.” Gal. 5:19-21 (NLT).

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

2009-01-05T12:41:00.000-08:00

The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules – God or man? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer is that man makes them. God’s prescription for mans’ behavior in this life has remained timeless and unchanged. Mans’ many philosophies of what is “Good” are continually evolving. That fact, in and of itself, provides a testament to mans’ failure to offer a steady moral compass for society. This distinction between theism and humanism is the basis of division in moral theory and conduct.

The ethical systems of the classical age (490–510 B.C.) were applied to the aristocracy, particularly in Greece. The same standards were not extended to non-Greeks, and the term for them, “Barbarians” acquired derogatory connotations. As for slaves, the attitude toward them can be summed up in Aristotle’s characterization of a slave as a “Living tool.” Partly for these reasons, as the pagan religions decayed, the contemporary philosophies did not gain any popular following, and much of the appeal of Christianity was its extension of moral citizenship to all, even to slaves.

The birth of Jesus Christ marked a revolution in ethics, for He proclaimed, and lived by example, what is good. In the Christian view, a person is totally dependent upon God and cannot achieve goodness by means of deeds or intelligence, but only with the help of God’s grace. The primary Christian ethical belief is stated in the golden rule, in the injunctions to love one’s neighbor as oneself, to love one’s enemies, to give to the government what is the government’s, and give to God what is God’s. Jesus taught that the essential meaning of Jewish Law is in the commandment to love the Lord with all of your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and, your neighbor as yourself.

Christianity emphasizes as virtues, asceticism, martyrdom, faith, mercy, forgiveness, and unconditional love – few of which had been considered important by the philosophers of classical Greece and Rome.

Saint Augustine (354–430 A.D). regarded as the founder of Christian theology, advanced the concept of goodness as an attribute of God and sin as Adam’s fall, from which a person’s guilt is redeemed by God’s mercy. He believed in mans’ basic sinful nature. The 13^th century Christian theologian, Saint Thomas Aquinas, supported Augustinian concepts of original sin and redemption through divine grace.

The Protestant Reformation, lead by Martin Luther (1483–1546 A.D), effected a widespread following of basic moral principles within the Christian tradition. He believed that goodness of spirit is the essence of Christian piety. Moral conduct, or good works, is required of the Christian, but justification, or salvation, comes by faith alone. Additionally, the French Protestant theologian and religious reformer John Calvin (1509–1564 A.D.), accepted the theological doctrine that justification is by faith alone, and so upheld the doctrine of “Original sin.”

It is the divine ownership of man, which grounds ethical obligation. Call it divine lordship or divine sovereignty, the fact is that God has made man and therefore owns man. Man is God’s creature. It is the position of divine possession, which is the deepest meaning of the Creator/creature relationship. Neither divine power, nor divine goodness may be divorced from this relationship, but ethical obligation for man arises, first and most essentially, from the fact that man is God’s possession. This is the explanation for ethical reality, as man knows it. Divine ownership grounds mans’ sense of an objective, external, and absolute claim upon his obedience.

It is evident that Christian epistemology both harmonizes and transcends the precepts of non-Christian ethics. Accordingly, omniscience is necessary if any ethical thinking is to be confident. Certainly, man is not and cannot be omniscient; if man professed omniscience, despair would surely be his result.

The fact of divine revelation, however, provides the Christian with the necessary omniscience without the necessity of locating that deity in man. Since God is omniscient, he can provide man with the necessary knowledge to make ethical decisions without making man omniscient. Confidence, rather than despair, may thus mark the Christian approach to ethical decision.

In God's created reality, [He] has designed a world in which all particulars (a separate part of a whole, such as a fact detail, or circumstance), reflect certain universal principles (all-encompassing directives), while not being absorbed by or dissolved into those universal principles. God’s created universals and particulars do not contradict one another. The application of this system and epistemology to ethics provides this important insight. The moral law of God is composed of both universals, as written in (Matt. 22:37-40) and particulars as directed in (Exodus 20). The universals never negate or override the particulars. The particulars always reflect the universals. Hence, all the particular laws of God always reflect love for God and man. There is never any conflict between universals and particulars in God’s law. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Christian epistemology it suggests, immediately illustrates the inadequacy of situationism (to act in accordance with the situation), and other forms of one-norm absolutism (one “particular” fits all), conflicting absolutism (a “particular” that does not fit is due to a lack of knowledge), and graded absolutism (there is a hierarchy of “particulars”, where one will fit different situations). This is so because each of these systems posits conflict between universals and particulars within God’s law, or particulars are subordinated to the universals in some way.

So, who do you think makes the rules? – God or man? To be continued…

Topics:

Humanism

Hedonism

Existentialism

Relativism

Self-Realization

HAPPY ALLAH DAYS!

2008-12-30T09:53:00.000-08:00

The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel on Islam by author Sherry Jones, is based on the seventh-century marriage of the Prophet Muhammad to A’lisha, [his] nine year-old child bride. Originally scheduled to be released last August by The Random House Publishing Group, who advanced Ms. Jones $100,000.00 for publishing rights, suddenly excused themselves from the project. The reason for the hasty retreat by the publisher was explained by Random House deputy publisher, Thomas Perry, in a statement which read, “…the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, and could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”

The controversy began when Mr. Perry stuck his toe in Muslim waters for a temperature reading. By seeking the sage advice of Islam scholars in the American academe, he was advised by a non-Muslim American academic, Ms. Denise Spellberg, that the manuscript was tantamount to, “soft-core pornography.” Call me naïve, but I presumed Muhammad was seeing intellectual stimulus from the nine year-old! Ms. Spellberg also informed Mr. Perry that she had taken the liberty of contacting a Muslim lecturer and asked him to warn Muslims, throughout the world, of the pending publication. Holy Fatwa!!!

The Random house Publishing Group, feeling no obligation to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, chose “The Elite Publisher’s Doctrine of Fear and Intimidation,” i.e., his big brother is bigger than my big brother.”

Can you imagine Random House backing away from a novel about the Apostle Paul? Wait! You do not have to imagine it. Author, Sherry Jones, informed the press yesterday, that an editor at Random House told her, “If she had written a book offending Christians, there would not be a problem.”

Apparently, Thomas Perry is unaware that our God is bigger than their [Random House's] big brother.

CP (CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION) ALERT - CALL TO ACTION!

2008-12-04T17:26:00.000-08:00

On November 23, 2008, The Colbert Report, a left-leaning news parody television show, presented a Christmas skit performed by Willie Nelson. Willie is portrayed as a [fourth] wise man singing to the Baby Jesus on the night of His birth. Nelson's song promotes salvation and “Peace on earth” through the use of marijuana. This is Willie Nelson’s sapient advice and gift to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, one he contents is a preferable gift to frankincense and myrrh. By the completion of his serenade, the wise men and the stable animals are all smoking pot in the manger. Other than Mr. Colbert, I cannot imagine anyone thinking this humorous. Willie Nelson’s opinion does not count, as I doubt the burned-out, cannabis-cured tax evader knew where he was at the time, or what he was doing!

The aforementioned presentation is a precise example of why God’s sheep can no longer be silent. Satirizing, or mocking the greatest event in mankind’s history, can no longer be “Tolerated.” I about came out of my skin when I saw this execration of our Lord. Do you remember why Don Imus was fired by CBS in its exercise of political correctness? How about some “Spiritual Correctness” in our society? We need to promote that agenda!

I urge you to write the CEO/Chairman of MTV Networks, Judy McGrath @ 1515 Broadway, 14^th Floor, New York, NY 10036, to give her your impressions of “Spiritual Correctness” in this matter. She needs to understand how viscerally offensive this kind of material is to those who have turned over their lives to Jesus Christ. If you do not have time to write, call her @ 212.258.8000.

Silence of the Sheep

2008-10-31T16:12:00.000-07:00

THOSE who recognize His voice and follow Him, are His sheep [Christians] and He is their Shepherd [Christ Jesus]. Jesus has promised, that upon His return, He will separate His sheep from the goats [clarification not needed], and place the sheep at His right hand. As the Good Shepherd, Jesus knows His sheep and they know Him. Jesus is the Gate through which His sheep shall pass into the Kingdom of eternal life (John 10:7).

As you look around and contemplate the present state of our country’s evolved temporal culture, with its conspicuous inveiglements, base and authoritarian media, progressive social engineers, and proclamations of humanistic consciousness, are you angry and frustrated? Of course, you are! So, what are you doing about it? Are you offering the alternative- God’s “Truth” to those who engage in dismantling the source of your principles and foundation of belief? Or, is just wringing your hands and whining, an effective source of comfort to you?

As a follower of Christ Jesus, you understand and accept the canon of “Good and Evil.” You know the attributes and consequences of both. Yet, you may be practicing crypto-Christianity – too concerned with what others may make of you, should you emerge from the cloakroom. The 18th Century, English Philosopher, Edmond Burke rightly declared, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Jesus instructed His disciples to go into all nations and make new disciples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Apostle Paul wrote to the believers in Rome to hate what is wrong and stand on the side of good (Rom. 12:9).

Evil has a way of slowly seeping into our contemporary social mores. Many are often fooled by the “World’s” insidious offerings. The slogans and propositions generally sound inviting, e.g., “Be tolerant;” “equal pay for equal work;” “protect your civil liberties;” “god is in us;” "we are a religious organization;" “happy holidays;” “we need to understand our enemies’ perspectives;” “a woman’s right to choose;” “no fault divorce;” “don’t eliminate marriage for anyone;” “separation of church and state;” “improve your self-esteem;” “do what feels good;” and, “save our planet.” You get the idea! However, for those who wear the armor of God, He grants wisdom and discernment. He shows how to distinguish right from wrong and how to separate from those with intentions of doing evil (Prov. 2:7-15).

As brothers and sisters of the same “Flock,” we must confront evil wherever we find it; “silence” is not an option! This country, which was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, is being absorbed into the “One-World” secular vision. While we await the return of our Lord and Savior, we must not allow One-Worldism to advance on our watch. It is our mandate from God to stand up, fight the good fight, and spread the Word of His Truth, Glory and Salvation (I Timothy 6:7-12).

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE MINT JELLY!!!

2008-10-31T16:09:00.000-07:00

Your heads are being served to you on a silver platter.

Too many of Christ’s sheep are “silent”. The flock is systematically getting slaughtered by academia, the media, P.C. do-gooders, Federal and State government agencies (most notably the Courts) and, lest we forget, the religion of Islam.

As our mute, but amiable flock members bask in the forth-dimension of blissful denial, Christians throughout this country are disallowed their right to worship Jesus as they please. Their children are indoctrinated in school and through the media outlets with concepts of lifestyles, which run counter to Christian tenets. Still other Christians are ridiculed and persecuted for expressing their faith in the workplace – especially in government run entities, where the concept, “Wall of separation between church and state,” which provides for the “Free exercise” of religion and prohibition of a State sponsored or endorsed religion (as stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), has been recently misinterpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, to imply that anything, which could be considered “Religious, must be kept out of government owned and operated institutions. This postmodern vision has since been misapplied through a broad and specious notion; currently know as the “Separation of Church and State.” Accordingly, your right to freely practice Christianity in the United States has been withdrawn by the American Courts!?! This is a disgrace, allowed by the "Silence of the Sheep.”

TOLERANCE

2008-10-30T08:24:00.000-07:00

When you hear the words, “Be tolerant,” RUN! This is simply code for, “accept all of the ‘World’s’ largesses and perversions.” It is most often used in the effort to foster the social reception of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. If you think about it, the word TOLERATE is a pejorative verb. How many of you wish to be tolerated? Not I! "The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language" defines “Tolerable” as, Capable of being borne or endured; supportable, either physically or mentally; sufferable; moderately good or agreeable; not contemptible; passable; mediocre. The Bible does not teach tolerance, as some would have you believe. The secularists want to use this insidious word against Christians, as though we own it; and they, with greater compassion for the individual than we, are merely taking the high road and borrowing it. I hear them say frequently, “Doesn’t the Bible teach tolerance, you hypocrite?” As a matter of fact, I have heard Ministers interchange the words love and tolerance. They have pointed to Eph. 4:2 as a call for tolerance, but seem to misunderstand that the catalyst of forgiveness, by which we make allowances for others’ faults, is love, not tolerance itself. Tolerance of others offers no commitment to the individual, as does love. However, contemporary reference to [tolerance] encompasses both the individual and the behavior, while love focuses solely on the individual. In scripture, tolerance does not translate into acceptance. Jesus was surely not a Tolerator. He did not say to Mary Magdalene, after rescuing her from a death of stoning, “Go, and I will tolerate your future acts of adultery;” He did not tolerate the money changers in His Father’s house; nor did he define the second most important commandment as, “ Tolerate your neighbor…” Clearly, if Jesus was to tolerate mans' behavior in the world, there would have been no point in His dying on the cross.

As Christians, we need to extract from our lexicon, the word “Tolerance” and all of its derivations, except to expose its etymology and animus, which forwards the secular agenda. To not do so, may imply to others a lack of knowledge and spiritual discernment in how the word is being applied in today’s cultural war.

"RELIGIOUS"

2008-10-29T15:13:00.000-07:00

"The Harper Contemporary Lexicon of Progressive delusive Words," defines ”Religious” as: religious, ri•lij’us, a. [L. religiosus.] A psychic state and practice of faith and devotion, as with those who mystically practice the religion of Evolution or Darwinism; a feeling of reverence possessed by those for a Supreme Being, e.g., Jedi warriors’ worship of the “Force.” – n. A religieux or religieuse.

Christians should not portray themselves, or other followers of Jesus Christ, as prescribed by the sole inspired written Word of God [The Holy Bible], exclusively as “Religious.” There are far too many categories of “religious” practice, some of which include, Superstition, Metaphysics, Cosmology, Mysticism, Esotericism and, the all-inclusive Hollywoodism.

When someone describes himself, or others, as “religious,” you should be very confused!

PROPOSITION 8 - Call to Action

2008-10-28T13:25:00.000-07:00

Many of you are aware that California’s Proposition 8, which passed on November 4, 2008, has amended the California Constitution to eliminate the recently recognized fundamental right of same-sex marriage. Accordingly, the California Constitution will soon define marriage, as between a Man and a Woman. We should thank God, on this issue, for a return to traditional, Biblical values. However, this is no time to rest on the success of this monumental achievement. The ACLU and Equality California organizations have just filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters. Further, California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown said in a court filing that he believes the ballot measure would not invalidate existing same-sex marriages. He told the "San Francisco Chronicle," “I believe that marriages that have been entered into subsequent to the (May 15) Supreme Court opinion will be recognized by the California Supreme Court.” He went on to note, “Proposition 8 is silent about retroactivity.” He further stated, “I would think the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval (before the election) would be a just result.” Attorney General Brown’s position is significant, as his office will represent the state in lawsuits over Proposition 8’s validity and interpretation.

In reference to the retroactive protection, or the “Grandfathering” in, of same-sex marriages performed in California after May 15, 2008 and prior to November 4, 2008, a legal expert in California, today compared that notion to abolishing slavery, but allowing those who owned slaves prior, to keep them! Do not let the “Hot Button” topic of slavery dissuade you from the pure logic of his argument. It is our duty to uphold Christian values in our society. We must not be “TOLERANT” of behavior, which is contrary to Christ’s teachings.

Please take a moment to write Attorney General Brown to express your position on same-sex marriage. Demand that he uphold the voice and the will of the California voters. After all, that is his duty!

He may be reached at: Attorney General Jerry Brown, Attorney General's Office, California Department of Justice, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.

YOU BETTER BE GOOD! IT'S THE SEASON

2008-10-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

How do you know what it is to be good?

As a philosophical discipline, ethics and morals are concerned with human conduct and how they are applied by judgments of what is right or wrong, good or bad. How to behave to the benefit of self or toward one’s fellow man, is a matter of making choices - to be friendly or unfriendly; to tell the truth or lie; to be generous or greedy.

Ethics and morality are words often interchanged and essentially provide the same meaning for most individuals. Ethics is derived from the Greek ethos, meaning “Character,” and morals from the Latin mores, meaning “Custom.”

Federal and state laws and public justice are closely related to ethics, in that they determine and enforce definite rights and duties. They also attempt to repress and punish deviations from these standards. Most societies have set standards, whether by custom or by law, to enable those in a society to live together without undue disruption. It is possible for law to be neutral in moral issues, or it can be used to enforce elements of morality. The prologue to the United States Constitution says that insuring domestic tranquility is an object of government. This statement is morally neutral. Such laws as those passed to prevent the taking of a life by others, however, promote a moral, as well as legal commitment.

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, and the empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics. The empirical social sciences, however, including psychology, impinge on the concerns of ethics in that they study and promote social behavior. For example, the social sciences frequently attempt to determine and influence the relation of particular ethical principles to social behavior and to investigate the cultural conditions that contribute to the formation of such principles.

Worldly philosophers have attempted to determine goodness in conduct according to two chief principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in themselves or good because they conform to a particular moral standard. The former implies a final value, which is desirable in itself and not merely as a means to an end. In the history of ethics, there are three principal standards of conduct, each of which has been proposed as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or obligation; and, perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human potential. Other than Tom Cruise and Oprah Winfrey, I know of no other mere mortals who have achieved “perfection.”

For the Christian, the authority invoked for good conduct is the instruction from God. For worldly societies, it is the pattern of nature or the rule of reason. When God is the authority, obedience to the divine commandments is the standard of conduct. If the pattern of nature is the authority, conformity to the qualities attributed to human nature is the standard. When reason rules, behavior is expected to result from rational thought.

So much human activity is simply a matter of custom or habit, where little thought may be given to many actions. There is a great deal of behavior, however, in which people are conscious of why they act in a certain way. They are confronted with the need to make choices. At the basis of choice, two questions arise: “What good do I seek?” and “What is my obligation in this circumstance?” To those ends, the concept of “ethics” is primarily concerned with attempting to define what is good for the individual and for society. It also tries to establish the nature of obligations, or duties that people owe themselves and each other. Philosophers have said for thousands of years that people do not willingly do what is bad for themselves, but may do what is bad for others, if it appears that good for themselves will result.

There have always been differences in defining what is good and how one should act to achieve it. Christian instruction has maintained that God defines what is good or righteous, and to seek that objective, one must follow His commandments. Some of the world’s philosophers have concluded that achieving pleasure is the greatest good. Other secular philosophers have pointed to knowledge, personal virtue, or service to one’s fellow man as a means of realizing goodness. Consequently, secular philosophies have allowed individuals and entire societies throughout history, to conduct outrageous criminal acts upon people and justified doing so on the basis of some greater “good.”

The difficulty in deciding what “good” and “obligation” are, has led philosophers of moral instruction to divide into two camps. One says that there are no definite, objective standards that apply to everyone. They assert that people must decide what their duties are in each new situation. Others have said that there are biblical standards, which apply to everyone; what is good can be known. If the good is known, the obligation to pursue it becomes clear. The position that insists there are no such norms, is called ethical or situational relativity.