BACK TO ESCHATOLOGY

Post coming soon...

NASA’S CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR – A SPACE CADET!

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?

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?

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

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

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

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!