Letting the World win again and again

 Over at The American Catholic, Donald McClarey posted this little gem:

Heh.  As one can expect, his claim is false.  Even though it's a favorite scapegoat for leftwing Catholics, we all know the growing demographic of 'former Catholic' is not due to some post-Trump phenomenon.  The Catholic Church has been bleeding numbers for decades.  As have so many historical religions.  Generally, the more religious traditions try to accommodate modern, progressive ideologies, the faster they die.  Ross Douthat pointed that out some years ago.  He noted that every attempt by a monotheistic religion to accommodate modern liberalism results in that religion's demise.  In this helpful little post from a couple years ago, Brandon Vogt goes to the trouble of laying out the numbers. 

Douthat is right.  That's because while we thought we were compromising and accommodating in order to evangelize the World, the World was zealously evangelizing the faithful.  Even when I was in school (c. 1980s), we learned Christianity was a religion started by Jesus, much in the same way Islam was started by Muhammad, or Buddhism by the Buddha.  That is, a secular anthropological spin on religion where religion is inspired, not revealed.  An enormous difference.

This last semester my son took a Classical Mythology course in college.  The same course that was offered when I went to OSU.  Back then, most of the Bible was taught as historically grounded fiction.  That is, no doubt there was a King David, likely an Abraham, and certainly a Jesus of Nazareth.  But the majority of events in their lives were made up fairy tales and fiction just like all religions.  After all, science has debunked the spiritual and miraculous, and scholarship has long shown all religions were simply invented by ancient man in lieu of modern research.  

Today, however, my son learned that most of the Bible likely never happened at all.  Perhaps there were shadowy kings of ancient kingdoms, but no David or Solomon.  Those were fictional creations no different than Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker.  Jesus?  They weren't so radical as to take the new atheist spin that no such  person existed.  Sure there was some obscure religious figure at that time, but later generations invented the whole 'you'll call His name Jesus' story along with all the rest.  Again, pure myth, fairy tales and fiction.  The next step in the World's great mission.   

And this has been in more than our schools and colleges..  Our media and popular culture have been indoctrinating against the teachings of Christianity for decades.  By the time I came along, Christianity usually scored about a .350 in American society.  That is, about one third of the time a pop culture reference would allude to Christianity in at least a non-negative way.  The rest of the time?  Almost exclusively negative. 

Should we be surprised, therefore that, contrary to Mark's silliness above, the main reason people are leaving the Catholic Church is THEY NO LONGER BELIEVE ITS TEACHINGS?  That is, they're apostates.  They're rejecting the Gospel and rejecting the existence of God Almighty.  They say in their hearts now that there is no God.  They have taken the Gospel and rejected it.  They believe the Bible no more than they believe The Hobbit.  They no longer believe there was a baby in a manger, a man walking on water, or a Messiah crucified by Rome.  THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT.  

It has nothing to do with politics.  Look at how little the abuse scandal has to do with their rejection of the Church.  Less so the Church being vaguely 'too political.'  It's because they have been converted by the World, have rejected the Gospel and God, and are now believers in a godless, Christless reality.  That's why. 

I can't help but think a big part of this is because the Church, and Christianity in general, has spent many generations meeting this Wordily evangelism with compromise, acquiesce, retreat or even surrender.  And that has done nothing but affirm what these modern generations have been taught: That all religion is made up stories and rules by people who make it up as they go for their own interests.  

They might be happy to see the Church declare that it's open to nothing but pleasure beneath the waistline where transgenderism or gay sex is concerned.  But they also know the Church isn't doing this because a bunch of Catholic sages just emerged from years of pouring over ancient tomes and concluded a new development in understanding the Scriptures is warranted.  They know it's because the World stood up like a colossus, smacked the Church, the Church immediately soiled itself and then scurried to change yet another teaching or doctrine because the World said so.  That is why they are leaving.  

To sum up: The generations in which Christians have accepted the World as right, and changed the Faith accordingly, haven't worked.  That's because it was never done in some objective vacuum of non-agendas, with the World just innocently seeking the truth.  The World all along (dare I say, Satan) was feverishly working to convert God's children away from Him, using whatever latest tools were available.  Each time the World demanded change and was met with a willingness to do so, it fed into the World's claims that religion has never been anything but made up tales and rules to begin with. 

As one young wag asked, if religions are willing to admit how wrong they have been about everything visible in this world - human nature, sexuality, justice, social ethics - why would any sane person believe what they had to say about some God or Spirit or Afterlife in the invisible other world?  It's a fair question.  And one the Church had best start pondering before it and it alone ushers any more disciples of Christ out the door and into the outer darkness.  

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils  1 Timothy 4.1  

Another one bites the dust

Or ditches the Christian Faith.  Dave Armstrong goes through the minutes of the reasoning.  I have never heard of
Audrey Assad.  Apparently she is, or was, a big name in music, at least for Christians.  She's done with all that God stuff now, concluding that the modern Faith of Science has debunked all that made up folk tale gibberish we call religion.  At the end of the day, that's why she left.  

For all the unpacking Dave does, and he does an admirable job, I think it's simple.  She no longer believes and, most likely, hadn't believed for some time.  A great many in our churches likely don't anymore. They can't bring themselves to do what she's done because they don't know where else to go.  Thinking of the implications of a religionless world is terrifying.  This is all you get, then a feast for maggots and your objectively valueless life is forgotten about in a generation and that's it?  So they hang on, not believing it in their gut of guts, until a chance to bolt finally appears. 

Oh, we have that secular paganism, that 'heavenly birthday' and 'we pray to something' or such at times of crisis. Just enough fluff to paste over the implications of a truly secular universe.  But it's not much, and means less. Therefore many are no doubt where she was.  She may give this or that reason, the Church is thus, or the Church judges, or the Church intolerant, or hypocrites as good as always.

But that's all rubbish.  From non-religious hypocrites to intolerant atheists, the idea that these problems in the Church aren't found anywhere else is demonstrably false.  After a few days in the real world, it isn't difficult to discover in the fields of secular living the same problems.  

But it ultimately does not matter that they are wrong about such reasons, because the people who say 'too much politics' or 'too intolerant' aren't leaving for those reasons.  They are leaving because they no longer believe in 1) God, 2) Christ, 3) the Bible, or 4) Religion.  They've been taught those things have long been debunked by Science.  They believed the Secular Faith for years, perhaps without realizing it, but couldn't bring themselves to admit what Ms. Assad has admitted. 

More and more don't believe in God or the Holy Spirit any more than they believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.  I'm not a talented enough writer to find a way to emphasize just how urgent a crisis this is, but: 

PEOPE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CHRSITIAN RELIGION ANY MORE!    

Not the Bible, not the stories of the Bible, not any particular God if any at all,  not in some God Incarnate Messiah born in a stable, Miracles, Eternal Life, or any of it.  Certainly none of it as presented by the historical Christian Faith.  And that means more and has farther reaching implications than I think we can fathom. 

As I said, there's likely just enough nod to a 'vague spirit energy something when we die' to cover the awful implications of a truly materialistic philosophy, but that's all there is.  Otherwise, the Biblical stories and doctrines of the Faith mean absolutely nothing to them because they don't believe in them. Because our society has been a secular society and has preached and proselytized the belief in secularism for decades.  

If I may be brutally honest, most of our traditions have foolishly tried to meet this secularism halfway when there was no halfway between 'no God' and 'One God, maker of heaven and earth.'  We may have thought we were bringing them from 'no God' to at least 'some God', but all along they were bringing us from 'One God', to merely 'some sort of God'.  And in a secular age where secularism has been the universal faith for some time, that's a small step to no God of any meaning at all. 

That's why people are leaving in ever growing droves.  At least they're leaving and admitting it. Honesty about one's state of affairs is always best.  I fear many more in our churches are where she already was, even if she had to find reasons to justify no longer staying there.  I fear that a great many of our leaders, even in the highest places, no longer believe it either.  

How else can we account for people who no more than a few years ago swore things to be the revealed truth of the Thrice Holy God who now set those same things aside under mild pressure from the World?  How much did they really believe?  And if those teachings and morals can be tossed aside, how much else can and will join them? 

True believers trump non-believers every time

The Jesus Indians of Ohio by Craig Atwood

Don't let atheists fool you.  They like to proclaim variations on 'Oh, I don't believe, I just don't have a belief', when it comes to religion.  Had they been born and raised on a deserted island with no contact with humanity, and then had no religious belief, it could be argued that theirs was simply the result of having no belief about religion. But in our world, there is this thing called religion, the belief in supernatural and divine forces, and most atheists are aware of this and simply choose to believe those religious explanations for what atheists don't know are false. 

Despite their little verbal sleight of hand, however, many modern atheists are rather zealous and fanatical about their belief that no non-material explanation exists for what atheism can't tell us.  So much so, that in most cases today, atheism is calling the shots about how we understand reality, God, religion, morality, humanity, history, and almost any other subject under the sun.

So yesterday was the memorial of Isaac Jogues and John de Brebeuf, priests and martyrs and companions in this, the New World.  That's back when we remembered both sides in historical conflicts typically give as good as they get.  Here is that ursine blogger St. Corbinian's Bear, reminding us that if you have time to read this, you have time to pray the hours (and if you have to give up reading me to do so, I'd say you should choose the more important thing - and it ain't reading me).

But I thought of their martyrdom.  I thought of the fact that Christians in America, including the Catholic Church, have adopted the very atheistic understanding of events from that period.  For the push to eradicate  the heritage of the Christian West and the United States is predicated on two fundamental beliefs: 1) that through the prism of multiculturalism, there is no culture or civilization that is in any way inferior to the West, and the West brought nothing particularly special to the world table (if, in fact, it wasn't the true and sole cause of all evil and suffering in the world), and 2) Religions are false.  They aren't real.  They are lies.  There is no God or eternity to speak of.  Perhaps there is some parallel universe or some extra-material energy field when we die, but none of the world religions are right, nor did they happen.  They are false.

Therefore, the two reasons why we could mourn the atrocities of the past while still celebrating the best of those who brought the civilization of Western Christendom to the new world have now been dashed on the rocks of a post-Christian, atheist worldview.  The Western colonizers, immigrants and pioneers brought nothing, zero, nada to the new world.  Anything we could call good - notions of democracy or freedom or equality or liberty, however poorly lived out - were probably here all along anyway.  Some argue that we even stole our ideas of democracy and equality from the Indians Native Americans.

Certainly appeals to the indigenous practices of human sacrifice, child sacrifice, matricide, patricide and infanticide, in addition to slavery, war and even genocide, don't cut it.  Only white Europeans can be racists and therefore guilty of genocide.  Slavery is only bad when done by Europeans.  And in a country where our womenfolk have aborted over 50 million unborn children in barely four decades, I don't think we'll sweat the pre-Columbian practice of human sacrifice and infanticide.  

But then, most Indian activists have no problem unqualifiedly praising their ancestors and cultures.  No apologies for anything their ancestors did, or any practices we might condemn today.  Heck, they can actually come out and say they oppose open borders and end up being quoted with respect, not as obvious racist supremacists that are usually the type who oppose open borders.  But then, I can watch a PBS series about the history of Africa, and see Muslim scholars praise the history of Islamic conquests of other people because of the boon their superior Islamic culture brought to the conquered.  See?  That's a true believer. 

Likewise, to the second point, since religions are obviously false anyway, there was absolutely no reason to think there was a net positive for the indigenousness peoples where their contact with Christianity was concerned.  Since Christianity is no different, and no more true, than indigenous religious beliefs, there was nothing gained by us coming here, and nothing that could possibly outshine the atrocities and evils that did occur.  After all, nothing they did in their own cultures was bad anyway (multiculturalism), so tearing down those cultures for a lie and a falsehood was altogether a net-negative.  

And the Catholic Church, with recent apologies, grovelings and even removing the celebration of martyrs and saints who ministered to the native populations, appears to agree.  Once again it accepts the premise of the non-believer, the ungodly, and the secularists, and then turns around on a Sunday and says 'but show up to Mass and give to the Bishop's annual appeal!'.  You can see the disconnect here, can't you?  

That's because the true believer always beats out non- or un-believers.  Those with no belief, or no real investment in their beliefs, will lose to the zealot, the fanatic, the true believer every time.  As we watch the secular, the Marxist, the leftist, the atheist, the non-Christian, the anti-Westerner, the anti-American, and every other force score one victory after another, and see those who proclaim faith in the God of history revealed through the Gospel of Christ surrender one hill after another, it makes you wonder which ones really believe, and which ones became unbelievers long ago. 

Remember when Christians were told that converting people from other religions was evil?

Yeah, so do I.  I remember it well, because it was one of the Uber-issues when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, and even into the 90s.  Almost every other movie, at least one episode in a television show, and not a few pundits, journalists, professors and most moderate and liberal Christians made it clear that evangelizing other people, pushing your religion onto others, and getting them to convert to your own religion was like saying they were wrong - and that's EVIL!

Well, in #89057889437593879 of cases where the modern Left is what old post-war liberalism said was evil, we have the religion of atheism boasting on helping pastors renounce the faith and join in with the belief of atheism.  They're quite proud, too.  In short, they're doing what Christian evangelists and missionaries used to do back in the day.  Actually, they're doing what they themselves said was evil and wrong when religious people (esp. Christians) did it.  They are proselytizing believers into the faith of atheism.

Of course like most things, we should see now that liberalism was a scam.  It was never true then.  Asd I told a Jewish friend once - who echoed the idea that telling people their religion is wrong is bad - the idea that a religion telling other religions they are wrong is bad is essentially telling that religion it is wrong. Which, if I'm following you, is bad. That led to a pretty intense discussion let me tell you.

Same with freedom of speech except that which offends feminism, or never imposing your values on others, except where homosexuality is concerned.  The list is endless, including being upset that people wouldn't support pop star Madonna using a microphone like a sex toy on national television since that's censorship now insisting we need to have the government step in and censor offensive ideas and speech.

Nope, liberalism was a hot lie. And a disastrous one.  It has reinvigorated old racism and bigotry for new people groups, convinced people tyranny and oppression will be good because it will only be those people over there who get it in the neck, and is pushing the boundaries of the genocidal attitudes of the last century, not to mention the carnage of the sexual revolution and destruction of the Christian West at the hands of other societies almost itching to step in and take over. 

And yet Pope Francis insists that trying to proselytize people to Christianity is a bad thing, and joins most Christians today who believe the same thing.  Dumb.  Either that or cowards who are going to go along with whatever to stay in the good graces of the majority currents.  That's the only way you can insist that following the dictates of the modern left is the only way to live out the Christian life as it should be.  If not, then it's time we reclaim so much of what of the Gospel of Christ has been lost over the last several generations.

Good job Friendly Atheist

Credit where it is due.  The Friendly Atheist posted a heartfelt piece regarding the Notre Dame fire, highlighting some atheist well-knowns and their lamenting of the fire and possible loss.  I didn't read all of the comments, but read some.  Most were gracious and expressed their sadness at the potential loss of such a treasure.  True, very few said anything about its religious meaning to believers, preferring the 'treasure of art and culture' angle.  But at least it was positive for the most part.

I give the FA quite a bit of grief for its good cop/bad cop approach, and deservedly so.  Usually there will be some post akin to 'religious/Christian types are tunneling under your house - but we don't hate them!', followed by endless comments in the comments section descending into the fifth circle of Hell in terms of hate and vile bilge aimed at all things sacred and holy.  So bad it was, that I had to stop commenting there when commenters made sexually charged attacks aimed at my wife and kids (and were not stopped I should mention).

Nonetheless, again I'll give credit where it is due.  It was a chance to think what could unite us if we would let it.  Alas, we are in a fallen world and there are some who will simply dig in and make themselves enemies of God no matter what.  Pray for them as much, if not more, than we do for the smoldering ruins in and around that great Cathedral; the same one that atheists around the world mourned the loss of alongside believers.

But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.  Revelation 9:20-21.

Another popular atheist meme gets owned

Courtesy of Mike Flynn. 

Yes, as a non-believer, you always know in your gut that many of those little digs at religion are more flash than substance. For instance, you usually know enough religious people to know not all are bad.  At least you know that there are as many bad non-religious people.  Likewise, as much as popular portrayals have religious types being slightly off of the IQ scale, you're also aware that many, many brilliant people in the past and present are quite religious.

Nonetheless, you chase whatever you think will be that final 'proof' that not  being religious is the obvious truth.  You know in your gut it's just your opinion, but being non-religious, you cling to anything that is remotely scientific sounding to give your opinions heft.  Of course sometimes that 'science' is less science than belief in the King James Bible as the only authorized word of God.  You just hope nobody comes by like Mr. Flynn and points out the obvious.

When Christians join non-Christians in mocking thoughts and prayers

You get this.  If the non-believer looks at Christians who make it clear that prayers to God don't matter unless set behind fealty to a political policy, don't blame them for assuming that prayer ultimately doesn't matter.

When a Hollywood star of CGI comic book movies shows more devotion to faith above the world's chariots than those paid to represent the Christian faith to the world, it's time to rethink where we've gone in the world of apologetics. 

Why we're here

John C Wright has posted a few thoughts on God and the universe.  It's interesting reading.  Here, and here, and here. 

To be honest, this is a topic that is well above my pay grade.  I usually avoid it since, for the most part, I'm only repeating what someone else has said or written.  Since I'm ignorant of much of the topic's substance, I'm not sure if what I'm repeating carries any real weight.  So I avoid it.

When I do repeat it, it's because it was presented in a way that makes sense to my amateur ears.  So a physics prof back in my Protestant days explained why he could never see evolution as a stand alone reality separate from God.  His specialty was aerodynamics.  He explained that flight simply couldn't evolve.

Why?  Because to have an airplane, or even a glider, one needs more than just a bus with wings grafted on it. The entire mechanism of flight must be built into every part of it.  At once.  Not in stages.  An airplane half completed won't fly.

A bird is made to fly.  Everything about it is made to fly.  As is a bumblebee, a helicopter, a humming bird, a jet, or a bald eagle.  Take one part of it away and it can no longer fly.  Change one factor in the total equation, and it's grounded.  And, as he points out, having only part of the mechanisms needed to fly is a detriment, not a boon.  After all, if you only slapped wings on me but didn't give me any other parts needed for flight (build, body shape, bone density, etc.), I'd be at a significant disadvantage fleeing a predator.  Running with giant wings strapped on is quite a slow down. 

Now, to my novice and former track and cross country mind, that makes sense.  Either in a freakish fluke that makes belief in God seem easy, an organism was born with a hundred mutations that all spontaneously fit to allow it to fly, or over a long period of time, different parts were added that didn't harm it, but didn't allow it to fly either, until finally, one day, all the pieces fit and it could suddenly fly.  Again, it's much easier to believer in a Creator behind it all.

But that's the extent of my meddling in this particular branch of apologetics.  I leave it to others, like Mr. Wright, who have done the hard work of knowing what to talk about when it comes to taking on the belief that the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.

Sometimes it's easy to believe in God

Like watching the series Closer to Truth on PBS.  I know.  It's not supposed to do that.  It is definitely from a more skeptical, or at least antiseptically secular, viewpoint.  Nonetheless, it's well done and the basic programming, like most of what you get on PBS, is high quality.

Today, I saw the episode 'How to Argue for God'.  In it, we are led by the host (whose name escapes me), saying he's willing to believe, he just wants a profound argument based on something he's not getting from the arguments he hears.

And he doesn't talk to lightweights.  This isn't Religulous by Bill Maher.  This fellow goes to to some respectable names to pitch for God, including Alister McGrath, Russell Stannard, and even gives a nod to Islam with Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub.  Each one has a chance to unpack the rationale behind God, with McGrath and Stannard paying close attention to understanding God in an age of science.

Nonetheless, by the end of the episode, our intrepid narrator decides he's going with his hero, Steven Weinberg.  After listening to some pretty profound arguments, some of which flew north over my own head, he decided that Mr. Weinberg's assessment was the most solid.

And what did atheist Weinberg say that moved him so?  He said that looking for the bigger truth was a pointless venture.  He found the monotheistic, Abrahamic versions of God repugnant, and certainly felt the emphasis on obedience was flawed.  He concluded that we just stop trying to find those big picture truths, which ultimately lead people to God, or Communism, or Free Market Capitalism, or any one of a thousand things that cause people to behave badly.  He concluded that these religions have nothing to say to people about being good people, which involves loving each other.  That, he decides, is the solution: no more big truth, just love each other.

And that, after an episode of some pretty hefty reasoning for God, looking at the science and the theology and the philosophy, unpacking the strengths and weaknesses of both the religious and the non-religious explanations for reality, our interpret narrator conclude his hero hits the nail on the head by basically telling us to stop seeking for big picture truths and:

Yep.  The more our world unravels and the secular left falls into oblivion with such stellar arguments as 'be excellent to each other, dudes', the easier it is to believe in that old time religion.

One of the modern age's beloved scientists has an announcement

Speaking of science, if I'm reading the article correctly, it seems like Dr. Michio Kaku has concluded that the universe had to have been created by an intelligent being.  Don't even wait for me to unpack the science.  I get String Theory about as much as I get women.  And let me tell you, that's not much.  I won't jump up and down or think this changes anything.  For all I know, he could run more experiments down the road and conclude something else.  This is just basic sciencing, inside science baseball stuff.  While there is room to look out on creation and conclude there is a God, it can't stop there.  We'll see what happens down the road.  At least it's a positive step for him.

As for atheists whose belief about God necessitates the absence of God, this will be a minor speed bump.  They can conclude he's just musing, or it's a theory, or just a guess, or any one of a million different objections.  If you are sure you're right, you're not going to let a little thing like evidence or testimonies from those you respect make a difference.

Hence the punchline of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.  The point of that parable wasn't that Hell is a bad place with fire and brimstone.  It wasn't even about the wicked rich man stepping over the miserable Lazarus, though that literary canvas on which the punchline was painted should not be ignored.  No, the punchline is the rich man's cries to Abraham to rescue his living brothers from his own fate.  Do something!, he pleads, send Lazarus!  Abraham, unmoved, says they have all the testimony they need in Moses and the Prophets.  Well that hasn't done the trick!  So the rich man responds that seeing a dead man, they might be saved.  Not so fast, says Abraham.  If they don't believe Moses and the Prophets, then let's face it, they won't believe a dead man talking either.

A lesson for atheists, scientists, religious, political advocates and social activists.  If you have looked at a tremendous amount of evidence and disregarded it, then there's little to suggest any more evidence will make a difference.  And that, folks, is a place none of us should want to be.

Happy Birthday Professor Dawkins

Or at least, happy birthday to the Selfish Gene, his little brain child in the endless attempt by atheists to solve the reality equation without that substantial variable known to many around the world as God.  Still, he's made his millions and brought up an entire generation of atheists to demonstrate the fact that everyone must worship something, since worship is in our God breathed DNA.

Atheists against freedom

I say against freedom, because if you are against religious freedom, you are against freedom, at least as defined by liberalism.  You're saying that freedom only exists for the right kind of people who have the right kind of beliefs.  And that's fine.  Christians have long said that.  Knowing that, ultimately, we are all slaves to something, we've understood that freedom is not some open ended invitation to anything.

Against the Left's deceptions, however, many Christians have buckled and folded over the years, conceding that no nation has a right to define - anything.  True enlightenment means anyone can do or say anything, we all have to respect that, and any suggestion otherwise is in the same camp with the gas chambers and gulags.

Despite the fact that the same movement that told us such lies was, at the same time, launching protest after protest based on absolute moral standards that it demanded the nation accept and conform to, Christians continued to believe the lie.  And what a powerful lie it was. By bringing up endless images of sadistic inquisitors and witch trials and Nazi kangaroo courts, we were reminded to what fraternity we belonged if we dared say that our religion is right, or our morals are the ones that should define the nation.

So it is refreshing that, as the secular left gains power, it becomes more and more flagrant in its disregard for the universal freedoms and liberties it sometimes preached.  Like my boys noticed a while back, have you ever caught how little the terms 'liberty' and 'freedom' come up in modern punditry, especially on the Left?  Equality, diversity, and even fairness yes.  But not freedom and  liberty.  And that's because the secular Left is only finally admitting what we've all known all along, that a nation can't survive on 'no rules, just right.'

Now, since they are admitting it and becoming flagrant about it, will Christians (and other people of other faiths) wake up and stop the movement before it's too late?  Or have we been so duped for so long that the stupor is beyond our ability to overcome it, no matter how obvious it is and how much we acknowledge the danger for religious believers everywhere?  I don't know.  Time will tell.  But right now, I find it refreshing that atheists are attacking a public servant for posting an Easter message  on an official website, which Christians long conceded should never be done in an open and tolerant society.

Good to see.  When Tyranny finally shows itself, people can sometimes wake up.  That we are post-moderns who subscribe to the notion that we belong to nothing except our carefully handcrafted demographics, and it is no big deal if it happens to them over there, could be a problem.  The post-modern Golden Rule of 'Do unto others as long as you don't do unto me' has helped the forces of darkness for some time.  Another area where Christians let the world's forces change us.  Again, we'll see.  I'm not optimistic, but I'm not altogether pessimistic either.

How atheists see themselves

How people of faith see atheists:

Both, by the way, were cartoons published by atheists to advance atheism.  So which one is correct?  I'm betting the second one, since the first one clearly leaves out that little part where the atheist pulls in the ACLU to remind us that atheism alone deserves to be in the public forum, all other religions should be put into the closet.  So accuracy goes to the second pic.  

This is funny

And true

Salon hates Christians

There is something refreshing about those who embrace the great heresy who are open about their hatred of us Christians.  So often, it's couched in softer language, talking of diversity and let's all agree to disagree.  At least until the numbers are on their side and they can get the upper hand legally. 

But Salon.com hates us.  It in no way hides the fact.  And it's consistent.  It hates Pope Francis, too.  Just like any Christian who hasn't jettisoned the entirety of the Faith to embrace the secular left.  While many to the Left have had a love fest with Francis and hope, that by focusing on his more liberal sounding conversations, they can simply sweep that other Catholic stuff under the carpet, Salon will have none of it. 

And so it's not surprising that Salon considers being a Christian as disqualifying one from holding the office of the presidency.   Salon represents that refreshing radicalism of the left that makes it clear it wants a secular, leftists totalitarian state that embraces censorship and brutally oppresses and ostracizes people of faith.  It hates believers. None of this 'we don't hate Christians, we just disagree with...' rubbish.  Nope.   It hates believers and wants them outa here. 

Like a Presbyterian minister friend I had once told me, Jesus commands us to love our enemies, forgive our enemies and pray for our enemies.  But at no time does He suggest that in doing so, they will automatically cease to be our enemies.  Words to ponder in light of Taylor's clear manifesto against people of faith being able to lead the country they want to conquer. 

Atheism and Evolution

A crash course.  An interesting article as well.  When it comes to evolution, I might be one of those fundie types who ain't got them fancy brain things, but I can't help but believe in 1000 years, the way we imagine the beginnings and development of our universe will have changed radically.  Who knows, there could be new scientific revolutions that alter everything we think we know.  Doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution in the sense of change or development.  But there is a lot of baggage with evolution as embraced today, and I'm not sure we've sorted through that well enough to just change the Faith's traditions to accommodate what might turn out to be less solid fact than we thought.

An interesting article on Secularism

Found this and it was an interesting read. The trick to anything dealing with religion is that it is all a belief.  Including the completely not provable by science belief that there is no supernatural or divine.  Those are beliefs, too.  Some more crazy atheists like Bill Maher will sometimes unintentionally assert this when the try to excuse evils done by atheists or in the name of secularism as those rascally atheists treating their atheism like religion.  Since few people treat gravity or Newton's laws of thermodynamics as religions,  I'm inclined to think there is something about the belief or non-belief in supernatural or divine ideas that separates it from the realm of physics and chemistry and calculus.

The Friendly Atheist says the craziest things

So after over a decade of the radical anti-religious New Atheists spouting rhetoric against religion that would make a party in the 1930s Reichstag look Kosher by comparison, atheists are dealing with the ugly notion that evidence suggests the killer of nine people at Umpqua College purposefully targeted Christians.  Of course for most atheists, like most liberals and secularists, Christianity is the prime enemy.  So most contempt, disgust, hatred, spite, demagoguery and lies are aimed at Christians and Christianity.  And of course we know that such rhetoric is always behind things like racist hate crimes, and anti-gay hate crimes, and anti-Muslim hate crimes.  

But as Western Liberalism tends to do, once again we have a case where the zealousness of its righteous crusaders turns on itself and seems to expose the movement's hypocrisy and agendas.  So Lauren Nelson, penning for the always ironically titled Friendly Atheist, steps in to say 'not so fast, it may not have anything to do with it after all!'  

That, of course, is a favorite tactic of the leftist propaganda machine.  If a person kills blacks or gays or another minority group adopted by the Left, then hatred is the only motive.  The only focus.  If someone breaks from that, or a member of the approved minority community commits the crime, or a victim is from a non-accepted group, then it's all about anything but the hatred.  Once again, reminding us that we are dealing with a movement that hates us; one that likely doesn't care for the various groups it claims to support, but one that certainly hates certain groups - like Christians.  

Still, it is fun reading. Most normal, sensible people wouldn't buy it.  How college educated post-moderns with access to the Internet will accept it remains to be seen. 

P.S.  If you're unfamiliar with the good Ms. Nelson, here is a post explaining why she is not just pro-choice, but happily and proudly pro-abortion.  She is, in her words, not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion And Proud Of It! 

Not all atheists are cowardly and ill informed

As demonstrated here. Not that it's a real 'that's wrong, stupid, cowardly and lame' take on this annual ritual, but at least he admits the yearly bed wetting with middle fingers by atheists could be overdone. That's something at least.

The problem is, there's nothing to hit atheists with.  Most live in denial of what their atheism really means - oblivion and an eventual end to the point of humanity having ever existed.  Not to mention that all things non-material are, by definition, illusions and fairy tales made up by life forms desperate to have purpose while we pass on our DNA.  All, of course, until the earth ends and the aforementioned pointlessness of the human race is made clear.

Not to mention try to tell most atheists that atheism is simply a belief, and it's like trying to explain to a 6 month old that the world is really round.  Not all, but most today. So as weak and meh this little piece is, I'll take it.  Like seeing the alluded to Fred Phelps take in a stray dog.  It doesn't mean much, but it's something.

I much prefer the take down on Mark Shea's blog the other day, that uses that part of the debate most modern atheists shrink from: logic, intelligence, reality, facts, data, open mindedness, curiosity, free thinking and self reflection. And all courtesy of one of the great smack downs of faith equals stupid in our modern era.

The Freedom from Religious Freedom Foundation

Has just moved the goal line.  Remember how we were assured that nobody would try to ban religion in our own homes, on our own private property?  Remember when we were told religion just had to be eradicated from the public forum, that people who are too religious or follow the wrong religious beliefs shouldn't be able to hold office, and that the bad religions have no reason to think they deserve the same rights that advocates of Truth enjoy?  Remember how we, as a society, gradually warmed up to that, especially since it promised us lots of sex and drugs and narcissism and hedonism in return?

Well, read this. That's right.  The Freedom from Religion Religious Freedom Foundation is protesting three crosses set up on PRIVATE PROPERTY that faces a school.  Sure, the crosses are there to make a point.  But it is PRIVATE PROPERTY.  And while no major law suits appear to be in the making, the Foundation of supporting thought control and censorship has made it clear that this is a clear violation of the right of anti-religious bigots to not be offended by the presence of religions they hate.  Again, not much on the anti-Muslim front, or the anti-Jewish front.  But strangely it's always those crosses that bring out the attacks. 

Anyway, you're seeing the next step.  It's Private Property.  The next frontier in the march to turn the US into a secular dream, and a believer's nightmare.