The Dismantling of Good and Evil

“Can we please stop believing in God? We’re trying to build world peace!”

In the entertainment section of an article asks whether the character of Batman should die in Christopher Nolan’s third Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises.

While such a move is nothing new for story tellers, the author’s motivations reveal the philosophical background of the post-Christian society that America is becoming. The author argues:

For a hyper-affluent, handsome, righteous hero like Batman to die would be a blow to the good-triumphs-over-evil trope that is so thoroughly ingrained in Western cultural and religious traditions. The good figure — the Christ figure — must always rise after being beaten down; yet, as anyone struck by tragedy knows, this is not always the case in real life.

The West has been influenced by the idea of good and evil and of good overcoming evil since before Christianity, but Christianity has held sway in Western culture for the past two millennia. Christ, the perfect Messiah sent by God, conquers the ultimate symbol of evil, Satan, through a heroic act of sacrifice thereby setting mankind free from bondage to evil.

This belief assumes there is evil and good powerful enough to conquer it and assumes that direct and violent confrontation — war — is necessary to win the day. Religion, especially Christianity, has been the voice of the West declaring what is good, God, what is evil, sin, and what is needed for man to resist sin. This includes spiritual warfare through organized religion and sometimes material warfare through armies and weaponry.

Under evolutionary narrative, there is no conflict between good and evil. It is not that scientific knowledge has brought an end to the conflict, but rather revealed that there never was a conflict. Mankind was peacefully evolving until he discovered belief in gods and good and evil. This belief in God, in good and evil, and the need to defeat what is evil through organized religion became the cause of war. The solution to war and for world peace is to undermine if not eliminate belief in God, belief in good and evil, and belief in war.

The same can be seen in the Pixar film, How to Train Your Dragon. The head Viking Stoic the Vast, who openly displays his faith in deities like Odin and Thor, considers himself good and right fighting against the dragons who he considers evil, calling them “devils.” Hiccup, who displays his atheism with the statement, “The gods hate me,” rejects the war against the dragons and relying on his scientific knowledge makes peace with the dragons, declaring that he is not a Viking. It is Hiccup’s scientific knowledge and not Stoic’s war that becomes the ultimate vehicle of peace for the Vikings.

A secular society is not a friend of organized religion and views belief and faith in a very negative light. For a man under evolution, belief in God and in good and evil, are paths to violence and war, to the death of innocent men, women and children. Only a lack of belief and faith will bring about life and prosperity.

This is the philosophy that is working to replace Christianity in the West.


Spitting Up Lukewarm Christian Thought

The war between Christianity and Evolution.

The atheist Richard Dawkins stated:

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

Christianity has stood not merely as a philosophical lifestyle, but as a stalwart of claimed truth. The creation of man, his fall in sin, the existence of Satan, the redemption of Christ, are all considered factual realities. In other words, Christianity has claimed it has the truth concerning human life here on earth. Its proof has always been the Holy Bible.

Science has also emerged with a claim to the truth concerning human life. It has nature as its proof and its well-thought and constructed theories and facts. Darwin’s theory of evolution has become the lynchpin fact of modern scientific inquiry. Its history of purely nature forces producing all life on earth holds sway in most corners of thought.

The key to evolution is that it does not require God. At no point is God needed to bring about the natural changes and developments that supposedly gave humanity its life on earth. If there is a God, His presence is not required and the world is quite capable of evolving without Him. So when a man accepts evolution and divests himself of religion for agnosticism or atheism he is being honest in the face of evolution.

There is always strength in honesty and clarity. The man who lives a decisive and honest life will tend to fare better than the man is too cowardly to make a decision or be honest.

Christians who attempt to reconcile acceptance of evolution with Christianity are walking in dishonesty and ambiguity. Having conceded to the argument that evolution is factual, they are now rebuilding their religion not around facts, but around philosophies, speculations, theologies, and narratives. No longer are creation, fall and redemption facts in Christianity. Rather, they are powerful ideas from mythical texts. It would be ludicrous to say that the creation, fall and redemption were events in a factual history while saying that evolution was factual history.

The piles of intellectual prose and crafted reinterpretations all serve to reveal that Christianity has suffered a tremendous blow to its claims to the truth. Attempts to reconcile the two are acts of surrender, of Christians admitting that as Galileo proved the church wrong on the issue of the earth going around the sun, so has Darwin proven the church wrong on the issue of man’s origins and status on earth. They delude themselves in believing they can accept evolution as real and accept Christianity as real.

Simply holding to the resurrection of Christ as the historical lynchpin for the Christian faith to find harmony with evolution sounds appealing. Evolution tells the history of man before and after the resurrection and the Bible tells the history of the resurrection. Unfortunately, this appears to be nothing more than a fortress mentality, holding out for one part of the Christian faith while being surrounded by an army of scientific evidence to the contrary. It’s nice, it’s heroic, and it’s merely bailing the waters of unbelief out of the boat of belief as it sinks into an ocean of post-Christianity atheism. This is not courageous faith, but delusional cowardice with the comfort of ignorance.

The only rational response for Christianity to evolution is dogged adherence to its beliefs. Beginning with scripture being inerrant and factual, Christianity rejects evolution outright and proclaims the biblical history as factual. From that stance, they rationally build their doctrines of faith. While they may engender accusations of deliberate ignorance, such criticism along with the social discrimination can be patiently endured. Harboring the belief that God will somehow and in some way vindicate the history of scripture as factual in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is a rational faith, even if it reckless.

Being a rational Christian does not mean wallowing in compromised ambiguity. It is rational to look at evolution and come to the conclusion that Christianity is fable. It is also rational to deny evolution for the sake of claiming Christianity factual. It is irrational to claim that both evolution and Christianity are factual and then deliberately dumb down and delude human thinking with a treadmill of endless ambiguity to make the two fit.

The atheists live intellectually honest lives.

The young-earth creationists live intellectually honest lives.

The middle-ground theists are intellectually dishonest and dead where they stand.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. – Revelation 3:15-16 KJV

The Ape And Princess Wedding

I now pronounce you man and wife.
I now pronounce you man and wife.

Two real-world forces have invaded the evangelical church and the church seems to be doing its best to ignore those two forces as they march hand-in-hand down the aisle to make children of their bad wisdom known through the preacher’s pulpit.

One force is feminism. Women are removed from their biblical and natural role and identity to a place where they are esteemed, exalted and empowered. They are the daughters of God and destined to reign here and in eternity. Being princesses in the evangelical church and the world is their divinely ordained calling. The 2011 Glass Slipper Women’s Conference in St. Louis declares:

“You are a Princess, you are called to rule, you are called to reign, and you are commanded to operate in it!”

The video also features a song by Superchick called “Beautiful” which encapsulates the female right be called “beautiful,” even as one scene shows obese women serving and being served from a chocolate fountain. The more intellectual women might argue that this is not what feminism is about, but the vast majority of women do not live in the safety of intellectual towers where feminist scholars are brave enough to propose radical and destructive ideas and too cowardly to implement them. They give them to the mass of students who will then take those ideas into the real world and wreak havoc as brainwashed agents of bad medicine.

That is one side of the marriage.

The other force is evolution. Now while the big thinkers that live in those safe intellectual towers can debate whether or not Darwin’s theory has merit, for those who are taught it from a young age, it is pretty simple. They take to the streets with a picture of men being nothing more than evolving apes, just a little more along the genetic line than Neanderthals. You can hear this in songs like “I’m Still A Guy” by Brad Paisley, where he sings:

I can hear you now talking to your friends, saying, “Yeah, girls, he’s come a long way” from dragging his knuckles and carrying his club.

The image of human evolution as a symbol of civilized apes applies primarily to men. The image of God as King with heirs apparent is applied primarily to women. Primitive apes walk down the aisle to marry heavenly princesses who have the right to be doted on and called “beautiful” for their entire lives regardless of how they actually conduct themselves. The primitive apes are told “man-up” and shoulder their duty and enjoy the gracious privilege of actually marrying an evangelical woman. The preachers herald the union in utter ignorance while openly criticizing both evolution and feminism. It is the ultimate culture of male inferiority and female superiority backed by God and scripture, so saith the ape and princess co-pastors of mega-non-denomiational female-oriented churches. Dalrock documents this by showing the anti-male rhetoric by Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church, which goes hand-in-hand with the evangelical princesses at the Glass Sipper conference.

Modern marriages may carry the trappings of man and wife, but socially it is the ape and princess.

A Modern Christianity In A Modern World

Oh my gosh! Just feelin’ all dis luv!

As Western Civilization passes into history to be replaced with what some would insist is still Western Civilization, one of the deepest changes is being brought to bear against Western Christianity. Its understanding of man once influenced generations, but that understanding has given way to modern thought and as a religion it is bifurcating into those attempting to preserve the old ways and those embracing the new.

The cornerstone of the Christian claim to truth is the Gospel. It is the “good news” that the person of Jesus Christ came to die for humanity. For two millennia Christianity in its various forms has held as supreme the priority of proclaiming this message of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is the “Great Commission.” The factual reality of that sacrifice has given the church justification for its existence and activity through generations.

In the traditional understanding of the Gospel, when a man receives the Gospel, he has already made three primary assumptions about the world. He assumes there is a God, this God is holy, and that he is guilty of violating that holiness and is worthy of punishment. In that context, Christ suffering God’s punishment on his behalf is indeed good news.

The issue then for the modern age is whether or not a man believes he has violated God’s holiness. One of the main purposes of preaching is to convince man through rhetoric that he is guilty before God, in much the same way the prophets of the Old Testament proclaimed the guilt of Israel to convince the nation to renounce its wayward ways.

Modern thought, however, does not accept the idea of man being guilty before God. The moral philosophical understanding of man’s place in the world has moved from one of guilt to innocence. It is no longer an issue of whether man is guilty of doing things that God has deemed bad. Rather, those things that man does are no longer bad. In the old Gospel, adultery was considered a sin by God and a man who had sex outside of marriage was considered guilty before God of committing adultery. However, in the new Gospel, man is innocent not because he does not commit adultery. Rather he is innocent because there is now nothing wrong with adultery.

This change is mostly due to the silent philosophical conclusions inherent in evolutionary thought. In traditional Christian thought, man was created in the image of God, thereby making man dependent on and accountable to God. In evolutionary thought, man has emerged through natural processes and given that nature is inherently innocent, man, being merely an animal frolicking in nature, is also inherently innocent. No one would think that a male lion mating with numerous female lions was doing something wrong.

Man, like animals in nature, does suffer, though. He experiences pain and death. Suffering has proven to be a thorn to the Christianity of innocent man. If man is innocent and God is both all-good and all-powerful, then why is there suffering in the world? The traditional view held that man was not a victim of suffering but the perpetrator of suffering because of sin. In evolutionary thought, man, like all of nature, is an innocent sufferer of sin, where suffering itself becomes sin. God is either all-powerful and evil, not all good, or He is all good and impotent, not all-powerful.

Atheists have chosen the answer that man is innocent and God is evil. The new Gospel has chosen the answer that man is innocent and God is impotent to stop suffering. Since God is incapable of making judgment and stopping evil, it is now man’s responsibility to both judge what is evil and act to stop evil. For the new Gospel, God is not holy. God is love.

This is why viewing man as guilty of sin is itself viewed as evil. To accuse an innocent man of a crime he did not commit or to call what he does a crime is considered a gross injustice, a blatant evil. To accuse man of both being in a state of sin and committing acts of sin is to accuse the innocent of a fabricated crime.

So what does the death of Jesus have to do with man if man is inherently innocent before God? Nothing. It now becomes an overly sentimental gesture of unconditional love that is given unnecessarily and only for a show of pure emotional affection. It is a gratuitous act of comfort showing that God feels sentimental love for man to the point that He is willing to join him in his suffering, offering the comfort that comes from shared misery. This is why the new Gospel is less concerned with objective truth and more concerned with sentimental feelings of relationship and love. Misery loves company and this is why suffering people who believe themselves innocent love an innocent suffering messiah.

In the end, modern man has no need for the Gospel or for Christianity. It is a nice concept that God is willing to suffer as an innocent man in nature like innocent man suffers, being as incapable as man of ending suffering. It works to add a plush layer of comfort to the harsh emptiness of evolution, where innocent man suffers without purpose or meaning. This is why atheists who accept evolution head-on are considered stronger and braver than Christians who try to hide behind the comfort of a suffering messiah. The Christian who finds comfort in having a suffering messiah at least agrees with the atheist that man is innocent and God is utterly useless.

Church Bells Ring Gay In Denmark

A new look for Denmark churches

In Denmark, homosexual couples have won the right to marry in churches. As the President of the United States has openly come out in favor of gay marriage and news sites are trumpeting the acceptance of open homosexuality, the separation between church and state may soon follow Denmark’s example. The Telegraph reports:

The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Notice the words “new law” and “mandatory.” In Denmark, the state has dictated to the churches what they can and cannot accept while in the United States the separation of church and state will continue to be a hindrance to the gay rights movement. Once the acceptance of open sexuality, symbolized in the gay lifestyle, becomes enshrined by law, the state will have to prosecute the church for non-compliance. Supporters of gay rights will not stand by and allow religious leaders to openly denounce homosexuality. Such denunciations are the very thing that has become pariah in social circles. Drafting laws to silence such criticism of homosexuality and allow the gay lifestyle to be openly expressed whenever and wherever is not just a possibility.

Recently, the Boy Scouts of America began reconsidering its decades-old rejection of homosexual scouts and leaders. The pressure placed on them both politically and financially has been immense and they may be on the verge succumbing.

The case in Denmark and the Boy Scouts in America reveal that homosexuals are not content to simply win the freedom to practice their sexuality and then to practice it openly. They are pushing for the right to establish their lifestyle as the law of the land. Traditional Conservatives will either have to accept it or do the work of defending a biblical view of marriage and sex at the risk of social and legal persecution. Given the Traditional Conservatives’s overlooked divorce rates, open acceptance of feminism (shrouded in the term complementarianism), and its reliance on Fox News politics for its identity (which is still better than CNN politics), it is doubtful the conservative church has much fight left in it.

It is ironic that the major battle cry for those rebelling against traditional church values was not wanting the Bible shoved down their throats. Now the church is having gay rights shoved down its throat. Some might say that turnabout is fair play, that this is justice. Perhaps. Given that publicly everyone was told it was simply about equality and compassion, the lack of both shows there have always been, behind the lies, ulterior motives.

Is It Really About Gay Marriage?

It’s a new world …

Fox News reports that DC Comics has now put forth the Green Lantern as a gay character. Actor Neil Patrick Harris (of Doogie Howser fame) told Oprah that he knew he was gay before he was a teen (see my article on how such statements open the door for legalized adult-child sex).  In my last article I noted that ABC has proclaimed support for gay marriage outweighs opposition a few weeks after President Obama declared his support for gay marriage. It would seem that the gay lifestyle is everywhere one looks.

The gay community and identity is not ultimately about marriage or sex, which practically makes the issue of gay marriage a red herring. Sex is ultimately the grounds over which everything is fought (divorce, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc.), but it is not the reason for the fight. Sex has come to the forefront because it is one of the foundations of human existence. It is the ground from which children are brought into the world and place where the most intimate of relationships are experienced.

What is ultimately happening is the emergence of a post-Christian community that seeks a post-Christian America. The Christian worldview enshrined in churches and derived from the Holy Bible has held sway in Western Civilization for over a millennium and was the primary source of boundaries for human behavior, especially sex and marriage. That dominance has now severely shaken and looks to be on the verge of being completely overthrown. Of course, this completely makes laughable the claim that America was never a Christian nation. If it were not, opponents would not have had to fight so hard against Christianity to find the progressive America they desire.

When Pat Benatar sings “Love is a Battlefield” she is not far off. Wrestling marriage and sex away from the teachings of the church and into the hands of enlightened skeptics has been the vehicle for laying the foundation of a post-Christian country.

The word “gay” itself reveals the aspirations of its advocates. In times past it meant happy or jovial. This can be found in the Christmas carol “Deck the Halls” which goes “And now we don our gay apparel.” In current times it is generally understood to mean homosexual. In reality, it means both. To be “gay” is to experience life in a post-Christian world, especially in terms of sex, with the firm belief that such life will ultimately be happier than the passing world under Christianity. Expressing a non-traditional sexuality, especially of same-sex variety, is the quintessential expression of a liberated and happy life.

Christianity still exists, but it is facing the demands that it submit to a new world that has no room for its ideas and beliefs. A few will stand and not submit, but many have already begun abandoning public, biblical Christianity to ensure they will be safe and comfortable in the new world. This decay is best revealed in the anemic attitude toward sex and marriage the church is currently entertaining through divorce and feminism.

This clash of Christian with progressive culture was summed up nicely by Philip Mauro in his article, “Life in the Word,” found in The Fundamentals:

Not only is the Bible, with its peremptory assertion of supremacy and control over mankind, directly counter to the democratic movement, but it is now the only real obstacle to the complete independence of humanity. If only the authority of the Scriptures is gotten rid of, mankind will have attained the long-coveted state of absolute independence, which is equivalent to utter lawlessness.