The Deaf Ears And Blind Eyes of Modernity

Whenever the term ‘atheist’ is brought up, the immediate thought is someone who denies the existence of God. Most evangelical efforts to counter the prevalent form of atheism found modern academia and culture begin with this basic idea. Atheism says there is no God. Christianity attempts to prove there is. The problem with this approach is that the modern intellectual culture is not so direct and clear.

The late Christopher Hitchens was an unapologetic atheist and often engaged Christians in direct debate. While he would find a much more receptive audience in the modern mind than a Christian apologist, that modern audience would not openly subscribe to atheism, though they welcome its application through the secular state.

Instead of openly saying “God does not exist,” modern thought takes a non-committal stance. Stephen Hawking has provided what is close to an open declaration of what the modern mind holds. He states “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

What the modern mind is holding in academia and pushing into the culture is not the declaration that there is no God, but that God is not necessary.

In a previous article, I wrote:

Within Evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that if the fundamental process that brought man into existence, and has brought man to his current place in the world, did so without need for a supernatural agent then man can safely get along without a supernatural agent. Man is not dependent on God. He may exist, but such existence, while comforting and meaningful, is ultimately irrelevant. [Emphasis mine]

This allows a man to live as an atheist, but speak as theist. His has no need for God, but is free to invoke Him when needed. He can go to church, participate in the rituals, and be completely free to deny the very meaning of those rituals.

Christians who seek to evangelize the modern world with movies like “God is Not Dead” will find themselves wasting their time. The non-committed mind of modernity believes itself both religious and good, without need of conversion to God, but also without need of God. Modernity believes itself both Christian and atheist without declaring either. They have no need to hear God’s Son or see His church here on earth, but both are pronounced welcomed in public.

However, while it speaks in safe, ambiguous language, modernity is through its actions decidedly atheistic and hostile to Christianity.


The One Reason Why Socialist Ideas Should Be Rejected

When you hear of ideas like universal healthcare and government-provided subsidies for the poor, the idea of living in a Socialist state, such as is found in Europe and Canada, is very appealing. Economics governed to both allow people to work and to provide for the poor is something that most people, especially American Christians, would gladly welcome.

So why are most American conservatives, libertarians, and right-wing thinkers so opposed to it (I won’t say that Christians are opposed to it as many Christians on the left are avid supporters of it)? Who doesn’t want to live in a better world?

A recent article on the Crisis Magazine reveals the major reason why every Christian should resist the concept inherent in Marxist theories and the allure of the socialist state. Canada officially offered legal sanction to homosexual couples by legalizing gay marriage in 2005. Gays and lesbians everywhere rejoiced in their newfound freedom and the cause of human rights was advanced.

However, not everyone is feeling a new sense of freedom. What they are feeling is a new sense of restriction and a direct violation of both their conscience and flourishing. The legal profession in Canada is one area where citizens are openly discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.

Not only are Christian lawyers being pushed out by their colleagues, but they are also experiencing ostracism from their clients. As the debate over TWU heated in the media, some of Canada’s most powerful corporations created Legal Leaders for Diversity (LLD), a group that now includes over 70 of Canada’s largest corporations. Through LLD, these companies aim to alter the legal landscape by choosing to do business only with pro-gay law firms. Never before has there been a concerted effort to essentially starve Christian law firms out of business. [Emphasis mine]

Lawyers are not the only ones facing this trend.

In March, Toronto’s city council voted to remove the nomination of a Catholic school trustee to the city’s Board of Health. The trustee had not shown any wrongdoing or incompetence, and city councilors didn’t even try to argue this. Their stated concern was that the trustee had a history of voting in line with Catholic teaching.

Canada has openly said that these things would not happen.

Opponents of same-sex “marriage” were given all kinds of assurances. The preamble to the Civil Marriage Act states that “everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion,” “nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs,” and “it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage.” [Emphasis mine]

These assurances are lies.

The reason to oppose a socialist state is not because of its goals, ideas, and economics models. Rather, it should be opposed, and opposed vehemently, because it is rooted in a culture that is functionally hostile to Christians and God. The secular state is basically atheism applied to daily life and atheism has no room for a God who created one man and one woman and bound them in marriage.

The Christian left has essentially taken a pacifist stance and chosen to accept any persecution for what they believe will be a much better world. In fact, they have heralded the atheist state as the Kingdom of God.

The American left looks forward to a time of utopian bliss, a world that is devoid of things like discrimination and inequality. However, they will discriminate against Christians who oppose them and create a state of oppressive inequality for them. It may be re-branded under different names and words, but in practice, Bible and Church faithful will be second class citizens.

Say You’re Sorry Or Else

Divorce as a threat point is one of the biggest forces being used against the biblical and traditional view of marriage as a divine institution. Even those who are advocating for men are not immune to its presence.

In an article on The Catholic Gentleman, Sam Guzman writes about male pride and prescribes “Three Words That Can Save Your Marriage.”

But not to worry, the Great Physician has a prescription for the deadly disease of pride, namely the three powerful but painful little words I referenced in the title of this post. What are they? “I am sorry.”

How unstable is a marriage where a lack of apologize can destroy it? How fragile is the union-a Catholic union!-that to not say “I am sorry” can doom it to oblivion?

This required apology is not for major offenses such adultery, abuse, or drug trafficking. Rather the apology is for certain impolite behaviors.

It really is so simple. Were you a jackass, were you a jerk? Did you really mess up? Apologize, and mean it!

And if the man doesn’t apologize for being “a jerk”? Well, then the marriage may not be saved. But who is threatening the husband with destruction of his marriage? God? The Church? The church is definitely a culprit, but the real threat is the woman and the feminist state backing her.

Dalrock writes of divorce as a point of threat against the husband, quoting academic studies:

Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse … If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

So the threat is that if a Christian husband does something that makes him jackass or jerk and does not apologize then the Christian wife may feel that her husband is not loving her the way she feels that a husband should love his wife, according to the bible, and leave him. Of course, the wife may not have any real intention of leaving him, but the threat is always there, keeping her husband in line with her feelings.

If mama ain’t happy, the divorce lawyers will be.

Sam Guzman also writes:

I have lost count of the times I have been selfish and insensitive toward my wife. Yet, as soon as I become aware of a sin I have committed toward her, I strive to apologize for it and make it right as soon as possible. The beautiful thing is, my wife always rushes to forgive me, and often, she apologizes for her own sins if she is at fault.

“Selfish and insensitive” are ambiguous terms, pointing toward an emotional offense as opposed to a biblical or practical offense, like adultery or violence. How does he become “aware” of the offense? His wife being angry or, more likely, sobbing? A woman using tears to manipulate men is as old as time. The romantic use of words like “rushes to forgive” indicates an emotional response to his apologies, verifying an emotional offense. She is not required to confess any sins as she is assumed to be completely innocent in the matter.

Keep in mind that this is not an article about how make a marriage more peaceable, but how a man can save his marriage from destruction.

The problem is that a man who is functioning as the authoritative head, the prophet, priest, and king of his family, is going to make decisions that will not please his wife. He is going to do things that may be wise and good, or even personal, but because those decisions may not align with his wife’s wishes and feelings, he will be seen through the lens of her emotions as selfish and insensitive.

So, Sam Guzman’s marriage is one where he must constantly struggle to keep his wife happy to keep the wrath of God from coming down on him through his wife’s freedom to divorce without fault. His ability to rule his own house is rendered null and void.

In another article, Dalrock imagines a story where a man does not apologize for being a jerk to his wife.

My first thought was to really grind in this message of the Holy Threatpoint by having one of the husbands play the role of the villain;  he would fail to submit to his wife when threatened and she would follow through and destroy their family.  Then she would use the family courts to bleed him white with child support and alimony.  In the end of the movie we would see him in a prison cell, having been driven to a life of crime in an attempt to pay the required sums to his wife.

In the world of The Catholic Gentleman, the Christian husband would see the destruction of his life as just punishment from the throne of Christ Himself, all because he did not apologize for hurting his wife’s feelings.

MGTOW really is a strong temptation.

Feminism Is As Destructive To Women As It Is To Men

Sweet Briar College, an all-female college in Virginia, is closing. While higher education in America has become so meaningless as to make this a good thing, there is irony here.  In the past, young men and women were segregated from each other in education. The advantage was the same reason Nikolai Tesla never married. However, Feminism fought to give women the right to go to college along side men, eliminating the need for single-sex colleges.

When Sweet Briar opened in 1906, many of the nation’s top schools remained closed to women. But since the ’90s, women have been enrolling in college at higher rates than men — a gap that’s continued to grow. And it’s had an impact on women’s colleges.

Yet, even female students admit that a single-sex education for women can be beneficial. 19-year-old sophomore Christina Seay says,

Teachers, professors in particular, can be sexist and when you remove boys from the situation, you got more support.

While her reasoning is typical of the feminist idea that women are morally superior to men, she does recognize what men have known throughout the history of Western Civilization: the opposite sex can be a distraction. The reason why the benefits of single-sex education have been lost is because feminism fought against them.

Perhaps feminists see a bigger picture on the horizon. As female enrollment continues to outpace male enrollment at public institutions, they may see a day when most colleges have single-sex education, though they would include gays since gay males are not “men” in the modern, “sexist” meaning, but rather fellow feminists.

In their eyes, this would provide a safe world for women where they can explore their full potential without having to deal with the “sexism” that comes from men.