Here are the Blogs in the culture category.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
The Media’s Downward Spiral
 When it comes to distrust of particular professions, attorneys may receive the brunt of many jokes, yet there are few industries thought less of than our nation’s press. From television to radio to other forms of media, the level of distrust and lack of confidence in the media is perhaps greater than any time in recent history. The inspired psalmist reminds Christians where to place their trust: “For You are my hope, O Lord God;?You are my trust from my youth” (Psalm 71:5). While the media continues the spiral out of control, our Lord remains steadfast.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, less than 1 in 3 Americans believe that news organizations get the facts straight when reporting the news. In 1985, when the initial survey was conducted, 55% of people believed news stories to be accurate. This near 50% decline in the trustworthiness of news outlets ought to be of concern to those in the news industry. The sharp decline is most certainly part of the driving force behind an increasing number of Americans obtaining their news and information from alternative sources (talk radio, blogs, & various Internet sites). In fact, viewership of the network newscasts from the three major networks continues to drop such that it may be a matter of time before those newscasts will be eliminated from the daily schedule.
The same study found that 60% of Americans believe the news media to be politically biased and question the ability of the press to investigate and report in an independent manner. Thus, when reports are made questioning political policy or issues of importance to Americans, there is an underlying belief that data may be modified or massaged to put forward a particular viewpoint.
While Americans have had at least a slight distrust of the media and its motivation at times throughout our history, this unparalleled level of distrust has arguably been caused by a number of major changes taking place in the industry. The Pew Center recently found that for the first time more Americans get national and international news from the Internet than from newspapers. While television remains the dominant source by which Americans obtain national and international news, those citing the Internet as their primary source of this news have doubled over the past five years. If this trend continues, the Internet may overtake television as the major source for national and international news within the next three to five years.
The rise of the Internet and its impact on this issue of distrust in the media cannot be overstated. With the click of a mouse, people can have access to the same data and information as news agencies and can examine and scrutinize the data. This analysis can then be sent to practically anyone--or to millions of individuals for that matter--instantaneously. Because of this technology, we have seen a number of newspapers and networks called out for manipulating stories and, in some cases, the complete fabrication of stories. Perhaps as technology continues to evolve and the news media is further scrutinized, news agencies and reporters will be forced to enhance their fact checking so as not to be embarrassed by false information.
Another critical factor in the decline of trustworthiness of the media may be the perception that the media are unduly influenced by powerful persons and groups. The Pew poll found that only 20% of Americans believe the media to be independent of these persons and groups. Nearly twice as many Americans believed the media to be independent from powerful persons and groups in 1985 when the survey was first conducted. These persons may be influential in the arena of business or politics and may also include the corporate interests of the major news organizations (Boards of Directors, major shareholders, etc.).
Without question, the news media is experiencing rapid change. Newspaper circulations and readership levels have been and remain in a steady decline as more Americans obtain “instantaneous” news via the Internet instead of “outdated” news via the newspapers. What may occur due to the distrust of the media and more Americans seeking their news via the Internet is the extinction of several major newspapers. We may also see news organizations in America, as they have in some parts of Europe, admit to being of particular political viewpoints and place within their news stories opinions along with the facts.
Whether or not the traditional media can regain its prior trust among Americans remains to be seen, but there is no question that the media has an uphill climb to reach the level of trust it once had in the minds of Americans. Christians should always hold fast to what the prophet Isaiah declared: “Trust in the LORD forever, ? For in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength” (Isaiah 26:4).
Source: “Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low.” The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. http://people-press.org/report/543/ Posted on 05/27/2010 2:50 PM by Chad Stafko
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
No Respect: A History Lesson
People who take the Bible seriously are accustomed to disrespect. It comes from atheists on the one side and theologically sophisticated (i.e., liberal) co-religionists on the other. The barbs from people who would seem, at least on the face of it, to be on the same side in opposing Darwinism are, however, a little harder to take. Let me explain by getting a little historical.
In the late ’70s, young earth creationists (affectionately known as YECs) were pushing for “balanced treatment” in the science classroom. Laws mandating equal time for evolution and creation were eventually passed in several states. From the outset, this never struck me as a particularly good strategy. Legislation, if anything, should have encouraged critical thinking, which may or may not have involved a fifty-fifty time-sharing agreement. The courts were unimpressed as well but for entirely the wrong reasons. In the Arkansas case, Judge Overton settled on a definition of “science” that was designed explicitly to squelch critical thinking and promptly declared the statute unconstitutional (1982).
While ultimately unsuccessful, these legal maneuvers on the part of creationists capped a vigorous, consciousness-raising campaign that had been going on since the late 1950s. The key mover and shaker was Henry Morris—a card-carrying academic with legitimate science credentials. His book, The Genesis Flood (co-authored with John Whitcomb in 1961), became the unofficial manifesto of the new YEC movement. A booming generation of church-going college graduates found assurance in what Morris and a growing body of speakers and writers had to offer.
This vibrant movement did more than simply defend a straightforward reading of the Genesis narrative. Morris tapped into a grassroots resentment of the evolution establishment. Educated parents saw their kids being indoctrinated with a godless view of the world, but where could they turn for help? Leaders in the Catholic church and many “mainline” Protestant denominations had embraced Darwin and his theory. Evangelical leaders followed a similar trajectory, especially after World War II. The American Scientific Affiliation, which started out in 1941 as an organization of predominantly evangelical scientists, moved in rapid succession through various stages of compromise. Vigorous opposition to Darwinism in the early years of the ASA ended in 1959, with the adoption of theistic evolution as the only “respectable” position for Christian scientists.
There was no choice: help had to come from Morris and a small network of creation ministries. The situation began to change in the late 1980s. Books appeared from authors and publishers having no obvious ties to the existing YEC movement. These included The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen (1984); Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Denton (1986); and Of Pandas and People by Davis and Kenyon (1989).
By this time, YECs had been waving their anti-evolution banners for over thirty years. If you count the earlier and even lonelier figures of George McCready Price, Harry Rimmer, and Byron Nelson, that period can be extended to the 1930s. William Jennings Bryan offered forceful opposition in the 1920s, culminating in the Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925. Even here, however, the major source of support had to come from conservative churchgoers. On any other issue, Bryan could have counted on likeminded reformers who shared his horror of social Darwinism. However, the anti-evolution law at the heart of the Scopes controversy was the brainchild of Tennessee’s burgeoning Fundamentalist churches. In the eyes of the northeastern elites, these Bible-toting conservatives were almost as bad as the Darwinists. And so their champion, “The Great Commoner,” was hung out to dry.
Like Bryan, the YEC leaders of a bygone era have become persona non grata to many members of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The father of that movement, Phillip E. Johnson (Darwin on Trial, 1991), wanted to focus all of our attention on the materialistic agenda of the evolutionary establishment. At a YEC conference in 1994, Johnson asked his audience to put their concerns about the age of the earth on hold. Debates over the interpretation of Genesis were divisive, he thought, and distracted us from the really important issues. Johnson envisioned a “big tent” approach: anyone who opposed Darwinian evolution would be welcome to take up the ID cause, regardless of his religious views or where he stood on the age of the earth. He never wavered from that conviction. The same cannot be said for others in the ID community. After years of wandering in the anti-evolution wilderness, YECs have found the ID tent neither big nor welcoming.
We can see this dismissive approach in Michael Behe’s otherwise fabulous update of the design argument (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996). Under a section ironically titled “History Lesson,” Behe reduces decades of anti-evolution activity into a simple religious claim about the age of the earth (p. 236). It is almost as if no one had anything to say about natural selection, the fossil record, and evidence for design until ID burst on the scene. The earth was too young for evolution and that, on Behe’s account, is about all the creationists had to say on the matter.
Along these same lines, Jay Richards has denied that there was any effective opposition to evolution in public schools before 1996.[i] This revisionist view of history slights the longstanding efforts of parents, churches, and creation ministries to counter the evolutionary indoctrination of children within the science classroom and elsewhere. Testimony to their success can be seen in the widespread skepticism of human evolution, which has remained remarkably constant from the pre-ID period to the present. The Gallup organization has been keeping up with these statistics since 1982.[ii] In that year, 44% of Americans credited God with the creation of human beings. Only 9% gave the nod to an entirely God-free evolutionary process. In 2008, after a dozen years of intense ID activity, the proportion of “creationists” remains at 44%. In the meantime, belief in human evolution has risen to 14%. Most of that increase has come at the expense of the formerly undecided.
It is difficult to isolate the effect of the ID movement on these beliefs. The movement brought fresh perspectives and a renewed focus on the philosophical commitments of Darwinian science. A growing catalog of books, which deftly avoided any reference to God or the Bible, could be shared with skeptical friends and neighbors. However, in trying to distance themselves from an earlier generation of opponents to evolution, ID writers risked alienating a large and potentially supportive base.
The ID movement itself has reached something of a plateau. ID proponents, ID books, and ID curricula have been identified as a clear and present danger to the evolutionary establishment. IDers are being marginalized, not because they believe in a literal six-day creation, but because they reject materialism. The movement has also suffered legal setbacks, as in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). This time, instead of legislation, the Dover school board in Pennsylvania required teachers to read out a statement on intelligent design. IDers may have wished for a different approach, but the trial and its outcome bore an uneasy resemblance to the Arkansas case. All of this makes their treatment of an earlier generation of Darwin dissenters somewhat puzzling. It makes no sense to adopt a patronizing attitude toward YECs when elites at an even higher level—the gatekeepers in law, media, and academia—treat IDers with precisely the same disdain.
Fortunately, there are ID advocates who still believe in Johnson’s “big tent.” Chief among them is William Dembski (The Design Inference, 1998). After the death of Henry Morris in 2006, Dembski reiterated his long-standing regard for the old warhorse: “Henry Morris was a great man, and all critics of Darwinian evolution are in his debt for maintaining pressure on this pseudoscience when so much of the Western world capitulated to it.”[iii]
As the debate moves on, even past the ID movement in its current form, it is clear that freedom of speech and religion are gaining even more significance on the political and rhetorical front (as shown so eloquently in the movie Expelled). Scientists, lawyers, philosophers, and others, whether associated with the ID movement or not, will play an increasingly vital role in defending the basic right of free speech within high school classrooms and on college campuses.
There is still a need, however, to make the case for design from the bottom up—at the level of individuals, families, and churches. ID is a valuable tool, but the burden of resisting materialism in our homes and pews continues to be carried on the backs of Bible-believing parents, teachers, and ministries, like Focus
[i] Jay W. Richards, “Reality and Reluctance in Science,” Touchstone, July/August, 2004, 17[6]:50.
[ii] Gallup, “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
[iii] William Dembski, “Henry Morris’s Death,” Uncommon Descent, February 26, 2006. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/henry-morriss-death/
Posted on 05/26/2010 1:29 PM by Trevor Major
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Taking Up Sides—In America, Has Christ Been Divided?”
“Religious groups just seem to want to interpret everything their way,” was the simple yet profound statement that opened the door to what he was really thinking. As the conversation began, I simply told him what I do for a living, how I travel the country and deliver seminars to various groups on the dangers of current cultural views and the agendas that are attacking our families. After he told me about growing up in the Catholic church and leaving it, he revealed a sentiment in the above statement that has played into his current situation—absence from any religious affiliation.
Unfortunately, he’s not alone in America. In June of 2009, the Barna Group released the results of a study on this very subject in an article entitled “Americans Are Exploring New Ways of Experiencing God” (http://www.barna.org). Through this study, they discovered:
· 88% of American adults say, “My religious faith is very important in my life.”
· 64% say they are “completely open to carrying out and pursuing [their] faith in an environment or structure that differs from that of a typical church.”
· 50% say, “A growing number of people I know are tired of the usual type of church experience.”
· 71% say they are “more likely to develop [their] religious beliefs on [their] own, rather than to accept an entire set of beliefs that a particular church teaches.”
As this shift, moving from established religion to a “have-it-your-way” spirituality, has continued to take place in America, what has the religious world done to combat it? Why are there so many who fall in line with this current, explore-your-own-path type belief? The answers to the above are quite simple although they are best understood by looking at how we arrived at this point in America.
The Bible records in Matthew 16:18 Jesus saying, “...and on this rock (this being Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God) I will build My church…” (ESV). On the day of Pentecost, in 33 A.D., the church began with the first converts coming out of Judaism and becoming obedient to what the Apostles preached concerning Jesus and baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Since that day, there have been individuals who, under the title of religious leaders, have introduced their own doctrines and teachings, misrepresenting the simple message of Jesus Christ, His birth, life, death, and resurrection. There have been those who will insert words and passages into the Bible on the subject of salvation as a swing away from other false teachings with the end result of both being a misconstrued teaching that is not in accord with the original. When considering these and the many different “worship-styles” (i.e. the introduction of the instrument in worship) that are present today, is there any wonder why the religious climate in America is what it is? Is it possible that “religion” itself has helped foster the “have-it-your-way” spirituality through unethical behavior, through adding to and changing the Bible to fit a desired interpretation, and through the continuous splintering away from the New Testament church that Jesus built?
In the apostle Paul’s first writing to the church in Corinth, he addresses this very issue as it was rearing its ugly head when he writes, “I appeal to you brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you…”(1 Corinthians 1:10, ESV). According to his letter, there were some in the church who were taking sides behind certain men. “What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ”(vs. 12, ESV). His next question is simple yet profound and hits at the very core of the real issue—“Is Christ divided?” (vs. 13, ESV). While the obvious answer is a resounding “No!” the question still needed to be asked then, and it needs to be asked today.
One of the key reasons individuals in our society reach the conclusion that religious groups just interpret everything their way is because many have done just what the church in Corinth did, taken sides behind individuals and their teachings instead of simply following the undivided Christ. The litmus test for all teachings, new or old, must always be the Bible. It has withstood criticism for centuries without changing to fit the current cultural climate. The Word of God is stable and the ultimate source for truth pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1: 3).
Posted on 05/26/2010 1:41 PM by Joe Wells
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Feminism
There are several angles on how to approach the topic of feminism. Entire books have been written on the topic. So how can feminism be summed up in a short article? Well, it can’t. A quick look at Wikipedia lists several types of specific feminism. What I want to do is define what feminism is, how it is portrayed in our culture, and how feminism has crept into the New Testament church.
Feminism: What It Is
At our house we have an 1828 Webster’s Dictionary that is fascinating to look at and compare definitions from approximately 200 years ago to those of today. However, feminism is not found in our 1828 dictionary because it was not something that was as common as it is today. Feminism has become a religion to some. The modern definition describes feminism very well when it calls it a “doctrine.” It defines feminism as, “A doctrine that advocates or demands for women the same rights granted men, as in political and economic status.”1 I believe that in some areas feminists strive for more than just equality.
As with most movements, there is usually a need to be met, a wrong to be corrected, etc. and such was the case with the feminist movement in its infancy. The women in the Victorian era were seen by society as an adornment to obey men and do what men wanted. Feminists of today seem to be trying to swing the pendulum completely the other way so women are not only equal to but more powerful than men. Both ideas are extreme. Neither extreme is the way in which Christ views His bride, the church, in Ephesians 6. New Testament Christians have to go back to the Bible to find out what the roles of men and women are, how they are different, why they are different, and then encourage growth in the strengths of each.
Queen Victoria in 1879 had this to say about feminism and women’s rights,
I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of “Women’s Rights,” with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were women to “unsex” themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet. I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.2
Keep in mind this was from the Queen of England.
Feminism: In Our Society
Feminists have strived (to their detriment) to have the same roles as men in every area of life. Some do it because of their total rebellion against the Biblical order between men and women. This is not to say that all women at all times are to take second in everything. In my relationship with my wife, I regard very highly her abilities to do things and accomplish things that I cannot do. She has gifts and abilities in areas that greatly exceed mine. Women and men have different gifts and roles. One sex is not more important that the other. Let me ask a question: Which is more important, the artist’s small brush or the painter’s five-inch brush? Doesn’t it depend on what job needs to be done? Which is better to paint a china cup? Which is better to paint the side of a barn? Common sense should give you the answer.
Some women become feminists out of necessity because the men in their lives have failed to lead. Not just that they have led poorly, but they simply failed to lead at all. In Genesis 2 we are told that man needed a helper; God made woman to be a helper. So what is the job of a helper? If a woman is in a relationship with a Christ-centered husband, who is being a servant-leader as Christ, then his wife easily follows and helps her husband promote not just his wants, dreams, desires, etc. but helps in promoting Christ and the family. If a woman is in a relationship with a self-centered husband who does not take any initiative to lead his family, then women, because of their creator-made helper personality, can easily take charge and develop the idea that either man cannot lead or, if he does, will lead poorly.
I believe our culture unknowingly contributes to this idea of feminism when we create situations of competition between boys and girls. Instead of realizing that boys and girls (even at young ages) have different strengths and weaknesses and capitalizing on them, we pit boys against girls in many areas. If our society were to capitalize on the strengths of each gender, think how much more could be accomplished for the Lord. Men and women are different and that difference is what complements the other and completes the other. That difference is what makes the two become one in marriage.
Another way our culture contributes to young women’s desire for equality is seen in the dating “game” that is played throughout elementary, junior high, and high school years. Young women have their hearts broken over and over by different guys so many times in their lives that they are unable to give a complete and pure heart to their spouses at marriage. Some of these young women have been hurt badly enough that they do not want to be considered in any way, shape, form, or fashion different from a man. They develop coping mechanisms in their early lives that do not allow anyone to get close to them and that cause them to put on a face of unwillingness to be different.
What I believe was a main cause for the modern feminist movement was that husbands abdicated their responsibility to lead and saw that women were more than willing to help take some of the load and stress off their shoulders. Let’s face it—leading is hard. The curse placed on man was that he would have to struggle in order to live. This tells me then that men, because of their curse, naturally don’t want to work hard much at all. Therefore, over time men have slowly allowed women to take over because it is easier. Men have thereby abdicated their responsibilities to their wives and families spiritually, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and physically. So what do women do? They become the helper to man by filling in all the roles that their husbands fail to fill. In doing so they fill the void of male leadership and we have the feminist movement of today.
When men in society try to act like real men, they are hated by feminists. Feminism punishes manly leadership. Feministic ideas do not allow boys at an early age to be different from girls. Little boys, as they grow up in school, are taught that girls are not different from them, girls are their equal, and girls are the same as they are. Boys are not taught to be young gentlemen and chivalrous, such as even holding doors open for girls or ladies.
Feminism: Seen in the Church
Since this has infiltrated our society, it has also crept into the church. We see women who out in society perform the same jobs as a man, compete with man in every arena, and get similar rewards. Then when it comes to worship the feminists don’t understand what the big deal is and why they cannot have the same roles in the church as they do in elsewhere. Men, in many cases, are unwilling to fulfill their God-ordained roles. These men then find women who want to do it and then let them because it is less work for them.
This same scenario is played out in the home where today most Christian women have for years been living out both the curse placed upon woman and the curse placed upon man in Genesis 2. They do this either out of necessity or lack of leadership. I believe that feminism came about because men did not stand up for the Biblical standard regarding leadership. Please don’t get me wrong! I will say this again; I covet my wife’s thoughts, suggestions, actions, help, and her intuitive mind. I would not be the man I am today if it were not for my wife who daily devotes herself to the well-being and care of our family. She helps in so many areas that I am lacking!
Men in their families and in the church need to stand up and lead. God doesn’t call us to all be perfect leaders, but He does call us to lead. Everyone wants to follow a good leader. That leader is someone who leads by example and who is a servant leader, thereby imitating Christ. As Christians, it is easy to follow a Christ who would lay down His life and die on a cross for people whom He had never seen. Gentlemen, we should be leading the way Christ led. If we want to take our culture back to the Bible, we must as the apostle Paul wrote, “...know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” (Philippians 3:10).
Conclusion
For men and women, there may be some surprising conclusions as we look back to the Bible for guidance and proper relationship roles in the home and in the church, but joy will follow. Prayerfully, there will be a denying and death of self for all mankind, only to find a new and more fulfilling life with those we love and God.
1. American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd Edition. Copyright 1985 by Houghton Mifflin Company
2. Phillips, Elizabeth Beall. Verses of Virtue. (San Antonio, Texas: The Vision Forum, Inc., 2003) p. 102.
Posted on 02/18/2010 3:14 PM by David Longley
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
A Living Soul
In Genesis 2:7 we find three statements concerning mankind’s origin. First, God created or formed humans from the dust of the earth, hence material. Second, God breathed into him the breath of life. Third, man became a living soul. This verse is denied entirely by materialist philosophers and scientists. First they deny God’s existence, then that man was created by Him and for Him (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), and finally that all human life has a soul.
The Hebrew word for soul is nepes. The term is defined as “soul, self, life, person, or heart.” The word occurs some 780 times in the Old Testament. In over 400 of the places, this word is translated “soul.” The KJV uses over 28 different English terms for the one Hebrew word. 1
The closest English word for nepes is soul. The soul of Rachel departed from her resulting in death (Genesis 35:18). The dual nature of a human of possessing both a body and a soul, is noted in Job 14:22. In the New Testament James has a similar analysis in James 2:26.
The battleground for many years between materialist and non-materialist has been the nature of the soul. The physical part of mankind is definitely of a material nature (Genesis 2:7). The non-materialist contends that the soul is not material. The discussion has raged back and forth over the decades. The materialist wants empirical proof for the soul. Since the soul is non-material, it cannot be analyzed by normal scientific means (e.g., weight or chemical composition). Carl Sagan, a materialist, stated in regard to the brain that , “what we sometime call mind, is a consequence of its anatomy and physiology and nothing else.”2
Sagan and others of his conviction felt that the brain was hardwired and could not be altered. When they were challenged with new evidence such as neuroplasticity, they resorted to what is called promissory materialism. Promissory materialism is the concept proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. He used the concept of promissory materialism to answer questions to evidence that supposedly would be found in the future against materialist beliefs. The materialists believe they are correct and future data will prove them so. They argue that contradictory evidence that now exists will be proven wrong in the near or distant future. Charles Darwin, when asked about the incompleteness of the fossil record in his day, used the same approach. Darwin stated future discoveries would provide proof. The proofs of materialism are not in accord with all the evidence from physical and biological sciences. Since these new findings can point to another conclusion, they close ranks and use promissory materialism. The destruction of promissory materialism lies with the evidence that can be shown to destroy it.
Nobel Prize winner John Eccles, a neurologist, states, “I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by reductionism [the theory that complex phenomenon can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic mechanism or organelles, DLC] with its claims in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neural activity. This belief must be classed as superstition.”3
The impact of promissory materialism has had far-reaching complications in our society. Richard Florey, a sociologist, in his essay Promoting a Secular Standard: Secularization and Modern Journalism, 1870 to 1930, states, “Journalists began to see themselves as the successors to traditional religion or spiritual leaders.”4 They were to provide the appropriate guidance for both individuals and society. They assumed Darwin, Freud, and other materialists were correct and it was here stay. The belief that religion had no authority was accepted by most journalists and they therefore modeled future articles in the shadow of materialistic philosophy and science.
The progressive movement in the United States, with its investment in social Darwinism, began to alter education under the leadership of John Dewey.5 Educationists like the journalists believed in Darwinism at the expense of religion with its resulting effect on society. A government controlled by materialists will redefine good as a debunked philosophy of the past (Isaiah 59:13-15) even with evidence to the contrary, which will be suppressed or marginalized. The role of self-control and normal restraints used in the past will be downplayed. The materialist does not believe in the concept of self, hence, there is nothing to control.
The societal upheaval we see today is an unfolding calamity for the control of the minds of mankind. The materialist wants the thought process of a thinking individual to be robotically controlled. Their bankrupt philosophy is the driving force behind these calamitous events. How long will they wait for the “proof” when the evidence already exists—evidence that demonstrates man possesses a living soul.
References
1. Vines, W.E., et al.: Complete Expository Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
2. Sagan, Carl (1977), The Dragon of Eden (Random House).
3. Eccles, John and Daniel Robinson (1984), The Wonder of Being Human (New York: Free Press).
4. Florey, Richard (2003), The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life; Christian Smith ed. (University of California Press).
5. Edmondson, Henry T. (2006), John Dewey and the Decline of American Education (ISI Books). Posted on 11/17/2009 12:44 PM by David Campbell
|
