193 Comments

1. Punditarian:

Richard,

This formulation is very good, and very important:

“From one side, it is reeling under the blows of a religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism. From the other flank it is being challenged by a political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam.”

You highlight the reason that it is difficult to use reality-based empirical arguments to deflate the true believers’ faith in socialism, on the one hand, and you indicate how we must manage the Islamist challenge, on the other. If there were a purely political movement in the world that advocated global hegemony, totalitarian control over every aspect of life, destruction of the free market economy, misogynistic oppression of women, elimination of freedom in education, and the repression of everyone who fails to accept its ideology, we would know exactly how to respond. The fact that Islam claims to be a religion, and that we have as a core value respect and tolerance for all matters of faith, paralyzes the West. It is time to demystify that claim and proceed accordingly.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:37 am 2. havapilot:

Wretchard,
As always…thoughtful and thought-provoking…
Although my view may be biased, I wouldn’t count out the Catholic Church yet. Perhaps someone with better research skills and more time can dredge up supporting documentation to back up what I think I remember reading somewhere…that the fastest-growing religion in the world is not Islam, but Christianity.
Also, anecdotally, here, in my parish in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, I’ve seen a surge in attendance at Catholic church services compared to a few years ago…SRO at more than one Mass on Sunday…in a parish with where the average income is plenty good enough to revel in a world of secular blandishments instead.
I’m also a believer in the “social pendulum”, where societal values over time move from one extreme to another (conservative to liberal and back, again and again) as ever-unsatisfied humanity pursues something better by trying to be different from the past… It seems like our society’s movement towards the extremes of “anything goes” may be slowing…

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:59 am 3. ADE:

Excellent post, W.

Delightful as it is to see the Arch Druid get his comeuppance, this time I think your analysis is not correct.

That religion is of course socialism/communism

I’m afraid that it isn’t. The religion that put a pox on both their houses is science, testing, analysis, synthesis, abandonment of what doesn’t work, acceptance of what does – for now. Socialism/communism is a highjacking of the previous sentence, and before you say that only Christianity can prevent this highjacking, I say read the next paragraph.

We are charged with developing a raison d’etre which will allow us to live with the fact that when we die, we are done with, and yet pass on the gift that prior generations have given us.

That task is beyond Druids, Popes, Thought Leaders.

It’s down to you, me, and humility.

ADE

PS: But by God did those Prodies get the good music

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:09 am 4. ADE:

Er, something wrong with a double post here.

Tried deleting.

ADE

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:20 am 5. herb:

We got it honest:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

Legend has it that Jesus and his uncle Joseph of Aramathea made several trips to SW England to trade for tin. This kept Him from the attention of Herod, who hadn’t given up. Supposedly they were forced to winter over at Glastonbury by an untimely storm. So England is His second home.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:40 am 6. winslow:

Communism and Catholicism are two of many Cultural Streams. Culture and Cultural Streams originally arose in the cauldron of Darwinian survival struggles, where they abetted human survival. When survival is at stake, culture is useful only if it represents what is true and real. As Capitalism raised its ugly head and began to produce prosperity, attachment of culture to reality was no longer important, because survival was no longer the question, and Communism began its triumphant march.

Obama is now the great myth reader and Capitalism is in for a hard time unless a contrary Cultural Stream arises.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:51 am 7. Beaglescout:

Herb, we have to collect your poems and put them somewhere where people can get to them. I really believe that America is ready for a new Robert W. Service who writes narrative, rhyming and rhythmic poems that are as easily memorized as rock and roll lyrics. Talk to me. Please.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:57 am 8. anton:

I have long said that communism was a cult pretending to be a political theory while Islam was a political theory pretending to be a religion. It is one of the reasons that Commies and Islam have gotten on so well over the years. Both produce little aside from rhetoric and hate (and, of course, acres of corpses).

Catholicism has long since buried it hatchet in the conflict with science. It cannot do the same in it’s battle with secularism. On the positive side is the evidence of rapid expansion into Asia and Africa, the downside is the loss of western Europe. If Rome can gather in the faithful few that still live in Europe, and find a way to accomodate them without giving up any principles, we may be able to keep a light burning in the darkness there.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:11 am 9. ADE:

Beaglescout @ 7

If you liked Herb’s, you might like this from Matisyahu’s Jerusalem

ADE

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:11 am 10. dan:

Wretchard, that was a great post. I’m glad that the masters of the discourse have recognized that – Obama & Co. aside – there is a great hole in the public head where knowledge of Leninism should be.

I am concerned about the ecunemical outreach to the Russia Orthodox Church, however; it is obvious that, with the recent reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Kremlin has consolidated and activated the religion arm of the Cheka. The Vatican knows Communism, but nevertheless the Chekisti are very effective, and it wouldn’t be surprising if this provided opportunities for subversion from above, just as occurred with the CofE.

But this brings up another undiscussed topic that is very topical: what about the chekists’ penetration of Central Asian Islam as early as 1920? What about the Kremlin’s 80 yrs’ experience of co-opting and controlling the non-Arab Muslims on their own vast stretch of the Dar al Islam since the foundation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Evidently people believe the idea that the contemporary KGB is somehow controlling or contributing to the present Talibanization of the Central Asia is far too exotic to be anything more than a symptom of JBS paranoia. This is very strange, and can only be the result of ignorance.

The KGB controlled all of Soviet Islam, just as they controlled the Orthodox Church and all other religious institutions on a vast expanse of territory over a long period of time among a huge number of religious groups and ethnic groups of which you have not even heard. Perhaps the proposition that the KGB/SVR has a lot to do with our current Islamic difficulties should be reassessed?

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:17 am 11. Juan Paxety:

I grew up in the Anglican Communion – The Episcopal Church in the US. In the 70s, the liturgy and music were destroyed with new prayer books and new hymnals. The congregations rebelled, but the bishops, as Stalinists, forced the changes, because the bishops owned the church buildings.

At one point in the 80s, an average of one Episcopalian left the church every 20 minutes. Some of these folks turned to Rome, others to the many new Protestant churches (not even denominations) in the US.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:38 am 12. feeblemind:

Perhaps ‘Rome too, will go under.’ I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it would be wrong to count out Christianity as a whole. Adversity just makes it stronger.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:51 am 13. CE:

ADE, try reading Spe Salvi by B16, or Chesterton’s _Everlasting Man_

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:52 am 14. Jamie Irons:

#7,

No disrespect to Herb intended, but those lines (in his comment #5) were written by William Blake, and then adapted to the hymn Jerusalem…

Jamie Irons

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:04 am 15. JoeB:

For those that paid attention you could see the Church of Humanism/Socialism come out in radical force after the Prop 8 vote in California. By force, intimidation, loss of jobs and in many cases – violence – they targeted a minority religion. The goal was to cow people into submission.

Make no mistake, if the socialist movement can’t win through the voting box they will turn violent.

Anyhow, another excellent article.

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:42 am 16. Evan:

I think you are too pessimistic. The securalist attack on Christianity is, for now, primarily a Western phenomenon. But the heart of the contemporary Christian story is being written in China, Latin America and Africa. It is sometimes a peculiar story, with, e.g., Brazilian charismatics and Chinese Christians who view Christianity as part and parcel of modernity and Western power thrown into the mix, but its most interesting chapters are still ahead. And the religious, quasi-entrepreneurial religious vitality of the United States is still a force to be reckoned with.

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:50 am 17. Lifeofthemind:

As an outsider I find the implosion of Anglicanism to be a sad story. Theologically their adherence to pre-Reformation Counciliar church organization was logical. In theory they could have forged an alternative to Rome in partnership with the Eastern Churches. The problems caused by claims of authority by the Roman church under Papal authority at the Council of Trent and later of Papal Infallibility in Vatican I (1870) have not been resolved.

One day an Obama like Agent of Change may ascend to Peter’s Throne and the Catholic Church will prove powerless to defend itself. The more decentralized structure of the Anglican and Orthodox communions should prove more flexible in sealing off such a threat, however they have proven less robust in marshaling their forces to respond to persistent subversion. The problem with government by Councils is that they become subject to manipulation. The process is analogous to they way that David Axelrod packed the Democratic Party caucuses to select delegates for Barack Obama even where Hillary Clinton had won the primaries, as in Texas.

If the Catholic Church rallied disaffected Protestants to rejoin the traditional Anglican and Presbyterian Churches and then seize control of the administration and assets of those bodies, not for the benefit of Rome but to restore the viability of the traditional Anglo-Saxon alternative to secularism and Islam that might begin to turn the tide in Europe. It may be to late for such an effort in Europe but there is grounds for hope. The ongoing growth among traditional Jewish and evangelical Christian communities, in Latin America at the expense of the Catholics, as well as other groups, Hindu, Buddhist etc., shows that there is a widespread base for an alternative to the choices our host offers. The choice may not be between the Catholics and Atheism/Islam.

wretchard,
From one side, there is the religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism. From the other flank there is the political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam.

This is the essential formulation and is an excellent summary. Fighting the lies of the communists in their various guises, Red or Green, is hard unrelenting work but we know how to do it. The greatest threat is that we can grow weary of the task.

In Islam god is so abstract arbitrary and unfathomable, omnipotent and at the same time fallible, as to become simply a projection of human desire. On a deep level I see little difference between Islam and secularism. For this reason I suspect that faith in Islam is really very fragile. Its support is wide but shallow. Like the authority of the Communist Party of China it justifies itself by prior military victories. It is running on inertia and is intellectually out of gas. In the next few decades improved technology will pull the financial rug out from the oil cartel, unless the West castrates itself first under a secular/socialist Green regime. If severely checked militarily the Islamic Ummah may shatter.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:02 am 18. Ashen:

Word

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:13 am 19. Mark:

Benedict XVI is in the game for the long run, though he is an old man. In choosing the name Benedict he was signalling, and has said explicitly as well, that the Church may have to shrink and turn to its redoubts, as Benedict of Nurnia did in the 6th Century, rather than dilute its teaching.

If the Curia’s attraction to secularism/socialism swings towards an attraction to a revitalized traditionalism (probalby for reasons of public opinion more than conviction), Benedict XVI will have achieved a great deal, perhaps like Gandalf at Durin’s Bridge in Moria. (It should be no surprise that the Papal summer residence is the palace/observatory Castle Gondolfo, built on the site of a palace of Domitian.)

The Catholic Church comprises (twenty-three?) constituent churches (e.g. Marionite, Armenian, Alexandrian). Some of these have married clergy. Celibacy is a discipline of the church, not a dogma. Domesticity/marriage of clergy may well be the bane of Protestantism. Missionary activity, for example, exacts a great toll on spouses, as does contemporary congregation life. It’s not easy being a pastor’s kid. Priests suffer, but their suffering is their own, not their kids. Celibacy/monasticism may be a source of corruption, but it is also a sign and source of commitment and community energy, in many religions. The Chinese communists have a special desire to destroy Tibetan monasticism because it represents the heart of a people.

First Things had an article about the Church in China a few months ago. China has a decision to make: should it favor Islam or Christianity? As China looks at Korea and other nations, it sees that Christianity is compatible with traditional values and even to some extent with Chinese authoritarianism. Islam? No way. China is therefore relaxing its enforcement of anti-Christian laws, and the fire of the Spirit seems to be spreading quickly via house churches, of whatever denomination. It’s not just a Catholic thing.

Communism and socialism are attempts to bring into being the radical Christian community described in Acts: common ownership of resources. Christianity directed this communism to the monasteries, where all is held in common, leaving individuals and nations to find their own way towards justice.

All politics is violence of one kind or another. The Grand Inquisitor understood this, and he did not trust the power of the Gospel to maintain order and comfort the people. The Inquisitor and his ilk sincerely repeat the same refrain throughout history: it is better that one or some suffer for the good of the many. It is better to create scapegoats to manage social crisis (have we seen any of this lately?) than to face up to the reality that people will excuse murder, and even celebrate it “for the common good,” for world peace, or whatever. Mao is a particular hero of some administration officials it seems. Give aid to Sudan? It’s all for the common good, of course.

As P.J. O’Rourke said of Hillary’s book, reducing it to its main message: The government is the village, you are the child. The Grand Inquisitor would gravely nod his assent.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:23 am 20. The Count:

As someone who recently lost his church property to the American Episcopal church, and also works in a left wing universe, it’s sometimes tempting to feel like the world is especially hostile to Christian belief. And perhaps it is. But it remains true that the work of the Gospel is not complete, and that it will continue in every circumstance. It is ironic in the extreme however that those who intone against greed, injustice and excessive materialism may well end up with most of the property. In the name of tolerance, of course.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:43 am 21. Beaglescout:

After posting #7 I realized I was really thinking of another poet here. Walt, maybe? Herb’s stanzas had a much more complex rhyme scheme, and more rococo language, than most modern poets can manage.

I think that ADE #3 is wrong about science v. religion. To a great degree, modern science with its postulates of a knowable universe, with knowable and universal rules, and the freedom of rational humans to reason their way to new knowledge, comes from Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity with its doctrine of Free Will and the non-interference of God. The failings of specific religious leaders at certain times explain the great scandal of Galileo, for instance, which was notable because it was abnormal. If it had been typical nobody would now know Galileo Galilei’s name.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:52 am 22. Clioman:

JoeB’s thoughts (@ 15) made me take another look at a blog posted yesterday by Shannon Love (http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9801.html), in which she ponders the mindset of someone who is predisposed to believe the racist quotes falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh.

Love wrote that, “At the far end of the spectrum, the leftists become delusional to the point they believe they are trapped in a gotterdammerung struggle of good versus evil that justifies any action they might take in fighting that struggle. When dangerous fantasies, once the providence of the 5% most radical left, become accepted as true in the 40% just to the left of center, the rest of us are in great danger.”

It recalls the reportage by an FBI informant of the inner workings of the Weathermen, in which the well-educated comrades (including Billy Ayres and his murderous wife) blithely spoke of forcing millions of their fellow citizens into concentration camps. This is the kind of mindset that now occupies all too many seats of power in the current administration. Pray for the Republic…

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:00 am 23. Langley:

Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist

http://mises.org/story/3769

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:00 am 24. Teresita:

Feeblemind: Perhaps ‘Rome too, will go under.’ I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it would be wrong to count out Christianity as a whole. Adversity just makes it stronger.

Then the corollary is also true: contentment and ease makes Christianity weaker. The Church is collapsing in those places that already have freedom of religion and a high per-capita income. Another thing that causes Christianity to weaken is security. In Europe, protected like a baby for decades at no cost by America’s military, pews lie empty. In America in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, there was a universal revival of faith, for a little while.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:19 am 25. hdgreene:

I’ve come up with a plot for my current events opera, most of it inspired by The Belmont Club.

First, I figure it needs love interests. So far I have two: love of power and self love bordering on lust. Also, it requires a prize that the contending parties can use to bring to fruition their love. It will be a metaphor for the brass ring, which itself is a metaphor for — actually, I forget.

There is a wishing well called the mean well which is found somewhere below the Bell Curve Rainbow. All the colors of this rainbow have the same arc. The Players tend to converge on the mean well, perhaps drawn there by an irresistible desire to be part of the group.

Now, while the mean well is a wishing well there are important differences. First, when you throw money into the well it takes a long time to land. It is said that one quarter will require five quarters to hit bottom, so you should expect the desired effects to be delayed. For in practice:

The mean well is a very deep well indeed.

Also, once you throw money down The Mean Well, you have to keep throwing money down The Mean Well, or bad things will happen. For in fact:

The Mean Well is a very mean well in deed.

Naturally, every wish requires the erection of a massive bureaucratic edifice before it can take effect. For in practice:

The mean well is a jobs program.

Those folks whose well meaning tributes are deemed inadequate will be sucked down into The Mean Well — well below the mean of The Mean Well and well into the depths of The Mean Well. They are the lucky ones. For the mean part of The Mean Well will also unleash the Spirits of the Special Interests, which reside in the bureaus now found in every modern home. These Spirits will guilt your pleasures and destroy your dreams and shrink your 401Ks and shorten your end of life care — which you will shortly, and unexpectedly, require. Then they will tax away your children’s inheritance. So once you start, you not only must keep throwing money down the Mean Well, but you most throw progressively more money down The Mean Well until your personal income catches the ever descending mean.

At the bottom of the well are gnomes who use the resources tossed down the well to finance real estates speculation, oil price spikes, assaults on the dollar and attempts to collapse the world financial system. They also do hair.

Now, some folks think that the treasure halls of the gnomes contain the great wealth of The Mean Well but this is not the case. The real object of desire is The Speech of Peace, which is hidden away in the Labyrinth at the base of The Mean Well. The Speech of Peace is known in the speech trade as The SOP — the most powerful sop known to man (and woman, too!). Any politician of sufficient eloquence who acquires The SOP and can deliver The SOP will be awarded the title of “The Prince of Cool, The Ruler Formerly Known as a Politician.” Using The SOP, this Prince can transcend politics.

Meanwhile, his top advisers will compete for the Machiavelli Prize.

Of course, there is a catch. First, any politician who acquires The SOP but who proves inadequate in its use will be utterly destroyed. Second, The SOP is well guarded by the gremlins who once possessed the Kremlin (and who still have many close contacts there), and these must be appeased. Of course, for purposes of the stage show, such a tremendous prize requires a lot of song and dance to justify the quest involved in getting it. So the hearty party of questers sing:

We seek…
The Speech of Peace, The Prize of Peace!
As desirable and old as The Golden Fleece.
The Prize of Peace, The Speech of Peace!
More valuable, we’re told, than a Peach of Gold.

A Peach of Gold but without The Pit.
You’ll feel transported when you hear it.
With a Tinkle down your leg, and a tingle up your spine,
You’ll feel sublime when you reach cloud nine.

The Speech of Peace, The Prize of Peace!
More desirable than a Greek’s
Ratty “Old Yeller’s” Fleece!
Which came from a dog that was killed by a hog
Or a rabid pooch that attacked from the fog.

OK, the lyrics still need work but I got the dance down. Three types of folks join the quest:

1. Those of high eloquence who want to acquire The SOP and deliver it to the multitude and exercise power through its legitimizing effect. They are accompanied by their chief advisers and major supporters.
2. Those that want to experience The SOP and be transported by The SOP. A lot of this second group die along the way and for purposes of the show they can be called the SAPS. SAPS is the acronym for “it’s not important, everyone lies and dies, so let’s move on.”
3. Those shady characters who do not want to acquire the Speech of Peace, nor do they want to experience The Speech of Peace. Rather, they plan to stuff their ears with sealing wax and take over the world while the speech is delivered.

I still need an ending. It will be a huge production number and if the cast does not meet the huge production number, they’ll be shot.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:25 am 26. John Lynch:

Christianity in the West is in trouble.

Fortunately, there’s the rest of the world.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:45 am 27. Sylvia:

24/Teresita. Excellent points.
I still consider myself Episcopalian, and DH is an Aussie Anglican, and we both miss being able to worship as part of a parish, but it would be hypocritical for us to attend the local E church. The service has been dumbed down to the point where it’s more like summer camp. There is no meaningful discourse, no acknowledgment of the essential value of faith in daily life, no urgency or passion of belief. They are going through the motions of virtue.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:46 am 28. Tex Lovera:

Wretchard, another amazing post. “From one side, there is the religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism. From the other flank there is the political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam.” Dead on IMO.

And so many good comments – like trying to drink from a firehose.

I’ll add this: What of Christianity in America? In my neck of the woods, the churches that are seeing the most growth are the ones I refer to as “the Church of What’s Happening Now” (with apologies to Flip Wilson): Basically exercises in feeling good about oneself without the guilt, but with no real core value other than a generalized PC “evrybody wins” belief in Jesus. I see these as another serious secular threat to true Christianity, not just Roman Catholicism.

And how do you compete aginst this in a culture where our leaders are telling us that everybody wins?

Benedict was indeed a very good choice of names. Thank God we have him with us right now.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:49 am 29. Storm-Rider:

“How can Christianity even hope to keep the field? The full power of political correctness are marshaled on the one hand, and the multitudinous throngs of the Jihad are arrayed on the other. Never mind Canterbury’s end. What odds would you give Rome?”

Well, I hope the Roman Church can avoid falling into the tar pit of Cultural Marxism, i.e.: Political Correctness and property-related class struggle. Surely they can see the Anglicans sinking into this mire and walk the other way. The Roman Church did not fall for the collectivism of the Cathars, Taborites, Apostolic Brethren and Anabaptists; but what about the current international collectivist movement – will they fall for it?

It seems more likely that Christianity will find a secure home base in a diffused, non-institutionalized congregational form – similar to that of the first Century AD.

Here’s a must read on the history of Pagan, Christian and Atheist collectivism; followed by the more lengthy original book by Igor Shafarevich.

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/preface/03pref.pdf

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

Here are some excerpts from “The Socialist Phenomenon”

“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism’s pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism’s view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between socialism and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology. Finally, socialism’s hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions.” Igor Shafarevich

“It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism’s attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term “atheism” is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of “atheists” but of “God-haters,” not of “atheism” but of “theophobia.” Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich

“We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism’s peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism…” Igor Shafarevich

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:02 am 30. trangbang68:

The heart and soul of Christianity today is in the Third World and is largely Pentecostal.Converts are made in droves in Africa, South America and Asia. They are seeking spiritual experience, miracles and a return to the New Testament roots of the early church. The church in the West compromised with the idols of the 19th and 20th century; progressivism,Marxism,materialism and a man-made Kingdom of God on earth. Like all idols, the ideologies are lifeless and impotent to bring any kind of real change to individuals or society. At least the Catholic Church retains the mystery of the Sacraments.
The Anglicans in Africa have already cut their ties to the lost Anglicans in the West as they seek authenticity in worship. Islam, while a threat to us all ,ultimately will fall on its own sword as in the words of Christ, “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword”
I know some here are scandalized by any defense of Christianity, but I would contend that the living God of the Bible is able to fight for Himself and make His presence known to man. Elijah the prophet challenged the idolators of his day with this taunt: “Let the God who answers by fire be God” Jehovah is up to the challenge. I doubt Richard Dawkins, Vladimir Putin or Dr. Zawahiri are.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:02 am 31. lc:

What a great post and great comments.

While I am not a religious person, and was raised outside the Catholic tradition, it is interesting to wonder where and how religion meets reality; it is something relevant to us all.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:11 am 32. Evanston2:

A thoughtful article, and I agree that transferring to Rome is a logical step for many Anglicans. I disagree, however, with the thesis that Rome appeals because it is focused on doctrine. It routinely issues statements and pursues initiatives of a political nature (e.g., environmentalism, “spreading the wealth”) and is often eager to compromise doctrinally (outreach to Islam, etc.).

In fact, I first typed that Rome “is often eager to compromise the Gospel” but then caught myself, because Rome really preaches Gospel-Plus to the point that the atoning work of Christ is almost totally obscured. The comments about China (and you could include India and nations throughout the globe) made by others above are really “What’s happening” in Christianity. Rome is dying off in Italy, Spain, Ireland, and other strongholds. Bible-based protestantism is the real growth factor in the 3rd World (admittedly tainted by charismatic frauds). It is smart for Rome to pick off strays from Anglicanism, since many Anglicans abandoned primacy of Scripture long ago and those that transfer can retain their sacerdotal enthusiasm within Rome. But authentic, Biblical Christianity is unaffected by this shift from cold to lukewarm. In both cases, it is currently being spit out by He who walks among the lampstands.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:27 am 33. presbypoet:

I am a born again evangelical Christian, baptized in a PCUSA church, raised in a PCUSA church. Had a grandmother who in the course of 70 years as a member of a PCUSA church visited thousands of shut-ins, (her idea of fun was to drag me, teenager, along). Have stayed in the PCUSA. It’s theology is still true. The problem is that much of it is run by heretics. They follow the “teachings” of Jesus, but don’t know Him. A battle has been going on in all mainline churches the past 100 years. The Anglicans are just one front in the battle.

I don’t think it is communism that is corrupting, but liberal christianity, that has its own separate, but related relationship to socialism. Liberalism is the political arm of the religious left. Having a wife who is comfortable in the Catholic Church, we both go to both churches, and have for over 40 years. I see the same liberation theology in some Jesuit preaching, and in liberal presbyterian churches. You know you are listening to a liberal when they start talking about “Peace & Justice”. It is Christianity without Salvation. One local pastor admits he does not believe Jesus rose from the dead. A lot more liberal pastors don’t believe Jesus rose, but won’t admit it.

This is the linchpin. Who is Jesus? This poem came to me in the middle of worship.

Tempted and Suffered

The Spirit drove Me
into the wilderness.
Temptation and suffering
both destination & Path.

The devil awaited
to offer temptation.
Time of testing.
Time of refining.

You wonder why
temptation was required.
Don’t understand why
suffering was required.

The Truth is simple.
I came not just as God
but also fully man
subject to all life’s dangers.

Truly suffered truly tempted.
Not God pretending to be human
but demonstration of true humanity
Promise of sanctification to all.

Come join Me.
Come follow Me.

© Presbypoet, October 4, 2009, heard in midst of praise time, 1030AM.

The crucial difference. One group follows Jesus, the other “his teachings”. The similarities between islam and liberal christianity are both interesting, and chilling. Both do not see Jesus as Divine. He was just a man. He didn’t die for our sins.

We don’t worship the same god. For non-Christians, it is important to understand the difference. These are two very different religions. One where God became man, the other, where a man thought up this nice stuff.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:35 am 34. dan:

The Vatican should lead a quiet counterrevolution – first of all against Vatican II, which was instinct with post-war secular decadence. Benedict XVI is an excellent philosopher and a light of the Catholic tradition. The counterrevolution could simply begin by encouraging the Tridentine Mass. If they feel as though they have to justify it, the Pontificate could point to its accommodation of the refugees of Anglicanism.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:48 am 35. Eggplant:

trangbang68 said:

“The heart and soul of Christianity today is in the Third World and is largely Pentecostal.Converts are made in droves in Africa, South America and Asia. They are seeking spiritual experience, miracles and a return to the New Testament roots of the early church. The church in the West compromised with the idols of the 19th and 20th century; progressivism,Marxism,materialism and a man-made Kingdom of God on earth.”

Back in the late 1970s, some genius in the KGB figured out that atheism was making Marxist-Leninism a hard sell in the developing world. Then someone in the KGB discovered the need to remarket Marxist-Leninism as a modern form of Christianity. At that point “Liberation Theology” was born.

Liberation Theology was a brilliant example of Soviet agit-prop (almost as cunning as Green Politics). Unfortunately for the Soviets, they came up with Green Politics and Liberation Theology too late in the process. If they had started pushing it in the early 1960s rather than the 1970s, it’s quite possible they could have won the Cold War.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:53 am 36. Eggplant:

Lifeofthemind said:

“In Islam god is so abstract arbitrary and unfathomable, omnipotent and at the same time fallible, as to become simply a projection of human desire.”

I tried to read the Koran and found it impossible. It’s pure gobblygook. One can interpret anything they want from the Koran. Islam is a totally plastic religion, i.e. one can make it into anything that they want.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:04 am 37. Batman:

Another outstanding post. The problems outlined here extend to Judaism as well. The Reform Movement has moved to the secular left on almost every issue except Israel, and is rather divided on that one as well. The Conservative Movement has moved slightly to the right on ritual and just as far to the left in political correctness as the Reform Movement. The small Reconstructionist Movement has long ago eliminated a supernatural deity and reduced itself to nostalgia about Jewish culture.

Yet the Orthodox, actually an extremely heterodox set of warring sects, has become fundamentalst and even more rightward in its practice, inward looking and disconnected from the modern world (the Haraidi of Jerusalem or B’nai Brak for example), or striving to be semi-popular (Chabad outside of New York, for example).

Here I am grateful for Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech, which I reread several times a year.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Science and religion can and must exist in harmony. Religion needs science to keep it from slipping into superstition; Science needs religion to assure its fruits will be used ethically. Science also gets religion to keep its “reason and logic” muscles limber. Secular science will lead to modern Towers of Babel (the genome, for instance). Unscientific religion will lead to unreasoned intolerance.

Perhaps the biggest “flaw” in religion is the necessary though dangerous notion that it and it alone is the only “true” faith. And perhaps the greatest commandment in the Hebrew Bible is “Love the Stranger.” To feel that one has found the faith that is “best” for you is important. But to infer from that that all other faiths are contemptible is the slippery slope.

In our time this notion that all other faiths are contemptible and the faithful of them need to be converted or destroyed is truest of the two mentioned by Wretchard — socialism/communism (masquerading as humanism) and Islam.

Pope John Paul II was the right man for his time and Pope Benedict XVI is the right man for his. Whether he will be able to save Christianity in Europe will set the course for the remainder of this century just as much (or more) as such more prosaic things like Iran going nuclear or the dollar going bust.

Come to think of it, when one names the person of the decade one usually comes up with a politician. Expand the horizon to the person of the century and again it is usually a political leader, though the person of the twentieth century could as well have been Churchill (for good), or Hitler (for evil), or Freud (for changing consciousness), or even Edison (for ushering in the age of electrical labor saving devices that transformed the nature of just about everything). Go to the person of the past 500 years and you probably have Martin Luther. Expand to 750 years and Columbus, Marco Polo and Gutenberg become the prime candidates. Go further to 2000 years and Jesus tops the list. Expand to 3500 years and Moses, Abraham, Plato, and Aristotle, are the main contenders. The farther out you go the more politicians recede into the background and the more significance there is to ideas.

Thanks for this superb topic. BC rocks.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:13 am 38. dan:

“If they had started pushing it in the early 1960s rather than the 1970s, it’s quite possible they could have won the Cold War.”

Well… European churches are empty, the Anglican Church is imploding, Islamism forces a geo-strategic realignment from the caves of Pashtunistan, the KGB runs the Russian Federation, and Obama is in the White House, so… perhaps… the Soviets pulled a “liberation theology” on itself/USSR too… ?

Maybe?

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:14 am 39. Brock:

I’ve been trying to figure out what to say here all day. Still at a loss. I find the conversation fascinating, but at the same time while the debate rages around me I am untouched. I was raised in the presence of religious people, but I do not believe myself nor ever understood why anyone would want to.

Why do people believe in things which just can’t be true, or cannot be tested? I really have no idea. Do you fear not knowing the answers? That’s my suspicion, because religions always seem to be attempts as “explaining” the unexplainable. The Greeks used religion to explain thunder and lightning, but we know how those work now, and so all that remains is the afterlife and the creation of the Universe (and we’re probably getting closer to explaining the latter). The existence of the afterlife can’t be tested though, so it can’t be proven false, and so I suspect some people will always believe in it.

For people who do need faith though, there’s a difference between the (mostly) rational Catholic (who believes in Science + the Untestable) and the irrational Socialists and Fundamentalist Christians (who believe in things that are clearly, testably and historically untrue). If I get to pick my neighbors and friends, I far prefer the former. The Catholic doesn’t insist on inserting his unscientific articles of faith into my government policy. They become like Islam in that way – political.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:17 am 40. Eggplant:

dan said:

“… Islamism forces a geo-strategic realignment from the caves of Pashtunistan, the KGB runs the Russian Federation, and Obama is in the White House, so… perhaps… the Soviets pulled a “liberation theology” on itself/USSR too… ?”

I would be the first to agree that Gramscian agit-prop is “working”. Unfortunately it’s working almost two decades AFTER the Soviet Union imploded. Real nice of the Soviets to toss that stink bomb over their shoulder as they were collapsing into the grave.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:27 am 41. Evanston2:

33 PresbyPoet, I do not have your devotion to lyricism but definitely share your background in (what is now) PCUSA, then total unbelief, then knowing the Bible to be the Truth.

Gentlemen like 39 Brock are obviously the hinge on which everything is turning in the West. It’d be kind of you to specify which “unscientific articles of faith” have been, or would be, government policy if “Fundamentalist Christians” were in charge. It’d be nice to stick to the realm of specific government policies, and those initiatives that would even remotely equate to what we now see under Islam.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:34 am 42. Eggplant:

Brock said:

“Why do people believe in things which just can’t be true, or cannot be tested? I really have no idea. Do you fear not knowing the answers?”

We are sentient beings trapped in bodies programmed to self destruct in 90 years. We live in a universe where literally everything dissolves into entropy if given enough time. The Laws of Physics work the way they do because (at least in this universe) there is no other way that they can work.

Reality: It’s a bitch. No wonder that religion is appealing.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:38 am 43. exhelodrvr:

“How can Christianity even hope to keep the field?”

The Catholic (upper case C) church may not be able to, but Christianity can.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:38 am 44. Subotai Bahadur:

First let me say that whatever I comment here is from someone who is neither Christian of any flavor, nor Jewish. I am an outsider, theologically. However, unlike those of the Left, being non-Christian does not mean being anti-Christian. Though the explanation is longer than I will put here, I believe that the source of our culture’s concept of individual liberty comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, theology, and history.

In my teens I considered Catholicism [pre-Vatican II], studied it, and technically was the only “pagan” group leader in the archdiocese in an after school high school Bible study group. I knew more Catholic catechism from reading and study than the other kids who had mandatory classes in it from Grades 1-8. In the end, I found that I did not have the depth of faith necessary to make the level of commitment needed, but I have no animus against those who do.

I am also a lifelong student of history and politics, and that involves theology of all kinds; as they are intertwined. I do not claim to speak with any theological authority, and readily admit in advance my shortcomings in that field compared to those who can; but I do not speak from total ignorance. Caveats abound in my views, therefore and are humbly acknowledged.

That said, there are numerous threads to what is in play. Wretchard’s formulation is so good that I will be passing it on [with appropriate attribution and link, of course]. But there is more.

If the Church of England, which has been the heart of the Anglican Communion, did not have status as the State Church and the attendent subsidies; there is no way that England [I am leaving out the rest of the components of Britain] could be considered a Christian country. Regular church attendance is miniscule even compared to attendance at mosques, and so much of that is pro forma based on public expectation and appearances rather than faith; that Christian faith seems to be a minority stand. Indeed, with much of the hierarchy of the CofE being open and active acolytes of the Marxist faith in its different sects, faith is almost driven underground.

One problem with religions that attempt to become “The Church of What’s Happening Now!” [and that includes State Churches in the West who have to shift with the political winds to keep their rice bowl intact] is that the concommitant changes in doctrine have to be done in the theological equivalent of turning on a dime. Matters of faith, strongly held for generations and for which their ancestors have died are discarded overnight, and the opposite doctrine substituted.

Just as in the Church of the Material Dialectic, where one must be prepared to reverse course in your beliefs instantly to survive; the Christian equivalent leads to a cynicism and lack of attachment to both the faith and the institution. And it shows in the Anglican Communion. It seems almost mandatory at any conference of the Communion that those who hold to the faith handed down to them are metaphorically kicked in the teeth by those who want to throw off tradition. When the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly denies the existence of G-d [as he did after the Indonesian tsunami] and when he later calls for imposition of Sharia law in Britain; it creates a certain amount of doubt as to which side the hierarchy is really on.

And the effects are felt over here in the US. While not openly declared, one could make the argument that the Anglicans in the US are in the midst of a schism over doctrine. It is telling that at least one Anglican Province in Africa considers the United States as “Missionary Ground”, to be converted to Christianity.

Lest I be accused of picking only on the Anglicans; I have to note that there has been a three way split involving the Catholic Church in the US. Since Vatican II, there has been in effect an underground Catholic Church holding to the traditions pre-Vatican II and the Tridentine [old Latin] Mass. Then there is the distinctly more liberal American variant of Catholicism that to one degree or another has a certain “cafeteria” aspect in reference to articles of faith and doctrine. Finally there is between them the variant of Catholicism that evolved in the rest of the world in response to Vatican II. And the authority of the Pope over each is no longer absolute. With American Catholicism being the source of most of the Church’s cash flow, and simultaneously its headaches over both doctrine and conduct; being the Pope is not easy.

The modern post-Vatican II church [I'm going to abbreviate it V-II to keep from typing it over and over again.], even outside the US, has lost much of the majesty of liturgy and depth of an identical faith shared with Catholics for millenia. With the welcoming of Anglicans to the Catholic church, in addition to the matter of possibly introducing a married priesthood to the post V II Church, and the acquisition of a large number of congregants in England; there is another thread being pulled in.

At the point of creation of the CofE; the primary point of dispute was the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome -v- the King of England. The other basic points of liturgy and doctrine were not drastically changed. The Bible and other documents were translated into the Vulgate, and classics such as the Book of Common Prayer were written in English, but one can claim that once the issue of Papal supremacy is discounted the underlying faith and rites of the traditional CofE is closer to traditional pre V II Catholicism than post V II Catholicism. Their incorporation will influence the development of post V II Catholicism.

This move is at the first level, the obvious matter of Anglicans in England who hold to Christianity instead of Marxism seeking shelter. And simultaneously Benedict gathering in the faithful for the coming siege. But there is more.

In the absence of the, for the lack of a better term Faithful, in the Church of England it will not disappear. It is an organ of the State and will live on as a government bureaucracy, with all of the spiritual strength of the DMV here. But the Church of England is far from the bulk of the Anglican Communion.

If Benedict can indeed create a shelter within the Catholic Church where the traditions of the Anglicans can flourish while they celebrate their shared doctrine; there is much more at stake. The overwhelming bulk of the Anglican Communion is in Africa and South America. The Anglican Provinces there are far more conservative and Christianity based than the Material Dialectic based CofE hierarchy.

If they see that there is a home for them in the Catholic Church, where their differences can be tolerated, they may leave the Anglican Communion. Benedict is indeed circling the wagons of Christianity in preparation for attack, and this is far more than I thought he was capable of doing.

Finally, there is the matter of the Episcopal Church [what Anglicans are called here due to the little dispute in the 1770's] that is also split. Part of the Episcopal Church here looks to Africa rather than England for leadership. If they go, many of the American Episcopals may too. With the same positive effects on American Catholicism as in the rest of the world.

The strength of tradionalists will be increased.

The introduction of a married priesthood probably will increase those seeking vocations, and will lessen the image [and hopefully the incidence] of sexual misconduct amongst Catholic clergy here.

And for the American political and social culture, it will be beneficial. Simplifying greatly, American Christianity is divided into three parts. First there is the Catholic-Protestant difference. But also within the Protestants there is a split between to older established “Mainstream” denominations such as Episcopals and Lutherans, etc. and smaller denominations. It is the “Mainstream” that contains large segments who follow the Church of the Material Dialectic, and act politically to do so. A split in the Episcopals will strengthen traditional culture and weaken the forces of the Left. A successful split in the Episcopals will encourage similar schisms in the other “Mainstream” denominations, albeit without a joining of the Catholic church. Once again, traditonal culture and beliefs will be strengthened; and the Left will be weakened as it is the Leftists within the Mainstream demominations that use the resources of their churches to support Leftist causes and candidates.

And I suspect there are more dominos that will fall as this plays out, if we have time. I am not sure that we will have that time; for the crisis of Western civilization is upon us. But we must all, religious or not, plan and act for the long term; but be ready to survive “interesting times” in the short term.

Kevlar shorts and Nomex codpiece now donned, as I expect that I will be soon threatened with fire and brimstone. Oh well, it was going to be a dull day otherwise.

Subotai Bahadur

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:45 am 45. whiskey:

Good post Wretchard BUT … the issue is “Why” did Communism which in 1845-1938 had relatively little appeal, suddenly explode in the Post-War and Post Cold War era (the latter particularly)?

The answer is women. Women form the heart of PC, the heart of Multiculturalism, and the heart of accomodation and surrender to Islam. This is because the extraordinary wealth and power given to women, in the West, as opposed to historical norms in other places and times, makes them dis-satisfied. They want “more.”

Or more succinctly, women find most men, Christianity, and civilizational norms the enemy in their quest for maximum political, social, and particularly sexual freedom. The ideal for most women being working in a “fashionable” job with some dominant Alpha man that they share (therefore eternal proof he is dominant) with a few other women.

The Anglicans rotted out when most women adopted the Gospel of Sex and the City, PC, Multiculturalism, and an open alliance with Muslims against Joe Average White Guy (average men of color being “OK.”) Ironically the long-term threat from Islamism concerns them not at all with conquering the remaining cultural/political/economic/social space from their male age-peers.

If technology super-charged the civil war inside Muslim societies between Jihadist armies in exile leaders and technocrats, then inside the West the same technology fed fuel to the fire of the struggle between Women (and elites) who want a society of hierarchy, no “flatness” and hereditary aristocracy that makes war upon Joe Average and obtains maximum (particularly sexual) freedom for the Aristocrats and women. If you compare the Gospels of Carrie Bradshaw to that of the New Testament, there is no question that the heart of any religion, women, prefer the former and dislike the latter.

Carrie Bradshaw and her consumerist passions for sex and respectability (or Patsy and Edina in Absolutely Fabulous if you prefer) will find nothing on offer in the Catholic Church. Which only finds those in desperate spiritual straights (mostly Third World people) with takers seeking consolation for great loss. The comfortable and arrogant people of the West, particularly younger women, find nothing in the Catholic Church.

Ultimately great swaths of the West will be claimed by Islam, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Women will gladly trade the prospect of their daughters and sons living in a Muslim despotism (or even themselves in their old age) in exchange for making cultural-political war on their Joe Average White male enemies now. Indeed Scandinavian women according to Sandra Tsing Loh prefer Muslim, dominating men to their feminized Scandinavian men.

There is after all nothing so sexy to women in general as cruelty, and Mohammed is far more cruel and dominating than Jesus. The great strength of the West was its women, strong and independent, needing not the shackles of hard patriarchy and oppression that kept half the population in chains and ignorant. But this also has been the West’s greatest weakness.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:46 am 46. wretchard:

As a practical matter man is made to believe; and perhaps the only real choice humanity has is what to believe in. The hardest thing to be in actuality is an agnostic. Even atheism, properly considered, is a kind of certainty in itself. The null valued field has no adherents and there will never be an institution of agnostics. That’s a contradiction in terms.

The universe may or may not be eternal, but there will always be an official line. There will always be a belief system at our workplace, guiding the government, scaffolding the culture. It just has to be. Human beings can’t live with the answer “I don’t know.” Or “it depends”. If men are going to be asked to pay taxes, risk their lives for the state, or walk a hundred miles in a hairshirt you’ve got to give them a reason. So the real question for most of us is which signal among the competing signals has the greatest probability of representing the unknowable truth? That of the Buddha, the bearded prophets of Marxism, Mohammed or the man from Galilee?

What appeals to me most about the Christianity and Buddhism its lack of demand for human sacrifice. The man from Galilee theologically abolished the idea of human sacrifice two thousand years ago by offering Himself as the last victim. But for global warming/political correctness that thirst is unslaked. The logical conclusion of the communist/socialist idea may not be the worker’s paradise, but the human extinction project. You can hear the hints in the environmental movement. Their latest campaign is against pets. To pet rover is a crime against Gaia.

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created bypopular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

Well the hell with Gaia; not the planet on which we live but the hell with that whole line of theological nonsense that has us striving to hold our breaths (CO2), end our species and forces us to eat our pets. Damn the whole project, with its Year Zeros, re-education camps, Shepard Fairey altars and its admiration for Mao Tse Tung. The whole tongue-flicking, smarmy enterprise may appeal to some, but no thanks at least for me.

If I am doomed to believe let me believe in love; and if I am doomed to disappointment then let me die on that road. But maybe not. The gates of hell have been trying a long time and it hasn’t prevailed yet.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:59 am 47. Storm-Rider:

Brock: “Why do people believe in things which just can’t be true, or cannot be tested?”

I believe it boils down to the natural desire to seek or explain the human soul. What is the value of human life – is that value measurable (Marx) or infinite (Moses and Jesus)? If the individual is of infinite value (a view that I hold); and since we have no ability to physically (scientifically) test for the presence of God, one may rationally conclude that man’s infinite value is physical (observable) evidence for God; i.e.: man is made in the image of God. It follows that if man is of infinite value he/she likewise has certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (in part our private property derived from labor).

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.” John Locke

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111locke1.html

The belief that science is getting closer to explaining the origin of creation is false. There are only three possible cases: An eternal God created the universe; the universe is eternal and required no Creator; or the universe created its self. All three explanations are irrational if one defines reason as the ability to see and accept self-evident observable truth. None of the three possibilities stand on physical observation, and therefore all lie outside the realm of science and reason. Each belief is faith which is defined as any belief undiscoverable by science – which is to say any belief which is unobservable and un-testable.

“Where revelation comes into its own is where reason (science) cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason (science) to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason (Science), are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason (Science) has nothing to do.“ John Locke

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

“The doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for it can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.” Albert Einstein

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_einstein.php3

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:01 pm 48. Lifeofthemind:

Subotai Bahadur,
Well done.

Given that most of the nicest churches in England, Ireland and America belong to the Anglicans it is a pity that as their congregants flee they can not take ownership of these magnificent structures with them. Such buildings as St Patrick’s in Dublin (Church of Ireland) and St John the Divine in New York are endowed with meaning and they should be used as their builders intended.

It is possible that when Prince Charles ascends to the throne he will do so as the Defender of Faith and not as the Defender of The Faith. The Queen takes her religion seriously but the future of the Established Church is not clear.

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:13 pm 49. Agoraphobic Plumber:

Exhelodrvr@43:

“The Catholic (upper case C) church may not be able to, but Christianity can.”

That’s what I’ve been thinking as I read down this thread. I’ve spent time as a member of two different protestant denominations and have some knowledge of several more. I’ve currently lost touch with all but my current church, but ours, along with many, many others in the heartland of the US, are absolutely THRIVING. And not all of that is in the US…many people just in our small town have gone on mission trips to Guatemala, Russia and various countries in Africa just in the last year. All the kids attend bible camp locally, our congregation has grown tighter than any congregation I’ve ever been a part of, and I feel almost like I have this incredible extended family all over town. And I know for a fact that things are even better in South America, Africa and Asia as far as Christianity and its practice goes.

The Catholic church is a great institution with a proud history, but by no means is it all of Christianity. It’s not even the greater part of it. I wish them and the Anglicans the very best in whatever they decide to do, but for my own part I will continue as I have.

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:18 pm 50. Walt:

The lost are grace
The doors swing wide
The Pope’s embrace
Please come inside
The time has fled
The hour nigh
The darkened tread
Lend death a sigh
Unite we must
Or die alone
We place our trust
In God’s true throne
The cross of God
To show the way
The sacred sod
Of Western clay
Shall not be borne
By eastern foe
They shall not scorn
Our culture so
The Cruses live
They have not left
Their ghosts will give
Our arms the heft
To drive the infidel to dust
To beg God’s mercy on his knees
Unite we now, in God we trust
And know that in His eyes we please

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:26 pm 51. Don Rodrigo:

“”"”" The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created bypopular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said. “”"”"”"

I say we euthanize these people, and all such people who think this way and similar ways, including those who would give us “end of life counseling,” and then either turn them into pet food or eat them ourselves

With a side order of Fava beans and a nice Chianti, of course!

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:36 pm 52. Eggplant:

Storm-Rider said:

“The belief that science is getting closer to explaining the origin of creation is false. There are only three possible cases: An eternal God created the universe; the universe is eternal and required no Creator; or the universe created its self. All three explanations are irrational if one defines reason as the ability to see and accept self-evident observable truth. None of the three possibilities stand on physical observation, and therefore all lie outside the realm of science and reason. Each belief is faith which is defined as any belief undiscoverable by science – which is to say any belief which is unobservable and un-testable.”

Valid science requires that scientific truth be observable and testable. The question of whether there is or is-not a God is too hard because it requires information from outside our universe and therefore unobservable. A much more interesting question is whether or not the universe itself is an artifact, i.e. was the universe designed or did it simply arise directly from chaos. It is possible that an answer to that specific question can come from observables and maybe testable.

Attempting to understand phenomena from outside our universe is a waste of effort. As soon as you say “is”, you have implied causation and spatial relationship. Both properties come from the Laws of Physics and are specific to our universe. Also there are almost certainly more than three possible explanations for the creation. I would argue that there is an infinite number of possible explanations. I would also argue that we may be the product of an infinite number of successive creations. Note that I’ve already fallen into the trap, i.e. “successive” implies causation and relationship.

Try and wrap your head around this concept: The number Pi (3.14159265…) is an irrational number of infinite digits. Embedded within Pi is your social security number and home telephone number. In fact, embedded within Pi is the ASCII representation of “Hamlet” by Shakespeare (you only need to expand Pi to enough digits). If you expand Pi to sufficient accuracy then the entire story of the universe could be found there. All information is contained within the digits of Pi and yet no information is there because the numbers are purely random. Punch line: Pi can be calculated to infinite accuracy using a simple algorithm, e.g. the Leibniz formula.

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:51 pm 53. herb:

# 14 Jamie: Thanks. I failed to attribute. At least somebody recognized that a semi-literate engineer could possibly have come up with Jerusalem in a hour and 20.

Oct 22, 2009 - 12:58 pm 54. Storm-Rider:

Eggplant,
A universe of successive creations; i.e.: successive Big Bangs, would be an eternal universe – which is one of the three possible explanations. Can you actually describe a fourth explanation which comports with what is now observable?

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:02 pm 55. Brian Dunbar:

Most of those who were expected to take up the Catholic Church’s offer to convert are described as social conservatives who think their community has gone too far toward embracing openly gay bishops and women priests.

If the Episcopal social conservatives who flee across the street to St. Michael’s think they won’t find progressive thought behind the pulpit and in the pews, they’ve got another think coming.

It isn’t about gays, or women priests. It isn’t about clown Eucharist or the silliness of changing the Stations of the Cross to a more eco-friendly catechism. It’s not about taking down crosses that adorn the outside of the church so as not to offend the sensibility of passers by. It’s not about women priests who dress punk and have partners whom they have children with but are not married to. Or priests who profess that they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus but have no doubts about that Mohammed fellow – and who don’t see a problem with this.

Those are symptoms.

What it is is frustration belonging to a church that does not take the religious thing seriously.

We want, we crave, God in our Church.

I do not see why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:03 pm 56. MALTHUS:

Well, I hope the Roman Church can avoid falling into the tar pit of Cultural Marxism, i.e.: Political Correctness and property-related class struggle.–Storm-Rider

Don’t count on it. Roman Catholic encyclicals extol the corporatist state, claiming it better integrates society’s many elements-a modern expression of Medieval Europe.

They just don’t get it. Medievalism in no way ameliorated poverty as well as capitalism has done.

Parse this document. It lays bare the foundations of Catholic social thought.

“Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority. Naturally, profit is legitimate and, in just measure, necessary for economic development.

“In his Encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul II wrote: ‘The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in many other fields.’ Yet, he adds that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization.

“Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20070923_en.html

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:03 pm 57. herb:

There are a number of Traditional Anglican churches around America some of whom are tied to several dioceses which are un-affiliated with Canterbury. Those of us who are looking for a home can usually find one. Google can be a gift.

It interesting that a bishop from Nigeria came to Atlanta a few months ago and never went to an American Episcopal church, tho they have a right handsome cathedral here. He came to our parish church which is Traditional Anglican.

I believe we will survive with out Rome. Its nice that B16 reached out. I think that the logic of some sort of recognition and linkage between the Catholic and catholic churches is very persuasive. Most of the stuff that separates us is organizational.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:10 pm 58. MFM:

Brock, I’m a college professor who spent three years looking at evidence for various religious/non-religious views. I was dragged kicking and screaming into Christianity because I could not honestly refute the likelihood of the resurrection as an actual historic event. If you are curious, check out N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256243559&sr=8-4

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:34 pm 59. Danydash:

“From the time that I became a Catholic, of course I have no further history of my religious opinions to narrate. In saying this, I do not mean to say that my mind has been idle, or that I have given up thinking on theological subjects; but that I have had no changes to record, and have had no anxiety of heart whatever. I have been in perfect peace and contentment. I never have had one doubt. I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any difference of thought or of temper from what I had before. I was not conscious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of revelation, or of more self-command; I had not more fervour; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea; and my happiness on that score remains to this day without interruption.

Nor had I any trouble about receiving those additional articles, which are not found in the Anglican Creed. Some of them I believed already, but not any one of them was a trial to me. I made a profession of them upon my reception with the greatest ease, and I have the same ease in believing them now. I am far of course from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or by Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties; and it is simple fact, that, for myself, I cannot answer those difficulties. Many persons are very sensitive of the difficulties of religion; I am as sensitive (of them) as any one; but I have never been able to see a connexion between apprehending those difficulties, however keenly, and multiplying them to any extent, and (on the other hand) doubting the doctrines to which they are attached. Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate. There of course may be difficulties in the evidence; but I am speaking of difficulties intrinsic to the doctrines (themselves), or to their compatibility with each other. A man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, of which the answer is or is not given to him, without doubting that it admits of an answer, or that a (certain) particular answer is the true one. Of all points of faith, the being of a God is, to my own apprehension, encompassed with most difficulty, and (yet) borne in upon our minds with most power.”

Apologia Pro Vita Sua – J-H Newman

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:45 pm 60. Brock:

Wretchard,

I believe you are correct. Men are meant to believe, and I believe that actions should be based on knowledge when possible and our best guesses when necessary. And you are correct that atheism is a belief; an assertion of untestable truth. Dawkins is no less a believer than the Pope, though he believes in different things.

But I exist just fine with “I don’t know” and “It depends.” I would march 10,000 miles through the desert not knowing, as long as it was the best chance I’ve got. Maybe I’m just weird that way I guess. You ask the question though:

So the real question for most of us is, which signal among the competing signals has the greatest chance of representing the unknowable truth?

Who says there’s any truth to know? I think, therefore I am, but that and the laws of physics are all I’m sure of. There is no larger truth, as far as I can tell. I admit to being an agnostic on that as well though.

But for all that, we can work together because we agree on two things – love is a great guide for personal action, and to hell with the human extinctivists.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:47 pm 61. Fletcher Christian:

I have a theory (which may not be original, but I don’t recall seeing it in print) that there is a reason, not often thought of, for the decline of religious sentiment in the West. That reason is artificial light – to be more precise, streetlighting.

Living in any town of more than maybe 10,000, one very rarely gets a chance to see the stars. From the heart of a major city one would be lucky to see a dozen stars and/or planets in the sky. Why does this matter? Simply because if you look up into the sky on a clear, moonless night far from cities, you would have to be a complete blockhead with a heart of stone not to feel the terrible glory of Creation. What name you give it, after that, is up to you.

Maybe this is one reason why rural America is more religious than the cities.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:52 pm 62. Tamquam:

Don’t kid yourself, the Orcs are within the walls of Catholicism already. Not that this is news. The current war with Islam is centuries old, but they have not succeeded in breaching the walls of the Faith, however many formerly Christian kingdoms they have conquered. The fight with Modernism has been on for less than two centuries, not very long as the Church counts time. The modernists have indeed succeeded in opening a postern gate and they are inside.

Under cover of the Liturgical Movement, ICEL, the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, has diluted the glorious language of the Liturgy into a mean, pedestrian and thoroughly profane (in the technical sense) PC babble. If faith follows worship, and it does, then the Faith is much reduced. N.B. I do not argue that worship in the vernacular is somehow wrong, rather that the translation is debased. Language is the vehicle through which faith is proclaimed, and ICEL has rendered it a dull and deracinated mumble.

Under the previous Pontiff, Ratzinger (the Zinger of Rats!) waged a protracted struggle against the forces that would reduce Faith in the Gospel to materialist dialectics. He is just another in a long line spiritual warriors which have, however imperfectly, upheld the Gospel in the face of all those who sought to either crush it, expunge it or co-opt it. The shape of the Church will surely change as it has since its inception, enduring, its face will remain that of the pilgrim Bride turned toward her LORD.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:54 pm 63. Danydash:

#56 Malthus

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/09/06/digging-our-own-graves/#comment-43

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:02 pm 64. Brock:

MFM,

Thanks for the reading suggestion, but I doubt it will make much difference to my views. The divinty of Jesus cannot be shown by any written record. Even if you had video of his time on the cross, or some proof of death, that doesn’t show divinity. People die and are brought back all the time in modern hospitals – does that make them divine? I have read of people who have been in trances so deep their life signs were nearly undetectable; frozen under water and reviving when warmed back up; old folks sent to the funeral home by accident; sulfurous gas putting people in deep hibernation; etc. etc.

But even if I were there and I watched him die, and then saw him again some days later, I would still say “I don’t know how it happened. That God story is an interesting theory, but no one can really say for sure.” That’s the difference between science and faith.

Do not mistake me though – I think Jesus had a lot of good things to say, and those who follow his teachings of love and forgiveness are good people. I have huge respect for how genuinely humble Christian behave, even if I don’t have the same reasons for behaving that way. But I’ve never seen, nor do I expect to see, any evidence proving the existence of God. And even if I ever did encounter that proof, I would still not have faith, just proof. It’s a different thing.

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:22 pm 65. Eggplant:

Storm-Rider earlier said:

1) An eternal God created the universe;
2) the universe is eternal and required no Creator
3) the universe created its self.

Storm-Rider then asked:

“Can you actually describe a fourth explanation which comports with what is now observable?”

First of all the first three explanations assumed causation and spatial relationship, i.e. “God created the universe” assumes distinct states where there was no universe followed by a state where there was a universe in an environment where “God” was distinguishable as a separate entity from the “universe”. This presupposition already assumes a universe with some set of physical laws.

Concerning the question about a fourth explanation:

4) “God” created the universe from an “earlier” universe created by an “earlier” “God” which was created by an even earlier “God” in an even earlier universe. To make it more fun, don’t assume that “time” is linear but instead loops back upon itself.

Notice that many of the words are in quotes because notions like “earlier” really have no meaning outside our process of time.

This notion of successive creation might actually make sense. For example in the beginning the first God says “I am”, takes a look a round and says “All I see is myself”. This God then creates a separate universe and dials in a new set of Physical Laws that will produce a smarter and more powerful God. Again, this stupid description immediately falls on its face because I’ve already made this original universe much more complicated than a solipsistic God simply repeating “I am, I am, I am …” into eternity.

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:30 pm 66. TheCharlatan:

Wretchard: “The future looks like a face-off between socialist secularism and unbending Islam. How can Christianity even hope to keep the field?”

Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.

.

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:36 pm 67. presbypoet:

This discussion shows the amazing quality of Belmont Club. The most difficult of subjects, yet a place where those who see very differently, come offer gifts of themselves.

I call Thomas the doubter my role model. He isn’t willing to just go along with the crowd. He wants to check it out himself.

One of the minor paradoxes; doubt is required for true faith. Faith afraid to examine itself, is no faith at all.

Trust is another word for faith, without some of the baggage. If I say I trust a chair, but am afraid to examine it , but say it’s safe, before I throw all my massive weight onto its fragile fibers, I lack true trust. True trust does not fear to examine, or kick the tires. You end up with the death of the shuttle when the managers didn’t want to know if there was damage to the wings.

Conversely, if I say I trust but have to keep checking, it isn’t trust. If I say I trust my wife to be faithful, but have to keep making sure, and try to control her. I don’t trust.

The true sign of a dangerous cult is that it doesn’t permit its members to think for themselves.

My take on belief: God actually prefers honest agnostics, who are willing to doubt, over those born in the church, who don’t know doubt, and don’t know true faith. He seems to prefer quality over quantity.

The strangest weirdest item of truth in the universe is that God loves you. And me. All else follows.

Oh, Brock (60), about those laws of physics. I wouldn’t be so sure we understand them that well. Quantum physics is even weirder than theology. They both, so paradoxical is. Perhaps that is why I enjoy wrestling with both. I would appreciate if you can explain which path you follow. I prefer both (at the same time).

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:37 pm 68. TheCharlatan:

#60 Brock said, “Who says there’s any truth to know? I think, therefore I am, but that and the laws of physics are all I’m sure of. There is no larger truth, as far as I can tell. I admit to being an agnostic on that as well though.

But for all that, we can work together because we agree on two things – love is a great guide for personal action, and to hell with the human extinctivists.”

The dinosaurs came and were wiped out…by asteroid or whatever. Galaxies collide and smash other suns and other planets. The smallest virus reduces us to dust in but a blink. Nature is ruled by tooth and claw, and cataclysmic accident. And we can agree on love to be our guide??? If there is nothing but the universe, why the hell does love matter….except that it may make the darkness seem a little less dark. But whoopy do! We’re all headed for the great dark abyss whether it seems a little less dark or not.

I grow tired of agnostic idealists who muster a significance from thin air!

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:53 pm 69. Knight1:

#46 Wretchard ~ Well said, Wretchard!

Since faith cannot be proved, it came back to what gives me joy – not a good day or a bad day – but a true north seeking compass? The idea I have purpose or there is no rhyme or reason to my life? I choose purpose.

At the risk of brevity, I’ll leave it there.

For everyone else – what a marvelous thread. Thank you.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:01 pm 70. Storm-Rider:

1) An eternal God created the universe;
2) The universe is eternal and required no Creator
3) The universe created its self.

Eggplant: “First of all the first three explanations assumed causation and spatial relationship, i.e. “God created the universe” assumes distinct states where there was no universe followed by a state where there was a universe in an environment where “God” was distinguishable as a separate entity from the “universe”. This presupposition already assumes a universe with some set of physical laws.”

The first faith assumes nothing except the state of existence of an un-created eternal Creator followed by creation of the universe with its created physical laws.

The second faith assumes nothing except the state of an eternal un-created universe with its inherent un-created physical laws.

The third faith assumes nothing except the state of a finite self-created universe with its inherent self-created physical laws; a universe which, by its origin, might un-create its self.

All faith is irrational, i.e.; not based on physical observation of the events in question – not based on science – but the third seems the most irrational while the first seems to be made rational by the self-evident unalienable equal rights of individuals to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (private property attained through creativity and labor); i.e.: faith made rational by the self-evident (observable) infinite value of man. If an atheist makes the case for man’s infinite value based on the second or third faith, then such faith could be viewed as tantamount to religion; in other words, man’s infinite value, with his/her corresponding equal unalienable rights as described, is the core of religion properly (rationally) understood.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:07 pm 71. Storm-Rider:

Let me re-state the last sentence.

If an atheist makes the case for man’s infinite value based on the second or third faith, then such faith could be viewed as tantamount to religion; in other words, man’s infinite value, with his/her corresponding equal unalienable rights as described, is an essential component of religion properly (rationally) understood.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:16 pm 72. exhelodrvr:

49) Agoraphobic Plumber,

Good post; I have similar observations.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:24 pm 73. M. Simon:

Time to get back to the Old Time Religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:41 pm 74. dick matern:

Having worked in Nepal for some 40 years as a medical missionary I have seen how blinkered the view of Christian expansion in this world is.I work as a surgeon and general practice doc in the hills and Kathmandu. I have seen the saints go from ca. 400 souls or less in 1977 to approx 1,300,000 today.
I thought initially this was a Nepali phenomenon – until I read David Aikman’s “Jesus in Beijing”. The best estimation of the number of souls in the church in China is 160,000,000. That’s up from 40,000 in the 1950’s. Same story in S Korea, Taiwan. Martin Luther predicted the gospel would again leave Germany and move on to other parts of the world. even somewhat rapidly. To places where it goes to work and is appreciated and used.

Within a generation Chinese lawyers will be defending Christians in the USA from the ACLU before the Supreme Court of the USA. Even as the sword of Islam creates great havoc in Britain.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:00 pm 75. pel:

@ 64 – Brock

> People die and are brought back all the time in modern hospitals – does that make them divine?

I haven’t heard of any who came back after:

1. Scourged to within an inch of their life
2. Crucified
3. Pierced with a lance that penetrated their heart, draining significant amounts of blood and water
4. Laid in a sealed tomb at room temperature for over thirty hours with no medical attention in their apparent “death” state

And then, who came back with apparent full vigor of health with their crucifixion and lance wounds intact, who hung around for fifty days following their apparent resurrection, witnessed by friends and enemies alike.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:02 pm 76. SEA7:

Wretchard, I was surprised that you didn’t give the Akedah it’s traditional place as the seminal moment of rejection of human sacrifice. http://bit.ly/24PpBR

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:04 pm 77. Skookumchuk:

Presbypoet: “The strangest weirdest item of truth in the universe is that God loves you.”

Amen.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:14 pm 78. wretchard:

I was not aware of the Akedah, though vaguely cognizant of the shadow conflict with Moloch. Thanks for the link, which shows how human sacrifice was prohibited in various ways by the 3 monotheisms. What’s amazing is how prevalent and ubiquitous human sacrifice was on all the continents, the various cultures and present among such a variety of beliefs for such a long time.

Back in the day, I remember the phrase “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” as the secular equivalent of the justification for human sacrifice. Although technically defective in many ways, the first minutes of the movie Enemy at the Gates shows the NKVD battle police machinegunning anyone who failed to make the sacrifice for the Rodina and comrade Stalin. So far as I can tell the impulse to human sacrifice was alive and unprecedentedly active in the 20th century. What else was the Year Zero or the Great Leap forward? I think about the Eat the Pet Movement, and the impulse to cut back or even exterminate humanity for the sake of Gaia and wonder whether anything much has changed since the day we went abroad with clubs and rocks. My guess is that the impulse to propitiate the gods with blood, be they otherworldly or be they historical and bureaucratic is alive and malignant still. It’s out there just waiting to grab us.

Of course I was most familiar with the story of Jesus, who went willingly into the dark cave to tackle the very beast which bids us slay ourselves. It is said among Christians that Yeshua destroyed that beast and has asked his followers to take up their burdens and follow Him. But I guess that yes, human sacrifice has been rejected and not just by Christians.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:18 pm 79. pel:

I find it interesting, and perhaps a bit premature, that the Catholic Church’s imminent demise is being predicted here.

Let’s not forget that the institution is the only surviving one from antiquity, has outlived kings & kingdoms, emperors and empires, several rival religions, a very bloody persecution at its most delicate stage of development, a few major defections, and countless other aggressors.

Yet, this institution that is knocking on the door of 2000 years of age, is somehow going to be taken down by a Marxist/Leninist/Gramscian brainchild?

After 264 successors in an unbroken line going back to Peter, a papabile will ascend to his chair and do final damage that was not rendered by any of his 265 predecessors?

A lot of people talk about evidence. 2000 years of unbroken existence is pretty damn good evidence, in my opinion, that the institution is divine.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:22 pm 80. M. Simon:

the maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one. GBS

Or to put it another way. Women want to get impregnated by an alpha and get a beta to help with the baby raising chores.

Some do it on the sneak: adultery. Some are quite open about it (I saw that one in action – I found it repulsive – but human nature is what it is).

And there are women who only get excited by a man who is desired by other women. (mentioned above in a comment)

It is not easy being human.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:45 pm 81. trangbang68:

Why do people believe in things which just can’t be true….opined Brock the skeptic. Why can’t it be true, Brock, because it would upset the apple cart of your carefully sculpted world view?

As the prince of Denmark wrote a friend, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio” I read more arrogance in the secular true believers than the Christian ones. True faith breeds humility because one is confronted with the unsearchable riches of Christ.

I was a radical leftist drug crazed veteran playing out the string on my empty futile world when Christ’s love broke through. The amazing thing was three people in three different places approached me with the gospel in a span of hours. At an old fashioned altar in a little adobe church in the south side of Tucson, I was powerfully touched by the presence and power of God and my life has been radically different ever since. I don’t fret the age of the earth and such matters. All I know is my Redeemer lives!

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:51 pm 82. M. Simon:

Let’s not forget that the institution is the only surviving one from antiquity, has outlived kings & kingdoms, emperors and empires, several rival religions, a very bloody persecution at its most delicate stage of development, a few major defections, and countless other aggressors.

Jews have been at it longer. With fiercer persecutions.

And some think that the persecutions are what made European Jews smarter. Only the smart survived. My ancestors paid in blood for my brains.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:52 pm 83. M. Simon:

Trabang,

I was redeemed without a redeemer. The Force spoke to me. Of course it may have had something to do with my determination to speak to it. And give it a piece of my mind. Jews are an arrogant lot.

My plea was simple: “You want me to do your work? Well I have a couple of things that I want fixed NOW!” And you know – they got fixed. But I had to put myself on the edge of death to make it happen. Of course my life has not been my own since then.

Or as Obi-wan said about the Force (approximately): It guides you but you can also guide it.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:06 pm 84. Matt Beck:

The Roman Catholic Church will survive, and it will survive in the West. I will fight in her ranks until the last drop of my life-blood is spent. I call upon concerned Roman Catholics and all other men of good will to join me in this battle for the soul of our civilization.

The most recent initiatives from the Obamanation of Desolation – executive pay caps and the homosexual hate crimes legislation – have convinced me that we must act now to stop this rising tide of inumanity and oppression. It’s time to do credit to our faith and our ancestors, who paid so dear a price for our liberty. I’ve been roused from my erstwhile “wait-it-out” attitude, for this cannot be allowed to continue.

I apologize that I have no fine words on this occassion; nothing like Subotai Bahadur, Life of the Mind, Walt, or Wretchard. But I do have my sword and my sacred honor, and I pledge them to the Holy Father in the service of Christ’s Church.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:08 pm 85. M. Simon:

On the weirdness of the universe:

http://www.ecnmag.com/blog-maching-einstein-102109.aspx

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:24 pm 86. M. Simon:

On the weirdness of the universe:

http://www.ecnmag.com/blog-maching-einstein-102109.aspx

All about inertia.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:25 pm 87. M. Simon:

64. Brock,

I’m with you. I have no faith in the Force. I have experience.

Faith is a very weak reed.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:31 pm 88. presbypoet:

One worry for me is that the faithful are scattered. It is like the Lord of the Rings. Evil concentrates to attack . The faithful do not see the danger because they are not under direct attack. Some evangelical/charismatic protestants still think of the R.C. church as not Christian, and are sure that anyone left in a mainline church is apostate.

As an aside, I once met a man. His name tag said his name was Christian. I asked if he was one. He said “No. I’m not a Christian, I’m Catholic.” So there is some confusion among the flock.

The real question is how do we rally with those who don’t agree with us in everything? It is hopeful here in Belmont Club that we listen to the other, to work together. How can we spread this message beyond Belmont Club? I note in NY23, fratricide seems to be the order of the day.

One problem is that it isn’t just a political question. It isn’t just a religious question. It isn’t just an ethical question. Life is paradoxical. Life doesn’t come in neat tidy packages. Life is messy. Just like a newborn baby.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:42 pm 89. PA Cat:

I think about the Eat the Pet Movement, and the impulse to cut back or even exterminate humanity for the sake of Gaia and wonder whether anything much has changed since the day we went abroad with clubs and rocks.

Long way around back to B16: I wonder what he would say about the Eat the Pet crowd. He’s well known for his love of cats (a reminder here that our host’s name is borrowed from his pet cat), and is reported to have said that if he had not been elected to the Papacy he would have gone back to Germany and written a book about cats. Benedict is a sophisticated theologian and a good-enough pianist to play Mozart on sight. If he finds spiritual significance in the animal kingdom, that’s an implicit reproof to the Eat Your Pet for Gaia’s Sake contingent.

BTW: Christianity not only followed Judaism in forbidding human sacrifice but did away with animal sacrifices as well. Perhaps the Eat a Pet folks are trying to bring that custom in through the back door.

Apropos of the topic that Wretchard placed at the beginning of this thread, my graduate school advisor (who was one of the Lutheran observers at Vatican II) predicted about 20 years ago that 1) contemporary Christians could expect to find themselves in a diaspora situation by the turn of the twenty-first century; and 2) Christian reunion would begin with the liturgical traditions (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican) moving closer to one another as faithful believers within each communion find that they have more in common with the faithful in the other churches than with the lunatic fringe in their own. I would say he nailed it.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:49 pm 90. Teresita:

Matt Beck: The Roman Catholic Church will survive, and it will survive in the West. I will fight in her ranks until the last drop of my life-blood is spent.

With all due respect to a co-religionist:

John.18: 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:56 pm 91. Storm-Rider:

“The Roman Catholic Church will survive, and it will survive in the West. I will fight in her ranks until the last drop of my life-blood is spent.”

Physically fighting for church makes as much sense as physically fighting for mosque, i.e.: Roman Catholic Holy war is as irrational as Islamic jihad. God does not need us or want us to physically “fight” for Him.

No, we are obliged by God not to physically fight for Him or His church; but to, in self-defense, physically fight for our unalienable, God-given rights to life and liberty.

“Liberty, is one of the most precious gifts heaven has bestowed upon Man. No treasures the earth contains or the sea conceals can be compared to it. For liberty one can rightfully risk one’s life.” — Miguel Cervantes

“Live free or die.” Gen. John Stark – Hero of Bunker Hill

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:13 pm 92. exhelodrvr:

Sorry if someone else has posted this, but this article is very relevant to this discussion:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/duin-atheist-sees-global-faith-revival/#

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:15 pm 93. Ashen:

Can someone help me square the notion that Jesus and his early followers were the first communists? I once met a Basque girl while on vacation in Spain who brought this up to me. My personal belief is, God wants willing servants for it to be honest within the spirit , or to the soul. I’m not nearly as well read as you all here. I’m basically barely functional when relating my thoughts on BC. I’ve never read any marx or mao. I had a basic philosophy course in community college and I’ve always been a fan of history so that’s what I base my beliefs on. I think without free will there is no free thought and it becomes law of the jungle type stuff. Also, anyone read the article in the Vatican newspaper about Marx. Please help

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:27 pm 94. TheCharlatan:

RE:#93 Jesus first followers communist?

Well, I guess a case could be made from Acts:

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Karl Marx – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:40 pm 95. Storm-Rider:

Ashen,
This essay should help. There were Christian Communists long before Marx; and it is interesting to note that many of their leaders were, like the Atheistic Marxists (Modern Communists), very violent in their quest for “social justice.”

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/preface/03pref.pdf

How about this quote from a pre-Marx Communist – a Catholic Priest (who later turned to atheism):

“I came to know the errors and the misdeeds, the vanity and the stupidity of the people. I hated and despised them.” Jean Meslier

http://books.google.com/books?id=q6Xyiv67AeMC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Meslier,+communist&source=bl&ots=TbtdD4oFaB&sig=g7CMOdGJHODhRONamlCEgF9hFbI&hl=en&ei=BXrSSdb5INzMlQfOyMiOBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Meslier sounds a lot like Marx and Alinsky – with a burning hatred for ordinary middle class people:

“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

“Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt…” Saul Alinsky

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Obamas%20Radical%20Roots%20and%20Rules.html

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:40 pm 96. trangbang68:

Charlatan, There is a difference between voluntary community in the book of Acts and state coercion under Marxist tyrannies.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:57 pm 97. Ashen:

TheCharlatan @94
thx for the heads up. It would seem to me that a major difference exists between Marx and Jesus. With Jesus it is left to the individual to decide. With Marx it is left to the state. Thx for clarifying. Who needs community college when you have BC

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:59 pm 98. herb:

As I have said before, Charity comes from the heart; socialism from the point of a gun. Christ taught us free will.

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:13 pm 99. Storm-Rider:

Ashen,
Here are three essays which are very helpful in understanding Marxism.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social%20Justice-Code%20for%20Communism.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/what_is_equality.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/if_obama_were_marxist_what_wou.html

When Jesus instructed His followers to feed the poor and clothe the naked; He was speaking to individuals, not to government. Jesus did not command economic equality between the middle class and proletariat class (non-disabled poor) through totalitarian government; that was Marx. Likewise the Old Testament instructs us to care for the poor, but not to show partiality to the poor through excessive taxation of the economically successful toward the irrational goal of Marxist economic equality. Christian Communists drove off the road and into the ditch; but they did so without a Divine imperative.

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger…”

“You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.”

Jesus instructed the individual in rational moral responsibility to the poor. Marx instructed government to immorally infringe on the rights of individual private property in an irrational scheme which ends up equalizing the productive middle class down into equal poverty with the non-productive non-disabled poor (the proletariat class) – through excessive taxation of the middle class and corresponding economic class-struggle – under management by an elite class of not-to-be equalized equalizers, i.e.: the Marxist ruling class.

“The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles.” Karl Marx

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property” Karl Marx

“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:27 pm 100. Matt Beck:

#91 Storm-Rider wrote: “God does not need us or want us to physically “fight” for Him.”

Yes, He does. He commanded Moses to slay the unfaithful Levites after the golden calf incident. He commanded him to make war upon Amalek. He commanded Israel to put the Canaanite towns under a ban and slaughter everything that moved. He gave numerous military victories to the House of David. And then there was the Maccabean revolt, and Charlemagne, and the Crusades, and Joan of Arc…

If there was ever a time when Christianity needed to “go up and possess the land,” this is it. Otherwise, what is the point? A Church that cedes the cultural high ground (the universities, the courts, the corridors of political power) to the secularists without even putting up a fight is the functional equivalent of no Church at all.

Secularism must be purged from the culture, from its thought and from its patterns of living. It’s going to be a long and nasty fight. Many of the books written during the last 150 years will probably have to be round up and burnt. The works of Marx and Engels and Lenin, and Darwin and Huxley and Comte and Spencer, and celebrity gurus like Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, and apostate frauds like Marcus Borg and Shelby Spong, and a million lesser works and academic treatises related to communism, socialism, feminism, behaviorism, utilitarianism; Peter Singer, Dan Brown, Richard Dawkins…all this must be committed to the flames. Ditto for a large portion of the movies, television shows, and internet content on offer.

Science must be purged of the Anthropogenic Global Warming crock, the bizarre Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the gnostic-quant cosmologies of Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, and everything that smacks of Gaianism or indeterminancy. What remains must be given a firm basis in engineering application and preserved by industrial guilds as a living tradition. Strict limits on the genetic and/or pharmaceutical manipulation of the human person, and especially of human reproduction, must be enforced and enshrined in the highest cultural ideals.

Economics must be relieved of Keynes and his minions. The power of the government to endlessly debase the currency must be thwarted somehow, preferably by a combination of alternative currencies, reduced property taxes, and reduced capital gains taxes. Private property (I am speaking of factors of production and tangible inputs, not “intellectual property” here) and free markets, the twin engines of the world’s wealth, should be restricted as little as possible.

The Church must be given some sort of official standing within Western lands, backed up by a non-negligible amount of property and secular authority. Church lands and offices, ecclesial courts and the like – these things need to return. Many will object that these things cause corruption in the Church, but there will always be corruption in the Church anyway. This system worked for 1200 years, and it can work again. Marriage must be restored to the status of a virtually unbreakable civil and ecclesiastical covenant, and the laws respecting the sanctity of inheritable property must be clarified and enforced, while the property itself is freed from taxation.

The right to bear arms, and the right to use deadly force for the purpose of defending one’s life and/or property without fear of prosecution, are inviolable and must be treated as such.

Narcotic substances and acts of violence between consenting adults (i.e. dueling) should be decriminalized.

This is just a start, but if we do this we may be able to pull our civilization back from the brink. These measures, I believe, are necessary if we are to achieve the protocols described in Mongoose’s excellent comment from several threads ago.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:10 pm 101. Evanston2:

#44 Subotai, thank you for a well-written treatise (despite its length). Particularly enjoyed the observation that state churches have “…all of the spiritual strength of the DMV here.” Have to disagree that the “mainline” churches are “mainstream” in the USA. They are now more accurately described as “sideline” churches, when considering total membership numbers versus other christians.

Many folks have shared with Brook about their faith, which is OK, but I hoped he would share what particular policies that “fundamentalists” have/would adopt that are so scary…particularly as he equated such with muslims. Specifics, instead of a drive-by comment, would be nice.

Many commenters have talked about Faith. I recommend Hebrews 11:1 which actually defines for us what constitutes a Biblical faith: (ESV) “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It is an assurance, and a conviction. It is not faith-in-faith (vacuous like Hope and Change). Romans 1:19-20 notes how all visible truth points to God. I praise all skeptics like Brock — at least they’re thinking — if they genuinely ask believers about their faith (try some books/CDs/DVDs by RC Sproul, for example) instead of the guy in the cheap suit on channel 20.

As Subotai said, Judeo-Christian beliefs (not robes, not cathedrals, whether Anglican, Roman, or Eastern) are the source of American strength. These beliefs are truly radical, and directly contradict all other systems (which are little more than self-help schemes). The bulwark of the West is not institutions with ancient pedigrees, it is God’s Word and His blessings. To believe we can do what is right in our own eyes and still enjoy His blessings is the folly that characterizes this Age.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:44 pm 102. programmer:

There is only phenomena. Math and science are mere tools used to try to identify patterns in phenomenal happenings. A pattern may be useful if it can be used to predict phenomenal events. But never, never forget that math and science ARE. JUST. TOOLS.

God may or may not exist, in our reckoning because we can not find a pattern for Him. We can not predict Him, we can not control His Power for our use.

But it really is simple. Ask and you shall recieve. Seek and you shall find. Just be careful what you are asking for or seeking, AND, of course, God may choose not to give to you what you ask for or seek,… for His own ineffable Reasons. And, it is not simple being God, processing millions of instantaneous conflicting requests. The phenomena of existence is like a soccer ball being hit by millions of fire hoses at the same time. What is the resultant vector?

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:50 pm 103. JC in KZ:

RE:#93 Jesus first followers communist?

#94 has cited the relevant passage in Acts, and Ashen has divined the appropriate political difference between the approaches. Secular Communism elevates the state to the moral authority of God, commanding sharing of property among those less-fortunate. Christ-like love as expected by God of those following His Son results in the desire to share ones own property with those less-fortunate, governed somewhat by the admonition by the church leaders that “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thess. 3:10)

The entirety of the scriptural understanding of property could be summed up as follows: God was the responsible party for creation of everything, from which private property is derived, and therefore all property is ultimately His. It may be dispensed by Him according to his interests, and is held in stewardship by us with a responsibility for managing it according to the character of God (love/mercy and justice). It should be no surprise, then, that anti-Christ movements such as statist socialism, environmentalism, and etc. all take one or another aspect of good property management and enlarge it into the focus of “worship”. What follows is sacrifice–usually human sacrifice of one sort or another, to the new god.

Briefly, touching on #75 and Brock #64, faith is a requirement for human existence. We don’t have a choice of believing in something. Either our faith will be focused on a spiritual figure or system, or it will be focused on some other idol, such as money, man’s reason, science, or what have you. Agnostic faith is still a faith, in the cynicism of a finite, observed world with no consideration for the future.

A point of confusion may arise between empirical science, applied to testable items such as the force of gravity, and historical science, which relies on un-testable theories buttressed by a body of evidence. Belief in any historical theory is a faith, of a strength inversely proportional to the evidence presented to oneself. We were not there for the creation of the universe, so must rely on a developed theory that explains the event, and implies some factors for the present that can be tested or observed.

In addition to the book recommended by MEM, I suggest finding copies of A Case for Christ, A Case for Faith, and A Case for a Creator, all by Lee Strobel. They are written for a wide audience, but still technical enough to address some of the issues raised by Brock, for example. At the very least the points within may serve as starts for your personal investigation of the evidence for the theory of God/Christ.

Absolutely nothing will bypass the need for faith as it relates to the existence of God, His character, and historical records. My own research, observations of the world, and personal experiences are more than enough to settle the issue. In fact, though specific faith in the person of Christ and God of scripture is constraining on personal behavior, the potential upside makes it unreasonable to ignore.

Hope these thoughts help.

–JC

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:23 pm 104. presbypoet:

The problem is we tell God “provide for me (answer my prayer the way i want), so I can trust you”. His response: “Trust Me. I will provide”. That is why knowing God loves you is vital. If you don’t know He loves you, trust is difficult at best.

What i have found is best expressed in words I heard as I prayed one day. I would walk half a mile to a local cemetery, a quiet place where you could read and pray out loud and not disturb anyone.

At the end of my prayers, I added a request. Clouds had come up, and it looked like it might rain. So I said: “It would be nice if you could hold off the rain, I forgot to bring an umbrella.” I wasn’t expecting a direct answer, but one came. I heard a voice (it wasn’t me), say. “Are you following Me, because I made the rain stop? What are you going to do, when I allow it to rain?”

It didn’t rain. The rest of the story: in less than a month my youngest brother was diagnosed with cancer that would kill him within a year. That was also when i first started writing poetry. I had never written a poem in my life, and would have told you I never would, yet it seems a gift from God. I had asked for a gift of the spirit, never expecting poetry.

So I learned a few lessons about God. One, He speaks to us. Two, He cares about the simplest request. Three, He asks some hard questions. Four, I know He is real. Five, practice taking dictation.

That is why I do not fear the future. I know the one who holds the world in His hand. He doesn’t promise it will be easy, but He promises He will never forsake us. In our suffering, we find joy.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:31 pm 105. RagnarD:

wretchard @ 46 said in part:

Well the hell with Gaia; not the planet on which we live but the hell with that whole line of theological nonsense that has us striving to hold our breaths (CO2), end our species and forces us to eat our pets.

Should the SHTF I, for one, am going to feed my dogs with environmentalists. They are soft but chewy. Might try them meself.
/snark off

Subotai – As I understood Buddhism in the very Catholic crucible in which I was forged and the idea which made me like it was that Buddha could make peace with all the other systems of belief on the planet, if they would with him and his. I have seen the Buddhist temple along the side of the Shinto shrine in Japan and there is no conflict ‘tween the two.

I know He exists. Life experience has told me so. All the rest seems to be arguing semantics.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:32 pm 106. The Old Guy:

@Brock re agnosticism

Pretty much my view, but as you say, probably not for everyone, or even most people.

My observation is that things seem to work best when religion and the state are decoupled, and usually when no single religion has a hyper-dominant market share. I’ve not sure where that market share limit is, but when essentially everyone is Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or ABC, that seems to cause abuse and intolerance. Islam of course is the worst case example here on both state/religion and religious mono-culture grounds.

A major practical issue for me is that I don’t see a moral code that is likely to survive across generations without some kind of religious framework. Opiate of the masses or not, I think it does round off the rough edges a bit. While my personal moral code is not based on religion, but rather what I was taught at home and confirmed for myself, I don’t doubt that this originally had a basis in religious teachings.

The secular/environmentalist/multi-culturalist/etc. mashup that increasingly passes for religion in the public square does not provide that framework for virtue. I think it may well provide a framework for mass murder and totalitarianism instead.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:37 pm 107. James the lesser:

I suspect we won’t understand our adversaries if we oversimplify their motives.
What seems to have begun the drive of the mainline/liberal denominations to their embrace of statism are two aspects of Christianity: the legacy of the prophets who proclaimed judgment on peoples (as opposed to individuals), and Jesus’ warning that “Whatever you did to the least of these you did to me.” Since there were laws and cultural rules that were genuinely oppressive and unjust (Jim Crow comes to mind), it seemed not just reasonable but mandatory to try to change the laws.

After all, Jesus’ warning tells us that helping our neighbors is not optional. And if, as the prophets had said, all of a society could be under judgment for widespread or structural sins, then it is obviously the church’s job to get prophetic and call for change. So they did.

And politics made for some very strange bedfellows. And the language they used and the compromises they made brought along a revised world-view. And of course, to remain politically effective, the church leaders had to be respectable in the eyes of their allies.

There’s always a danger in religions compromising with politics. Southern states wouldn’t allow preachers to condemn slavery. Those groups that agreed not to, such as the Southern Baptists, wound up accommodating to, and eventually defending, the peculiar institution.

There’s a danger in being pietistic too, of course.

I’m not trying to assert that the leadership of the liberal denominations isn’t at or well past the line of apostasy, just that it was good will that started them down this road, and that this is the sort of theological justification they bring.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:38 pm 108. RagnarD:

Matt Beck @ 98 said:

Secularism must be purged from the culture, from its thought and from its patterns of living. It’s going to be a long and nasty fight. Many of the books written during the last 150 years will probably have to be round up and burnt.

No. Wrong. The bad ideas must still be archived for others to see when they once again create them from folly. As an example.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:40 pm 109. Matt Beck:

#102 Presbypoet:

That was a very beautiful story. I admit it both choked me up and brought me back to my senses. It has been several months since Heaven last spoke to me like that, but I recognize the verisimilitude. That’s exactly what it’s like.

I think I’m going to pray tonight – really pray – for the first time in awhile.

Thanks.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:38 pm 110. presbypoet:

The hardest part of prayer is to be still and listen. To know you are loved. To be surprised by Joy. To be reminded God has a “wicked” sense of humor.

Oct 22, 2009 - 11:00 pm 111. JMH:

As a practical matter man is made to believe; and perhaps the only real choice humanity has is what to believe in. The hardest thing to be in actuality is an agnostic

Then allow me to speak up as the hardest of all things to be. I am an Agnostic, though I prefer to jokingly call myself an Apathist – I don’t care. Which comes out sounding harder and more cruel than I’d like it to, since it is supposed to be a joke*. Like Subotai, I have great respect and no animus towards Christians. I don’t walk around with a smug smile thinking how much more sophisticated I am. Judeo-Christian values and teachings have been tremendous assets to humanity, and only a pitiful mind could deny that out of mere disbelief. I am grateful for the many good things Christianity has brought to this world.

But I am a true agnostic – I don’t know and don’t think anyone can ever know. People can believe though, and I envy the comfort that belief must bring, even if it’s a comfort I am doomed to never know. Anyhow, I don’t care because I don’t know. Oh, I do care about some things – I care how other people behave, how they treat their fellow humans. I do think on the whole that Christianity teaches people to behave better, and you may lay to that whether there is a God in Heaven or not. I do care that Christian thought survives and prospers. Perhaps I can’t take comfort in the ultimate belief, but I can take some small comfort in the warm traditions of good will shared by Christians and the societies they create. And though I don’t think anyone can ever know if the Christian God is real or not, I do think it’s possible, in fact quite easy, to know that the gods of Marx and the Jihadis are damn fakes.

Perhaps I am a mutant, missing the part of my brain that lets me believe. But if so, I am at least a fortunate mutant, because it’s a complete lack of faith and of the need for faith. I feel no compulsion to compensate for my lack of belief in traditional religion by throwing myself headlong into the destructive cult of Dirt-and-Blood-and-Thug worshipping Socialism. If God exists, than Socialism is certainly the newest plot of Lucifer’s. And if God does not exist, than Socialism is certainly the worship of the worst of unevolved human nature, savage tribes of beast-men howling at the moon and clubbing one another to death for the chance to scavenge whatever meager pittance nature accidentally threw in their path. Thank God (or whatever) I’m not compelled to believe in that.

But I suppose a man does have to believe in something, and I believe I’ll have another drink. Then I’ll go to bed, wake up, and do my best to be a good father, husband, son and citizen again tomorrow. If there is a God and that’s not good enough for Him, then… well, I don’t care.

But best of luck to Benedict, and anyone left in England worth a tinker’s damn who can find shelter together with him. It’s a worthy endeavor.

* Part of the ‘joke’ is that, as a few have said, those who call themselves Atheists tend to be at least as passionate about their belief as the most fundamentalist, bible-totin’ born-again Christian. They really, really care, and it’s not only important to them that there be no God, it’s so very important to them that be no God for anyone else either. I understand these people less than I understand snake-handlers speaking in tongues.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:47 am 112. JMH:

Regarding human sacrifice, whether ancient Mayans or modern Gaians, it’s a simple motivation: more room for the rest of us. It’s a natural mindset for a hunter-gatherer people, for those who don’t understand production and only know about harvesting. If you understand productivity, then you know that people are the greatest asset because they are the source of that productivity. Kill them and there’s actually less for you. But if your brain simply lacks the circuits to comprehend productivity (and truly I think most Leftists lack this capacity to a significant degree), then other people are just mouths to feed – the universe gives the same bounty regardless, so killing them means more left for you to take.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:51 am 113. buckets:

A Philistine throwing stones…

I’m Catholic. I don’t attend mass anymore. Reason? The criminal conspiracy to cover-up, perhaps even facilitate priests’ decades-long (centuries?) sexual abuse of children. Since no one seems inclined to mention the elephant in the room, I will.

If the news of this decades-long criminal conspiracy of the upper echelons of the Church didn’t break your heart and give you pause, you are a fanatical zealot just as bad as the Leftist ones fawning for Obama. Blind obedience to evil such as we have seen displayed is contemptible.

The Church must clean house, people must be jailed and punished, structural changes are necessary (priests should be allowed to marry), and Confession need be made and Forgiveness sought. A sacred trust has been violated, and that is why the Church must suffer.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:07 am 114. Gringo:

@ 61. Fletcher Christian:

I have a theory (which may not be original, but I don’t recall seeing it in print) that there is a reason, not often thought of, for the decline of religious sentiment in the West. That reason is artificial light – to be more precise, streetlighting.
Living in any town of more than maybe 10,000, one very rarely gets a chance to see the stars. From the heart of a major city one would be lucky to see a dozen stars and/or planets in the sky. Why does this matter? Simply because if you look up into the sky on a clear, moonless night far from cities, you would have to be a complete blockhead with a heart of stone not to feel the terrible glory of Creation. What name you give it, after that, is up to you.
Maybe this is one reason why rural America is more religious than the cities.

Your theory resonates with me. I was raised in a small town, considered myself an atheist at 13, but later became agnostic. After 13 I spent more time outside at night, sometimes walking two miles through the woods at night. Starlit nights, especially in winter, filled me with awe and a sense of mystery. There is so much we don’t know. The smugness of the formula-filled atheist dissolves upon contemplating the great unknowns of the winter sky: at least it did for me. Equations can be shorthand for many phenomena, and I use them a lot, but they ultimately say nothing about the great unknowns of the winter sky. For a class my senior year in high school I was supposed to draw a mandala of my view of the universe. I chose an adaptation of the night sky.

I have now lived half my life in cities. I miss the night sky.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:14 am 115. Ashen:

Thx for the links y’all re my questions about Marx and Jesus.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:38 am 116. Lifeofthemind:

Matt Beck
all this must be committed to the flames

No.

“Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”
(”Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.”)
- Heinrich Heine

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:06 am 117. wretchard:

I’m Catholic. I don’t attend mass anymore. Reason? The criminal conspiracy to cover-up, perhaps even facilitate priests’ decades-long (centuries?) sexual abuse of children. Since no one seems inclined to mention the elephant in the room, I will.

Things are different in the Third World, though perhaps not in essence. Priests were often notorious for being womanizers — having children out of wedlock for example. In fact, one of the staples of Philippine nationalistic literature, the Noli Me Tangere has the famous character of Maria Clara, who is the secret daughter of Padre Damaso. I studied at a school run by a religious order and there was never a breath of child sexual abuse, though there was lots of talk about flirtation with the ladies and hard drinking. Fifteen years ago the parish priest in a place I lived in was caught smooching with a lady at a lover’s lane.

This is nothing new. We have Claude Frollo in the Hunchback of Notre Dame as another archetype. And there was Abelard. Insofar as the Church is guilty of covering up or abetting bad behavior, we only have to go back to the era of the Borgias for proof.

What seems new and prima facie peculiar to the modern era is the prevalance of pedophila in the clergy. The question I haven’t answered to my own satisfaction is whether it is peculiar to the Western clergy. It didn’t seem prevalent at all in the Philippines. But then the clerical career in the Philippines used to attract, and still attracts he-man type guys. Partly this was because was because there was the widespread belief, that while celibacy was generally the ideal, a little falling from the pedestal was permitted, as befitted two-fisted, hard-drinking, hairy-chested (ok, not so hairy chested) he-men. Father Nacorda in Basilan openly goes around armed in Abu Sayyaf country. Parish priests in the Philippines are often the shadow mayors of the towns and attract much the same kind of men. Imagine a better educated, more pious version of the mayor and you’ve got the Filipino parish priest.

But in the first world, there is sometimes the feeling of real evil in some parishes. I am not sure where this comes from. My guess is that sometime in the 60s or 70s, the Western clergy was really invaded by a group of nasties, combining the worst features of leftism, sexual special pleading and mediocrity. There is a definite need to clean house everywhere, but possibly in the West most of all.

To some extent the decline in Church attendance in the West reflects, I think, the bad effects of the 1960s and 1970s on the clergy and their loss, if they are of this worst type, is in some way a good thing because it clears the decks for a better class of people.

When you start seeing the he-men coming back into the clergy; when they are once again the sort capable of saving burning aircraft carriers, fighting dictators, taking the place of victims condemned by the Nazis or accepting leprosy as part of their service, then the tide has turned. Until then, they are condemned by the rule: you get as much respect as you deserve.

The key, I think, to cleaning house is to set the right standards. Whether or not the standard is kept is a separate issue; but the standards themselves ought to be clear and high. None of this “it’s OK” or “we should be tolerant” stuff. If you want to do that “OK” stuff go to NAMBLA. Go to ACORN. But leave the Church. You don’t believe in it anyway and so get yourself gone.

So I see the re-affirmation of certain behavioral standards as a restoration of the brand. It’s not for everyone, but if you buy the brand you should the get the brand for real. You go into the Church to enter a certain sort of community. It should be that community. Those who think otherwise are free to form their own churches or anti-churches as they see fit.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:15 am 118. Josh:

I haven’t commented, because I barely know anything about the condition of modern Anglican or Roman Catholicism beyond the comments here. But as poetic as wretchard’s key line is, versus Marxism and Islam, … I think I would take issue.

The threats to the church are what they’ve always been – secular government, secular science, and add to that more recently – the Internet.

The Catholic church has had no real and unique role to play since the Enlightenment and Reformation, and has been weaker in the west than Islam since the middle ages, since the west has always had secular governments separate from the church, even under the divine rights of kings.

The church has played some role countering communism, and a lesser role countering modern Islam, and I doubt they have the stomach for a modern crusade. Now that you can get the bible in vernacular online, and the greatest edifice in the city tends to be the sports stadium, and nobody on TV is running a show to select America’s Favorite Priest – I just don’t see what they have going. Is their message, of faith or morality, in any way unique, or just one of dozens? Then it is unlikely they can be any grander, than a dozen rivals.

Note that there is no church as such in Middle Earth, on a practicing basis the good guys are all tree huggers of one variety or another, and the bad guys are secular.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:33 am 119. Don Rodrigo:

#118 Josh:
“”"” Note that there is no church as such in Middle Earth, on a practicing basis the good guys are all tree huggers of one variety or another, and the bad guys are secular. “”"”"

That is, and has been, a staple phenomenon of fantasy/sword & sorcery fiction. In essence, both sides are ‘pagan,’ NOT ‘tree-hugging’ and secular. Also, one could observe accurately from a theistic perspective that both sides (good and evil) in the genre are practitioners of the Satanic arts, since each side has their own sets of sorcerers and magic. It is startling to watch TV and movie depictions of the genre apparently set in what amounts to the equivalent of the “High Middle Ages,” with nary a priest or church in sight.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:54 am 120. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA):

It is only the over-educated, over-fed, over-coddled bits of Anglicanism that are in trouble. More Anglicans worship in Nigeria on any given Sunday than in the US, Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand — COMBINED.

One comparison for illustration: thirty years ago the US and Uganda each counted some three million Anglicans. Today those numbers are two million in the US (to be generous) and about *ten* million in Uganda.

Of the 26 million nominal Anglicans in Britain only half a million worship each Sunday. In the States it’s only a few more than half a million.

Adjusting for Anglicanism’s official status in the UK, the world counts something like 50 million Anglicans, nearly 40 million of whom are in theologically orthodox dioceses, primarily in Africa.

Even in the US, parishes now calling themselves “Anglican” — as opposed to “Episcopalian” — are where the spiritual dynamism is to be found. Many of these have been associated to various degrees with African or South American Anglicans, but are presently in the process of establishing a separate traditional Anglican structure in North America.

Some “traditional” Anglicans are decidedly of an Anglo-Catholic orientation, and it is these targetted by Benedict, who is attempting to complete the work begun by Newman and the Oxford Movement in the 19th Century.

For most Anglicans, Benedict’s offer includes powerful deal-killers, such as a refusal to recognise the legitimacy of Anglican holy orders.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:01 am 121. buckets:

I guess my unstated point was that while Benedict has extended the invitation, we must have something real and genuine to offer disenchanted Christians. The type of evil that has been uncovered in the Western Church exposes us as frauds to those we ask to join our community and our fight against secularism and collectivism.

With no morality to speak of, we are not able to preach virtue to others. While the Roman Catholic Church could be a rallying point for the faithful, it might also be a refuge for the worst kinds of hypocrisies.

Priests and marriage. Consider just “allowing” it. To deny the most basic, natural, and powerful of human instincts, sex and the creation and raising of children, has led us into this cesspool. Agreements can be worked out, like pre-nups of a sort, pensions, etc., to let the Church keep its property after a priest’s death.

As much as I respect Benedict and what he is trying to accomplish, Rome glosses over the abuse issue at its own great peril.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:07 am 122. wretchard:

The threats to the church are what they’ve always been – secular government, secular science, and add to that more recently – the Internet.

I think the Internet is a threat to the structure of all — centralized government, Islam and the Roman Church. In general it is a threat to top-down organizations everywhere. But the Internet is only a mortal threat to some. And most of all to those who desire dominion. Those who do not covet power it passes by. The key strength of the Church is that it is commanded to be “not of this world”. Islam is a system of government, laws, finance and even of arms. The modern church of political correctness is all encompassing as well. It wants to regulate things right down to the cat and dog; right down to which trash can you use. They can lose to the Internet in a way that Christ’s church in its various forms can never suffer.

The Church and much of Christianity has for many hundreds of years existed at the level of the Declaration’s Creator. It is outside the system. I know I should give this subject more attention and would if I had the time. But if the Christianity survives it will be precisely due to the Jesus’ answer before Pilate.

And there was a church in Middle Earth; it was practiced by those who accepted the Doom of Men; the freedom and the tragedy of man and yet who hoped there was something still beyond the circles of the world. Those who wanted to found a kingdom on earth, such as the latter Numenoreans or Sauron were destroyed both by the vaultingness of their ambition but more significantly by the smallness of its conception. Those who were content to live as men died as men but gained another kind of life, for which we have no word in speech. Remember that the Ring gave eternal life; but only life as we knew it — stretched out, and hungry — it did not give the sort of life that really mattered.

Perhaps we should not aim to grasp too much at this world so much as to live in it. As for the rest we catch only glimpses. The famous lines in Tolkien about what lies beyond the circles of the world come in a dream at Tom Bombadil’s. Bombadil himself, who cannot leave the life of earth behind, is unable to dream of it in the same way that Frodo can. Even the completely secular know the feeling. It is one of incompleteness, the suspicion that there is part of us that is escaping, but to what? We don’t know. Frodo dreamed of sweet singing:

a song that seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to glass and silver, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened before him under a swift sunrise. The vision melted into waking; and there was Tom whistling like a tree-full of birds; and the sun was already slanting down the hill and through the open window. Outside everything was green and pale gold.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:10 am 123. Don Rodrigo:

#112 JMH:

Regarding human sacrifice, whether ancient Mayans or modern Gaians, it’s a simple motivation: more room for the rest of us. It’s a natural mindset for a hunter-gatherer people, for those who don’t understand production and only know about harvesting.

Actually, I think the modern Gaian motivation is a perverse and unjustifiable throwback to our paleolithic ancestors. The Mayans ritual sacrifice is part of the civilizational continuum of the evolution of religion. While we can’t know for sure, paleo man may have practiced selective infanticide in hard times, and we know that neo-paleo cultures in recorded times would have the frail elderly starve themselves or freeze to death to allay the burden on the tribe. Gaian ‘human sacrifice’ harkens back to that, which is why it’s so depraved. Modern, compassionate civilizations blessed with abundance — even in worse economic circumstances than we have now (this ain’t no depression!) do not (or should not) consider the elderly a burden.

If you understand productivity, then you know that people are the greatest asset because they are the source of that productivity. Kill them and there’s actually less for you. But if your brain simply lacks the circuits to comprehend productivity (and truly I think most Leftists lack this capacity to a significant degree), then other people are just mouths to feed – the universe gives the same bounty regardless, so killing them means more left for you to take.

Agreed. The utilitarian left — which is the branch of progressivism that seems to be in the ascendancy again — is particularly stupid and simplistic on what constitutes productivity. It also places an inordinate premium on optimum physical health, which is ludicrous in a modern society where we don’t have to hunt mastodon to feed ourselves anymore.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:11 am 124. shivermetimbers:

Wretchard 46

As a Christian, I think the most important question ever asked was by John the Baptist in Mark 11:

When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?”

For me, what is key to this passage is not only who is asking the question (and what a question it is), the circumstance he is asking it, and of course Jesus’ response to it. But, to your post #44, what I find interesting is that he doesn’t state, “are you the one who was to come. If not, I’m just gonna stop looking.” No. John knows that our hearts have been made to connect us back with our Creator and we will never stop looking. We may try to fill this void with something else – our careers, marxism, whatever. But, we will never stop looking.

Prespypoet 88:

I am a Protestant who was raised a Catholic. I think there is a real bit of snobbery with Protestants with regards to Catholics – most of it is based on ignorance, and perhaps deep down an inferior complex. For example, I am on our missions team and we wanted to reach out to other churches in our area. While my fellow colleagues on the team (church elders) did not mind reaching out to Episcopalians/Anglicans , when I raised the question about reaching out to Catholic church in our area, I was looked at as if I had 3 heads. I find this interesting. I sometimes attend Trinity Church (Episcopalian) as I work on Wall Street, and find that there are many similarities to a Catholic Mass. Go figure.

Someone who really explored this subject of Communism in western Europe, and their attempt to construct humanism without God and all its nightmarish consequences was Cardinal Henri De Lubac in his “Drama of Atheistic Humanism.” A fabulous theologian and friend of Pope Benedict the 16th.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:15 am 125. The Wobbly Guy:

Like JMH, I’ve not felt the need for god. Oh, to be sure, my parents, being good Catholics, sent me for classes for about a few years, and I was even involved in some Catholic youth organizations, all when I was young. But in the end, all of that failed to stick.

I guess my beliefs could be construed this way: if a loving god exists, then he should accept me for all that I am, warts and all, when I pass from this world. If he does not accept me, then he’s not worthy to be termed ‘loving’ anyway, even if he is omnipotent. The possibility exists that a god exists, except that he’s hardly loving, in which case we’re screwed anyway.

Still, I agree with JMH – Christianity is important. It’s the bulwark against our worst natures. Kohlberg’s six levels of moral development suggest very strongly to me that religion is an important cultural tool to inculcate the ‘proper’ attitudes and value systems. It’s folly to expect the majority of the population to reach stages 5 or 6(I’ve always viewed stage 6 as Nietzsche’s uberman) when it requires intelligence, abstract reasoning, and a seriousness to really see things as they are and act accordingly.

Religion, therefore, plays an important role here. It’s even more important given the collapse of education and the traditional family in the West – values which enable human progress are no longer transmitted to the young. Religion, or Christianity to be exact, may have to fill that role, however imperfectly.

Besides, religion, for whatever reason, lights a fire in the hearts of men(and women). It gets things done, people to move forward, rather than sinking into the morass of the ‘last men’ mentality.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:25 am 126. Storm-Rider:

“It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man.” Henri de Lubac

“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:30 am 127. Lifeofthemind:

wretchard,
Regarding the role of religion in Middle Earth.
There had been a formal religious worship, complete with altar, to Eru that was used and later neglected by the King in Numenor. There was no discussion of religious activity by the Men of the West in Middle Earth. Some reference was made to the religious activity by the Southrons and Easterlings who practiced barbaric rites and were steeped in superstition. When Sauron gained power over the King in Numenor he had a temple built to himself and was worshiped as a god.

What religious ritual does is open a channel between mortal humans and immortal ideals. In Middle Earth there were living immortals present who could testify to the reality of the Undying Lands. Given that what would religious activity consist of? For those who deny the testimony of the Elves or who would assert the primacy of the agents of Melkor in this world then rituals to validate another narrative would be needed. Once the last ship had sailed then men would need to recreate in ritual the link that had been lost. I am assuming that there was other religious activity regarding occasions like death and marriage that Tolkien glosses over.

Christianity as you say is not of this world and Islam is. Indeed Islam is as materialistic as Marxism. The afterlife is described in detail as an extension of this world. Judaism is in between I think. The focus is on this world and the assumption is that there is a world beyond that we cannot presume to define. The idea is close to Tolkein’s I think.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:47 am 128. Mark:

The Catholic Church has problems, for sure. But it still has power, in the sense that it stands for something. Its somewhat lonely stand against abortion and euthanasia is noble in itself and metonymy for much more, including the dignity of the individual, the primacy of the family, and so on.

If you have a religious experience, that’s great.

But most people in an age of science want evidence, or at least good argument, that religion is more than attavism; and if religion has value, that it’s possible to say which religion is true in some fundamental, measureable way that others are not. Otherwise, maybe it’s just as good to have a beer with friends, say your prayers at bedtime, and listen to seasonal religious classics on your music system.

What I like about Rene Girard is that he takes an anthropological approach to the study of religion and finds that Christianity, and only Christianity, provides a critique of the central and pressing anthropological question of violence.

Humans are mimetic creatures. Mimetic behavior (or course there is good imitation also) leads to social conflict, which leads to identification of scapegoats, which leads to killing of scapegoats, which leads to temporary resolution of social conflict, which results in social airbrushing of the scapegoating process, which goes on in regular cycles.

In archaic mythologies one sees evidence of founding violence and subsequent cycles of violence. One still sees it today in pure forms, and sees it easily in myriad forms when one knows how to look. Political leaders can easily manipulate the all too human impulse to scapegoat. Orwell’s depiction of the three-minute hate is a good representation of the common appeal to scapegoat victims.

Girard argues that Jesus specifically unmasks this “satanic” process. Other religions are unaware of it, and therefore are captives to it (e.g. Islam).

What Girard describes is one aspect of religion that interests him, but his books investigate this particular foundational human question.

Jesus says he has come that people can have life, and have it abundantly. He identifies a main stumbling block to that abundant life (in this world), the stumbling block that results in ongoing cycles of violence that we pretend don’t exist. But Jesus submitted himself to that cycle, unmasking it fully. The violence did not overcome the truth. The truth did not stay buried in the grave.

There are many mansions in the Father’s house. Girard explores one of them. It is the nature of the violent, demon-filled house we inhabit on this earth.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:56 am 129. Teresita:

Stormrider: “It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man.” Henri de Lubac

“Civilization is the process of setting man free from other men.” — Ayn Rand

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:02 am 130. Brock:

68. TheCharlatan:

I grow tired of agnostic idealists who muster a significance from thin air!

Life can be nasty, brutish and short. But add love and it’s just short. That’s an improvement.
* * * * *

101. Evanston2:

Many folks have shared with Brook about their faith, which is OK, but I hoped he would share what particular policies that “fundamentalists” have/would adopt that are so scary…particularly as he equated such with muslims. Specifics, instead of a drive-by comment, would be nice.

I was going to offer a few “specifics”, but Matt Beck @ 100 beat me to the punch – but going way crazier than anything I would have pointed to. Scary. That’s not quite sharia scary (with its ritual murders and lawful rapes), but it’s scary enough. That is precisely what I’m afraid of. I’m also generally opposed to anyone who insists on teaching things from the Bible when the physical, scientific record points clearly in another direction – evolution, geology, and astronomy come to mind.
* * * * *

103. JC in KZ:

Briefly, touching on #75 and Brock #64, faith is a requirement for human existence. We don’t have a choice of believing in something. Either our faith will be focused on a spiritual figure or system, or it will be focused on some other idol, such as money, man’s reason, science, or what have you. Agnostic faith is still a faith, in the cynicism of a finite, observed world with no consideration for the future.

Your use of the word “agnostic” is strange to me, since it literally means “One who is doubtful.” There is no faith inside an agnostic. I guess I’ll just say that faith may be a requirement for your existence (and many other people’s), but it’s no requirement of mine. Atheism would be a faith of a sort, but agnosticism is simply not believing in answers that cannot be verified.

I don’t even “believe” in scientific theories. I rely on them, because they’re the best explanation going, but they could be proven false tomorrow and it would be no skin off my back.

I haven’t read the books suggested, but I have read some highly recommended books on various religions, all very well written and researched, but they all come down to one of two things – the author makes some sort of assumption I find highly suspect, or he makes a leap of faith. Nothing has ever been “shown”. As you say JC, “Absolutely nothing will bypass the need for faith as it relates to the existence of God, His character, and historical records.” And I don’t have it. Or need it, really.

JMH and I seem to share a mutation.
* * * * *

106. The Old Guy:

A major practical issue for me is that I don’t see a moral code that is likely to survive across generations without some kind of religious framework.

I have noticed this as well. And it’s not just that a religion has it all written down; the religion is also the enforcement mechanism. I have come by my own moral code through hard work and much consideration, but even if everyone else put in that work – what would hold them to it? Some people do seem to need to have it spelled out and “The fear of God” put into them to keep them well behaved.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:11 am 131. Storm-Rider:

Teresita,
I love Ayn Rand, and I’ve read Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand, in my opinion, was a good atheist. She believed in the individual’s unalienable (maybe she would not call it sacred) right to life, liberty and property honestly acquired through labor (pursuit of happiness). When the individual’s unalienable human rights are secured by secular government (constitutional republic where government power derives from the informed consent of the governed) then the sacred is defended – even if the sacred is not acknowledged as “sacred.”

The sacredness of our lives and our liberty is self-evident to most; but it sometimes requires a believing enlightenment philosopher (or an atheist like Ayn Rand) to explain why our property is also a sacred individual human right, the destruction of which, in the end, leads to the eventual loss of liberty and life.

“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho’ all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man.…Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” John Locke

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111locke1.html

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:18 am 132. wretchard:

It is the side-effect of this “otherworldliness” that fuels many of the common notions of freedom. Every worldly religion tends toward a closed system. Part of the power of the Declaration, I think, stems from the idea that the world is even in principle never completely definable by a human agency. It leaves the door open to new information from outside the system, represented by the notation “the Creator”.

Winston Smith attempts to rebut O’brien’s assertion of the Party’s omnipotence by pointing out that O’brien himself was aging; that Party members died; that it could not control the natural laws. O’brien responded with the torture machine. He made the five fingers he held up seem as many as he claimed. O’brien argued that the Party did not seek dominion over nature. It sought dominion over man. The quotes supplied by Storm Rider and cited below are true, but not in the way they are commonly supposed. From a purely secular point of view, what they signify is that for a Kingdom of This World to be complete, it is first necessary that God should not exist. The Universe must be closed. The Party’s word must be final. It is imperative that the Last Prophet should have come. The book is ended and the ultimate words are written, not as an earnest of more to come, but as a grant of absolute power to those who rule on the earth.

“It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man.” Henri de Lubac

“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

What Dostoevsky might have said is that for everything to be permitted to the State, then God must not exist. If God does not exist, then the State is free to organize against man. The ideological imperative of global warmingism is this: even nature must be brought into the political system. There is no “out there” there. Not God, not Nature. Not anything you might want to call the Creator. Everything is subject to the political process. Man must control the climate. If the climate goes bad, it is because our politics is bad. Sacerdotal dictatorships have not advanced much beyond the shamans of millenia past. We still sacrifice for rain. Only we sacrifice jobs, abort children, extinguish our dreams. Nothing is beyond their purview. We should never be allowed to think something the state cannot give or approve of. Hence “hate speech”. More than that, we ought never to be able to even dream of what it cannot bestow. Unless the far green country under a swift sunrise is manufactured by the state, it should never be allowed to enter into our visions. “It’s for the children” refers to us.

All real totalitarianisms are ultimately intellectually sterile, not simply spiritually barren. That is why global warming is in many respects anti-science. Real science has never heard of truth by consensus. Science leaves the door of knowledge open. We continuously learn from what is “not of this world” — in the sense that which is not within our purview yet. We learn from what is over the next hill, across the wide ocean, beyond the gulfs of space; we learn from events that occured before we were born and perhaps of events after we die. The first thing that faith must preserve is wonder; and the second is a childlike curiosity. Freedom stems from the sense of the possible. It believes there’s always a door leading out of the building. A far green country under a swift sunrise.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:18 am 133. Storm-Rider:

Teresita; I believe Ayn Rand would approve of Abraham Lincoln.

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” Abraham Lincoln

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” Abraham Lincoln

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:37 am 134. Storm-Rider:

Wretchard: “What Dostoevsky might have said is that for everything to be permitted to the State, then God must not exist. If God does not exist, then the State is free to organize against man.”

“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of thousands, could be good or could be bad.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

http://www.alor.org/Library/LegacyofTerror.htm

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:46 am 135. Subotai Bahadur:

#102 Evanston2

I have heard both “mainstream” and “mainline” used interchangably for the same concept among Protestant demoninations. Agreed they are shrinking while more evangelical denominations are growing. The difference between the designation of themselves and the rest of the Protestant denominations, I think, is social status amongst our elites. Somehow, being Episcopal, Methodist, or Presbyterian is to them more respectable than anything evangelical, pentacostal, etc. where the commitment involves a public personal acceptance of the faith and requirements as opposed to an institutional one.

And then there is their attitude towards Mormons. While I really do not agree with their theology, I find the conduct and lifestyle of those who follow the religion [excluding offshoot sects, just as you can exclude the outliers in any religion] to be impeccable. I have worked with a number of them, and I would gladly have them at my back going into a situation any day. Incidentally, in 3 decades plus wearing one sort of a badge or another, I have noted that there are very few LDS criminals in relation to their population. I have had [and have]them as friends and neighbors, and you could not ask for better. Their doctrine that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were divinely inspired sure does not bother me; and their beliefs in preparedness and taking care of their own people instead of depending on the State is something that should be emulated. They seem to live much of the life that Christians of all flavors seem to aspire to. And no, they are not perfect. I’ve known one who was really whacked out, and far fonder of the fruit of the vine than their doctrine permits. But he was also a former SEAL who had been medicaled out due to a back injury. Still a good guy, but you did not want to try to break into his car. I saw the results.

We are seeing a drainage of people and power from the denominations, mainstream or mainline, that are controlled by liberal elites and who use their church for secular political ends more than spiritual ones. Hopefully, we will have time for those who do not worship at the church of the Material Dialectic to rally together as much as their consciences will allow; as they face the same enemies.

#105 RagnarD

Agreed about the live and let live aspects of Buddhism, but I was not the one discussing Buddhism and Shinto.

#118 Josh

Perhaps no organized Church in Middle Earth, but there was faith. And just as the people of my nom d’ blog worshiped the “Great Blue Sky Tengri Nor” as the indication of heaven, the Elves looked to the stars as theirs.

A Elbereth Gilthoniel
O Elbereth Star-kindler,
o menel palan-díriel,
from heaven gazing afar,
le nallon sí di’-nguruthos!
to thee I cry now beneath the shadow of death!
A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
O look towards me, Everwhite!

The Elves kept their faith in Ilúvatar [the Creator]and the Valar [equivalent to Archangels], remembering Valinor; thus the internal drive to go home across the sea and return from exile. Amongst the Men who had not fallen, the “Seven Stars* and Seven Stones** and One White Tree***” banner was their link to the earlier Age and the Valar.

*-some dispute as to whether they represented the seven ships that carried a Palantir [seeing stone]OR if it the represented the seven stars of the “Sickle of the Vala” which we call the Big Dipper. Said Sickle being created by the Valar Varda as a symbol of doom for Melkor and his servants.

**- the Palantir

***-”young tree, the scion of Nimloth the Fair.” Nimloth being the White Tree of Númenor

And yes, Your Humble Servant, is at times a bloody Geek.

Subotai Bahadur

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:53 am 136. Brock:

I find several of these posts highly inspiring. Not a moment of faith perhaps, but inspiring.

122. wretchard: “I think the Internet is a threat to the structure of all — centralized government, Islam and the Roman Church… The key strength of the Church is that it is commanded to be “not of this world”… Perhaps we should not aim to grasp too much at this world so much as to live in it. As for the rest we catch only glimpses.”

125. The Wobbly Guy: “Christianity is important. It’s the bulwark against our worst natures. Kohlberg’s six levels of moral development suggest very strongly to me that religion is an important cultural tool to inculcate the ‘proper’ attitudes and value systems.”

127. Lifeofthemind: “What religious ritual does is open a channel between mortal humans and immortal ideals.”

128. Mark: “only Christianity provides a critique of the central and pressing anthropological question of violence… Girard argues that Jesus specifically unmasks this “satanic” process. Other religions are unaware of it, and therefore are captives to it (e.g. Islam).”

* * * * *

At this time I can see the value of Christianity as presenting a dream of some best possible future – one where everyone is loved, and we are at peace with ourselves. It is a far, green country which few (any?) of us will live to see. But if we hold onto the dream, and teach others of its possibility, it might come true one day for our children or theirs. In the mean time we can (in theory) see the glimmerings of this future in the Church and its good works.

Unfortunately many people in society today cannot agree on what is “best.” Some seem to think that a better future might be without dogs, or even people. I do not share these views. The more people the better, for each person can be a source of beauty and happiness.

But there are several aspects of human nature which, in my opinion, the Catholic dogma is going to have to come around on before we reach that land:
1. Homosexuality is natural.
2. The marriage and parenthood of Priests.
3. Certain human failings must be confronted, not banished.

Denying homosexuals the sexual experience that hetersexuals enjoy, and is so necessary to a healthy and complete human life, can’t be right. If you believe that God created Man, than you must agree that he created some Men gay. Beating them up over that isn’t cool.

Likewise, as a recent father, I can attest to how complete I feel looking into my son’s eyes. He’s only six weeks old, and he has changed everything for me. Denying Priests this experience cuts them off from a part of themselves that cannot come forth in any other way. I honestly think that the Filipino Priest’s philandering is healthier, physically and spiritually, than this lifetime of denial. It will also attract manlier, more civilized men.

As for abortions and drugs, I don’t like either of them. But making them illegal creates more tragedy than not. I doubt I’ll get much agreement on that in this crowd though.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:06 am 137. Charles:

110. presbypoet:

My first intuitions about God’s character back in my 20’s was that he has a sense of humor.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:20 am 138. Lifeofthemind:

wretchard,
You are perfecting the argument that I was grasping at. The worldly faith systems, Islam and Socialism, in either Red or Green variants, seek to define all knowledge of this world in a closed system. Islam seeks to extend that dominion to a description of the world outside that reduces it to an extension of the material world. That may be a derivation of ancient greek eschatology derived from the Nestorians. Others with more scholarship may elucidate. While Judaism and Christianity have both produced extensive speculation on the nature of eternity those concepts are not essential core beliefs. Dante was vivid but not canonical. God created humanity with the desire to seek wisdom and knowledge, even to the point of rebellion, and a desire for faith. We can only do the best that we can in this world and hope for the next.

You really should consider collecting key passages like your last two paragraphs and publishing them.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:22 am 139. exhelodrvr:

137/110 Charles and presbypoet,

See Micah 2:11 (NIV) re God’s sense of humor.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:27 am 140. Whitehall:

I, for one, found nothing to respect in the Anglican church after watching the BBC interview with the Archbishop and Mick Jagger. Jagger demolished the Archbishop even though he didn’t have the courage to renounce Jagger’s devil worshipping act.

Personally, I’m with Subotai in his first comment. I can no longer consider myself a Christian, in spite of being raised Lutheran, yet will defend the religon as the greatest positive force for good the human race has known – another Pro-Christian.

What Christianity needs is the same values but with new stories. A “story” is the wrapping that conveys the philosophy. “Annointst my head with oil” doesn’t make sense as a positive thing to us in the 21st century, as a trivial example. Our view of Earth in the Universe is much larger and more detailed than it was 2000 years ago. Yet the core of what Christianity means is still true.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:48 am 141. Lifeofthemind:

For those puzzled by the reference to the Lord of the Rings and Beacons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg&feature=related
And when summoned they came to defend the Tower of the Guard of the West.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:13 pm 142. lc:

There seems to me to be more than a superficial similarity between Christianity and Buddhism, not that I really know very much about either. The value each religion places on compassion is one such similarity. I sometimes wonder if Jesus, sometime in His life, did not find His way to the Far East and have some interaction with monks and religious people there (wasn’t He a rabbi Himself?). I further wonder if there might have been some sharing of spiritual ideas from this imagined meeting. The idea in Buddhism of a “bodhisattva” is one idea which made its appearance, as near as I can tell, shortly after Jesus lived. A bodhisattva, in one iteration, is one who forsakes his own enlightenment in order to save others (or the rest of mankind). To me, an interesting juxtaposition of ideas in the two religions, probably no where to be found in actual events and practice. But these are part of my own personal spiritual meanderings.

“And Jesus was a sailor
When He walked upon the water
And He spent a long time watching
From His lonely wooden tower
And when He knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said “All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them”
But He Himself was broken
Long before the sky would open,
Forsaken, almost human,
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone.”

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:27 pm 143. Eggplant:

Lifeofthemind @ 127:

“Regarding the role of religion in Middle Earth…. In Middle Earth there were living immortals present who could testify to the reality of the Undying Lands. Given that what would religious activity consist of?”

That’s the key point. The elves of Middle Earth were essentially angels. Religious faith is unnecessary if you’re a fallen angel with flaming sword, halo, wings, etc. and can produce a photo album showing pictures of yourself standing next to the throne of God. By the way, J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. He would get himself tied up in knots worrying about the embarrassment that Mary the mother of Jesus must have felt while she was an unwed mother pregnant with Jesus. It was an interesting psychological dynamic that Tolkien must have gone through to reconcile his Catholicism with the Middle Earth fantasy world that he constructed. Also, I don’t believe Tolkien’s famous disclaimer that there was no allegory in the “Lord of the Rings”. Perhaps there was no intended allegory but there was certainly unintended allegory that snuck in through Tolkien’s years of education as a literary scholar.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:35 pm 144. Eggplant:

Brock said:

“Likewise, as a recent father, I can attest to how complete I feel looking into my son’s eyes. He’s only six weeks old, and he has changed everything for me.”

Family is everything. I’m nothing without my family. I dread the “empty nest” almost as much as old age and death.

Be careful about doing the “boiling frog” with morality. One can talk himself into almost anything, one little step at a time, e.g. many of the SS officers at Auschwitz were devout Catholics and most moonbats firmly believe they are moral.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:58 pm 145. presbypoet:

We are the gravest danger to others when we are certain we are right. As fallen creatures, (or if not fallen, then acting like we are), we make mistakes. We just can’t see it. It is hardest for me to see, what I don’t want to know.

For this reason, someone forcing you to do something because they are sure it is good for you, will push more, because they Know they are right.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:37 pm 146. onesimus:

Many Thanks to all.

Ephesians 3:10-11 ESV
so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

I believe the LORD is bringing it all together. Spengler drew my attention to Franz Rosenweig’s writings and to Fergus Kerr’s Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians. Just from memory, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were influenced by a change of emphasis to the Love of God.

Also, as mentioned by some above, the recognition by self-proclaimed atheists of the pronounced and positive effects of real Christian faith.

In sum, He is working.

onesimus

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:08 pm 147. programmer:

Removed by programmer.

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:12 pm 148. Danydash:

#145 presbypoet Thanks for this question about What is Good, and what is Right? Seems difficult questions, very ambiguous. Do I do what I do because I believe I know it is for a greater Good? May be, as presbypoet said, I do something because I ‘know’ it is Right or at least I believe it is Right, and it may seems there is nothing wrong in doing something that is Right, isn’t it? Well, as you said, it is likely wrong, because if I stop questioning myself about what is permissible or what is impermissible then I am probably being a great danger to others.

I found two interesting articles about Deontology, Consequentialism and the Doctrine of Double Effect. I would like to share it with you. Here they goo..

Deontological Ethics @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Doctrine of Double Effect @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:37 pm 149. Josh:

wretchard @ 122: The Church and much of Christianity has for many hundreds of years existed at the level of the Declaration’s Creator. It is outside the system. I know I should give this subject more attention and would if I had the time. But if the Christianity survives it will be precisely due to the Jesus’ answer before Pilate.

The Catholic Church has been preaching Deism for the last few hundred years? Told you I wasn’t up to date! No, that can’t be what you meant to say. I suppose what they or you or I might want to say, is that they supply just that morality that the religious can never see in the secular. If nothing is right or wrong from God, could we ever trust in man to define what is right or wrong? Some would say history makes this out a bad bet, the way the religious right blames Nazi atrocities on their secular “belief” in Darwin, etc – as garbled as that all is, I know, I know. The way the moderate right blames Stalinist atrocities on their atheism and Marxism.

I’m more of the C.S. Lewis vein, in which Ransom explains to the awakened Merlin that it is no use lighting beacons for worldly help for that hideous strength holds all the earth in its hands. Lewis lights his beacons for other-worldly powers, and they come, at cost, as it cost Jesus.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:24 pm 150. Don Rodrigo:

Entirely OT, but worth it:

‘Stand By Me’ sung accross the globe

Benny King’s immortal classic sung and played in sync accross the continents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Us-TVg40ExM

I loved it. Fantastic.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:27 pm 151. Charles:

139. exhelodrvr:

Yeah, OT humor does tend to be somewhere between heavy handed & wry.

imho Wretchard’s take from earlier thread is on the money when he quoted Charles Dickens.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.” – Copy to Clipboard

— Charles Dickens

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:36 pm 152. Evanston2:

Brock, you’re right to point to Matt Beck’s comments (100) as far out. His agenda is, honestly, far outside of the scope of Biblical Christianity. Coercion/co-option of the state was not, and is not, the way of Christ. Christ is arguably the creator of the secular/state divide (”My kingdom is not of this world).

State churches have definitely been disastrous. Honestly, though, this is a bogeyman. If we would have had a state church, it would have been created during the first 2 centuries of the Republic. Liberals love bringing it up (scary, oh how scary) just like they said a draft was coming during the Iraq war…when folks like Rangel were the one’s introducing the bills! Regarding today’s culture wars, I support laws against abortion but I’m just hoping to not have to personally PAY for them through my taxpayer dollars. A catholic college is today being sued to provide contraception, abortion will follow…catholic hospitals are closing because of this…states are requiring that religious institutions allow gay marriage on their property. A moment of silence is opposed by the ACLU because (horrors!) someone might actually think prayer is encouraged. Congress is working on a Hate Crimes law right now that will not only make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, no no, offending gays in any way will spark extra penalties. Speech codes continue to pop up on college campuses. I’ll sum it up here: the trend and continually rising hostility is against Christianity (other religions are encouraged in this country for their “diversity”). No doubt Matt Beck is a bit crazy, but perhaps understandable given the suffocating secularism of America.

Your defense of science – evolution, geology, and astronomy – is laudable, except that what we see today in America is equally Matt Beck in reverse. Questions are not allowed. Try questioning Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Bible supports the validity of microevolution, but the Icons of Evolution (read the book!) that I was taught in high school have fallen. Advances in microbiology have revealed there is no such thing as a “simple cell” and creating even a single strand of DNA/RNA is incredibly difficult. This is why “science” is desperate to prove that a comet could have brought DNA here. The hype surrounding the discovery of new monkeys is ridiculous…Leonard Nimoy should be hosting In Search Of Transitional Forms (missing links). But you can’t ask questions, oh no, without being labeled a flat-earth lunatic. Did you know that the theory of the Big Bang was suppressed for decades because it might support (oh, the horror!)…the Bible? A virgin birth is considered laughable, but we are supposed to swallow Everything from Nothing whole-hog (Sagan: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be”).

Now, to pick on Wretchard and others. The real threat to the church has always been, and will always be, internal. From the prophets to the apostles, the warnings were to be separate unto God. Various types of apostasy are defined and successfully countered, for our benefit. Caesar may make martyrs of us but the real problem is those who claim to be christians but aren’t. The comments by many folks here regarding Roman clergy are a good case in point, but just the tip of the iceberg.

I was a Marine Corps officer for 22 years. God changed me in the middle of my career. I can bear witness that all conflict among people is truly and always spiritual warfare. It can only be properly fought by the Christian with the Word of God. Instead of relying on institutions such as Rome or Canterbury, we all need to personally follow the example of Peter:(2 Pet 1:16) “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Christ sent the Apostles, we should do as they did. Obey the Great Commission and witness to Him and (as a secondary effect) spread His benefits to mankind.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:44 pm 153. Charles:

What is the chief end of man?

Glorify God
Enjoy Him Forever
(click on the link to get the many passages from the bible for the proof texts)

Also, I think it would be a good ambition to have your name written in the book of life.
Revelation 15:11-15
The Dead Are Judged
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:50 pm 154. Steynian 392 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] COMMENTARY– “The Roman Church comes as a scavenger on a field on which this powerful force stands [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:21 pm 155. M. Simon:

96. trangbang68,

Don’t forget the rich widows who supported Jesus’ troop.

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:36 pm 156. maz2:

FYI.

“Understanding E = mc2

Ed. note: A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hearing William Tucker speak at a conference in Washington, DC. His explanation of E = mc2 was the best I had ever heard. Even better, Tucker explained how Einstein’s equation applied to renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro. His lecture was a revelation. It showed that the limits of renewable energy have nothing to do with politics or research dollars, but rather with simple mathematics. During a later exchange of emails with Tucker, I praised his lecture and suggested he write an article that explained E = mc2 and its corollary, E = mv2.

To my delight, he informed me that he’d already written such an essay and he agreed that we could publish it in Energy Tribune.

I love this essay. And I’m proud that Tucker has allowed us to run it.

-Robert Bryce”

“E = mc2

When I was in college, I took a course in the great political philosophers. We studied them in order – Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.

In my mind, I had placed them with the historical eras they had influenced – Hobbes and the 18th century monarchs, Locke and the American Revolution, Rousseau and 19th century Romanticism, Kant and the 19th century nation-states, Marx and 20th century Communism.

Then one day I saw a time-line illustrating when they had all lived and died. To my astonishment, each had lived a hundred years before I had placed them in history. The implicated seemed clear. “It takes about a hundred years for a new idea to enter history.”

Almost exactly 100 years ago, Albert Einstein posited the equation E = mc2 in his “Special Theory of Relativity.” The equation suggested a new way of describing the origins of chemical energy and suggested another source of energy that at that point was unknown in history – nuclear energy. Nuclear power made its unfortunate debut in history 40 years later in the form of an atomic bomb. But 100 years later, Americans have not quite yet absorbed the larger implications of Einstein’s equation – a new form of energy that can provide almost unlimited amounts of power with a vanishingly small impact on the environment.

E = mc2. Who has not heard of it? Even Mariah Carey named her last album after it. “E” stands for energy, “m” for mass, and “c” is the speed of light – that’s easy enough. But what does it really mean? (The answer is not “relativity.”)”

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

H/T:

“We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans”

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012496.html#comments

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:42 pm 157. M. Simon:

Science must be purged of the Anthropogenic Global Warming crock, the bizarre Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the gnostic-quant cosmologies of Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, and everything that smacks of Gaianism or indeterminancy.

Dude. You are going to have to turn off your computer. Its design at the micro level is totally informed by indeterminacy. In fact so far indeterminacy has been verified in every experiment ever done on the subject to within 1 part in 1E18. And we would probably be able to extend it further as our ability to measure gets better.

And the only way you are going to be able to accomplish the purge is to find a better system. You up to it?

And what would you prefer to the Copenhagen Interpretation? Many Worlds?

You might want to watch these videos and then come up with a better answer:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:02 pm 158. M. Simon:

The Church must be given some sort of official standing within Western lands

Ah. but only the one True Church. And it is not Christian. It is Jewish. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:04 pm 159. M. Simon:

Narcotic substances and acts of violence between consenting adults (i.e. dueling) should be decriminalized.

On this point (at least re: narcotics) I have to agree. Cultures that place too high a price on honor are not as productive as those that can turn the other cheek.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:07 pm 160. M. Simon:

”Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.”
- Heinrich Heine

Prophetic because Heine was a German and a Jew. One of the most beloved of German Poets. and the Austrian Corporal was always troubled by that particular niche of German culture.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:23 pm 161. M. Simon:

The threats to the church are what they’ve always been – secular government, secular science, and add to that more recently – the Internet.

How true. Tolerance of other faiths and learning have always been enemies of the church. Gutenberg really ruined a good thing. If we could at least eliminate learning we could bring back credulity. Life would be so much simpler.

But not to worry. The evidence is that the NEA and teacher’s unions are the best allies the church ever had in the modern world.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:31 pm 162. M. Simon:

127. Lifeofthemind,

Jews are specifically enjoined to enjoy the lawful pleasures of this life. Asceticism leads to too many hard men. And they too often insist that the rest of us follow in their path.

The Hasidic-style has been a very vibrant form of modern Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Carlebach_(musician)

I spent some time with Shlomo (he visited my synagogue yearly when I was growing up) and my brother lived with him when he had a place in San Francisco in the late 60s early 70s.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:48 pm 163. Teresita:

The wobbly guy: Christianity is important. It’s the bulwark against our worst natures. Kohlberg’s six levels of moral development suggest very strongly to me that religion is an important cultural tool to inculcate the ‘proper’ attitudes and value systems.

Christianity begins where religion ends… with the Resurrection. The “value system” of the Mosaic Code, with its 613 commandments, was merely a foreshadow of the New Covenant, whereby Christians are “buried” in baptism, our old selves are put to death, which allows Christ to live his risen life within us. You’ve heard of demon possession? Christianity is allowing the Son of God to possess us.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:56 pm 164. M. Simon:

128. Mark,

The Zen Buddhists have a system for imparting direct knowledge of The Force. But it often takes decades of directed effort. In the West we are in a hurry. So Tim Leary (probably in cahoots with the CIA) promoted chemistry.

And what do you know. Chemistry (if done correctly) can impart that knowledge. Too bad the church didn’t embrace chemistry. Because without a moral framework knowledge of the light leads to alliance with the dark.

So God seeking (which Leary promoted) devolved into thrill seeking.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:57 pm 165. M. Simon:

As for abortions and drugs, I don’t like either of them. But making them illegal creates more tragedy than not. I doubt I’ll get much agreement on that in this crowd though.

I’m with you on both. The State that is strong enough to outlaw abortion is also strong enough to make it mandatory. c.f. China.

And you may be interested in:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:14 pm 166. M. Simon:

There seems to me to be more than a superficial similarity between Christianity and Buddhism

I once knew a Jewish shopkeeper who said he could be a Buddhist but never a Christian.

The doctrine of original sin offended him. Or to put it another way: “I don’t need some one to die for my sins. I’m perfectly capable of doing that on my own.”

I like the more universal “original sin” doctrine of the Buddhists:

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

BTW Israel 2000 years ago was a cross roads. And Jesus was a sailor. It would be surprising if Jesus had not come in contact with the teachings of the Buddha who lived 500 years before Jesus.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:27 pm 167. M. Simon:

145.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples “CS” Lewis

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:32 pm 168. M. Simon:

A moment of silence is opposed by the ACLU because (horrors!) someone might actually think prayer is encouraged.

You can be silent all you want in school. And during that silence you may pray or even think thoughts.

The way out of the dilemma is to separate school and government. Look up the history of the public school movement and its relation to Catholicism. The public schools were started to enforce a view of religion. How has it worked out so far?

The ACLU is correct. Only they don’t go far enough.

Fortunately the Internet will eventually kill the public schools. The colleges will be the first to go. And it will work its way down.

The One Laptop Per Child initiative:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5734583728.html

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:43 pm 169. M. Simon:

156.,

The American Thinker has a good article up with the basics of Fusion.

Or see:

http://www.ecnmag.com/article.aspx?id=183072

BTW the lecture you got was imparted to me in high school chemistry and physics in 1959-62. Roy Bush was my Physics Teacher. He taught Physics to pilots in WW2.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:50 pm 170. Teresita:

M Simon The cessation of suffering is attainable.

What a remarkably selfish religion Buddhism is. In Christianity, suffering has been transformed by Christ’s death from something to avoid into a redemptive act:

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church

This is why Churches don’t find it odd to have an instrument of brutal torture (a Roman cross) on their rooftoops as advertisement.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:08 pm 171. Cowboy:

What makes the Roman Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches) so attractive is its drive towards orthodoxy. Recall that Rome flirted with liberalization and updating itself to the times during the 60’s and the Second Vatican Council, with mixed results. I think Wretchard at #117 is largely correct, or at least highly reflective of a critical attitude that prevails in Rome. The last two popes, who are two of the greatest popes to have ever come along, have led the charge toward the orthodox direction. Pope John Paul II was a communism battler (recall who thought it important to assassinate him — the Kremlin and Philippine Al Qaeda arm). He also was instrumental in supressing Liberation Theology in Latin America. Benedict is a theologian pope engaged with equal vigor into the articulation of fides et ratio (integration of faith and reason), and a very orthodox Christology which emphasizes to a high degree Rome’s role as guardian of the apostolic store, its grand Magesterium. In the United States, the seminaries have undergone extensive review beginning with Pope John Paul II in light of the sexual abuse scandals, and now the feminist nuns are caterwauling as Benedict has begun a similar cleaning house with regard to the radical feminist side. A letter of protest published by a sister earlier this year really was eye-popping in its hateful, radical vitriol to the degree that it’s a wonder excommunication wasn’t issued on the spot (as pope I’d have done it right away) — that’s a measure of the emotions flying around behind the scenes.

Rome flirted with liberalism, but has only increased in stature as it has tacked back towards orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the Anglicans have followed the Unitarians before them, and risk increasing irrelevance as they tack increasingly secular. I see similar trends locally when I look at churches around here. The traditional and conservative ones are healthy if not thriving outrageously. The progressive ones, meanwhile, are moribund and going nowhere but down.

It should be obvious, shouldn’t it? If you make a church into a secular institution, then you’ve really obviated the point in having a church.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:10 pm 172. geoffb:

Just a personal recollection. When I married my wife in 2001 she, though Orthodox, was attending the local Episcopal Church as there was no Orthodox one within her reach. I started attending with her though I had stopped regular church going many years earlier. The service was good and the people very nice to be with.

This changed in 2003. They had a new female priest. Her sermons took a decidedly left wing political cast which detracted from the service but I could put up with it for my wife’s sake.

Then came a meeting after services. One which we were all pressed to attend. The Bishop was there and he and the female priest introduced a speaker from another local church who was there to speak about a local organization of churches we were being asked to join.

As I listened to the presentation it brought back memories of similar presentations done using the same techniques and arguments that I had been to in the past. In the Sixties, at meetings where the SDS types were pressing the case for joining the movement.

When I got home I spent a few hours online trying to find out what this local group was and what they were about. After a lot of very fruitless searching I finally found a link to them and then a link to their controlling/ overseeing organization. One I had never heard of before. One that only recently is seeing any light brought to bear on them.

The little local group was in fact only a small part of The Gamaliel Foundation.

Soon after we moved to a city with an Orthodox Church which we attend every week and are quite happy to not have any Community Organizers show up so far.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:22 pm 173. Lifeofthemind:

geoffb,
The link at the bottom of the The Gamaliel Foundation page gives a description of their links to a Barack Obama. Surprise.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:03 pm 174. solovyov:

To go all the way back to the beginning of the comments, I would be interested to hear more facts about the supposed KGB/FSB infiltration of the Orthodox Church. I am acquainted with the rapprochement of ROCOR and OCA, but hope that that need not imply FSB control. Moreover, the autocephalous nature of the Orthodox churches may insulate them from this, yes? If OCA is corrupted, one can worship with the Serbians, for instance.

Part of the problem with the Anglican communion is that is was neither fish nor fowl. i.e. not like other Protestant churches in laying such emphasis on rite, yet of course separate from Rome. In this way it was if anything too closely tied to its state and culture, and hence would sink with them – unlike the obvious universalism of both the Roman church and the Scripture-based Protestant churches.

So, as an earlier commenter noted, it might have had something in common with the Orthodox churches. But the attempted 18th century meeting of the two never got off the ground.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:04 pm 175. Lord Acton:

For the benefit of the thoughtful agnostics who have posted here:

John MacMurray, a Scottish moral philosopher once said, “to think of religion as illusory and pointless has always seemed to me as preposterous as it would be to say the same thing of music.” Like music, Christianity can be simple or complex; bad, good or excellent; subtle, powerful or overpowering. As music comes in a remarkable number of genres, Christianity has a huge variety of denominations. There are classical forms which have stood test of time (e.g. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and a myriad of newer types that have evolved over the last four centuries. Christianity has its professional “performers”: clergy and theologians; its amateur “performers”: lay leaders and practicing Christians; its soloists: mystics; its aficionados: regular churchgoers; its less passionate fans: the so-called ‘Christmas and Easter (wedding/funeral) Christians’; its recorded version: scripture; and its live performances: worship and prayer. Most importantly, just as there is a direct relationship in music between the music and the listener, in Christianity there is a direct relationship between God and the believer.

People have a range of talent with music. We say “she is musical” or “he isn’t musical.”. This applies not just to the performer, but also to the audience. We don’t think about it as often, but there is as wide a range of ability to appreciate and understand music as there is to make music. This applies to the world of Christian faith (indeed any religious faith) as well. We all have different spiritual aptitudes. And like musical aptitude, finding and maintaining faith takes effort.

Perhaps you have seen the “Magic Eye” stereograms (quite popular in the 1990s). These are hidden three-dimensional images that are embedded within complex, colorful two-dimensional patterns. When the viewer allows his/her eyes to diverge, and each eye focuses individually, the brain processes the pattern and the hidden figure “pops out” of the page.

People vary greatly in their ability to see these images. A small minority of people can look at the page and see the hidden figure almost right away. Others need to spend a few minutes looking at the page and letting their eyes (and brains) adjust before they can see the image. Still others can only see the hidden image with great effort; they need to concentrate very hard on looking a few inches “into” the page. There are a number of people who never see the image, most because they give up in the first few minutes without giving themselves a real chance. This last group can be divided into those who aren’t sure if there is a hidden image, and those who are convinced that there isn’t. The range of experiences with stereograms is similar to peoples experiences with faith. Except where the “magic eye” is only an image on a page, with faith we are talking about a whole new way of seeing the world and our place in it.

A minority of people are spiritually intuitive. Faith comes very easily for them. For most of us it takes time, concentration and effort before faith and belief slowly emerge in our consciousness. But like with the “magic eye”, there is often an “aha” moment when it all falls into place. Another group can not find or maintain faith. These agnostics are not sure if there is a God, but they themselves can not believe. The last group is sure that God does not exist – just as there are those who are sure that there is no hidden image on the page. [Incidentally, this analogy explains why Richard Dawkins, the famous scientist and prominent atheist, is likely going to be disappointed. In his bestselling book ‘The God Delusion’, he has written,“If this book works as I intend, religious believers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” It seems unlikely that someone who has seen the hidden “magic eye” image or someone who has found faith in God is going to be convinced that it or He doesn’t exist by someone who hasn’t.]

Spiritual aptitude, like any other, improves with practice. I practice football to become a better player. I practice medicine to be a better doctor. I practice Christianity to be a better Christian. The practice can be done alone: dribbling and kicking the football; reading medical journals and textbooks; studying the Bible and praying. But like with sport and medicine, Christianity is best practiced with others. Just as a footballer learns and improves by playing with his teammates and against opponents; and a doctor learns from her patients and colleagues; a Christian grows by being in community with other Christians and interacting with the wider world.

God bless and good night

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:37 pm 176. RCM:

Brock @ 64:

HAN SOLO: Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all-powerful force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

Ben smiles quietly

HAN SOLO: It’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

———————————-

So it is…

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:31 pm 177. Morton Doodslag:

I am doomed to not believe.

Nevertheless, God help us all.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:38 pm 178. Tee:

Just adding my appreciation for a terrific post.

It brought to mind reading P.J. O’Rourke, on his travels through trouble zones, and wondering why he’d often encounter a “left-wing nun” smack in the middle of things…

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:42 pm 179. Bob Murphy:

110. presbypoet:
The hardest part of prayer is to be still and listen. To know you are loved. To be surprised by Joy. To be reminded God has a “wicked” sense of humor.

Hah. Quite so. It’s called awareness and requires one to come out of chatter mind, our mental projections.

Terra incognita to people who live in an intellectual construct.

Meditation is also a good way to get there. The chatter and BS just disappear after awhile.

It can be quite illuminating, calming, and put intellectual things/constructs in a much more playful or even optional category.

The space between the words can be a buzz.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:45 pm 180. Bob Murphy:

132. Wretchard.
Hot damn! You’ve excelled yourself in those last two paras, Wretch.
I doffs my old patrol cap to you for that one.
I’m keeping them.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:10 pm 181. Evanston2:

168. M. Simon. Were American public schools really started in opposition to catholicism, specifically? Please provide a reference if you have the time.

I have no doubt whatsoever that protestants promoted literacy via public schools, because they wanted their adherents to be able to read the Bible. Nor do I doubt that early America, being predominantly protestant, promoted Christianity in both overt and subtle ways. It’s really silly of you, frankly, to add that public schools were “started to enforce a view of religion” and then ask “How has it worked out so far?” It’s like saying that christian hospitals were “started to enforce a view of healing” and then ask “How has their (co-option by secularism) worked out so far?” Probably better than letting people die (or in the case of education, be illiterate).

Your response regarding moments of silence was equally silly. These have been proposed in order formally promote reflection by students. You say that students “can be silent” all they want in school. You bet, and they can also power walk from one class to another if they wish…is this the same as a scheduled gym class? Or they can read books during lunch hour if they wish, is this the same as an English (oh, excuse me, “language arts”) class? Since the “ACLU is correct” one minute of silence is evidently an unconstitutional interruption of the right to make noise…right?

I agree with you totally that it’d be a great day if we had genuine school choice (e.g., vouchers) in America. Then I wouldn’t have to pay for the useless ACLU and NEA approved mush that has supplanted genuine education in America. I also agree with the thesis that online education will kill off some college instruction, but since public schools also serve as sitters for our 18 year old (academically 5 year old) babies, I don’t believe the Internet is much of a threat. It was, however, a nice thought.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:28 pm 182. What he said… « Way Too Opinionated:

[...] [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:12 pm 183. presbypoet:

152 Evanston2
Thank you for your service.

The great commission, we don’t understand. We think it says go evangelize. Instead, the focus should be on making disciples of Jesus.

We focus on salvation, which is good, but miss that it is only being born again. It is as though we thought that all that is important is a baby is born, then we abandon it. In many ways that is how we treat those newly saved.

I have been giving a lot of thought into just what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. There has been much food for thought in this very provocative thread. A disciple is a witness. A disciple follows. The crucial question: Who does a disciple follow? This question is not just for the Christian. A follower of Jesus, a disciple of Jesus, should reflect Jesus to all who they meet. I tell people I have two goals. First, that all who meet me are made more joyful. Second, do I make people think.

This disciple of Jesus thing, is crucial in understanding where Christians, and those who love them, but think we are crazy, should go. It has major implications for churches, denominations and the world.

I agree with those who think state churches are bad. It seems one reason North Africa fell to Islam so easily was leaders and cities were Christian, but no one bothered to go to the countryside. So when cities fell, and leaders died the faith was like the seed planted in shallow soil. Hard times came, and the plant died. State churches are like that. Clergy don’t have to be faithful, the state provides. Theology isn’t important, rather is the guy who signs your checks happy? No roots.

There is one historic note, there were when America was founded, several state churches. Including Massachusetts, which kept a state church into the 1830’s. Which may explain why the Bay State is now one of the least religious places in the country.

One final item that has not been brought up, is that the Roman Catholic church still thinks of itself as the only church. It still views members of other churches as second class citizens. As a Presbyterian who goes to both churches with my wife for over 30 years, I have gotten to know the blessings and frustrations first hand. It also views lay people of either sex, as second class. I call it the “If you are religious, you must become a religious.” , attitude.

This tends to come from a view sex is bad, the world is bad, and so if you have to live in the world, you can’t avoid being tainted. Islam has a variation on this with the “keep women hidden so they don’t tempt us.”

This attitude conflicts with all being called to be disciples of Jesus. If you have two classes of disciples, it is a problem.

Since we have so much in common, those of us who actually know Jesus, it is a shame non-essentials divide us.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:19 pm 184. bob:

A state church or a church that has something of a monopoly in a society, seems to have a disadvantage. Here in the states sects have multiplied, here there is competition for the loyalty of the folks in the pews, thus the higher interest show here for things religious than in Europe. Plus we’ve not had any serious religious wars sickening people to the whole idea.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:34 pm 185. geoffb:

#173 Lifeofthemind,

They are his other organizing group out of Chicago. ACORN works the secular side. Gamaliel works on the religious folks. Obama of course works on both.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:41 pm 186. Batman:

What an interesting discussion.

I am a serious but non-denominational observant Jewish psychiatrist and conservative — quite a strange combination for West Los Angeles. Because I am not hostile to religion I get patients who practice religiously that don’t normally trust psychiatrists. I see Christian Scientists, devout Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witness and even some Muslim patients. What this has taught me is at least two things.

One is that for those with a wholesome religious faith there are assets in their coping “tool box” that help them in life.

Second is that not all religious traditions are wholesome. By wholesome I mean life-affirming, focused on ethical behavior and personal goodness, keeping high standards but also showing forgiveness and compassion, and the paradox of strong belief that you have found the best faith yet not looking down on those of other faiths or no faith.

Wretchard made an outstanding point (again) by saying that standards, even if they are breached, are crucial. It is one thing to have standards we sometimes don’t live up to and another thing altogether to say there are or should be no standards. The former exposes human imperfection, the latter ultimately leads to chaos.

And those who pointed out the importance of the Declaration’s reliance on the Creator, on Nature and Nature’s God, have pin pointed the key restraint on governments and on individuals. Rights come from the Creator or from Natural Law, not from the state or from another person. Therefore there are limits on what man can rightly do to man.

Do we need religion? As a society the answer is “yes.” Select individuals can live excellent lives of goodness without religion, but society cannot sustain three generations in a row of such ethical goodness without a transcendental source of guidance and restraint. This is somewhat like vaccinations — 20% of the population can get away without vaccinations if the other 80% has them, but when a certain threshold of of non-immunized population is reached, the whole society is threatened with epidemic.

Do we need “One God?” Yes. The concept of one God means that all of humanity is subject to the same ethical restraints. And this is precisely what multiculturalism and relativism has been eroding. The torture of children is wrong for ALL. The burning of widows is wrong for ALL. Female clitorectomy is wrong for ALL. Ceremonies and rituals can be multicultural. Cuisine can be multicultural. Calendar and holidays can be multicultural. Theological creed can be multicultural up to a point. But there must be one law for the faithful and for the stranger alike. Those are the ethical laws.

A Creator God such as the Deists hold is insufficient. The God of the Universe must also be an ethical God. That was part of the point of Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech. God can’t be capricious and ethical at the same time. And humans were given a soul and a brain to study and question and use their reason to apprehend God’s ethical nature.

Is ceremony, calendar, creed, and calendar necessary? Yes. Without it the ability to hold to the humility and ethical imperatives will inevitably be diluted and disappear. Isn’t it easier to remember the lyrics when we remember the melody of a song? Religion is the melody of the ethical song.

And what do we get when we give up standards, reduce the transcendental, think of ourselves as the masters of our universe? Precisely what Wretchard wrote this post to address. Deconstructed meaning and multicultural ethics produce empty relativism. Into the void comes either fanatic religiosity (Islamic fundamentalism) or fanatic secularism.

Will the center hold? Will religious traditions that remain steadfast to standards (yes, some must be revised in part, but there must still be standards) and remain humble in recognizing that there are authorities higher than man and government, continue to occupy enough space in the hearts and minds to preserve what is best about our civilization?

Sadly, I think we are entering a new Dark Ages in which superstition will replace real science, totalitarianism (secular or religious) will replace freedom, conformity will replace individuality, and the middle will shrink while the bottom expands and the top luxuriates.

But that will not be the end of the story. The Israelites had to spend 400 years in slavery before they were led to the promised land. And once there they went to the brink of destruction many times, yet still remain. After Rome fell there were still remnants who kept the flame alive, mostly in monasteries of the Catholic Church and small academies of Jews.

The Judeo-Christian faiths will survive even if they are flickering lights for a long time. They are like life giving enzymes without which the world cannot continue.

And for all of you who line up at different places on the Judeo-Christian spectrum, and for those “agnostics” who believe they have not found their spot in that spectrum but who still appreciate its value, and for those of Eastern faith traditions whose ethical values and appreciation of human life and freedom overlap with that spectrum, I say we are all allies in this time of danger. We can’t afford to let our different creeds, calendars, ceremonies, and cuisine (the four main C’s that distinguish religions from each other) make for groundless arguments. If there is a center that has a chance to hold, we must all hold it together.

I just reread this and think it sounds too much like a sermon. For that I apologize but I’m going to press “submit” anyway.

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:14 am 187. presbypoet:

Batman 186,
I’m Presbyterian, we love a good sermon, (I turn them into poems). You have said what needs to be our central theme.
“If there is a center that has a chance to hold, we must all hold it together.”

We represent so many strands. How can we be knit into a rope to help bind a broken center?.
Isn’t that the story of the Fellowship of the Ring?
This is an amazing thread. I saved it to print a copy of the first 183 comments. Over 70 pages filled with wisdom. Thank you W.

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:26 am 188. Mike_W:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Not prevail against it?
Gates prevailing against a church in this context doesn’t make sense.
Might this have more to do with the inability of hell to deny entrance to Christ’s message and saving grace of redemption by his sacrifice for those in purgatory, rather than the power of Hell itself to subvert our fallen world.
Seems to me, this Earth is Satan’s last best chance.

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:50 am 189. marymcl:

@45 whiskey

“There is after all nothing so sexy to women in general as cruelty…”

Speak for yourself Wormtongue. What you are describing here is a pathology that transcends gender and in any case is hardly the eternal verity you claim it to be. Whose cruelty are you talking about anyway? You are a boring and mean-spirited man and I for one look forward to dancing on your grave in a red dress.

Back to reality – Fletcher Christian makes a good point – the lack of a real night sky in the city is a great loss to the spirit

Regarding the same – and I am here addressing Brock and others who speak of a need for proofs as a prerequisite to faith – for what it’s worth, while I am not a practicing believer of any religion, I find a great comfort in the knowledge that there are things that elude rational explanation. I cannot explain it or justify it, but I am nonetheless reassured by the thought that there are powers beyond our intentions that shape the fortunes of this world. And like others here, I will gladly defend the Church of Rome, even though I am a heretic in its eyes, because it represents the West that is under threat, as wretchard astutely notes, from “the religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism” and “the political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam.”

Regarding Tolkien – his own faith was the foundation of his artistry (as he states in the Mythopeia – “we make still by the law in which we’re made”) though I believe also that his Catholicism was in some degree a bulwark and a defense against Ragnarok. He did write, after all, with terrible certainty, that the Shadow would always, after a defeat and a respite, grow and take shape again. And again, and again…

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:54 am 190. JC in KZ:

#130 Brock

“Your use of the word ‘agnostic’ is strange to me, since it literally means ‘One who is doubtful.’ There is no faith inside an agnostic. I guess I’ll just say that faith may be a requirement for your existence (and many other people’s), but it’s no requirement of mine. Atheism would be a faith of a sort, but agnosticism is simply not believing in answers that cannot be verified.”

Thank you for the thoughtful addition. I would tender that the faith inside an agnostic is the faith that, given the observable world, the question of the afterlife does not matter significantly. In other words, the agnostic says “I don’t know, so let it all work itself out–it’ll be ok, or at least as it should be.” That’s the leap of faith, that it will work out. Without that faith the agnostic quickly turns into a very serious seeker of Truth, arriving at one or another conclusion. This is why actual agnostics are very rare: they decay into either atheists, or some other religion depending on the thoroughness and honesty of their seeking phase.

Again, my conclusion is based on the observation that it is impossible to be without a faith, even if the object of that faith is not traditional.

Regards,
–JC

Oct 24, 2009 - 1:58 am 191. Karen Yvonne:

Re Eggplant #43: In a book I read several years ago on the friendship of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (the title escapes me at the moment), Tolkien thought that fact and imagination were reconciled perfectly in the New Testament Gospels (sort of a power of mythical story meets actual history), and in his LOTR he wanted to present Biblical themes – such as evil, sacrifice, redemption – in a way that wouldn’t put off those hostile to or uninterested in Christianity.

Wretchard #78: What’s amazing is how prevalent and ubiquitous human sacrifice was on all the continents, the various cultures and present among such a variety of beliefs for such a long time.

I thought this was the universal human awareness and consciousness of sin – or if you don’t want to call it “sin,” then at least a falling short of something required. Have humans everywhere and at every time always known, however vaguely, that the wages of sin is death?

Danydash #59: Appreciate the J.H. Newman cite. My favorite quote of his: “Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.”

Brock says, in so many words, “I don’t myself believe in Christianity but I’m glad that others do.” There’s something really askew there but can’t immediately put my finger on just what. I take your word for it, though, that you personally feel absolutely no need whatsoever for faith. So far, anyway. You said this debate is fascinating yet you remain untouched. Should the day ever come when you ARE touched, when you must face something unprecedented, something your current ethos is too flimsy to be of any help, you might recall to mind:

“The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” Psalms 34:18

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalms 51:17

“But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” Deuteronomy 4:29

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13

M. Simon #166: I like the more universal “original sin” doctrine of the Buddhists

Salvation lies in attaining nirvana, the extinction of the individual. Now there’s a cheery life-affirming goal.

Oct 24, 2009 - 3:02 am 192. Lord Acton:

As I’ve posted a few times over the past 2 years here, if you like Wretchard at his best (as he has been with this post), check out Arnold Toynbee’s “A study of History”. 11 magisterial volumes that are infused with superb riffs like Wretch has been on. The theme is the rise and fall of civilizations and how religions are the chrysalises from which new civilations are born. It is these posts and comments on steroids.

If I were to be stuck on the proverbial desert island and could have only one thing to read it would be those volumes (practically the whole Bible is quoted in it for those of you who would want the Holy Book on your island).

Oct 24, 2009 - 5:21 am 193. Lifeofthemind:

Evanston2,
Were American public schools really started in opposition to catholicism, specifically?

Look up the Blaine Amendment, a State constitutional effort named for the same bigoted man who gave us the rhetorical gem “Rum Romanism and Rebellion.” Blaine Amendments preventing state support for religiously based schools were added in most states. The current opposition to vouchers echoes the 19th century Progressive Movement efforts to build up public education that were rooted establishment Protestant determination to use the schools to americanize immigrant children and keep them out of the parochial schools. The NY Sun ran a series of articles on the subject, just go to their site and do a search. The wiki on this subject seems straight forward and controversy is noted on the talk page.

Oct 24, 2009 - 6:00 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.