The Problem of Evil is Your Problem 

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Jam.4:1

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788 Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

“...whatever is the cause of human corruption, men are evidently and confessedly so corrupt that all the laws of heaven and earth are insufficient to restrain them from crime.” (pg.33 The Devils Delusion- Berlinski) 

 

Along the way from this country’s religious founding, thanks largely to the pantheistic evolutionary thinking of Hegel (1807), and the naturalized form of it in Darwin (1859), Occidental man began to learn how to appreciate himself more and more (which becomes easy to do when comparing one's self to a primate.). He became more ‘progressive’ and drifted away from sound biblical teaching about the nature of sin in man. He thought that no problem was outside his reach to fix with enough money and enough authority (expansion of central banking and state control). Men began flattering themselves more and more until something terrible happened- World War 1 (1914–1918). Which was even thought of positively at the time as “The war to end all wars”. Some ‘experts’ declared that the war couldn’t last more than a few months. To take an excerpt from ‘The Growth of America 1878-1928” (Clarence B. Carson) we can get a glimpse into how deeply the delusion of man’s self-glorification had penetrated. “World War 1 had a tremendous impact upon Western Civilization. Indeed, it was not only shocking to Western sensibilities but it was also not easily assimilated into the prevailing outlook.” “The belief in progress was widespread, and it entailed the view that civilization was expanding and barbarism on the retreat. As men became more and more civilized, many believed that bloodshed and war would be relegated to the brute past. An undergirding utopianism gave support to this view. Nations would settle their disputes with mediation and arbitration...” (pg.180- Carson) But after “nearly 10 million killed on the battlefields, and perhaps three times as many wounded more or less seriously” (pg.180), it was evident man had not in fact evolved himself away from his sin... yet.

"How different had things been before the war! Then, cultured Europeans, Germans especially, had believed that finally, after eons, the human race, or at least their very special part of it, had achieved a level of civilization that would forbid the kinds of actions and behavior that were now commonplace." pg. 293 ‘A History of Knowledge’ Charles Van Doren

After this humanist self-adoration was fractured, early in 1915 "Sigmund Freud published an article titled "Thoughts for the Times on War and Death." In which he "began describing the disillusionment felt by so many people... upon their discovery of the cruelty and brutality of which previously civilized nations and individuals were capable." The stories of rape, torture, and murder emerging about "soldiers of all the warring nations." was too troubling to accept. pg. 293

We might not like to think our boys can behave in demonically depraved ways, but sample this if you can stomach it (discretion advised): https://jockopodcast.com/2016/07/13/31-book-review-four-hours-in-my-lai-by-michael-bilton/

I am reminded of a WW1 documentary where a French soldier, if memory serves me, was pulled from the trenches and given leave for a time before returning to the battlefield. He expressed his discouragement upon seeing life in the city so carefree in contrast to the horror he just left for a moment. As if nobody was aware, and even indifferent to the enormous price their countrymen were paying with shattered bodies as they laughed and savored delicacies daily. (Look up images of ‘broken faces from WW1’ for a reality check.) This apathy to others suffering is also a product of our wickedness. (Num.32:6, 20-23, Jam.4:17)

"German civilization, especially, had been viewed by Germans and other cultivated Europeans as the acme of human accomplishment. German science. German music and art, German scholarship, German ethical philosophy, had set standards for the rest of the world considered to be higher than ever before." pg.293 And yet Freud said "Let us hope that they are wrong... and that we Germans are not as bad as they think we are." pg.294 Yet, it was not the Germans alone that descended headlong into depravity having unhitched from Christianity, the entire globe for the next century embarked upon mass murder of its brethren in an unparalleled 100-year bloodlust, with Darwin as priest and Karl Marx as prophet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

And still the irradicable utopian dream and hope in man is as alive as ever in the face of overwhelming evidence to the incapacity of man to save himself. The drunk optimist. More Socialists promise more salvation every election season as the country drifts ignorantly to the left. “And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.” (Hos.4:9) “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...” (Hos.4:6) “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer.5:31)

Forced to accept the fact of the sinfulness of men Freud offered his shot at explaining to men the issue they face within. Noting that “the human being is not as happy civilized as he says he is.” And “there is a deeper self, a kind of primitive savage, in all of us, who wishes to be freed from civilization’s restrains. I know this, Freud said, for I have seen it in all of my patients, without exception: men and women, old and young, cultivated and uneducated. Therefore, I am not surprised by what the war has revealed, and you should not be surprised, either.” (pg.294 Van Doren)

Freud recognized the obvious: “Man is a wolf to man.” Adding “Who, in the face of all his experience of life and of history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion?” “Freud made another point in his 1915 paper, about the changed attitude toward death that the war had brought about. In peacetime death may be held at arm's length. One can deny it, at least avoid mentioning it or even thinking about it. In war such denial becomes impossible.” But “deep in our primitive, unconscious selves, we are very aware of death, even if on the surface we deny its existence. We desire the death of our enemies, are ambivalent about the death of our loved ones, and fear our own death, in which at the same time we do not really believe.” (pg.294-5) Freud himself was reported to have had a "preoccupation with his own mortality" or "repeated attacks" of a "dread of death". (The Myth of Disenchantment, J. Storm- Pg.205)

Concerning Jesus Christ God decided “that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Heb.2:9,14-5) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom.6:23)

But why is this the case Doctor Freud? Why is it that “People are not at heart very good”? Well, it would seem “Men need war... to work off the intolerable burden of society. The alternative to war is neurosis, both individual and group, which itself can become intolerably destructive. People cannot go on indefinitely acting as if they are civilized. They must be allowed an outlet for their murderous deeper desires. Dreams are not enough.” (pg.295 Van Doren) If we evolved the need for war, it becomes impossible to condemn it as morally outrageous. Murderous rampage becomes an outlet for the burden of society. Apparently, it will help us continue evolving. Plus, since we can drop the utopian dream now, we are not evolving towards anything we are just changing constantly absent of meaning or value.

This is good news for atheist philosopher Frederick Nitzsche though, because you are totally free now to do anything you choose. Be brave as you face the abyss and clothe yourself with glory as a superman. Or, just drink beer and watch football, get fat and die. I mean, there is no value system other than your own to determine what is honorable. As atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated “Life on this earth is not only without rational significance, but also apparently

unintentional. The cosmic laws seem to have been set going for some purpose quite unrelated to human existence. Man is thus a sort of accidental by-product, as the sparks are accidental by-product of the horseshoe a blacksmith fashions on his anvil. The sparks are more brilliant than the horseshoe, but all the same they remain essentially meaningless.” (Religion and Science- London, Oxford, 1949)

But the fact that we have found out meaning in an apparently meaningless universe is evidence against the supposition that the universe has no meaning. In other words, if the universe is meaningless, we should never have found this out. Furthermore, it would also be meaningless to say there is evil. The existence of evil and that experience of evil in ourselves and others is meaningful only in a Christian worldview. They problem of evil is only a psychological problem for Christians, but it is a logical absurdity for everyone else.

The Existence of Evidence is Evidence of God’s Existence

https://greers1611.wixsite.com/mysite/post/the-existence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-god-s-existence

 

 

Pro-Choice? What are you actually choosing?

If you talk with pro-choicers about killing babies you begin to realize that they toggle between contradictory appeals to “science” to confirm their claims that the baby in the womb is just a “clump of cells” (which is basically what everyone is) and the metaphysical claims that personhood doesn’t apply to the child until some arbitrary point in time which varies depending upon who's making the assertion. They vehemently allege that science is on their side, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. Science can indeed affirm what is, regarding the material world but not what ought to be. This is the traditional “Is–ought problem” in philosophy. Namely that one cannot logically move from what is to a conclusion of what ought to be. This is because there are different types of laws.

The sperm determines the sex of the child (the evil patriarchy back at it again). And the baby’s sex is determined at conception when a full set of chromosomes and DNA are present. Everything to make you you is there at conception. Even though you are in the process of developing- just like you do your entire life. Science tells us this. But it has nothing to say about whether rights ought or ought not to be conferred upon the child. And so, philosophy and religion are called upon at this point to answer when a human is a person fully qualified for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Pro-choice is really about a woman’s right to choose when personhood begins. But what sort of dualistic worldview could this possibly make sense in? Personhood is an immaterial idea that she cannot create by sheer force of will? Perhaps she wanted the baby and it is a child but then she changed her mind and suddenly it’s a clump of cells and not a person. What about her own body (not the baby's body for the moment)? Her body was not her making or design, so what does ‘my body my choice’ mean? This would assert unalienable rights (generally considered endowed by the Creator) from somewhere that she declares she has a right or claim to by virtue of the fact that she owns her body and not other people. Like, if the majority decide personhood is not available to a child in the womb maybe they can decide her body is not her choice as well. Again, the is-ought problem ‘it is my body and ought to be my choice’. Post-modernist Marxism would group us into classes imposing will of force on members of other classes, so my body not my choice. But they don’t believe in logic or science either so... whatever.

This is purely arbitrary thinking, like a child who wants the freedom of adulthood without the responsibility. The childish demand that reality order itself according to my desire. It explains their anger at biology that a woman is ‘forced to carry the pregnancy’ or that their ‘body determines their sex’. How dare reality be thus! I don’t like it so it must not exist! The post-modernist tantrum.

The scriptures however are not at all silent on the question of abortion. For instance, you will see that a woman is “with child” all through the Old and New Testaments when she is pregnant. Regarding the twins Jacob and Esau in Rebecca’s womb it says “the children struggled together within her”. (Gen.25:22) When Mary greeted Elisabeth the latter exclaimed “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” (Lk.1:44) As a matter of fact, Bathsheba “conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child”. (2 Sam.11:5) The term “be with child” is synonymous with “conceive”. (Mt.1:23, Isa.7:14) It makes sense then to make statements like “There is a man child conceived” (Job 3:3) “did my mother conceive me” (Ps.51:5) and “her that conceived me” (Song 3:4) because I am me at conception. Who else would I be?

A woman whose child is injured when she is pregnant would require full retribution of law; that “thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. (Ex.21:22-4) Regardless of how far along the pregnancy was the scripture shows we are fearfully and wonderfully made as “thou hast covered me in my mother's womb”. (Psa.139:13) “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.” (Ecc.11:5) “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psa.139:16)

Unequivocally the bible teaches a child is a child in the womb and to kill it is murder. But in an age that has walked away from the bible they have embraced childish, arbitrary, irrational demands upon the laws of nature and natures God. 

This however is not such a dualistic world as pro-choicers ignorantly demand. To quote the hymn "This is my Father's world". It is God's body and therefore his choice. The world we experience is the world the Christian religion declares as revealed in the bible.