By Chris Farrell
NOLA, U.S.A. Anno Domini 2013
The irrational nature of the 'living and breathing document' fallacy has been employed by the Radical Historical-critical higher textual critics—also known by many other names such as Form critics, or "Higher" critics, or "Redactionists," or "Source" critics, or "Documentarians," "Modern" critics, "Progressive" critics, "Liberal" critics, but by any name all 'birds of a feather'—to undermine confidence in the infallibility of Scripture, to reject the supernatural inspiration of Scripture, and to deny the Word of God. The ‘living and breathing document’ fallacy is the crowbar by which the religion of Liberalism has pried its way into one-time doctrinally sound Christian denominations around the world and is now being used to undermine the legitimacy of the authority of the Constitution.
WARNING: The ‘Living and Breathing Document” deception is also presently being employed by leaders within the religion of Liberalism to reject the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
Claiming it to be a "living and breathing document" (Al Gore) self-proclaimed Liberal ‘Master Thinkers’ then simply assume the 'Legislative Leader's' (Frederic Bastiat's appellation) right and duty to herd said ‘living and breathing document’ in whatsoever ideological direction they FEEL is appropriate within the context of any given Sitz em Leben or Zeitgeist. The German words are most helpful in obscuring the insupportable nature of their arguments.
“An evolutionary understanding of history and an anthropocentric view of religion dominated the 19th century. The prevailing thinkers viewed religion as devoid of any divine intervention, explaining it as a natural development produced by man’s subjective needs.” (‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell, Volume II, Pg. 55. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-918956-73-0.)
“That the then-current evolutionary philosophy of Hegel had a definite effect on Old Testament studies is clearly attested to by Herbert Hahn:
“The conception of historical development was the chief contribution of the liberal critics to the exegesis of the Old Testament. It is true of course that this conception did not grow merely from an objective reading of the sources. In a larger sense, it was a reflection of the intellectual temper of the times. The genetic conception of Old Testament history fitted in with the evolutionary principle of interpretation prevailing in contemporary science and philosophy. In the natural sciences, the influence of Darwin had made the theory of evolution the predominant hypothesis affecting research.”
“In every department of historical investigation the conception of development was being used to explain the history of man’s thought, his institutions, and even his religious faiths. It was not strange that the same principle should be applied to the explanation of Old Testament history. In every age exegesis has conformed (Sic) to the thought forms of the time, and in the latter half of the nineteenth century thought was dominated by the scientific method and an evolutionary view of history. 31/9,10”” (‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell, Volume II, Pg. 55. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-918956-73-0. Siting 31: Hahn, Herbert F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.)
“In the historical sciences and in the areas of religious and philosophical thought, the evolutionary concept had begun to exercise a powerful influence after Hegel had substituted the notion of ‘becoming’ for the idea of ‘being.’ He had arrived at the notion by a priori reasoning without testing it by scientific application to observable fact, but Hegel was none the less the intellectual progenitor of the modern point of view.” (McDowell, Pg.55. 31/9,10. Siting 31: Hahn, Herbert F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.)
The Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis was spawned in the age when Darwinian evolutionary thought permeated all areas of investigation from Wellhausen’s application of Hegel’s to literary textual criticism—especially biblical higher textual criticism.
So, the 'Darwinian' theory of evolution—existent long before Mr. Darwin popularized it—exerted its developmental aspects on the age in which Wellhausen adopted Hegel’s earlier developmental conclusions surrounding literary textual criticism, and especially the textual criticism of biblical text’s source documents—real or supposed.
The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis is based upon conjecture and pre-supposition and outright fabrications such as the purported J/E/P/D structure of supposed source documents for which not a single scrap of evidence exists, and it was the Graf-Wellhausen Documentarians who spawned the complete spectrum of blind Radical Historical-critical schools of textual criticism: Form Criticism, "Modern" Criticism, Source Criticism, Redaction Criticism, Radical Criticism, Liberal Criticism, "Progressive" Criticism, etc. ad nauseum.
Therein lay the roots of modern legalistic attempts at unjustifiable, doctrinally aberrant, Liberal “theology” which denies the authority of Scripture and provides an indefensible excuse for its proponents to advance ‘Forward’ in every cultural arena spiritually, philosophically, ideologically, mentally, morally, economically, militarily and religiously. The only other religion/philosophical-political ideology that exerts itself so ubiquitously into every sphere of human existence in such a totalitarian manner is the murderous cult of Islam.
”For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evilmindedness, they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, un-loving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:18-32. The Spirit Filled Bible. Personal Study Bible Unveiling God’s Fullness in All God’s Word. New King James Version. Thomas Neal, Inc. Nashville, Tennessee. Copyright 1983.Bible. Pg. 1688-89.)
Developmental Deception:
Liberal “theologians” first ask rhetorically, just like the serpent in the Garden, “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1), and then they go about attempting to prove by way of their indefensible, faulty methods of textual criticism that God really did not indeed say, or convey in His Word, precisely what is in fact written in Holy Scripture. Pay close attention to what the Serpent did. He not only questioned whether or not God had actually said something—he twisted the actual command God had in fact given, for God had not commanded that Man not eat “…of every tree of the garden…,’ but only not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Then liberal "theologians" proceed to insert into their contrived developmental theories, which they assert are a reality surrounding the compilation of the texts assembled within the Bible, Man's motives behind the authorship of the texts within, as they say, Man’s Sitz im Leben They assert as reality any situational construct they wish to posit—to dream up—as a reality reflecting any given contemporaneous and colloquial historical social setting as they wish to define it. They simply concoct a composite “community” howsoever they wish to define it at any given moment in time in order to facilitate their delusional construct of an alternate reality to suit their delusional, neo-gnostic agenda.)
The Liberal “theologians” maintain that man, or certain elite men to be more specific, Sociologically defined as "Master Thinkers," or as Bastiat facetiously called them “Superhuman,” purportedly endowed with greater mental and spiritual capacities by what power they do not say, with a Sociologically described “Verstehen,” (higher knowledge, ‘superhuman’ insight, i.e. γνώσίς, (gnosis)), men who have embraced the second part of Satan’s original lie as truth and believe that they are superior beings—who believe that they can ‘be as gods,’ (“For God doth know, that in the day ye eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5, Webster’s Bible Translation)), and direct the re-writing of the Bible according to the liberal’s undefined construct of a “community’s” situational needs, its Sitz em Leben, just as their contemporaneous counterparts would have done, so they presume, when the respective autographical biblical texts or dictated first drafts were first penned—situational needs which change over time as do, according to their delusional re-definition of reality, their morally relative situational ethics which they assert the right to assert in their re-interpretation and even re-writing of the Word of God.
Liberal “theology” is the height of arrogance and pride. They literally believe that they can do a better job at writing the Bible than God. They believe it is their right and duty to re-create their irrational conceptualization of a ‘living breathing document’ in their own contemporaneous image—the image of whatever the contemporary “spirit of the age,” or Zeitgeist, should happen to be on their most accommodating sliding scale of moral relativism. Naturally, they themselves are the only “Master Thinkers” capable of determining for the rest of us what exactly it is that we need.
Wellhausen Applied Hegel’s Developmental Philosophy To Biblical Textual Criticism In An Age Dominated By Darwinist Evolutionary Thought:
"Religion is not, as Hegel declared, a kind of knowing; for it would then be only an incomplete form of philosophy, and the measure of knowledge in each case would be the measure of piety." "Hegel's error was in regarding life as a process of thought, rather than in regarding thought as a process of life." (Systematic Theology. Augustus Strong, D.D., LL D. President and Professor of Biblical Theology in The Rochester Theological Seminary. Judson Press, Valley Forge, PA. Thirty-First Printing. 1976. ISB No. 0-8170-0177-8. Pg.20.)
“Hegel presupposes that the whole of human history is a process through which mankind has been making spiritual and moral progress, it is what human mind has done in the course of its advance to self-knowledge…” (McDowell, Pg. 56.) Nota bene hyphenated word ‘self-knowledge.’ That would be the self-idolizing revived gnostic concept.
“W.F. Albright, W.W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages from 1929-1958 at John Hopkins University and sometime director of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, was, until his death in 1971, considered by many to be the foremost biblical archaeologist in the world. His work has forced many critics to completely reassess their conclusions regarding the history of Israel. About Wellhausen’s application of Hegel’s philosophical theories to the history of Israel, Albright said:
“He tried, by means of Hegelian analogy with pre-Islamic and Islamic Arabia, to build a system for the development of Israel’s history, religion, and literature which would fit his critical analysis. Wellhausen’s structure was so brilliant and afforded such a simple, apparently uniform interpretation that it was adopted almost universally by liberal Protestant scholars, and even largely by Catholic and Jewish scholars. There were, of course some exceptions, but in nearly all places where men were thoroughly schooled by learning Hebrew and Greek and absorbing the critical method, they also learned Wellhausenian principles. Unfortunately all of this was developed in the infancy of archaeology, and was of very little value in interpreting history.” 6/15” (‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell, Volume II, Pp. 56-57. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-918956-73-0. Siting 6: Albright, W.F. Archaeology, Historical Analogy, and Early Biblical Tradition. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966.)
“Wright speaking of Albright says that he “has amassed archaeological fact upon fact in his review of the Bible’s setting in the world in order to show that Wellhausen’s developmental scheme, ultimately drawn from the idealistic philosophy of Hegel, no longer fits the facts as they are now known.” 199/45” (‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell, Volume II, Pg. 67. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-918956-73-0. Siting 199: Wright, G. Ernest. “Archaeology and Old Testament Studies,” Journal of Biblical Literature. December, 1958. Vol. 77, pp. 39-51.)
The Stones Cry Out:
“…all six of the documentarians’ presuppositions…” “…must be regarded as invalid. Anti-supernaturalism…” “…must be rejected on the grounds that it claims to have absolute truth regarding the existence of God or the extent and nature of His intervention in the natural order of the universe, i.e., either His existence or His divine intervention is ruled out as an impossibility on an a priori basis.
Another of these presuppositions (an a priori distrust of Old Testament record) must be rejected since it flies in the face of an accepted cannon of criticism that has stood the test of time, having guided literary and historical scholars since the time of Aristotle.
The remaining four presuppositions (evolutionary view of Israel’s history; priority of source analysis over verifiable methodology; legendary view of patriarchal narratives; and the assumption that there was no writing in Israel during the Mosaic age) have all been soundly refuted by archaeology.” (‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell, Volume II, Pg. 86. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-918956-73-0.)
The Religion of Liberalism:
The religion of Liberalism’s elevation of elite “Superhuman” “Legislative Leaders,” to borrow two descriptions from Frederic Bastiat, characterized within the doctrines of the cult of Liberalism that are incorporated in the writings of the highly subjective “science” of Sociology as “Master Thinkers,” (‘Developing as Rational Persons: Viewing Our Development in Stages’ (1996. By Elder, L. with Paul, R. www.criticalthinking.org), is a delusional manifestation of a mental and spiritual disorder among those who consider themselves so superiorly elevated above the rest of ‘mere mortals’of malignant narcissism that is nothing less than a reflection in men’s hearts and minds of the arrogant pride which preceded Lucifer’s being cast down from Heaven.
“Like child molesters and drug addicts, liberals can’t be cured of their addiction. They want to run our lives in every way possible.” “If there is a difference between these liberals and child molesters or drug addicts, it is very hard to find. All three will do ANYTHING to satisfy their lusts.” (http://www.westernjournalism.com/like-child-molesters-and-drug-addicts-liberals-can-never-be-cured-of-their-lusts/. March 1st 2013; by Derrick Hollenbeck.)
Liberalism’s, or Liberal-Socialism’s, moral relativism—as opposed to the belief in absolute truth—is the cornerstone of the Liberal perversions of the concepts of Pluralism, Diversity, Multiculturalism, Inclusion, and Tolerance; which are all deviously united as a counterfeit to the absolute truth incorporated in the Word of God—the Light of the world—in a diabolical rainbow of faulty assertions advanced under an intellectually indefensible banner of “Political Correctness.”
The Religion of “Self”; Liberal ‘Self’ Absorption:
Institutionally certifiable examples of the mental disorder of malignant narcissism rampant among followers of the religion of Liberalism are ubiquitous among those who embrace the religion of “Self.” Frequently observable examples within the propaganda department of the religion of Liberalism’s Democrat Party, the Liberal Press, or “Lap-dog,” or “Lame-stream” media, are pathetically on display regularly.
Sociology vs. Faith:
“Faith is belief in what has not been observed by the senses (see Hebrews 11:1). In order to reason logically, a person must believe in laws of logic. However, laws of logic are immaterial and therefore cannot be observed by the senses. So, belief in laws of logic is a type of faith. Moreover, laws of logic only have rational justification in the Christian faith system.” (answeringgenesis.org. Logical Fallacies: Bifurcation. By Dr. Lisle, AiG-US, on Sept. 7, 2009. Footnote number 3. Emphasis added.)
Sociologists like "...Robin Williams (1970) …” have “…offered lists of basic values…” which include achievement, efficiency, material comfort, nationalism, equality, and the supremacy of science and reason over faith.” (Sociology: A Brief Introduction. 8th Edition. By Richard T. Schaefer. McGraw Hill. Copyright 2009. N.Y., N.Y.) An assertion such as that of the supremacy of science and reason over faith is audacious and unreasonable and lacks scientific evidence—it amounts to no more than wishful thinking. Such a belief makes idols out of science and reason and is foundational to modern sociological perspectives and their underlying philosophical arguments which determine a liberal, socialist, secular humanist worldview. ‘Science’ and ‘Reason’ have become their belief system, their religion.
Sociologists, disillusioned with the supernatural, that is to say, with God, construct, in embracing their faulty philosophical ideologies—their own religion. Theirs is a religion of mysterious insight, referred to by sociologists as verstehen, accessed by their elite 'superhero' leaders through their perversions of 'Science’ and ‘Reason’, devoid of faith in God, and is existentialist in nature and hedonistic in essence. It is nothing more than a modern revival of Gnosticism. One need only ask the question: From where does their supposed enigmatic insight, their verstehen, originate?
“B. Faith is a knowledge conditioned by holy affection.—The faith which apprehends God’s being and working is not opinion or imagination. It is certitude with regard to spiritual realities, upon the testimony of our rational nature and upon the testimony of God. Its only peculiarity as a cognitive act of the reason is that it is conditioned by holy affection. As the science of aesthetics is a product of reason as including a power of recognizing beauty practically inseparable from a love for beauty, and as the science of ethics is a product of reason as including a power of recognizing the morally right practically inseparable from a love for the morally right, so the science of theology is a product of reason, but of reason as including a power of recognizing god which is practically inseparable from a love for God.
We here use the term “reason” to signify the minds whole power of knowing. Reason in this sense includes states of the sensibility, so far as they are indispensable to knowledge. We cannot know an orange by the eye alone; to the understanding of it, taste is as necessary as sight. The mathematics of sound cannot give us an understanding of music; we need also a musical ear. Logic alone cannot demonstrate the beauty of a sunset, or of a noble character; love for the beautiful and the right precedes knowledge of the beautiful and the right. Ullman draws attention to the derivation of sapientia, wisdom, from sapere, to taste. So we cannot know God by intellect alone; the heart must go with the intellect to make knowledge of divine things possible. “Human things,” said Pascal, “need only to be known, in order to be loved; but divine things must first be loved, in order to be known.” “This [religious] faith of the intellect,” said Kant, “is founded on the assumption of moral tempers.” If one were utterly indifferent to moral laws, the philosopher continues, even then religious truths “would be supported by strong arguments from analogy, but not by such as an obstinate, skeptical heart might overcome.”
Faith, then, is the highest knowledge, because it is the act of the integral soul, the insight, not of one eye alone, but of the two eyes of the mind, intellect and love to God.With one eye we can see an object as flat, but, if we wish to see around it and get the stereoptic effect, we must use both eyes. It is not the theologian, but the undevout astronomer, whose science is one-eyed and therefore incomplete. The errors of the rationalist are errors of defective vision. Intellect has been divorced from the heart, that is from a right disposition, right affections, right purpose in life. Intellect says: “I cannot know God”: and intellect is right. What intellect says, the Scriptures also says: 1 Cor. 2: 14-- “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually judged”’ 1 : 21-- “in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom know not God.”
The Scripture on the other hand declares that “by faith we know” (Heb. 11: 3). By “heart” the Scripture means simply the governing disposition, or the sensibility + the will; and it intimates that the heart is an organ of knowledge: Ex. 35: 25-- “the women that were wise hearted”; Ps. 34: 8-- “O taste and see that Jehovah is good” -- a right taste precedes correct sight: jer.24: 7 -- “I will give them a heart to know me”; Mat. 5: 8 -- “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God”; Luke 24: 25 -- “slow of heart to believe”; John 7: 17 -- “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself”; Eph. 1: 18 -- having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may knoweth not God.”
“C. Faith, therefore, can furnish, and only faith can furnish, fit and sufficient material for a scientific theology. --As an operation of man’s higher rational nature, though distinct from ocular vision or from reasoning, faith is not only a kind, but the highest kind, of knowing. It gives us understanding of realities which to the senses alone are inaccessible, namely, God’s existence, and some at least of the realities between God and his creation.
Phillipi, Glaubenslebre, 1: 50, follows Gerhard in making faith the joint act of intellect and will. Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 77, 78, speaks not only of “the aesthetic reason” but of “the moral reason.” Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 91, 109, 145, 191—“Faith is the certitude concerning matter in which verification is unattainable.” Emerson, Essays, 2: 96--”Belief consists in accepting the affirmations of the soul--unbelief in rejecting them.” Morell, Philos. of Religion, 38, 52, 53, quotes Coleridge: “Faith consists in the synthesis of the reasons and of the individual will . . . And by virtue of the former (that is, reason), faith must be a light, a form of knowing, a beholding of truth.”
Faith, then, is not to be pictured as a blind girl clinging to a cross—faith is not blind—” Else the cross may just as well be a crucifix or an image of Gaudama.” “Blind unbelief,” not blind faith,” is sure to err. And scan his works in vain.” As in conscience we recognize an invisible authority, and know the truth just in proportion to our willingness to “do the truth,” so in religion only holiness can understand holiness, and only love can understand love (cf. John 3: 21—“he that doeth the truth cometh to the light.”).
If a right state of heart be indispensable to faith and so to the knowledge of God, can there be any “theologia irregenitorum,” or theology of the unregenerate? Yes, we answer; just as the blind man can have a science of optics. The testimony of others gives it claims upon him; the dim light penetrating the obscuring membrane corroborates this testimony. The unregenerate man can know God as power and justice, and can fear him. But this is not a knowledge of God’s inmost character; it furnishes some material for a defective and ill-proportioned theology; but it does not furnish fit or sufficient material for a correct theology. As, in order to make his science of optics satisfactory and complete, the blind man must have the cataract removed from his eyes by some competent oculist, so, in order to any complete or satisfactory theology; the veil must be taken away from the heart by God himself (cf. 2 Cor. 3: 15,16 -- “a veil lieth upon their heart, but whosoever it [marg. ‘a man’] shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away”).” (Systematic Theology Pp. 3-5. Augustus Strong, D.D., LL D. President and Professor of Biblical Theology In The Rochester Theological Seminary. Judson Press, Valley Forge, PA. Thirty-First Printing. 1976. ISB No. 0-8170-0177-8. Emphasis added.)
The Religion of Liberalism Is a Neo-gnostic Construct:
Like Satan deceptively suggested in the Garden of Eden, Liberal-socialist Neo-gnosticism, the doctrines and tenets of which are laid out in the highly subjective pseudo-science of Sociology, worship their god—Mankind; or so they think: Behind the idol is always a demonic entity; a malevolent spirit. Though they believe they worship Mankind, in fact they worship the spirit of the Antichrist.
Their god is Humanity, so, most appropriately, their religion is rightly identified as "Humanism," but they don't like to permit their terms and concepts to be nailed down specifically; so like the undefinable shape of a shadow they continually redefine, re-label, re-brand the concepts within their religious belief system that support their self-serving agenda—an agenda which, if they can get the rest of Humanity to believe, eventually leads to their being put in positions of political authority from where they can “properly” continue to direct the collective “community” that they are gnostically gifted with ‘great new insight’ from some enigmatic Higher Power (often referred to at meetings of Alcoholics) needed by the “community” in order to be led “Forward” unto the next ‘Sitz im Leben’ in the never-ending “evolutionary” development of the “community” towards the glorification of Humankind. (…and all the Liberals worshiping their god said, ‘Amen!’)
The One and Only "Concept" within the belief system of a person with a Christian Worldview, that is to say within true biblical Christianity, is Jesus Christ having come in the flesh, the eternal Creator, and He allowed Himself to be nailed down firmly, both physically on the Cross when He was crucified for my sin, and metaphorically in his unambiguous teaching and profession of Truth.
Jesus of the Bible explicitly conveyed the message as to just Who He is in Word and deed (evidenced by miracles) that there be no morally relativistic re-defining, re-branding, or re-labeling of precisely Who He is—He is Truth, absolute Truth—He came in the flesh, was crucified for our sin, and on the third day rose again in fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy. Jesus is the Lord God, Creator of all that is and He shall return. Hallelujah! All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Reject the Creator and you reject the endowment by God of unalienable rights. The Liberal Legislative Leaders are only to happy to pick up the slack and tell you that they extend to you those rights, but BEWARE! Rights extended to you by any man can be retracted from you by the same person.
Satan’s assertion in the Garden of Eden that Man might “be as God” has continued to be disseminated as a reality in Neo-gnostic philosophy/religious doctrine.
On Gnosticism: Please watch the YouTube video by Chuck Missler. Koinonia House. Jan. 22, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQSqOSfw280.
"Let Us Now Try Liberty"
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralization!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty: for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works."(The Law. Pg. 76.)
Neo-Gnostic Syncretism:
Enigmatic Gnostic insight equates to Sociology’s verstehen and the asserted superior "Master Thinker" quality of the Liberal-socialist concept of a superhuman. The deification of ‘Science’ and ‘Reason’ by modern sociologists is nothing less than idolatry.
There is a Liberal apostasy taking place in America today which has blinded many nominal Christians into accommodating the godless religion of Neo-gnostic, "Progressive," Liberal-socialists.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s agenda, for example, of justifying a “…new insight…” (The Book of Confessions. Pg. xxxv) or “…a new and fresh word from the Lord.” (The Book of Confessions. Pg. xix) to embrace the sin of homosexuality and call it unity resembles the effort of early Gnostic cults which called themselves ‘Christian’ but used their demonically inspired aberrant theology to justify licentious behavior. “Since they believed that salvation depended solely upon the knowledge of one’s ‘spiritual’ nature, some Gnostics indulged in extremely licentious behavior.” (Eerdmans’ Handbook To The History Of Christianity; by John Briggs, Dr. Robert D. Linder, and David Wright. © 1977, Lion Publishing, Berkhamsted, Herts, England. Pg.98.)
“The Gnostics were followers of a variety of religious movements in the early Christian centuries which stressed that people could be saved through a secret knowledge (γνώσίς in the Greek.)” (Eerdmans’ Handbook To The History Of Christianity; by John Briggs, Dr. Robert D. Linder, and David Wright. © 1977, Lion Publishing, Berkhamsted, Herts, England. Pg.98.) The ‘secret knowledge’ of the Gnostics equates to the “…great new insight…” (The Book of Confessions. Pg.xiii) and the “…new and fresh word from the Lord.” (The Book of Confessions. Pg.xix) postulated as existent in The Book Of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. as well as Sociology's purported verstehen.
Liberals have rejected the authority of the Word of God in favor of their own contemporaneous interpretation based upon the presumption that their "Master Thinker" "superheroes" are supernaturally gifted with some enigmatic 'great new insight' that masses of ‘mere’ mortals do not possess.
Gnosticism Past:
“From about the beginning of the first century B.C., rationalism enters upon a long decline in the Greek world. There is evidence of a spreading disillusionment with philosophy as an avenue to apprehension of the truth, combined with a growing demand for authority, for a revelation. Along with this comes a new concern for the soul, and the truth that is sought is the truth that will enable the soul to attain its high destiny. Since the time of Plato and even earlier, many Greeks had come to think of the soul as something distinct from the body, belonging to a higher order of existence, endowed with powers of reason and insight which are impaired and held in check by the association with the body. In the later Hellenistic times, there is a growing conviction that the soul is a divine essence which has somehow fallen into an evil condition; as this belief becomes widely dominant, it has profound effects on philosophy and religion, determining the objectives of both. The interest in ethics, which had been the chief concern of Zeno and Epicurus and indeed of all the schools, is subordinated to the quest for the salvation of the soul, and this salvation is conceived in terms of the freeing of the soul from the bondage of the body and its ascent to the realm of pure divine being, its true home.” (The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary. Vol. E-J; Pg. 498-499.)
“The Gnostic systems which constituted a great danger to Christianity throughout the second century belong within this general climate of religious thought; in another sense, the same might be said of Catholic Christianity as well, though the differences are radical. The Christian (heretical) Gnostics turned Christ into a mythological figure, making him one of the emanations which they conceived as mediators between the supreme God, essentially incapable of contact with the material universe, and the human soul, essentially one with the divine, but imprisoned in a material body as the consequence of some accident within the divine pleroma.” (The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary. Vol. E-J; Pg. 499.)
“All the theosophies of these manifold schools may be called “gnostic” in the sense that they teach that knowledge (γνώσίς)—i.e. knowledge of the revealed doctrine of God, World, and Soul—is itself salvation. The materials employed in the construction are drawn from many quarters; they exhibit again the syncretism which characterizes all the religious thought and activity of the period. Oriental elements from various sources—Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Babylonian—are inextricably mingled with the Greek substratum of religious thought, which is itself compounded of Platonic idealism, shamanistic notions of the soul, and some tenets of the Stoic philosophy. Astrology usually enters largely into the mixture. The redemption of the soul is pictured in terms of an ascent through the spheres, guarded as they are by the mighty divinities enthroned in—rather, embodied in—the planets. In a number of the systems—most of them hardly deserve such a name—the planet-divinities are hostile powers who seek to resist the ascent of the soul; the true deity is high above them all, wholly transcendental, invisible, unknowable except insofar as he chooses to make himself known. It is sometimes taught that the soul cannot escape from this material world except through the intervention of a redeemer who descends through the spheres and returns victorious over the planets who control them—“the world Rulers of this present darkness” (Eph. 6:12).” (The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary. Vol. E-J; Pg. 499.)
“The later New Testament literature, and at least one of the Apostolic Fathers, strongly combat conceptions of Christ which it is evident must have been widely prevalent, especially in Asia Minor, in the opening years of the second century. These views denied His real humanity and His actual death. He had not come “in the flesh,” but in ghost-like, Docetic appearance. These opinions have sometimes been regarded as the beginnings of Gnosticism. It is true that this Docetic conception of Christ was a feature of much Gnostic teaching. It is more probable, however, that these early teachings were more largely based on an attempt to explain a seeming contradiction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, than on purely Gnostic speculations. That earthly life of humiliation was so contrasted with His pre-existent and post-existent glory, that the simplest solution of the Christological problem may well have seemed to some the denial of the reality of His earthly life altogether. Christ did, indeed, appear. He taught His disciples; but all the time as a heavenly being, not one of flesh and blood.
Gnosticism, properly speaking, was something much more far-reaching. The height of its influence was from about 135 to 160, though it continued a force long after the latter date. It threatened to overwhelm the historic Christian faith, and by so doing brought upon the Christian Church its gravest crisis since the Pauline battle for freedom from law. Its spread and consequent peril were made possible by the relatively weakly organized, and doctrinally undefined state of the church at its beginning. The church overcame the danger; and in so doing developed a closely knit organization and a clearly defined creed, which contrasted with the more spontaneous and charismatic nature of primitive Christianity.
Gnosticism professed to be based on “knowledge” (γνώσίς), but not as that word is now commonly understood. Its knowledge was always a mystical, supernatural wisdom, by which the initiates were brought to a true understanding of the universe, and were saved from this evil world of matter. It had a fundamental doctrine of salvation. In these respects it was akin to the mystery religions. Its most prominent characteristic, however, was its syncretism. It took unto itself many elements from many sources, and assumed many forms. It is, therefore, impossible to speak of a single type of Gnosticism. It was a prevailingly mystical, magical, or philosophical according to the dominant admixture in its syncretism. Gnosticism was pre-Christian in its origin, and was in existence before Christianity came into the world. There were Jewish and heathen types. It is represented in the Hermetic literature of Egypt. It had astral elements which may be traced back to Babylonian religious conceptions, a dualistic view of the universe, Persian in origin, and a doctrine of emanations from God in the “pleroma” or realm of spirit, which was probably Egyptian. Perhaps its most fundamental conception, the wholly evil character of the phenomenal world, was due to a combination of the Platonic theory of the contrast between the real spiritual sphere of “ideas,” and this visible world of phenomena, interpreted in terms of Persian dualism -- the one good and that to which man strives to return, the other wholly bad and the place of his imprisonment. The world of matter is evil. Its creator and ruler is not, therefore, the high, good God, but an inferior and imperfect being, the demiurge. Man, to be saved, must be freed from this bondage to the visible world, and its rulers, the planetary spirits,; and the means of his freedom is “knowledge” (γνώσίς), a mystical, spiritual enlightenment for the initiated which brings him into communion with the true realm of spiritual realities.
“Strongly syncretistic already, Gnosticism found much in Christianity which it could use. In particular, the figure of Christ was especially adapted to give a definite and concrete center to its theory of a higher saving knowledge. He was the revealer of the hitherto unknown high and all-perfect god to men. By that illumination all “spiritual” men, who were capable of receiving it, would be led back to the realm of the good God. Since the material world is evil, Christ could not have had a real incarnation, and the Gnostics explained His appearance either as Docetic and ghostly, or as a temporary indwelling of the man Jesus, or as an apparent birth from a virgin mother without partaking of material nature. The God of the Old Testament, as the creator of this visible world, cannot be the high God whom Christ revealed, but the inferior demiurge. That all Christians did not posses the saving “knowledge,” the Gnostics explained by holding it to be a secret teaching imparted by the Apostles to their more intimate disciples, a speaking “wisdom among the perfect” It is true that while Paul was in no sense a Gnostic, there were many things in Paul’s teachings of which Gnostics availed themselves. His sharp contrast between flesh and spirit; his conception of Christ as victor over those “principalities and powers” which are the “world rulers of this darkness,” and his thought of Christ as the Man from Heaven, were all ideas which the Gnostics could employ. Paul was always to them the chief Apostle.” (A History of the Christian Church. By Williston Walker. Third Edition. Charles Scribner and Sons. N.Y., N.Y. Copyright 1970. Pp. 52-53.)
“The Gnostic systems which constituted a great danger to Christianity throughout the second century belong within this general climate of religious thought; in another sense, the same might be said of Catholic Christianity as well, though the differences are radical. The Christian (heretical) Gnostics turned Christ into a mythological figure, making him one of the emanations which they conceived as mediators between the supreme God, essentially incapable of contact with the material universe, and the human soul, essentially one with the divine, but imprisoned in a material body as the consequence of some accident within the divine pleroma.” (The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary. Vol. E-J; Pg. 499.)
“Gnosticism was divided into many sects and presented a great variety of forms. In all of them the high, good God is the head of the spiritual world of light, often called the “pleroma.” From that world fragments have become imprisoned in this visible world of darkness and evil. In later Gnosticism this fallen element from the pleroma is represented as the lowest of a series of aeons, or spiritual beings, emanating from the high God. To rescue this fallen portion, the seeds of light in the visible world, Christ came, bringing the true “knowledge.” By His teaching those capable of receiving it are restored to the pleroma. They are at best few. Most Gnostics divided mankind into “spiritual,” capable of salvation, and “material” who could not receive the message. Later Gnosticism, especially the school of Valentinus, taught a threefold division, “spiritual,” who alone could attain “knowledge”; “psychical,” capable of faith, and of a certain degree of salvation; and “material,” who were hopeless.” (A History of the Christian Church. By Williston Walker. Third Edition. Charles Scribner and Sons. N.Y., N.Y. Copyright 1970. Pg. 53.)
“Christian tradition represented the founder of Christian Gnosticism to be Simon Magnus, but of his real relations to it little is known. More clearly defined leaders are Satornilus of Antioch, who labored before 150; Basilides, who taught in Alexandria about 130; and, above all, Valentinus, who was active in Rome from about 135 to 165, and who must be regarded as one of the most gifted thinkers of the age.” (A History of the Christian Church. By Williston Walker. Third Edition. Charles Scribner and Sons. N.Y., N.Y. Copyright 1970. Pg. 53.)
“While Basilides (130) and Valentines (150), the Gnostics, both quote from the fourth gospel, they do not dispute its genuineness or suggest that it was of recent origin.” (Systematic Theology. Augustus Strong. Pg. 160.)
“Gnosticism was an immense peril for the church. It cut out the historic foundations of Christianity. Its God is not the God of the Old Testament, which is the work of an inferior or even evil being. Its Christ had no real incarnation, death, or resurrection. Its salvation is for the few capable of spiritual enlightenment. The peril was the greater because Gnosticism was represented by some of the keenest minds in the church of the second century.” (A History of the Christian Church. Third Edition. By Williston Walker. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York. Copyright 1970. Pp. 51-53.)
"Progressive," Liberal-Socialist, “Superhuman” “Master Thinkers:
In the article ‘Developing as Rational Persons: Viewing Our Development in Stages’ (1996. By Elder, L. with Paul, R. www.criticalthinking.org, the authors describe ‘The Inner Logic of their purportedly intellectually superior “Master Thinker” as an inner logic wherein, “Having formed their identities in terms of reasonability, not in terms of any particular belief or belief system, they are able to shift beliefs without trauma or self-doubt.” This statement epitomizes the syncretistic nature of the current sociological philosophical ideology which is the philosophical foundation of a liberal-socialist worldview and its refutation of absolute truth in favor of the sliding-scale continuum of moral relativism. They postulate that a person who is able to ‘shift beliefs’ is superior to one firmly established in their faith in Christ Jesus!
In the sub-heading within the article “We Reach the Fifth Stage When We Have Established Good Habits of Thought Across the Domains of Our Lives” is listed the stage the article’s authors call “The Advanced Thinker Stage.” The authors proceed to equate the adoption of their suggestions for rational thinking and the embracing of their philosophical ideology underlying the development they assert is necessary in a person’s thinking—that is to say the re-aligning of one’s own values with their more manipulative and relative morality—with achieving a state of “…rational living….” suggesting that those who embrace this system of theology shall then find “…that it is no longer a strain to aspire to reasonability.” thereby implying that an individual’s systematic approach to thinking prior to embracing the author’s suggestions for developing one’s cognitive processes was necessarily unreasonable! A preposterous and presumptuous non-sequitor!
In the same manner of disingenuously setting up a straw man assertion as fact, the authors maintain that in achieving stage five, the “Advanced Thinker” stage, one “…no longer…” finds “…it difficult to admit when…” they “…are wrong….” presupposing that a proselyte of his assertions, before having embraced them as truth, found it difficult to admit when he was wrong!
The authors propose that at stage five “We now have deep insight…” , (i.e. γνώσίς) or as sociologists would identify it, verstehen), “…into the fact that our development…”, (that is to say increasing adoption of a pluralistic philosophical ideology as a new value system based on a neo-gnostic enigmatic insight also known by sociologists terminology of verstehen), “…is directly dependent on the extent to which we are successful at decreasing the role of egocentric thinking in our daily lives.” The assertion that people necessarily think egocentrically before adopting the proposed ideology is preposterous and antithetical to the reality that those in Christ Jesus think 'Christo-centrically,' that is to say we pray that we ourselves diminish and Christ Jesus increase in every aspect of our being.
The authors maintain that “At the advanced stage,…“ one is “…now skilled at monitoring the role in thinking in concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, questions purposes, and information.” This statement pre-supposes that said adherents to the author's beliefs concerning the rational development of thinking are morally qualified to monitor their own roles in thinking concepts, assumptions, inferences, et cetera, etc..., but without a Moral Lawgiver the proponents of this nonsensical "Master Thinker" argument would extend to each and every would-be 'Master Thinker' the authority to determine just what is or is not moral.
Interesting that in introducing stage six, the “Master Thinker” stage, the authors describe the current era as “this age of irrationality.” In all recorded human history no other era can be held-up as any more or less rational than the present. The author proceeds to describe the “Master Thinker” stage as a useful concept “…, for it sets out what we are striving for…” presupposing that the reader has thus far bought into the erroneous ideology and faulty arguments in support of the liberal worldview underlying their proposed stages of development.
The authors lengthily describe their construct of a “Master Thinker”: “Master thinkers have not only a high degree of knowledge of thinking, but a high degree of practical insight as well.” “Master thinkers have deep insights into the systematic internalization of critical thinking into their habits.” “Their knowledge of the qualities of their thinking is outstanding.”
The authors elaborate on the list of qualities of their purported ‘Master Thinker’ in a numbered list with headings which read: “… 1) conscious of the ‘workings’ of their minds; 2) highly integrated; 3) powerful; 4) logical; 5) far-sighted; 6) deep; 7) self-correcting; and 8) emancipated.”, but their insupportable assertions listed, when reflected upon and subjected to critical analysis, are ridiculous fabrications of their imagination at best.
The authors presume that their construct of idealized “Master Thinkers” would “…achieve a high level of success in bringing their thoughts, emotions, and actions in line with their espoused ideals, …” and that it would follow that, because of said congruency, “…they would function with a high level of fulfillment and sense of well being. One might argue that, were the ideals espoused by said 'Master Thinkers' or 'superheroes' to be erroneous then the congruency to said error would too manifest itself in the thought, emotions, and actions of the thinkers and prove them not masters at all for it is written “He who sins is a slave to sin.” That being the case it is unlikely that erroneous ideals embraced which enslave would not result in an ’…high level of fulfillment and sense of wellbeing.” for “…the wages of sin is death.” (i.e. separation from God.)
What of their individually ‘espoused ideals’ anyways? The proposed stages of development explicitly aim to impart a belief system in which adherents are free to ‘shift’ to whatever newly constructed ideals they themselves might choose to espouse at any given moment in time.
This concept of “Master Thinker” too is not new. Frederic Bastiat recognized the concept and labeled it the 'Superhuman Idea.'
The Neo-Gnostic, "Progressive," Liberal-socialist Democrat’s rejection and condemnation of 'faith in God and His works’ and replacement of God, from Whom ‘We the People’ receive our inalienable rights, with their ludicrous Big Bang Theory of creation, (Just where did the supposed material that went ‘Bang!’ come from?), and insupportable Theory of Evolution threaten American liberty for ‘liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.’
Efforts persist by Neo-gnostic, Liberal-socialist Democrats, that is to say Socialists, to delete the word ‘Creator’ from our Constitution.
Had the reader not noticed the criminal usurper of the presidency Mr. Obama's multitudinous deletions of the word 'Creator' from his quotes from the Constitution?
God warned us of the ‘empty deceit’ of the cult of Liberalism in His Word where it is written, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8.)
The religion of Liberalism’s Frankenstein-like monstrosity—it’s enigmatic “community” which nobody dares define for to define it would be to acknowledge the inaccuracy of its claims of inclusiveness and supposed toleration of any and all other worldviews, and in fact demonstrate that it is anything but “inclusive,” but in reality is nothing less than a demonically inspired, morally relativistic composition of a multitude of ideologies that is a collective counterfeit—a satanic counterfeit—to the Body of Christ and true, biblically sound Christian unity.
‘How could this have occurred?’ One might ask—because one does not have the protection of the Holy Spirit from being deceived by the Deceiver if one has not been spiritually born from above. The un-regenerate are open to deception by the Evil One, and the vast majority of so-called “Christian” churches in America do not preach the unadulterated Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in whom Believers receive the Holy Pneuma , the Comforter, when they are spiritually born from above and become Children of God. Everyone is within God’s creation; only those who have been spiritually re-born are God’s Children.
The vast majority of once Christian Republicans and a great many once doctrinally sound Christian denominations that are now apostate have been slowly compromised by Hegelian synthesis—the original modus operandi of Satan in the Garden of Eden—into accommodating the religion of Liberalism’s myriad perverted ideological concepts that are nothing less than religious doctrines and tenets under the profane banner of “political correctness.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes Hegel’s philosophy:
‘Hegel presupposes that the whole of human history is a process through which mankind has been making spiritual and moral progress, it is what human mind has done in the course of its advance to self-knowledge…" The spirit of this age is the spirit of the anti-Christ, it is nothing less than revived Gnosticism. Adherents to the Liberal-socialist religion of Liberalism call it the 'Zeitgeist.' Like other terms that they aim to obscure the actual meaning of, the Liberals use a nebulous German term most appropriately for all Socialism is, at the end of the day, National Socialism.
The morally erosive compromising that occurs when a party standing on biblically sound principles—as the Republican Party may once be said to have stood—engages in dialogue with a party holding an alternative worldview, a worldview based upon anything else but the unadulterated, absolute Truth written in the Word of God, and allows for the application of the Hegelian Dialectic to influence the direction in which the dialogue proceeds is counterproductive—even destructive.
The Christian mandate is not to synthesize the Truth with a lie in debate with those who worship at the altar of the religion of Liberalism’s secular-humanist, so-called “progressive,” Socialist, so-called “Democratic,” so-called “modern,” so-called “enlightened,” ‘Self,’ but to refute the lies of the faulty worldviews constructed upon indefensible, unbiblical ideologies with the power and authority of the Word of God.
What’s in a Word?
“A great many of the world’s conflicting ideologies, philosophies and religions are rooted in rebellion against reality—against God and his laws. How do they manage that? By the use of clever language, concepts and supposition, all tangled together to impress others, make them doubt themselves and feel intimidated by the supposedly superior knowledge and understanding of the “authority.” Being in the grip of a deceitful ideology is to exist in an alternate reality—almost like an altered state of mind, such as drugs can induce.
Today’s most obvious and troubling case in point: Americans elevated to the presidency Barack Hussein Obama, a far-left radical who is manifestly hostile toward free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism—in fact, to just about everything American—but who campaigned using powerfully evocative words of national restoration and reconciliation. “Hope,” change,” “fairness,” “justice,” “reform,” and “transparency” would usher in a bright new era of “healing” and “unifying” America and the world through this charismatic young leader’s “post-racial,” “post-partisan” presidency.” What we got instead was a jarringly narcissistic, supremely demagogic and corrupt Chicago politician, lacking both in experience and wisdom, and displaying breathtaking contempt for America’s Constitution and its best-in-the-world system of government.” (Whistleblower Magazine; Vol. 21, No. 5. May 2012. ‘Magic Words—The Left’s Secret Weapon for Transforming Traditional America.’ By David Kupelian. Pg. 7.)
“…truth be told, the political and cultural left has hijacked virtually our entire language in the last couple of generations. It has redefined many key words, phrases and concepts. Indeed, changing not only the words we use, but the way we think, has been central to the transformation of America in our lifetime.
Political Correctness for Idiots
Today, a major engine for the left’s insatiable quest for power goes under the strange name of “political correctness”—an insidious frontal attack on common sense and conscience through language manipulation.
Even the phrase “political correctness” sounds demented. Politics, like all areas of opinion and preference that emanate from our core worldview, is a matter of free choice and personal autonomy in America; nobody can tell you the “correct” opinions to have! And yet, that’s precisely what “political correctness” attempts to do.” (Whistleblower Magazine; Vol. 21, No. 5. May 2012. ‘Magic Words—The Left’s Secret Weapon for Transforming Traditional America.’ By David Kupelian. Pg. 8.)
“…bad or ignoble qualities of human beings…” have become “…disguised and excused with euphamisms: “Illegal aliens” became “illegal immigrants,” and then “undocumented immigrants,” and presto-chango, something bad was magically transformed into something good. Homosexuals became “gay,” abortion advocates became “pro-choice” and atheists became “brights,” each euphemism converting a negative association into a positive one. Today, increasing numbers of people refer to pedophilia as “intergenerational sex” and child molesters as “minor-attracted persons” or MAPs. (In Islam, the popular euphemism for pedophilia is “child marriage,” just as adultery is called “temporary marriage.” Really.)
Of course, Islam has become a major beneficiary of political correctness, reminiscent of what George Orwell called “Newspeak” in his novel “1984.” After 19 Muslim terrorists, acting in the name of Islam, murdered almost 3,000 Americans in a wanton act of war on Sept. 11, 2001, the government and media, to avoid offending Muslims, declared Islam to be a “religion of peace.” The Islamic jihad declared on America was mysteriously referred to by our leaders as a “war on terror” involving an unnamed enemy. But even that awkward, near-meaningless expression was deemed to insensitive toward Islam, so under Obama the euphemizing turned surreal when “war on terror” morphed into “overseas contingency operations.” Likewise, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came up with a friendly new phrase for mass-murder terror attacks. Announcing that she was deliberately avoiding the term “terrorism” in speeches because “we want to move away from the politics of fear,” she adopted the term “man-caused disasters.”
So, employing the government’s official terminology: After experiencing “man-made disasters,” the U.S. has responded with “overseas contingency operations.”
Any Questions?” (Whistleblower Magazine; Vol. 21, No. 5. May 2012. ‘Magic Words—The Left’s Secret Weapon for Transforming Traditional America.’ By David Kupelian. Pg. 8.)
“Not to have a correct political point of view is like having no soul.”
Wow, really? No soul? Isn’t that a little extreme?
Yes, but then, those are the words of Mao Zedong, the Chinese communist leader with the extreme distinction of having caused more deaths than any person in human history—50 to 70 million, more than Stalin and Hitler combined.
Mao was a rabid believer in “political correctness.” In fact, he wrote the book.
Mao’s 1967 book—officially titled “Mao Zedong on People’s War” (though better known as Mao’s “Little Red Book”)—became the ultimate authority for political correctness during the 1960’s. Carried around by millions of Chinese during the ‘Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” of 1968, the small, red-plastic-bound book consisted of quotes from Mao’s various writings,….” (Whistleblower Magazine; Vol. 21, No. 5. May 2012. ‘Magic Words—The Left’s Secret Weapon for Transforming Traditional America.’ By David Kupelian. Pg. 16.)
“Totalitarianism, American-style"
Author William Lind’s perceptive explanation of political correctness is both chilling and enlightening. He writes in “The origins of political correctness”:
The totalitarian nature of political correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminists or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges—some star-chamber proceeding—and punishment. That is a little look into the future that political correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true—such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.” (Whistleblower Magazine; Vol. 21, No. 5. May 2012. ‘Magic Words—The Left’s Secret Weapon for Transforming Traditional America.’ By David Kupelian. Pg. 15-16.)
Delusional Denial of the Creator:
Recognition by Americans of the 'rule of the Creator,' the Lord Jesus of the Bible, the Christ, is an imperative if we are to have hope that God would bless America as 'We the People' sometimes prayerfully sing.
If Americans do not recognize as Creator the Lord Jesus of the Bible, (not to be confused with the myriad other Jesus's within innumerable cults today), and as Source of the unalienable rights with which all men are endowed—a recognition so plainly seen by the Founders of this nation that they found it to be a self-evident truth—then it is only a natural political progression for them to attribute those unalienable rights to another source, even 'another Jesus'—to identify those rights as originating somewhere other than from an immutable, eternal, omniscient, Holy God, Creator of all that is.
'Big government' "progressive,” Liberal-socialists will, quite naturally, gravitate towards an ideology which determines Man’s unalienable rights as originating from..., you guessed it, ...the state.
More insidious, in so far as it is less obvious, is the natural gravitation of the so-called 'conservative,' so-called 'Christian’ right who, a majority of the time, assume an accommodating, unbiblical ideological position which corresponds to recognition of the Liberal's substitutionary, entirely fabricated concept of a source from whence all men's rights emanate. A great many within the so-called ‘Conservative Christian Right’ also embrace the Liberal's creatively constructed, imaginary alternative from where the unalienable rights with which all men are endowed by their Creator may falsely be asserted to have originated.
This advances of the Liberal-socialist left into the camp of the Christian conservative right has been achieved through the employment of the Hegelian dialectic, a modern application of Satan’s original dualistic lie: ‘…has God indeed said?’ and ‘…you can be as gods.’
Just as our greatest grandmother synthesized an untruth into what God had actually said in her response to the Serpent, the Hegelian dialectic requires a synthesis of a lie with the truth…, the antithesis mixed with a truthful thesis arriving at a synthesis. This is the strategy that has been so successful for the Liberal-socialist “Progressive” Democrat Left in incrementally moving the so-called “Christian” Conservative Republican Right off of a solid foundation upon the moral high ground of biblical standards of righteousness on any and all social issues.
The so-called Conservative Christian Right has been incrementally moved further and further away from the Truth in God’s Word unto the unsure footing—the shifting sands of today’s Republican platform—without reliance upon God.
Americans used to trust in God. The one-time Christian conservative Republican Right has been deceived just as Eve was in the Garden when she augmented the truth with a lie in her response to the Serpent. Instead of repenting and turning back to God, the desperate Republican Party today is now reaching out to agnostic Libertarians and further compromising its stance on social issues in order to appease what they view as a voting block that needs to be courted. (‘Agnostic’ is transliterated directly from the Greek into English. The word ‘Agnostic’ translated into Latin is ‘IGNORAMUS;’ something worth mentioning when debating an agnostic.)
In doing so, so-called Christian conservatives within the Republican party facilitate the deterioration of the recognition of the unalienable quality of the rights men have been endowed with by their Creator proportionally to the degree to which they concur with the Liberal-socialist Left in denying the Creator, reducing those unalienable rights to a level of retractability as demonstrated by, for example, the passing of the NDAA by members of BOTH parties.
If the 'creative community' concept of the religion of Liberalism—mirrored in the faulty Radical historical Critical schools of literary textual higher criticism’s concoction of its so-called “creative community”—(so you see the concept is nothing new)—determines the rights that men are endowed with to be one thing at one moment in time but another at some later period in time, then no man is justified, according to Liberal-socialist rationale, to question the moral parameters which Liberal-socialist community organizer “Superhuman,” gnostically gifted with an higher “Verstehen,” “Master Thinker,” “Legislative Leaders” do at any given moment in time determine to be acceptable along their sliding scale of moral relativity. To do so would be intolerant!
Does the immense hypocrisy and insanity of the proponents of Liberalism’s solipsistic 'reasoning' yet stand out for the reader to see?
Liberalism is delusional; it is a mental disorder and a manifestation of spiritual illness and psychological illness.
Instead of returning to the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon which this Christian nation, exceptional in all of human history, was founded and has been so richly blessed by God, amazingly, for lack of any sound argument to defend said Liberal-socialist, “Progressive” alternate source to the actual Creator, the risen Lord Jesus Christ who came in the flesh to atone for Man’s sin, which the so-called Christian Conservative Right has now largely embraced, the nominal “Christian” Conservative Right turns away from the Bible to the same delusionally invented, non-existent constructs of the Liberal left's concepts of Political Correctness, Tolerance, Pluralism, Inclusion, Multiculturalism, Unity, Diversity, etc…, etc..., as the moral foundation upon which to attempt to justify their Neo-conservative political posture and qualify, according to whatever contemporaneous position upon the continuum of morally relativistic postures they should at any time be dictated to by the Left—justified in their own mind as being called for by the contemporaneous Sitz em Leben and Zeitgeist—as having been determined that the rest of society should accept as the accepted truth.
Denial of the Creator allows for the tentative extension of certain anything-but-unalienable rights unto all men—some men, the elite Liberal “Master Thinkers,” more than others actually.
Resorting to the morally relative, currently popular Liberal perversions of the concepts of Political Correctness, Tolerance, Pluralism, Inclusion, Diversity, Multiculturalism, Unity, etc..., upon which to base one's ideological principles and a societies ever changing, “Living and Breathing” laws establishes those principles, embraced as RELIGIOUS beliefs, upon shifting sands of moral relativism and too relegates the pronouncement of just what contemporaneously popular version of said Liberal concepts shall be acceptable at any given moment in time in the future to whomsoever within the Liberal construct of a "community," within their sociologically purported ‘Sitz im Leben, that is to say’ happens to be in leadership position—the 'superhero' du jour so to speak—to re-define as said enigmatically gifted, “bright” ‘supermen’ see fit to re-define within their accommodatingly self-described ‘Sitz im Leben,’ whatever they wish to define as the prevailing "Zeitgeist," or spirit of the age.
This permits adherents to the religion of Liberalism to re-define standards of morality according to the lusts of their hearts.
Liberalism’s so-called ‘Zeitgeist,’ their “spirit of the age” is the spirit of the anti-christ. The “Change” that the religion of Liberalism advocates is always on a continuum of whatsoever within their morally relative worldview their self-proclaimed “Master Thinkers” prefer at any given moment in time that it should be. At its root the “Change” advocated by Liberals is always hedonistic and licentious; ‘Self’ serving and sinful in nature.
The liberal's "superhuman," community organizer, “Legislator Leaders” must at each and every step ‘Forward’ in time within the "Progressive" Liberal-socialist "Democratic" plan for America to “Fundamentally Change” according to their delusional, irrational, synthesizing Hegelian "logic" be extended the authority to dictate precisely what is or is not politically correct; is or is not to be tolerated; is or is not sufficiently pluralistic; is or is not adequately inclusive; is or is not acceptably multicultural; is or is not appropriately unified or diverse. Nota bene the word "dictate" in the last sentence and its relationship to the word ‘dictator.’
Everything to the Liberal is relative including morality to time and place, yet they cannot answer rationally from whence their relative morality originates. They have very convenient situational ethics that they themselves—self-proclaimed elite, enigmatically gifted with great new insight “Master Thinkers,” gods unto themselves—can modify according to their will and justify in their own hearts and minds by whatsoever situational crisis they choose to use to justify their morality du jour.
We must not permit them to apply this same faulty logic, irrational and delusional pseudo-intellectual argument, this ‘Living and Breathing Document’ nonsense to the literary criticism and interpretation of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment