Fading Evil

Images from Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described

Quote continues:

Let the Darwinians stop complaining about “religious” crimes like The Inquisition or witch burnings falsely done in the name of Christianity, which only affected a comparative few, and at least offered some semblance of due process to protect the accused. Those crimes were contrary to the clear teachings of Jesus (John 17) and the apostles (I Corinthians 13, I John 4). Other Christians condemned these atrocities and tried to stop them. Let the Darwinians face up to the 164 MILLION casualties of scientific materialism in the 20th century alone, the bloodiest era in human history, sometimes called “Darwin’s Century.”

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Jesus said,

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.  (Matthew 7:15-20)

Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described by October 9, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Good man, Jesus. He has a working set of eyes in His head.

Unlike our current Ruling Class.

Some of today’s Darwinians are just as genocidal in their thinking as Mao. Today, they justify it as humans being a kind of plague on the planet. Again, they treat their fellow man not as individuals with rights but as faceless digits, what earlier eugenicists called “useless eaters.” Do not EVER give these kinds of misanthropes political power! J. Beverly Greene shows their thinking in these graphics of Bill Maher and Eric Pianka, an evolutionary zoologist at the University of Texas who advocates killing 90% of the people on the planet with ebola viruses sprayed from airplanes. He would make Mao’s genocide look like a picnic. Were the communist atrocities not enough for these Darwinians?

Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described by October 9, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

There will never be enough innocent blood shed to satisfy these people.

Fortunately, the world belongs to God, not Satan, so these jokers are being pushed out by several forces, from aborting their own future, to the natural powerlessness that results from being disconnected from reality.

But do note: it isn’t the Church that is crippling them – or at least, not the formal religious establishment. And it isn’t the liberals: they are very tolerant of racists, child molesters, and murderers – including oppressive mass genociders – so long as they vote Democratic.

It’s reality, as shaped by God, that has gelded these monsters.

Like many evils, they had their moment in the sun, when they were new and dangerous and creative… and now, they are old and grey and moribund, locked in their own shrinking bubble, and completely unaware that time has passed them by.

God’s People have their youth renewed like an eagles: and one clear reason is the willingness to welcome new life, new people, new children. It is this love, this humility before God and His Will, His command to multiply and grow and obey His Son (even at a serious cost) that is our lifeline.

Never let go of it.

Advertisements

Greater and Lesser Truths

.P. Moreland is one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He’s also a colleague and friend of mine at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has spent his career writing largely in the philosophy of mind and the intersection of science and faith.

MCDOWELL: You make the bold claim that there are some truths in theology and philosophy that we know better than scientific claims. Can you give me an example, and how would you defend such a claim?

MORELAND: The truths of logic, mathematics, introspective knowledge of one’s own conscious states, moral truths (e.g., It’s wrong to torture little babies for the fun of it!), the nature of truth, the nature of knowledge itself, and so on. Regarding logic and math, science presupposes these; technically speaking, they themselves are not discoverable by science.

Sean McDowell, “Responding to Scientism and Secularism: Interview with J.P. Moreland” at his blog

I hold the defense of the innocent, the need to protect their lives, as a more unchallangable truth than 1 + 1 = 2.

Few or no Western scientists or intellectuals agree with me: they have little interest in the category “innocent” (or “justice” or “holy” or “truth”).

Only power and control and safety and pleasure and malice towards God and His people motivate them.

That’s why they are dead.

Despite their money and prestige and political support from all the Right Sort of People, they have no future, whatsoever.


Get the big things right —

“protect innocent lives”

— and all the rest of the creation —

“1 + 1 = 2”, and all the wealth, power and honour
clear logic and solid math unlocks

— will be given unto you.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Jesus Christ, Matthew 6:33

Protecting Sacred Spaces in Secular Societies

The name of America’s most prolific serial killer is Kermit Gosnell. He avoided the death penalty by waiving his right to appeal, and is serving life without parole. His story is told in the movie, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.” It opens nationwide this Friday, October 12.

It is a riveting story on several levels. Perhaps uppermost is the question: how was he able to perform so many murders without getting caught? He had numerous witnesses, with evidence literally piled up in the hallways, stored in freezers and refrigerators. How could all of this go unnoticed for decades?

Answer: he was hiding his murders in plain sight. This was possible because they took place in an abortion facility, giving him an almost impenetrable layer of protection. Nobody wants to scrutinize abortion facilities or think too carefully about them. They have become sacrosanct, so that their very mention freezes us in place.

[…]

Words do powerful things to us, but none greater than this one. It does powerful things to politicians, too. Because of the “A-word,” Philadelphia authorities were reluctant—unreasonably reluctant—to inspect Gosnell’s office or follow up on numerous complaints. While nail salons receive health department inspections every year, Gosnell’s facility had not been inspected by Pennsylvania’s Department of Health for more than 17 years—not once.

[…]

His defenders, both in the courtroom and in the press, sought to portray him as merely a sloppy practitioner of partial-birth abortion. That procedure kills the baby after it is mostly, but not quite completely, delivered from its mother. Gosnell couldn’t be bothered to observe that fine distinction. After all, if it is legal to kill a baby a few centimeters and a few seconds before birth, what magically makes it illegal a few feet and a few minutes after birth?

This defense casts a spotlight on a plainly indefensible idea: that an infant’s passage through space and time bestows humanity and legal protection. This ridiculous logic inevitably blurs all human decency. Those who are unable to see that a fetus is a baby have no reason to see a baby as a murder victim, for the very same reason.

America’s press corps went into vapor-lock. Gosnell’s actual practice was too sick to support. But there was no logical way to distinguish his practice from what they were already supporting. So they just didn’t show up.

The most sensational trial of a serial killer in the history of America had virtually no reporters in the court room. The biggest crime since 1893 could not be covered because the reporters could not say why it was wrong.

One of those who noticed was Mollie Ziegler Hemingway. At the time she was a reporter for GetReligion.org. Nearly three weeks into Gosnell’s trial, there had yet to be any mainstream media coverage. So, on April 7, she published a story about the blackout. She followed up with six more, published between April 10 and April 16.


Meanwhile, J.D. Mullane, a reporter for Calkins Media, snapped a picture of rows of empty seats that had been reserved for the press. The photo went viral, prompting Kirsten Powers of USA Today to break the media silence. She published a column subtitled: “We’ve forgotten what belongs on Page One.”

How America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer Almost Got Away With Murder
– By Jonathan Lange

And so, we understand what a sacred space is in secular America.

Certainly, the country is worthy of damnation.

But perhaps the US will be merely punished with great severity, perhaps broken up, instead of being ground to powder as per the knowing murderers in Europe (See Belgium and the Netherlands) or the “non-voluntary euthanasia” being planned in Canada.

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.

But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me love death.

Wisdom, in Proverbs 8:35-36

Bolshevik ethics began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and countless other Bolshevik leaders insisted, success for the Party was the only standard of right and wrong. The bourgeoisie falsely claim that Bolsheviks have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. No, he said; what Bolsheviks rejected was an ethical framework based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism. For a true materialist, he maintained, there could be no Kantian categorical imperative to treat others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the impermissibility of lying or the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin declared, are “based on extra human and extra class concepts” and so are simply religion in disguise. “That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society,” he said. “That is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle.” That meant the Communist Party. Aron Solts, who was known as “the conscience of the Party,” explained: “We…can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions.”

Ethics were reduced to what a character in Vasily Grossman’s novel Forever Flowing identified as a reverse categorical imperative, “a categorical imperative counterposed to Kant”: Always use people as objects. Do unto class enemies what you would not want them to do unto you. That is why, starting in mid-1937, torture was used in all interrogations, not just to extract information. What objection could be raised? Ruthlessness without prompting showed that the torturer harbored no abstract moral standard, even unconsciously. It was a positive good to arrest the innocent. There were special camps for the wives of enemies of the people, campaigns to arrest members of a profession (engineers), and mass arrests by quota. As good Bolsheviks, local NKVD branches asked to arrest even more. “The concept of personal innocence,” a character in Grossman’s greatest novel, Life and Fate, avers, “is a hangover from the Middle Ages.”

Garry Saul Morson, “Among the Disbelievers: Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century” at Commentary

This is where we are.

God’s wrath will certainly come to visit us.

I am confident that most of the West couldn’t care less, so long as they die in comfort. Perhaps some Americans care, though: a minority, a Remnant.

Those are the people who will define the West by, say, 2300.

Because the rest of the West will be as dead as Imperial Rome or Ancient Egypt or Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.


God, damn our Secular Sacred Spaces.

I don’t really need to write that out, as He has already done so. And will do so even more aggressively in the future, as our national and cultural refusal to repent heaps up fire and pain for our reward on Earth, as well as in the afterlife.

But every Christian should be a small-p prophet in these matters, as the wrath of God has actual, real-world consequences.

Harsh and bitter ones.


SEEING, THEY WILL NOT SEE

If you’re anything like I am, you’re frustrated about the unwillingness of otherwise intelligent, competent people to take seriously the extent of the various crises that confront this nation, and the West in general. It’s not that all the information is being suppressed. On the contrary, it’s available in the daily newspaper. But putting the pieces of the puzzle together is too much for most people. They just don’t want to hear bad news. And because of this, they are unable to recognize the really good news.

We aren’t the first people in history to face this problem. It happens every generation. Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows the stories of the Prophets. They faced this problem continually. In fact, it was basic to the ministry of every Prophet (except Jonah, who went to the pagan city of Nineveh) to be rejected, ridiculed, and even persecuted.

The office of Prophet was eliminated two millennia ago.

Nevertheless, there is still a Prophet-like function in society. People who see problems brewing have a moral responsibility to warn others, even if the listeners might not respond favorably to the warning.

The problem of giving warnings is a multiple problem. Has the contemporary prophet observed the significant facts accurately? Has he integrated these facts by means of an accurate theory? Has he got his timing correct? Has he packaged his presentation effectively, so as to motivate his listeners to take effective action in order to deal with the problem?

Even if he does everything correctly, most people pay no attention. So, why bother? Why put your neck on the line? Why not just keep your mouth shut?

CLAMMING UP

If a person decides not to share his concerns about the future with his family, friends, and associates, and the events come true, isn’t he responsible for his own inaction? On the other hand, if he has diagnosed the problem incorrectly, or his timing is way off, isn’t he equally responsible?

How many people seriously consider the possibility of some sort of social, military, or economic crisis? Not many. As an LRC reader, you do. How many people in your neighborhood would enjoy sitting down and discussing these topics on a Saturday afternoon? How many of your colleagues have taken steps to protect themselves? Not many, I would guess. So you find yourself in the role of a contemporary prophet (little ‘p’). Should you keep your mouth shut? Should you tell them about some of the things that are bothering you? Should you pass along a copy of a newsletter or something? What?

“Sounding the Alarm”, by Gary North

North here is actually writing about a lesser evil: the Great Default, the bankruptcy of our theft-based welfare states. The point remains, though.

Note that most Christian clerics and denominations don’t actually believe that the Wrath of God actually exists: at least not in the here and now.

They will be publicly punished and discredited for their slackness.

But believing Christians can’t wait on these preacher-failures and disgraces to get their act together. We have to speak now, and act now, while we can perhaps save those around us from the hell that is coming.

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus Christ, in Luke 12:47-48


Genetic Determinism

From Uncommon Descent:


Why genetic determinism can’t simply be disproven

Reviewing behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin’s Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are, a history of medicine prof writes,

Crude hereditarianism often re-emerges after major advances in biological knowledge: Darwinism begat eugenics; Mendelism begat worse eugenics. The flowering of medical genetics in the 1950s led to the notorious, now-debunked idea that men with an extra Y chromosome (XYY genotype) were prone to violence. Hereditarian books such as Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve (1994) and Nicholas Wade’s 2014 A Troublesome Inheritance (see N. Comfort Nature 513, 306–307; 2014) exploited their respective scientific and cultural moments, leveraging the cultural authority of science to advance a discredited, undemocratic agenda. Although Blueprint is cut from different ideological cloth, the consequences could be just as grave.

Ultimately, if unintentionally, Blueprint is a road map for regressive social policy. Nothing here seems overtly hostile, to schoolchildren or anyone else. But Plomin’s argument provides live ammunition for those who would abandon proven methods of improving academic achievement among socio-economically deprived children. His utopia is a forensic world, dictated by polygenic algorithms and the whims of those who know how to use them. People would be defined at birth by their DNA. Expectations would be set, and opportunities, resources and experiences would be doled out — and withheld — a priori, before anyone has had a chance to show their mettle. Nathaniel Comfort, “Genetic determinism rides again” at Nature

Although Comfort doesn’t quite say it, genetic determinism is not something one can simply disprove. It is a mindset, an attitude to life and to people: In popular culture, the thought is expressed as “It’s not me, it’s my genes.” Among our betters, couched in bureaucratic terms, the thought is “You’re right and we could do with fewer genes like yours.” We can’t stop people from believing that stuff; the best we can do is make sure it doesn’t impact public policy much.

The review offers a number of walks on the wild side of genetics.


There are a lot of people out there, who want to evade responsibility.

And a smaller set of more murderous totalitarians who want to shift all  responsibility from people to the collective – a collective led by people just like themselves, naturally.

Fortunately in the comments, we get a few useful keys to combat today’s Spokesmen for Pharaoh. From Bornagain77

“So I think the only way to stop them from having an impact is by directly in validating their points of view which I don’t know how to do very well”,,,

Here is one way to invalidate their reductive materialistic points of view with empirical evidence:

Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

Here is another way:

Michael Egnor: Is free will a dangerous myth?
October 6, 2018
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-is-free-will-a-dangerous-myth/

The Remotest Star

Reason and justice grip the remotest and loneliest star. Look at those stars. Don’t they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires? Well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamant with leaves of brilliants. Think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire. But don’t fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a noticeboard, “Thou shall not steal.”

“The Blue Cross”, G. K. Chesterton

Subjective Morality, Objective Morality

JDK: [I judge that murder is wrong] because my mature sense of love, compassion, and empathy for other human beings is such that I desire for them as much right to life as I desire for myself.

I admire the altruistic impulse that informs this comment, but I must begin with a qualifying question: How do you know that your sense of love, compassion, and empathy is “mature” unless there is some objective moral standard to differentiate between a mature sense and an immature sense?

According to the objective standard, mature love (Agape) involves an element of making sacrifices for the other, whereas immature love (Eros) is based simply on feelings and the thrill of being pleased by the other. Subjectivism, however, does not make these kinds of distinctions and cannot, therefore, identify what is mature and what is not.

To truly judge the act of murder, it is not enough to express wishes and desires. One must consider principled reasons why potential victims are entitled to live – what is it about them or their nature that gives them that right? – and why murderers deserve to be punished – what is it about their act that demands satisfaction? Subjective morality cannot even begin to address those issues.

JDK: I also recognize the benefits to society in general for a safe social structure that allows everyone to have a reasonable opportunity to become as well-developed human beings as they can, again motivated by a sense of connection to my fellow human beings through emotions such as love, compassion, and empathy.

Again, you have stepped into the arena of objective morality. In order to know what benefits society, one must first know what is good for society. Among other things, the good of survival is connected to the good of procreating the species, which in turn, is connected to the good of forming communities, all of which are objectively good benefits because they are consistent with man’s social nature. This all makes perfect sense.

Subjective morality, on the other hand, does not recognize natural goods or natural rights, or natural obligations. Thus, it cannot address the subject of what “benefits” society. That is why it is so dangerous. (Moral subjectivism is more than just an exercise in irrational thinking. When humans try to fashion their own morality, an immoral culture of misery and death always follows. If objective morality doesn’t exist, then the moral code [and the civil law derived from it] is whatever those who are in power want it to be, and they want what is good for them, always at the expense of everyone else).

Moving forward, how do you know when humans are “well-developed” unless you acknowledge some objective standard that determines when they reach that threshold? The question that cannot be avoided is: “Well developed compared to what?

Are humans well developed if they possess love, compassion, and empathy but lack persistence, courage, and loyalty? Objective morality answers that question with a firm no: a well-developed human being is one that has cultivated both the soft and the hard virtues. Subjective morality doesn’t even recognize virtues as virtues. Yet you pay a quiet tribute at least to the soft virtues (empathy etc.), which are objective in nature, though you shrug them off as mere “emotions.”

Further, if there are no “shoulds” then why do you imply that society should have a safe social structure? Isn’t it because a safe society is an objectively good situation to be aimed for and an unsafe society is an objectively bad situation to be avoided?

From JDK argues against objective morality—by assuming the truth of objective morality.