Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Four men who rule the world from the grave

Expand Messages
  • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
    In postmodern western civilization most people claim to be free thinkers yet are enslaved to the ideas of four men who rule the world from the grave. The
    Message 1 of 54 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In postmodern western civilization most people claim to be free thinkers
      yet are enslaved to the ideas of four men who rule the world from the grave.
      The four men are Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882), Karl Marx (1818 - 1883),
      Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) and Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939). These four
      men of the nineteenth century were the wrecking balls of western
      civilization. Their poisonous ideas challenged traditional Christian views and
      seduced Europe and America into a grand social experiment in unbelief.

      What philosophers discuss over tea in one generation is taught in college
      in the next. A generation later it's taught in high school. Then it's in
      popular culture and finally it's even taught in primary school.

      Charles Darwin's atheistic theory of evolution undermined the Christian
      faith of hundreds of millions. Marx, Nietzsche and Freud were directly and
      profoundly influenced by Darwin's writings. The Darwinian contention that
      human beings are nothing more than soulless descendants of apes who have no
      conscious existence after death became the presuppositional foundation of the
      whole secular intellectual edifice.

      Ironically, Darwin's biographers freely admit that Darwin offered very
      little original thought in his famous 1859 book "The Origin of Species by
      Means of Natural Selection." Evolution as a theory of natural history had
      preceded him by at least two generations. Earlier writers had even discussed
      natural selection. Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had written on
      evolution.

      Until Darwin, evolution had been confined to the smallest corner of the
      intellectual elite. Darwin is famous because he tied all the loose ends
      together and presented it in an orderly way that caught fire among a far wider
      range of educated people.

      Darwin is also famous for his extremely confrontational and racist 1871
      book "The Descent of Man." This book was penned to counter the criticism of
      his 1859 book and to fully and boldly develop his belief that human beings
      are descended from apes.

      The Descent of Man is unfortunately overtly racist and claims that certain
      brown skinned peoples are less evolved than the Europeans. This gave great
      momentum to biological based racism and gave it intellectual
      respectability. Aborigines were legally hunted like big game in Australia. Belgians in
      the Congo shot black natives with impunity. Hitler quoted extensively from
      Darwin in his book, "Mein Kampf," and developed his claim of Aryan
      superiority from Darwinian principles.

      In the United States, in the late nineteenth century, evolution was taught
      and discussed only among the educated elite. Evolution was taught only at
      the university level and to some degree in the high schools. In the 1880s
      only about 4% of American students went on to high school which was called
      secondary school. Only about 1% of the population went to college. All the
      rest were educated in primary school up to the eighth grade.

      The well educated people in the US were increasingly secularized while the
      primary schools still held to traditional Christian values. This led to a
      divide between the upper class and the common man that persists to a degree
      down to the present generation. Secular Humanism has emerged as the
      dominant faith of the elite. Darwinism is its origins myth.

      Karl Marx and Charles Darwin were contemporaries and familiar with each
      other's work. Marx was influenced by Darwin and mentioned him in his book,
      "Das Kapital." Marx subscribed to a philosophy of economic determinism. He
      regarded economic gain as the strongest urge of the human animal. He regarded
      humans as animals; as mere atoms in motion.

      Marx subscribed to the Hegelian concept that human government is greater
      than the sum of its parts. Thus we have the Marxist illogic that regards the
      individual as worthless but if you put the individuals together into a
      government then you have something of real value. Marx considered human
      government the savior of mankind that would lead people to utopia.


      Marx's writings inspired generations of revolutionaries that embarked on
      the largest economic social experiment of all time. The experiment to see if
      an all powerful government owning all property could create a perfect
      utopian society failed miserably. Historians estimate that between 70 million
      and 100 million people were killed by communist governments in their quest
      for utopia.

      Nevertheless Marxist ideas still guide the socialistic tendencies of all
      the modern democracies of Europe and of North and South America.

      A generation after Darwin and Marx a bolder and more passionately
      atheistic philosopher arose. His name was Friedrich Nietzsche and he believed that
      humans are most profoundly motivated by a desire to dominate others.
      Nietzsche called this "the will to power."

      Nietzsche was an existentialist philosopher. Existentialism is radical
      individualism in which the individual must exert his own will and throw off
      social convention to create his own unique life. He regarded those who lived
      according to the rules as inauthentic, as mere followers and small minded.

      Nietzsche rejected God's law and wrote some overtly blasphemous things. He
      also had radical views on politics. He was of the opinion that all the
      great civilizations of the ancient world were built on slavery and brutality
      in which the intellectual elite lived luxuriously off of the hard labor of
      the many. He rationalized that slavery and oppression were good because it
      freed the elite to build fabulous buildings and produce great works of art.
      Hitler read Nietzsche extensively and even gave copies of Nietzsche's books
      to his officer corps.

      Nietzsche's existentialism and atheism was very influential among the
      intellectuals of his own time and reverberates down to our own day especially
      in postmodernism. Nietzsche influenced the existentialist philosophers Jean
      Paul Sartre and Albert Camus and their post WWII philosophy of pessimism.
      The youth rebellion of the 1960s had many elements of Nietzschean radical
      existentialism.

      Sigmund Freud regarded sexuality as the principle motivator of humans. His
      entire psychoanalytic therapy is based on the influence of sexual feelings
      and desires. He was especially concerned with repression of sexual urges
      and how that influenced the mental health of the individual.

      Those he influenced went on to launch the sexual revolution in which
      traditional family structure and fidelity were abandoned. This also is a great
      social experiment that is ruining lives all across the world. Family
      breakdown, child abandonment, abortion of millions of babies and the spread of
      more than three dozen varieties of sexually transmitted disease are grim
      witness to sexual anarchy.

      Darwin saw man as a soulless animal motivated only by the will to survive.
      Marx saw man as a purely economic creature. Nietzsche saw man through the
      lens of power and the will to rule others. Freud saw man as motivated
      disproportionately by sex. Their blasphemy and lawlessness has torn the heart
      out of humanity and brought about the alienation and despair that leads to
      lawlessness, family breakdown, serial killings, shooting sprees and teenage
      suicide.

      Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud worked no miracles and had no
      supernatural accreditation yet billions of people follow them. These four men offered
      nothing but a vain attempt at utopia in this life and no promise of life
      hereafter.

      Jesus Christ by contrast came in fulfillment of over three hundred
      predictive prophecies that were written in the Old Testament hundreds of years
      before His birth. He worked miracles among the people of his time and miracles
      still occur today in His name. He taught us God's morals and He lived a
      perfect life and then suffered and died for our sins. We receive forgiveness
      of sins through Christ. He is the promised Messiah of Israel and the
      redeemer of all mankind.

      Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. This also was foretold
      by the prophets. Those four men rule from the grave but Christ rules from
      heaven and is greater than all.
      - Bill in NY



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • yusefii
      (1) In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apologetics/message/25774 you/IW wrote: menulis email
      Message 54 of 54 , Dec 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        (1)
        In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apologetics/message/25774 you/IW wrote:

        <<Pada Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:22:45 -0000, "yusefii" <yusefii@...>
        menulis email dengan judul (Re: [apologetics and theology] Four men who
        rule the world from the grave):

        I will respond in some detail first for part one, then go into a
        detailed look at understanding/interpreting genesis in a manner which I
        believe to be the correct one and a very valid and scholarly one for
        part 2 and 3. Bear with me as this may get long.

        > Number 2 is interesting, considering that when I open the pages of
        > the Book of Genesis it looks like God made the universe in six
        > 24-hour days, and I'm not even a YECist.

        It looks like. Lets take a good long look at that. If
        you read Genesis not just as text to be interpreted in a basic sense,
        but in a scholarly sense looking at the usage of symbols, numbers as
        well as the local cultures and mythologies you see that a 24 hour 6 day
        creation is not necessarily an accurate or correct interpretation.

        It looks like? Well, there is a lot of "looks like" in the Bible. It
        looks like God condones genocide, infant sacrifice when it suits him,
        polygamy, murder, regicide, slavery, imperialism etc. It looks like
        Jesus is an animal of the species sheep. It looks like John of
        Revelation was on acid. Looks like is not a very structured or correct
        way to look at scripture is it? We know this and accept it. Strangely
        this breaks down at genesis.

        We have discussed here before the fact that the bible uses symbolism,
        allegory, metaphor and so on to describe events. We also all are aware
        that clues in the text help us determine which is what. Yet for some
        reason this seems to end at genesis creation story. For example,
        Revelation is chock full of vivid, rich imagery that is clearly not
        literal in the classic sense. We could list reams of verses here that
        are full of references we do not look on as literal. Psalms,
        Isaiah,revelation etc etc.>>

        ***

        1. Probably no need to have said this. If you go back to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apologetics/message/25757 and see what I was responding to and why I said it, you will see that my point was this: Sauce for the goose is just as sweet to the gander. If isolated or atomic "apperances" are per se proof of macroevolution, then an isolated or atomic reading of the creation account of Genesis 1 is proof that macroevolution is rightly rejected.

        2. I see that in your email you managed to find old comments of mine. That's cool, and even I didn't know where exactly they were without really putting a search engine to use. So you may also be aware that I posit that the appeal to symbolism, allegory, and figures of speech can *only go so far* and can also be *misapplied* in modernist interpretation of the Scriptures. Sure, symoblism, allegory and figures of speech are all real, but there are also rules which govern their usage. If you see a rampaging, rabid dog get put down by an animal control officer with a gun and someone describes the event in saying, "That dog bit the dust," you don't want to say that the person was asserting that the dog literally bit some dust or sand; this is because of various abductive and inductive rules which govern the use and interpretation of language.

        So it's simply the case that you find non-literal uses of speech in places in the Bible where others find none. I do not dismiss out of hand the idea that one may encounter an instance here or there of symbolism, allegory, or figures of speech in the first two chapters of Genesis. In fact, things such as these will not in general always have a narrow confinement to works of fiction, novels, or something else. So it's not the case that one point of contention at hand is whether the said forms of language are or can be used in Genesis 1-2.

        *******

        (2)
        You went on to write:

        <<Let[']s go back in time to earlier discussions we had. You made the comment

        "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground..."--then it
        should be that God formed man directly from the dust of the ground"

        Here are the verses in question:

        "Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and
        breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
        living creature. Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in
        the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. "

        According to you the Bible clearly states without room for wiggling
        that humans (well, men were, women came from our rib) were made from
        the dust of the earth. Ok, fine. It clearly states that. It ALSO
        clearly says that God "breathed into his nostrils" and then went and
        planted a garden."

        Let me quote the following from Origen in the early 3rd Century:

        "Who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a
        husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a
        tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that
        anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating
        again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil?
        No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the
        afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related
        figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated
        by it." - /On First Principles/

        Let me add. So did God breathe into his nostrils? Did God actually
        bend over Man and blow into his nostrils? Cos thats what it says (the
        blowing bit). Clearly. Well, breathing into his nostrils would mean he
        figuratively gave man the breath of life as some say. (I apologise if I
        put words in your mouth - most people I know say this). Yet we have a
        contradiction in our interpretation methods - man is CLEARLY formed from
        the dust of the earth BUT God did not literally put his mouth on (God
        has a mouth?) or close to man's nose and blew into it. So in one
        sentence we claim part a is literal and part b is not.>>

        ***

        Different thoughts come to mind:

        (1) Notice immediately that you have two obligations to deal with at this point. First, I had actually offered a specific thought experiment or analogy, the would-be truthfulness of which is not contingent upon whether the nostrils argument is correct. So you still need to address the specifics that I earlier mentioned.

        (2a) The second obligation is that you bolster the nostrils argument. It's necessary to do so, because it proves too much. The argument apparently is based on this assumption: that any (would-be) controversial phrase which appears in relative close proximity or context to such another phrase cannot plausibly be meant to be taken literally. But this is not a good presupposition.

        I don't know if this is used outside America, but here we have the idomatic phrase "breathed new life into sb." If we take a broken-down, worn-out old jalopy and give it new tires, upholstry, engine (the works) such that it becomes a useful car again, we can say that our restorative efforts have "breathed new life into the car." Meanwhile, idiomatically we can also say that we "made some dough"--rather, that we earned some money from working.

        So now just imagine if I were to say the following in natural conversation or writing: "The body shop really breathed new life into the car. So I was feeling good again, so then I took the keys, headed out and commenced to make some dough." Given the assumption that you have just made, you yourself would probably think that if you heard my saying this then both phrases in question were meant to be taken non-literally and that I simply left to go to work or make money. But this assumption is fallible, and you don't know what my occupation is or what I was doing when I got the phone call from the repair shop telling me my car was fixed. It could be that I am baking a cake for a birthday party, and I was starting to do this before I got a phone call telling me that my car was ready to be picked up.

        So the nostrils argument doesn't really take us anywhere. Perhaps God did literally breathe into Adam's nostrils.

        (2b) Apropos (2a), if you ask around I think you will find that the common, ordinary concept that one has of breathing is merely one of someone's expeling or sending forth breathable air--no complicated, unprimitive and added ideas or connotations of the working of the lungs, the biochemical reactions of muscle tissue needed to make that happen, etc. So the language of Genesis 2 regarding the nostrils apparently requires neither figurative language nor a theophany or the like.

        (3) Now back to the specific analogy which I made so long ago and the would-be truthfulness of which is *not* contingent upon whether the nostrils argument is correct. I'll reiterate it. If someone says, "They made older cars out of steel," then it is understood by all that steel is presented by the speaker as being the primary ingredient or building block of the car or its chassis. Likewise: "They made the pots out of clay"--the pots were formed rather directly from clay with clay being a primary ingredient. "They shaped, molded and formed this other pot from a better batch of clay"--clay is again used rather directly and as a primary ingredient to form the pot. More examples can be produced (e.g., Gen 6:14; Ex 25:10).

        But if this is the consistent behavior of the type of phrase at issue, then by analogy it should be that when it appears in Genesis 2, its behavior is no different. Consequently, man was formed rather directly from dust--not indirectly and billions of years removed from the creation of so-called star dust--and as a primary ingredient.

        (4) So at the end of the day, no, it is not the case that *we* claim that one of those two passages is literal while the other is not, as you said in the quotation above. For all I know, the second phrase is quite possibly to be taken literally. In any case, there remains ample reason even in the face of the second phrase to conclude that the first phrase is almost certainly to be taken literally.

        *******

        (3)
        You went on to say:

        <<Also (and I have mentioned this before) but the 2 creation stories
        appear to contradict each other. The 1st one says nothing about
        being formed from the dust - it just says we were made in his image.
        Which according to the bible happened both AFTER all the animals and
        plants were created AND BEFORE they were created (looking at both
        creation stories). If the bible is literal then both are true - which is
        not literally possible. Adam and Eve cannot both have been made before
        plants and animals AND after.>>

        It is entirely plausible that the second account does not express the idea that man was made before animals were made. The thematic/chronological distinction of writing style seems to be a real one in ancient literature and you can read about this, for example, on Glenn Miller's website (Christian Thinktank). The thematic/chronological distinction of narration or storytelling is even increasingly important in cinema and the small screen today, with uses of flashforwards especially at the beginning of a film or TV episode. Meanwhile, a translation such as the NIV takes a different route and renders certain verbs as anterior/past perfect verbs in Genesis 2, thus resolving (as it were) the supposed contradiction in a manner which one would like to believe truly accords with Classical Hebrew grammar.

        *******

        (4)
        Continuing:

        <<[snip]
        Clearly as TE we uphold the scriptures.>>

        In a sense.

        *******

        (5)
        Continuing:

        <<[snip]
        Again, the issue is not that we are related in the basic
        animals/mammals sense but in that we have COMMON ANCESTORS. We have
        pseudogenes that show that we not only are related to certain species
        but that we HAD TO HAVE HAD AN ANCESTOR COMMON TO BOTH/ALL of us. THat
        of course means a species that PREDATES us all. Did God create the earth
        to look like that? Sure it is possible - after all, "it looks like" a
        lot of things in the Bible. However, Pseudogenes are like tracks that
        one can follow backwards to see what was going on in the past. The fact
        that we and chimps have a 2 or 3 % genetic variability is not so
        significant to evolutionists/scientists as the fact that the tracks
        show an ancestor common to us both.>>

        I don't keep track of the details of scientific arguments for macroevolution, so I won't address this. However, I am leery, wary, or skeptical of people's treatment of related issues *on both sides* of the issue, and rightly so.

        *******

        (6)
        You went on to write:

        <<>
        > Meanwhile, if memory serves, Iain, you have continued to ignore
        > certain particular arguments that have been offered in the past in
        > opposition to theistic evolution, from me, South African Shaun, and
        > someone else recently I think. This is a disappointment.

        I am sorry for that. I honestly have no recollection of any significant
        arguments that I did not address (though some were inadequately
        addressed). I thought I had answered you and as I reviewed my
        archives I concluded that given the fact we had gone back and forth so
        long responses became quick and less well thought out. IOW, I probably
        did not express myself well. I hope this long and detailed email does a
        better job. In fairness Kwame I could say the same for you and
        others. After all, it is a matter of opinion.>>

        No, after I thought about it I think on one hand I forgot that later and indirectly you addressed Shaun's concerns and that most recently I had in my indignation forgotten that you had already posited that Adam was a real person, just not the first man simpliciter. Mea culpa. However, I do know that you hadn't addressed everything I had said up to that point.

        *******

        (7)
        Continuing:

        <<let me briefly revisit a couple points you made before:

        You made a number of comments reg Blocher (I will quote him again
        later). In essence you said that he did not speak to the verses below. I
        should point out I do not have a copy of his work and read it 15 years
        ago so I do not remember what he may or may not have said reg the below
        verses.

        You made reference to Gen 2.7/8 and 1Co 15:45 and Matthew 19:3-6.
        1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living
        being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
        1Co 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural,
        and then the spiritual.
        1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second
        man is from heaven.
        1Co 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are
        those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are
        those who are of heaven.
        1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of
        the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

        According to the verses Adam was of the earth/dust and was the 1st
        Adam. Jesus is the second and LAST Adam. Yet between the two and past
        Jesus there have been BILLIONS of male humans on this planet. IF this is
        literal then Jesus was the last. Clearly what the scriptures are
        showing here is that adam is more than just a man. He is a spiritual
        representation of our initiation into our relationship and covenant
        with God. It is not a statement on creation and how it was done. Adam
        is a representative. The bringer of the covenant and relationship with
        God.>>

        ***

        The Corinthians passage is a miror image of Genesis 2. You still get Adam being made from the earth in Genesis 2, and there are clearly allusions to the creation of account of Genesis 2 in the Corinthian passage. So Adam is again said to be made from something other than "star dust" or primates. (All the more reason to reject the idea of mention of "star dust" is the use of the word "earth" in the Corinthian passage.)

        The passage goes further than this, actually. If you have man's being made from dust in the common and naive sense of the phrase in Gen 2, then the whole purpose in asserting that Adam was merely the first "spiritual representative" of man is defeated. Sure, let Adam be the universe's first "spiritual representative" of man according to 1 Corinthians if you will, but so what of it if the passage still holds that Adam and his progeny are not genetically descended from earlier humans and ultimately from apes and primordial soup?

        Meanwhile, the Corinthian passage is not the only passage using the word "earth" or some similar word in speaking of the origin of species. In Genesis 2:19 (cf. 1:24) animals are formed out of the "ground," and this similarity means again that any attempt to see the mention of so-called "star dust" in Genesis 2 would be a tortured one. Actually, Genesis 2:19 is interesting for another reason. In that verse certain animals are formed from the ground, yet also after plants and animals from which they are supposed to be descended. So not only does the book of Genesis contradict the idea that man is a product of macroevolution, but the book of Genesis also contradicts other facets of macroevolutionism.

        And so I remain convinced that "TE"s take things too far. Even if you can make the case that macroevolutionism is accurate *in some instances*, you don't get proof of this belief system when it comes to the origin of all species, especially mankind; the evidence simply doesn't go that far. And why should it? For example, would it be so truly hard to believe that the creation of man (simpliciter) could be held as a special thing in God's eyes, special enough to warrant man's being created in a manner not common, unspecial, unremarkable, or pedestrian as the common route of macroevolution?

        *******

        (8)
        Finally, you wrote:

        <<The verse in mathew is as follows:

        Mat 19:4 He answered,
        "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made
        them male and female,

        God created them male and female. Yah, God did. Any TE would agree with
        that. Also, lets stop for a minute and just pretend that evolution is
        totally proved fact and beyond debate. Would Paul or Jesus mentioned
        that or have made allusion to that in their interactions with the
        people of their day? No, why would they? Paul would know nothing of it
        (unless God told him) and Jesus would have no need (and anyhow, what
        would he have said, "Boys, have you ever heard of DNA...") to mention
        it.

        Ok, this is long. I hope you were kind enough to hang in there! If not,
        NP! :)

        End part I

        IW>>

        I doubt that you will find no one who says there was no Adam but also that God used evolution to create mankind.

        Anyway, yes, I made it to the end of part one. Can I have a prize? :D

        Seriously though, some posts need to be long. That's just the nature of things. Finally, I'll merge comments on Parts 2 and 3 with this email:

        **************

        Re: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apologetics/message/25775

        Here is a summary of what I thought of the articles or material that you reproduced. The material is speculative but do not seem to offer much in the way of conclusive or well-grounded arguments. They seem more catered as a preaching to the choir and not as a truly persuasive piece of writing.

        Evolutionists may read them and get a chill down their spine like our friend Chris. Old-earth creationists may read them and be fascinated with particular theories on why a long era is subdivided into six or seven parts specifically. YECs will read them and see no reason whatsoever to change their mind, which is right; again, the articles don't really deliver what they seem to promise at the outset of one's reading them. The sum of it is food for thought, and some of it may be true; in the meantime, I think it's likely to just solidify a person's viewpoint on the issues, whatever his viewpoint happens to be.

        As for the exhortation or call that I read comments on Watts, I'm not sure why this was done. As far as I recall, he didn't do anything to prove old-earth creationism over and against theistic evolutionism or vice versa.

        Um, I guess that's all for now.
        -Kwame
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.