Matt 24 Watch, 96: Two revealing Christmas incidents

On Christmas day, there was an attempted airline bombing by a radicalised Nigerian Islamist terrorist, on a 300-passenger airline flight from Lagos to Detroit.

The good news is that the fuze did not work; thank God.

In one sense, it is good news that his Father, a prominent banker, had reported his son to the relevant authorities; unfortunately, they did not seem to have done enough with this vital information. As Cal Thomas observed (and asks), however:

. . . the detonator was not the only malfunction in this near-catastrophe. Government also broke down. The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been on a watch list for the last two years. That list contains names of people known to have extremist links.

British press reports say Abdulmutallab has been on MI5's radar but was deemed insufficiently threatening to warrant surveillance. Still, he was barred from returning to Britain earlier this year, according to the London Times . . . .

How did Abdulmutallab, whose father had recently warned State Department officials about his son's radical beliefs and extremist connections, get on a plane bound for Detroit? What good is it to report suspicious behavior, as the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly urges us to do, if those reports are not taken more seriously?

Did America's reluctance to profile contribute to this latest near-disaster? That question should be among many asked at a congressional hearing.

In short, something has gone specifically wrong with security in Lagos -- where he was apparently not properly searched (and this morning BBC News suggested that the issue may be preferential treatment of the wealthy there).

But also, that the USA did not act with the firmness the UK did came near to triggering a catastrophic terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

And, that that day on which we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace was chosen is no coincidence.

In short, the global Islamist Terrorist organisation, Al Qaeda has made plain just what they intend for the Christian Faith and its adherents by choosing that day for an attack.

But, this is just the first tidal wave that threatens our civilisation; the more obvious and obviously violently hostile, distinctly external one.

The second incident is in major respects more troubling, precisely because it is telling us about what is happening subtly, deep inside the gates of our civilisation. For, it reveals the second tidal wave in action: the radical secularist and/or neo-pagan and/or apostasy-driven de-christianisation predicted as a sign of the end times in 2 Peter 3.

That passage is important enough that we should pause to refresh our memory on it:

2 Peter 3: 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. (Cf an interesting exposition -- long but worth the read -- by a regional blog commenter here, at the Barbados Underground Blog.)

As our Lord in patience delays his return, men will come, mocking in order to feed their lusts driven by their lusts and by a vision of the world that looks no further than what the eye can see; practical or philosophical materialism.

To sustain that en-darkened view, they will reconstruct the past of our world on lines of projections into the distant past of the trends, patterns and speculative materialistic theories and philosophies of the present; willfully ignoring or dismissing the testimony of Scripture and the evidence of catastrophic judgement. Thus, in the words of Job 38, they darken counsel with words without knowledge, even daring to call such words, Knowledge [for that is what "Science" means.]

In such an age, men willfully exclude God from knowledge, and create a public pressure to censor God out.

So, since Christmas is a specifically Christian festive season, they are hostile to Christmas.

A measure of how far this has reached can be seen from a recent visit by the current president of the USA, Mr Obama, to the Boys and Girls Club in Washington DC.

For, as Chuck Norris' augmented transcript reveals:

THE PRESIDENT: I think one thing that's important to remember is that, you know, even though there's a lot of fun at Christmas ... especially when it's snowy like this, so it's pretty outside. You got the Christmas tree; you got the Christmas cookies; you've got presents. You know, I think that the most important thing is just to remember why we celebrate Christmas.

(CN: So far so good, Mr. President, but there's a child with his hand up right in front of you!)

CHILD: I know!

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know?

CHILD: The birth of baby Jesus.

(CN: Not exactly the response the president was looking for. If you can't see him in your mind's eye getting a little hot around the collar, check out the video version here.)

THE PRESIDENT: The birth of baby Jesus and what he symbolizes for people all around the world is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect. And so I just hope that spirit of giving that's so important at Christmas -- I hope all of you guys remember that, as well. ...

(CN: Where is Rep. Joe Wilson when you need him? Wrong, Mr. President! You didn't speak for the majority of Americans when you declared in Turkey last April that "we are not a Christian nation," and you don't speak for "people all around the world" about the birth of the baby Jesus, especially when you define him merely as a community coordinator and social reconciler. His main mission and message was as the Redeemer of mankind -- the savior with a self-confessed mission to "give his life as a ransom for many" to forgive all our sins and reconcile God and humans' relationship.)

THE PRESIDENT: ... You know, it's not just about getting gifts but it's also doing something for other people. So being nice to your mom and dad, grandma, aunties, showing respect to people -- that's really important, too; that's part of the Christmas spirit, don't you think? Do you agree with me?

(CN: Nothing like a little presidential social pressure to prompt an affirmative answer from children.)

CHILDREN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You do? . . .

(CN: Then another child raises his hand, so the president leans over and asks him a question.)

. . . Do you have an interesting observation?

CHILD: I know why we give gifts to other people.

THE PRESIDENT: Why is that?

CHILD: Because the three wise men gave gifts to baby Jesus.

(CN: Could this get any better? Out of the mouths of babes! But you know there's some presidential spin coming, don't you?)

THE PRESIDENT: That's exactly right. But the three wise men -- the reason . . .

(CN: A sign literally falls off the wall. Sign from God? What timing!)

. . . -- uh-oh, I thought that was the cookies going down. We couldn't have that. You know, the three wise men -- if you think about it, here are these guys. They have all this money; they've got all this wealth and power, and yet they took a long trip to a manger just to see a little baby. And it just shows you that just because you're powerful or you're wealthy, that's not what's important. What's important is what's -- the kind of spirit you have.

(CN: The wise men traveled across the desert "just to see a little baby"? Let me quote from the Gospel according to Matthew 2:11: "And they bowed down and worshipped him" as the savior of the world. Why is it -- any chance Obama has to dive deeper into Christianity's creed? -- he rises to the surface and neuters the subject?)

THE PRESIDENT: So I hope everybody has a spirit of kindness and thoughtfulness and everybody is really thinking about how can they do for other people -- treating them well, because that's really the spirit of Christmas. Does everybody agree with that?

CHILDREN: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: I agree with that. Well, you guys all seem like really sharp, sharp young people. And I'm very proud of you. And let me just ask you one last question. Is everybody here working pretty hard in school?

CHILDREN: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: OK, because the thing that I want everybody to remember, the most important message I can leave is, is that you guys have so much potential; one of you could end up being president someday. But it's only going to happen if you stay focused and you work hard in school. And, you guys, there's nothing wrong with having fun and fooling around and playing sports and listening to rap music and all that stuff. But I want you guys to read and hit the books and do your math, because that's really what's going to determine how you do in the future. All right? That's the most important thing you can do.

(CN: "Most important message"? "Most important thing you can do"?)

Of course, the spontaneous actions of the children reflect the deeply Christian character of black American culture.

By deep contrast, the secularising words and attempted "corrective" actions of the president are troubling. And, it almost does not matter whether the President was reflecting his own seculasised views, or was being cautiously politically correct in light of the rolling video cameras and the sort of backlash he feared from the voices of influence in the American nation's media culture.

Twenty or thirty years ago, a sad scene like this would have been inconceivable.

But today, we can see the impact of that tidal wave of de-Christianisation, all too plainly manifestly constraining and/or shaping the views, actions and words the leader of the most powerful Western nation.

And that, in light of 2 Peter 3 and Matt 24, is a powerful sign of our times.

(Who would have thought that Christmas would become all but an unmentionable word? That the concept that our civilisation pauses at year-end to reflect on the Light who has enlightened the nations -- pausing to give gifts especially to children as once Wise men had given gifts to the Christ Child whom they took a two-year expedition in order that they might come to WORSHIP him -- would be an object of controversy; with a subtext of deep-seated hostility? And yet, that is exactly the prediction of Matt 24:1 - 14, that the gospel and its adherents would become the targets of hostility and eventually persecution as the world's chaos rushes to a climax at the Second Coming.)

So, as 2010 dawns, let us be about the true sign of the end:

. . . And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [Matt 24:14]

By God's grace, let's roll! END

Matt 24 Watch, 95: Another shoe seemingly drops on the Iran nuclear bomb programme

In recent days, this blog drew attention to the Guardian article on IAEA interest in Iranian nuclear programme documents that discussed the testing of a two-point detonation, linear implosion mini-nuke trigger.

In even more recent days, Iranian authorities have defiantly declared intent to create a network of ten Uranium enrichment plants, claiming they need fifteen nuclear power stations (never mind Iran's oil and gas-rich land).

This, in a context where a previously secret enrichment site was recently discovered at Qom.

Now -- mixing metaphors -- another shoe has dropped with a December 14, 2009 London Times article.

For, it seems that in 2007 (four years after it reportedly stopped weapons related developments) Iran has embarked on a four-year programme to develop Uraniun Deuteride neutron initiators. UD3 initiators are specifically military (as opposed to dual) use, and this is the material used in the Pakistani weapons programme, from which Iran is credibly reported to have nuclear bomb blueprints. [This is unsurprising, as Mr Khan ran a black market nuclear bomb supermarket.] Reportedly, Iran is planning to use Titanium Deuteride in tests, as this will prove the concept without releasing Uranium into the atmosphere; which would be easily detected by monitoring stations.

The Times has made a cross-checked translation available. Excerpting:

Outlook for special neutron-related activities over the next 4 years . . . .

The general document that refers to the special duties of the neutron group mentions four main topics that cover special neutron-related activities, namely:

1. Calculation and simulation

2. Production of source materials

3. Source assembly

4. Design and performance of experiments to test the source

The fourth item is dependent upon the ease of finding methods for detecting pulsed neutrons obtained from hot and cold sources at various stages. In this introduction we will describe below the programme for special neutron-related activities. We have also endeavoured to prioritise each subject in the light of the current political climate and our existing capabilities . . . .

The studies already performed, on which a report will be issued in the very near future, indicate that there should be no adverse or destructive consequences in using the existing NGs [i.e. Neutron Generators]. As a result, provided that the necessary security and protective measures are adopted, we should be able to use the existing NGs to conduct the pulsed-neutron detection experiments and to complete some of the previous experiments. Performing these experiments would enable our personnel to gain more knowledge of the subject. In spite of this and considering the country’s present situation and considering the Centre's policy is to develop co-operation with research and univsersity centres in order to carry out the projects outside of the Centre and play a steering and leading role of the projects, it is better to carry out the work PF and NG systems at other research centres . . . .

Continuing the work of replacement materials such as TiD2 in order to avoid U contamination in the production of UD3 . . . .

While of course Iran has blandly declared the document a CIA forgery, it is known that such declarations are untrustworthy. As Reuters reports:

Intelligence suggests Iran worked on testing a key atomic bomb component as recently as 2007, diplomats have said, a finding which if proven would clash with Iran's assertion its nuclear work is for civilian use.

The diplomats commented on a "Times" of London report about what it called a confidential Iranian technical document describing a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the part of a nuclear warhead that sets off an explosion.

"The Times," diplomats, and analysts reached by Reuters said such a device had no conventional military or civilian use.

In Tehran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the semiofficial Fars news agency the report was "baseless... Such statements are not worthy of attention. These reports...are intended to put political and psychological pressure on Iran."

Iran, the world's No. 5 crude-oil exporter, says its uranium enrichment program is aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more gas and oil. The West believes Iran wants bombs from enrichment because of its record of nuclear secrecy.

A senior diplomat familiar with the gist of the "Times" report said the document, obtained by intelligence services, had been passed on to the UN nuclear watchdog, which has been probing intelligence allegations of Iranian attempts to "weaponize" enrichment for five years.

A senior International Atomic Energy Agency official declined comment "at this stage."

But the information would fall into the category of what senior IAEA officials have told Reuters are regular intelligence updates on Iran they receive from certain member states, mainly the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Israel.

The intelligence has not been authenticated but the IAEA has judged it consistent and compelling. Iran has dismissed the material as fabrications but the IAEA says Tehran must provide evidence to back up its position. Iran has ignored the appeals.

The IAEA maintains a running internal analysis of the intelligence, which indicates Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

Neutron initiator development has been part of such activity, according to some of the intelligence leaked earlier to news media, but covering a previous period up to 2003.

"This latest document [about neutron initiators] is in the Farsi language and appears to have been written in 2007," the senior diplomat said. "It is in IAEA hands for further study."

So, on balance, we should take seriously the statements that the work in question is already reasonably advanced, and that the responsible centre is looking for skilled physicists to carry it forward in the Institute of Physics and in the Universities.

At this point, given the knee-jerk anti-western response of many educated people in our region (largely due to our own painful colonial experience) we may hear the sort of ill-informed moral equivalency thinking that led a Mr Hendricks to remark as follows at one of the Times article pages:

" . . . Iran's having nuclear capability will introduce mutual assured destruction into an area which for too long has been dominated by Israeli nuclear blackmail."

Of course, Israeli "nuclear blackmail" has kept the peace in the region, so that instead of attempts to destroy Israel and massacre its citizens through large scale invasions, as we saw openly declared in 1948 and 1967 [and which was probably implicit in 1973, had Israel lost], we instead have had a backing away from such openly declared intent of genocide.

And of course we could compare the situation to the French and British "blackmail" through the Versailles treaty whereby Germany was given a sharply restricted self-defence army and navy and was forbidden to develop or deploy submarines, tanks and military aircraft. (Of course, the French, British, Belgians etc faced no such restrictions.)

How unfair!

NOT . . .

For, had the Versailles limits been respected by German governments, starting from the 1920's -- the problem most emphatically did not start with Hitler -- there would have been no second world war, with ~ 40 millions dead in the European theatres. And, had the French and British had the gumption to stand up to Hitler in the early stages, by 1934 - 37, war would have been on a much lower scale, and Hitler would have certainly lost. (Indeed, on testimony of surviving generals, there was a good change the army would have overthrown him. )

But, that was not to be.

In our day, Iran has had a thirty year record of sponsoring terrorism and exporting radical Islamist revolution, effectively converting Syria, Lebanon and Sudan into client states and/or colonies, with a dangerous influence in the Gaza which Israel so unwisely abandoned in 2005. It is credibly developing mini-nukes suitable for suicide "suitcase" nuclear bomb attacks. It is credibly developing more conventional sized nuclear bombs. Just last week, it launched a fast Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.

All, in open defiance of an international community and treaty obligations going all the way back to the UN charter.

All, met by hesitancy, second guessing and delay.

If this continues, the outcome, sadly, will be all too predictable; and probably devastating.

For, nukes are credibly in play this time around.

Sorry to have a bit of a Christmas spoiler, but we need to face the truth about our times and trends, even at Christmas time. END

At Christmas, 2009

First and foremost, Advent Season greetings to one and all!

May we all have a happy and prosperous 2010.

As a Christmas present, I give the below, a response to some apologetics challenges recently encountered at a Caribbean Blog.

Grace to all!

________________

On the alleged narrow-mindedness and hatefulness of the gospel's claim to unique truth and a unique path to God

The Christian gospel is pretty direct, even blunt, on the uniqueness of Jesus the crucified, risen Lord and Saviour:

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me . . . "

Acts 4:9 If we [the apostles Peter and John, before the Sanhedrin ruling council in Jerusalem, c. AD 30 - 33] are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is

" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]'[b]

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

In a pluralistic, radically relativistic postmodern age such as ours, this easily comes across as narrow-minded, closed-minded, intolerant, bigoted and hateful; sharply polarising hearts and minds against the Christian gospel, church and Christians. Indeed, in the rhetoric of anti-gospel, anti-Christian indoctrination, this objection is now a common, and often effective, tactic.

Now, at first level, the real issue is not narrow-mindedness, but truth. For, saying "2 + 3 = 5" is not a matter of being "narrow" or "bigoted," but of being accurate.

(And before rushing off and dismissing the gospel without further considerations as "obviously" inaccurate to history, one should consult the implications of the AD 55 eyewitness lifetime primary source record here (and the associated life-transforming experience of the millions across 2,000 years who have encountered God in the face of the crucified and risen Christ through the gospel; including many thousands of your neighbours all across the Caribbean), as well as discussions by men like professor Yamauchi here and professor Evans here. The 2006 Craig - Ehrman debate (transcript here) between two men at the top of their game, should give a balanced view. This debate (mp3) between professors Craig and Ludemann is also illuminating. [The DVD of the follow-up debate is here.])

But, too, we must also recognise the force of Aristotle's warning in Bk I, Ch 2 of his The Rhetoric:

persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . .

How, then, can we respond, being faithful to the core truths of the gospel message but also able to effectively and winsomely communicate the core message of God's love and rescue of lost humanity -- a message that is so eloquently portrayed in John 3:14 - 17?

Namely:

Jn 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[a]

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[b] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him . . .

Having recently (Dec. 2009) had to address a case in point in the Blog Barbados Underground, I offer the below (a slightly updated version of a blog comment) as a suggestion:

____________________

RE [objections raised in the thread]: (a) “Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity” and (b) “Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.”

RESPONSE:

Whenever we start pushing God into the dock, that is a point where our reasoning has gone off the rails!

And, that is what is happening here, for there is a lot more to the story than the sort of unfortunately strawmanised, demonising and deeply polarised remarks just excerpted suggest.

Perhaps we need to read Paul in Rom 1 – 2 a bit more carefully (and this, on all sides):

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened . . . .

2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

2:6 He will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness . . . .

2:14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law [i.e core morality, expressed in the principles of neighbour love] is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. [NET Bible.]

a –> Paul is pretty explicit that our big problem is resenting and rebelling against the truth we do or should know then substituting what we do or should know is a lie, and that God frowns on this.

b –> So the issue, first, cannot be that one is merely IGNORANT of relevant truth (especially as it is innate: e.g. "You unfair me!" we protest, testifying to the acknowledged binding nature of moral truth; which raises the sobering question that since we are under moral government, we are under a Moral Governor. [For there is no other adequate ground for such moral government.])

c –> Instead, it is that of rebelling against the truth we know and where it points, e.g. the fact of consciousness and mindedness points to the Source of mind. (And likewise the orderly organised complex information-rich balance of the world and of life in it point to the author thereof.)

d –> Likewise, our consciences crying out for justice — including when we would put God in the Dock and cry out against real or apparent evils — testify to the fact that we find ourselves morally obligated. This can only be grounded in a cosmos in which the ultimate reality is a Morally Just Creator so that good is reasonable and morally compelling as reasonable and fair, not arbitrary. Otherwise the is-ought gap swallows up the ought in the is.

e –> But things get hotter. For in Rom Ch 2 Paul takes in the man who does not know enough to know Jesus and the gospel, or who misunderstands it, contrasting him to the one who rejects truth he knows or should know and lives by evil in darkness:

Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness

f –> Here, we first see the ordinary man who by light of conscience — and inevitably stumblingly so — penitently perseveres in the path of good and truth, based on what he knows of good and God, by dint of nature, prophets, wise teachers, philosophers, scripture or even the manifest presence and power of the gospel. (The attitude is instantly recognisable, and so is its opposite.)

g –> The scripture we are discussing is explicit and plain that to such God gives eternal life:

Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality . . .

h –> Very simple, but so very easy to lose sight of: God is fair and loving, so he will save anyone he can. So, it is unsurprising that the Biblical teaching is that if you walk in the truth, the light and the right you know or should — important caveat! — know, penitently and persistently getting up when you err or stumble, God [our loving Father] will receive you with open arms.

(And, BTW, one of God's yardsticks of judgement is the standard we use when we judge other people, especially if we then turn a found and fail to live up to such expectations. [Hence the vital importance of penitence and persistence in the way of the right when we find ourselves -- inevitably -- stumbling like that!])

i –> Such salvation is based on his lovingly and freely offered self-sacrifice by which he took the fatal venom of our self-destroying sin into his own self and expiated its consequences and penalty; so that we may have "life for a look." (NB: The exchange is explicit in many cases, implicit in others [e.g Abraham, Melchizedek, Job, Moshe, David . . . many others down to today who may not have a clear access to a higher -- much less, the highest -- degree of truth or light ], but it is the basis for salvation and eternal life.)

j –> But, not all turn to the good and walk in the path of the right and the truth, however stumblingly.

k --> Some — sadly — rebel even against the undeniable voice of mind and conscience.

l --> Others are willing to follow any rhetoric that excuses them in sin and in untruth, some even going so far as to actively suppress the truth they know or should know; up to and including in the case of those who have heard the gospel and have effective access to the compelling evidence of its truth.

[This includes the millions all around us and over the years who have met and come to know the real God in the face of Jesus and have had their lives transformed by the resulting release of resurrection power through the "great and precious promises" of the scriptures. (Advice: a little humble listening to people who however ill-educated and lacking in eloquence actually know God, would save many of us the highly educated a lot of grief here and in eternity.)]

m –> For good reason, then, rebels against the truth and the right they know or should know face a very different fate.

n –> And, it is such who need to heed the stern warnings Paul also gives:

Rom 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness . . .

__________

So, commentators and onlookers:

1: what is the truth and the right that you know or should know?

2: Are you seeking to turn to it and live by it, however much you stumble and must regret it and get up and try again?

3: Or, are you resisting the truth and following evil, in rage against what you know you should do?

That is the issue we must all face.

_________________

I trust that this will prove helpful in seeing the importance of living by the light of truth and right that one knows or should know; because one has reasonable access to it, and why it is the rejection and rebellion against the truth and right one knows or should know that is the real issue, not the alleged narrow-mindedness of truth.

For, 2 + 3 = 5 is not a matter of narrow-mindedness or bigotry, but of accuracy.
_______________

God's richest for 2010, END

Matt 24 watch, 94: A developing exchange over the Alfred Buckland accusations in the Gleaner of Jamaica

Some weeks ago, an anonymous commenter posted to the comments in this blog a copy of the now notorious new Atheism-influenced November 5, 2009 Alfred Buckland letter to the Gleaner, on "A time to fight religious dogma."

I responded to the letter, as appears below, as an appendix to this post. (NB: Blogger has a new "feature"/bug that truncates comments at a rather short length. So, to be sure this comment gets through, I have "promoted" it.)

Now, a follow-up anonymous comment has been submitted [evidently from a supporter of Mr Buckland], which appears just below:

__________________

Anonymous comment submitted Sun, 20 December, 2009 17:08:33

>>Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A comment in response to remarks at Barbados Under...":

Much is to be said for the systematic manner in which you took apart Buckland's latter, though the spirit of it, I can definitely embrace.

Perhaps after all's been written here about the evils of secular humanism, you need to take a look at some of the most secular countries in the world and see where they fall regarding quality and standard of living as well as the levels oc crime. Sweden for example, is 85% atheist. Take a look at the kind of society the citizens are forced to endure. Conversely, the most religious nations on the planet are usually the most corrupt with criminal activity going off the charts.

Superstition and religion go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin. And with Jamaica's reputation of one of the most churched nations in the world, one has to wonder what good it has done for the citizens, many of whom believe their troubles are caused by demons. And at the beginning of each year, one of the major daily papers prints the year ahead at a glance as seen by several self-styled prophets and apostles. The Gleaner publishes these prognostications as though they were news items, and makes no attempt at the end of each year to publish its success or failure rate.

The prognosticators have, since last year, posted a disclaimer on God's behalf, to cover their righteous behinds when their prophecies fall flat. Shame on the Gleaner. >>

___________________

I will respond on points:


++++++++++++

Much is to be said for the systematic manner in which you took apart Buckland's latter, though the spirit of it, I can definitely embrace.

a --> In short, we are here evidently dealing with a supporter of or a spokesman for Mr Buckland's group or its ideas and agendas.

Perhaps after all's been written here about the evils of secular humanism, you need to take a look at some of the most secular countries in the world and see where they fall regarding quality and standard of living as well as the levels o[f] crime. Sweden for example, is 85% atheist. Take a look at the kind of society the citizens are forced to endure.

b --> Neatly omitted: Sweden is an historic Christian country, which still benefits from the deep benefits of the Judaeo-Christian tradition; fading though they be. And, fading precisely because of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialist secular humanism and its horrendous long-term implications for the moral order of our civilisation [e.g. cf. the 50 millions dead in the ongoing abortion holocaust in the USA, a holocaust that is directly attributable to the dominance of such secularism among the intellectual elites of that nation]. So, it is worth the while to excerpt the just linked analysis and warning by Hawthorne:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is' [except in the case where the IS is the Creator-God who grounds the moral order of the cosmos in his character.] . [Emphases and bracketed comments added.]

c --> Such benefits include that Sweden was able to participate in the rise of modern liberty and democracy [as was mentioned in my response to Mr Buckland], which grew in reformation soil; thus also from the massive cultural ethical renewal that was one of he long-term consequences of the Reformation of 500 years ago.

d --> If we were to contrast the past century's history of Sweden's neighbour [and actually historic daughter country, as Russia was founded by the Rus, the eastern vikings] and its current consequences from more radical de-Christianisation efforts that particularly sought to root out Judaeo-Christian ethics, we see the result: chaos, crime and corruption.

Conversely, the most religious nations on the planet . . .

e --> Anonymous here falls into the exact error that Mr Buckland did by using the blanket label "religion", so I excerpt my earlier remarks under point 1:

Strictly, the generic term "religion" is far too broad to make any such confident broad-brush assertions; i.e. -- ironically -- this immediately reveals a deep hostility and prejudice driven by a lack of critical awareness and precision of thought. However, since Jamaica's history was as a matter of fact deeply shaped by especially Protestant, dissenter, Bible-citing Christians, this seems the primary target for Mr Buckland's ire.

Secondly, since the author in question is presumably not "religious" the fallacies in his opening paragraph as just pointed out immediately entail that "religion" cannot be THE "source of the lack of critical thinking and the inability to analyse situations and formulate viable solutions to the nation's problems."

(Lack of critical thinking capacity IS a problem, but it is a general one; and, it appears even on the part of evolutionary materialistic secular humanists. So, perhaps, it traces not to "religion" but to the enormous capacity of humans for self-deception and blindness, once our prejudices and sentiments are in play on a matter. Indeed, that seems to be why Aristotle in his The Rhetoric warned us that our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile. And "pained and hostile" precisely describes the tone of the letter in question.)

In fact, Jamaica's problems -- which are legion -- have very little to do with the Christian beliefs and general moral sentiments of most of that nation's population. Indeed, most of the major criminal and moral challenges in the nation arise from the minority who by their actions reject and flout the key principle of neighbour love that drives Judaeo-Christian morality.

Further, as Mr Buckland has just demonstrated, lack of critical thinking ability has more to do with a lack of balanced education and habituation in fair-minded critical thinking skills -- a widespread problem in our region and well beyond it -- rather than specifically being "religious."

f --> Further to this, within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the well known anecdotal evidence, strongly backed up by serious social science studies, is that there is a sharp difference between religious identification and the results of religious commitment, manifested in serious, consistent, long-term involvement in discipleship related activities.

g --> As classic story by Jesse Jackson more or less puts it, if you were in a rough part of town and suddenly saw four stropping young men headed your way, you would be greatly relieved to learn that they were coming out of a Bible Study rather than a gang meeting or a bar.

. . . the most religious nations on the planet are usually the most corrupt with criminal activity going off the charts.

h --> religious of course is being used far too generically, and in the defiance of the obvious evidence as just pointed out on the difference between nominal religious identity and actual discipleship.

i --> So, the essence of the assertion is that Jamaica in particular is in urgent need of repentance, renewal, revival and reformation; which is not news.

Superstition and religion go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin.

j --> A patent falsehood and a bigoted, irresponsible blanket rhetorical declaration of the assumption that religiously based worldviews are all ill-founded prejudices.

k --> As I pointed out in replying to Mr Buckland [as appended], the commenter has no epistemic right to such an assertion without taking time to examine the live option worldview alternatives and especially their key warranting arguments on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.

l --> I suggest that on the Christian worldview, s/ he should take time to consult the implications of the AD 55 eyewitness lifetime primary source record here (and the associated life-transforming experience of the millions across 2,000 years who have encountered God in the face of the crucified and risen Christ through the gospel; including many thousands of his/her neighbours all across the Caribbean), as well as discussions by men like professor Yamauchi here and professor Evans here. The 2006 Craig - Ehrman debate (transcript here) between two men at the top of their game, should give a balanced view. This debate (mp3) between professors Craig and Ludemann is also illuminating. [The DVD of the follow-up debate is here.]

And with Jamaica's reputation of one of the most churched nations in the world, one has to wonder what good it has done for the citizens,

m --> Plainly, the commenter has simply not bothered to listen to the stories of many, many thousands of our fellow citizens who will testify in abundant details on just what good their Christian faith has done for them

many of whom believe their troubles are caused by demons.

n --> Maybe, because they have had a bit more experience of dimensions of reality that a skeptical commenter who has not had to explicitly grapple with the reality of demonisation [cf. the remarks of THE expert on the subject in the Gospels!] simply dismisses without serious examination.

And at the beginning of each year, one of the major daily papers prints the year ahead at a glance as seen by several self-styled prophets and apostles.

o --> Which is of course something that is wrong and foolish.

The Gleaner publishes these prognostications as though they were news items, and makes no attempt at the end of each year to publish its success or failure rate.

p --> That is, the Gleaner plainly publishes them as entertainment.

The prognosticators have, since last year, posted a disclaimer on God's behalf, to cover their righteous behinds when their prophecies fall flat. Shame on the Gleaner.

q --> It is worth the while to cite the advice of the apostle Paul on the specific subject:

1 Thess 5 ¹⁹Do not put out the Spirit's fire; ²⁰do not treat prophecies with contempt. ²¹Test everything. Hold on to the good. ²²Avoid every kind of evil.

r --> And, that of Moshe:

Deut 18:⁹ When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. ¹⁰ Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in ^[a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, ¹¹ or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. ¹² Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. ¹³ You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

The Prophet

¹⁴ The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. ¹⁵ The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. ¹⁶ For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
¹⁷ The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. ¹⁸ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. ¹⁹ If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. ²⁰ But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
²¹ You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" ²² If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

s --> By sharp contrast, the commenter and onlookers are invited to reflect on the following key case of a Biblical prophecy, from Isaiah 52 - 53, made c. 700+ BC, and fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord; and which is ever so relevant at Christmas time, hitherto the season of goodwill and celebration:

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (New International Version)

The Suffering and Glory of the Servant

¹³ See, my servant will act wisely ^a]">[a] ;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
¹⁴ Just as there were many who were appalled at him ^b]">[b]—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
¹⁵ so will he sprinkle many nations, ^c]">[c]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Isaiah 53

¹ Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
² He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
³ He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
⁴ Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
⁶ We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
⁷ He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
⁸ By oppression ^d]">[d] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. ^e]">[e]
⁹ He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
¹⁰ Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes ^f]">[f] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
¹¹ After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life ^g]">[g] and be satisfied ^h]">[h] ;
by his knowledge ^i]">[i] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
¹² Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, ^j]">[j]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, ^k]">[k]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

t --> Have we not instead noticed how in recent years, it has now become routine that at Christmas time [and other major Christian festivals], we see a strident attack on the Christian faith in our region as well as in the wider civilisation?

u --> Does this not speak volumes on a deep-rooted hostility, and how deeply those who adhere to it are embedded in our media culture?

v --> And, does that not then suggest that he complaints on how Christianity is being promoted in the media are actually meant to push for the exclusion of the Christian perspective from the public eye and education system; as we now see with the routine lawsuits to prevent the public in the United States -- where Mr Buckland is based -- from seeing signs, monuments and reminders that reflect their Christian heritage?

w --> Is that what we want in our region? [I rather doubt it.]

+++++++++++

In short, we again see a very familiar skeptic's rhetorical pattern, the trifecta combination fallacy that brings together distraction, distortion and polarising demonisation.

But, red herrings dragged across the track of responsible and civil addressing of issues and led away to caricatured strawmern soaked in ad hominem demonisaitons and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere do very little to promote either truth or a positive community.

Surely, Mr Buckland and friends can do better than this! END

_____________

APPENDIX:

Rebuttal of the Alfred Buckand letter (emphases added):

++++++++++++

The Anonymous commenter above has given us access to a letter by a Mr Buckland in the Jamaica Gleaner. Thus s/he has provided us an important service.

That letter from Atlanta, which was published in Jamaica's leading newspaper, the Gleaner, is deeply troubling and revealing on how the new atheism and radical evolutionary materialist secular humanism that pervade western culture are now invading our region.

I must therefore comment on the above, snipping out some pivotal excerpts:

1] Buckland: We are all aware that religion has established a firm footing in the Jamaican public space, is embedded in the Jamaican psyche, and is the source of the lack of critical thinking and the inability to analyse situations and formulate viable solutions to the nation's problems.

Strictly, the generic term "religion" is far too broad to make any such confident broad-brush assertions; i.e. -- ironically -- this immediately reveals a deep hostility and prejudice driven by a lack of critical awareness and precision of thought. However, since Jamaica's history was as a matter of fact deeply shaped by especially Protestant, dissenter, Bible-citing Christians, this seems the primary target for Mr Buckland's ire.

Secondly, since the author in question is presumably not "religious" the fallacies in his opening paragraph as just pointed out immediately entail that "religion" cannot be THE "source of the lack of critical thinking and the inability to analyse situations and formulate viable solutions to the nation's problems."

(Lack of critical thinking capacity IS a problem, but it is a general one; and, it appears even on the part of evolutionary materialistic secular humanists. So, perhaps, it traces not to "religion" but to the enormous capacity of humans for self-deception and blindness, once our prejudices and sentiments are in play on a matter. Indeed, that seems to be why Aristotle in his The Rhetoric warned us that our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile. And "pained and hostile" precisely describes the tone of the letter in question.)

In fact, Jamaica's problems -- which are legion -- have very little to do with the Christian beliefs and general moral sentiments of most of that nation's population. Indeed, most of the major criminal and moral challenges in the nation arise from the minority who by their actions reject and flout the key principle of neighbour love that drives Judaeo-Christian morality.

Further, as Mr Buckland has just demonstrated, lack of critical thinking ability has more to do with a lack of balanced education and habituation in fair-minded critical thinking skills -- a widespread problem in our region and well beyond it -- rather than specifically being "religious."

So, the confident assertion "We are all aware that . . . " is simply a bold but fallacious declaration

2] for too long the media, unopposed, have aided and abetted the cause of religion by shoving primitive ideas and concepts as if they are incontrovertible facts down the throats of the ignorant, the illiterate and the gullible, controlling the populace and keeping them cowering in a state of fear of the wrath from an angry God.

Here Mr Buckland tries to tell the truth by the clock, revealing the underlying baneful influence of the modernist-secularist myth of progress. In fact, as Aristotle pointed out long ago in Metaphysics 1011b, the truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

Truth, proper, is therefore not progressive -- it is what it is, just as the reality that that which is true accurately describes is what it is. But we may at times approach closer, or at other times drift further away from that safe harbour.

Mr Buckland further labours under the mis-impression that "religion" is necessarily a matter of ignorance; revealing his prejudices.

Laying the point that Christian morality and ethics premised on the virtue of love under God is at least as good and as relevant a basis for practical affairs as any other moral principle, one wonders if he has say paused to analyse the force of the written testimony c. 55 AD in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, on the foundational facts of the Christian Gospel as attested mid-30's AD by 500+ witnesses [none of whom is on record as recanting; not even in the face of lion, fire and sword], and whether he has for instance taken under notice summaries such as this one by Professor Edwin Yamauchi on the typical skeptical attempts to overturn that testimony and the underlying foundational fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead as attested by 500+ witnesses; and as has led to 2,000 years of supernatural, blessing-working transforming power in millions of lives, and thousands of families and communities.

But, so far, that only addresses his claimed premises. Mr Buckland's main point here is to assert that the media of Jamaica [etc] are working to create a false sense of credibility for the "religion" he so despises, and to manipulate the public through fear of the -- one presumes, "mythical" -- God.

But, that God and the day of judgement in righteousness by the man God revealed by the resurrection from the dead are not matters to be so easily brushed aside by mere assertion or implication or pain-wracked angry rhetoric. And, it is far from true that the media in Jamaica or in most other places force-feed the public on a diet of blind adherence to religious myths. Instead, the evidence plainly supports a reasonable access to a free media environment, and the bookshops, magazine stands and Internet provide just a s free access to other views. In Jamaica, it so happens that the balance of that free play favours the predominantly Christian sentiments and views of the population, but that should not be surprising if the media are truly free in a community!

If there is any ideological force-feeding in our time and civlisation, on Mr Lewontin's notorious confession it traces to the increasing secular humanist, evolutionary materialist domination of institutional science and science education.

For, in our time, a time where science is often seen as the fountain-head of truth, a priori materialism is too often imposed on scientific work and conclusions; distorting the ability of science to find the truth about our world. (In short, Mr Buckland has here indulged in a turnabout false accusation.)

3] The dogmas of local church denominations need to be challenged, as the Church should hold no position as a moral authority in the land.

It is interesting to immediately contrast such sentiments with say the teaching of Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity [1594 - ], as cited by John Locke in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his epochal Second Treatise on Civil Government, when he set out to ground the principles of natural liberty:
rooted in and expressing prejudice and hostility, not a sound insight.

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

In short, here is direct evidence on how the teachings of the Bible and the church on our equality of nature as being made in God's image and our resulting mutual duty of neighbour love grounds equal rights, justice and the civil peace that sets a context fro the rise of modern Democratic self-government by a free people.

By sharpest contrast, the major secular humanist evolutionary materialist alternative being championed by Mr Buckland is inherently amoral cannot ground either a credible mind or provide a solid foundation for binding moral principle. For, as the author of this blog has long had occasion to teach:

. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].)

Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!

Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?

In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .

In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.

"Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home.

Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences.

Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable — for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the death camp.

In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real world . . .

4] An organised effort could provide formidable resistance to the continued efforts by the Church to enslave the minds of the majority of the populace . . . . Our group, The Emancipation From Mental Slavery (EFMS), intends to initiate a massive pushback to debunk the myths of religion in our midst. We will oppose any intention of the Church or other religious organisations to hijack the seat of authority in the land and impose any further their destructive judgements and pronouncements upon an ignorant and unsuspecting public.

In short, this is the announced launch of an evolutionary materialist secular humanist campaign to radically secularise the worldview and moral sentiments of the Jamaican public.

Given the headlines of recent years, this is in all likelihood probably connected to the current push to stigmatise Jamaica for the steadfastness of the national sentiments against homosexualism and homosexualist agendas to create a perversion-friendly, Biblical Christianity-hostile civil space in our civilisation.

In this case, it is probably best to let the Apostle Paul, c. 57 AD, writing in the face of the moral chaos that was increasingly spreading chaos across Roman society, speak for himself:

Rom 1:18 . . . the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. [In the old days in temples, nowadays on TV or computer screens, in museums and in textbooks and magazines, announced as "science" = "knowledge of our world."]

1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1:32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

Game, set, match to the Apostle to the nations.

GEM of TKI

Matt 24 Watch, 93: Prof Schneider of Stanford and "inconvenient" Climategate questions

Over the past few weeks I have been offline, visiting with relatives in a remote area.

However, while I was away, a scandal now known as Climategate has brewed up, in which it seems most likely a Whistleblower and/or hackers have pulled up thousands of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit [a main global centre for climate research and a champion of the man-made global warming school of thought], through raiding a server.

Those emails and associated documents -- now more or less validated by the university and several leading news organisations such as BBC and New York Times -- raise troubling questions on data timeline distortion, suppression of conflicts among data sources, manipulation of the peer review process to suppress publication of articles by scientists who are not of climate alarmist bent, attempts to discredit such, and general cherry-picking of evidence presented to policy makers and the media. Examination of some of the leaked computer code that processes the climate data to generate global temperature timelines raises troubling issues on injection of bias and on general poor processing. This, in addition to longstanding questions on the quality of the data from too many weather stations worldwide, and on key proxies such as tree ring width.

Wikipedia has a helpful first look summary page, with onward links; but stresses the "stolen emails being investigated" angle rather than the issues at stake exposed by the apparent whistleblower and his or her hacker colleagues. It also gives main and perhaps undue emphasis to the rebuttals being issued, only giving sketchy notes on what the skeptics are saying, without detailing the whys and wherefores behind their objections. So, it is appropriate to link to Lord Christopher Monckton of the UK, who has a blistering summary from his "I have been vindicated" climate skeptic perspective. Also, the discussion on the ethics and issues of whistleblowing here will give some balance on the "stolen emails" issue. Christopher Booker's Nov 28 review in the UK Daily Telegraph on the exposed science scandal will also bear perusal. The Climate-gate.org site has a search-able compilation of the leaked documents, and the original zip -- which cannot easily be accessed from Wikipedia -- is here. Pajamas media TV has significant video coverage etc here.

In short, on the eve of the Copenhagen summit on climate trends and responses, some serious questions are now on the table about he core scientific "consensus." [NB: From various sources, it seems the leakers had communicated the 61 MB clutch of information to major news organisations a month before it was placed on a Server in Russia and announced to the Internet. But, no major news organisation acted on the information, and it took weeks for many news houses to do news stories, too many of which were of the "nothing to see here, move along," genre.)

While I have followed the net news and have compiled a collection of files for future reference, I have been too busy to directly comment.

But now, we can see an even more troubling incident, where a prof Schneider of Stanford has his staff call armed UN security to threaten and expel a legitimate journalist from a news conference; having just asserted [without evidence] that the leaked emails -- in which he prominently featured --were "redacted":



We need to reflect on what is happening to public dialogue on serious issues that affect our whole world.

And, we need to think about what is happening to the public mind when major media houses and institutions as well as a wide cross section of the public support or are tolerant of such strong arm censorship tactics in the cause of agendas they favour. END