Friday, October 30, 2009

A comment in response to remarks at Barbados Underground

I have had to respond to a cluster of assertions (some of them slanderous) at Barbados Underground, in a blog thread here.


My comments overnight -- the posting mechanism at BU seems to be locking it out -- are:

_________________

Moderators:


I must further comment in response to an unfortunate slander.


+++++++++++


NS:


1] You have failed to apologise for slander. Thus, you have shown yourself to be a willful indulger in verbal violence. Onlookers, kindly observe.


2] Sources vs substance


NS -- including through his own slanders against me [false accusations of racism, advocacy of violence etc] -- has resorted to a common tactic when one has not the substance -- attack the source.


In fact the onward cites and links I gave are replete with detailed onward links and themselves indicate the breadth of the understanding that CAIR is a subversive and Jihadistic group: FBI reports, Court testimony and record (the documents in discovery at the Holy Land Foundation trial -- this link is to Wiki which puts the conviction on retrial in a short paragraph, cf Dallas Morning news here, and the arabic document and translation [pp15 ff] and discussion here, plus this more detailed documentation compilation and notes here by IPT, also this summary on a key point -- are a treasure trove on what is going on all by themselves . . . ), testimony by a wide array of Congresspeople of the US who are not otherwise noted to be in general agreement. (And, BTW, sometimes, it is those who are specifically motivated who are the best sources on an issue. the issue is not who, but the balance on the facts and related reasoning. Notice how in the cited AP report and commentary by JW, the "standard" rebuttal tactic is to attach the man not deal with the facts . . . )


AND, the author of the book-length expose/report in question -- which recall rests on 12,000 pp of largely internal and undeniable CAIR documents, and 300 hrs of videotape [which have actually not been objected to, CAIR has instead attacked the person] -- is authored by a person whose personal life and career highlights give lie to he accusation that it is motivated by racial bigotry etc.


So, onlookers, I leave you to decide for yourselves whose report you will believe on the merits, why.


3] CAIR 5k vs 50 k membership


Of course CAIR's membership levels and trends show that it is thankfully not dominant in the US Muslim population.


However, it has long been a major media and official voice, even used by the US Government in training etc; on the previous understanding that it is a spokesman for the Muslim people of the USA, and that it is moderate.


In short, a major issue with CAIR is that given its foundational connnexions to HAMAS and so the Muslim Brotherhood and the pattern of exposed behaviour linked to terrorism support by word and funding, is that it serves as a agent of subversive influence. As we should recall from the Cold War era, agents of influence do not have to have great numbers, just the access to media, academy and official circles to exert subversive force. And the intent to do that is documented in the AP article linked already:


________________


>>. . . The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on "work for the Palestinian cause on the American front." The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.


The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.


One was Holy Land [Foundation], which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas. [On the retrial, they were convicted on all 108 counts in Nov 2008.]


Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.


And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.


For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.


The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity's leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine....


"It's clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States," Farah said. "It's in their own words, it's a political infiltration that worked for 40 years." . . . .


One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.


The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." >>


( In supplement, I cite from the strategy document in Arabic and translation:


>> The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood's name for itself] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. …


They are then to work to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption,” and the principles of “cooperation.” >>)


__________________


What is now happening, is that formerly hidden connexions to terrorism and lines of consciously subversive influence are now coming out, though trials, through exposure of financial backing and key personnel, and through now an undercover investigation.


4] CAIR's boycott threats


A boycott threat depends on the perception of widespread support.


So, the expose of lack of such widespread support is an important step in breaking the undue influence of CAIR.


Your "shoot in the foot" analogy breaks down.


5] NS, On appeasement


I have pointed out -- revisionist historians notwithstanding -- that the surviving German generals themselves are the source on what would have happened had France and the UK stood up to Hitler in the early stages of the power moves of the 1930's. Let us not forget: MUSSOLINI stopped the first attempt to intimidate and subvert Austria, by sending was it eight divisions to the Brenner pass in 1934.


When Hiter moved against the Rhinelands, he disposed of 4 available battalions as I recall. In so moving he broke the treaty of Versailles openly -- and invited a military response. (So much for the nasty attempt to imply that a strong response in defence of a peaceful order is to be equated as a "war crime" substantially comparable with the preparatory moves for a continent-wide and global power grab. ONLOOKERS, NOTICE HOW HITLER IS BEING "REHABILITATED" BY THOSE WHO OBJECT TO MY CITATION OF RELEVANT HISTORY, THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF IMMORAL EQUIVALENCE. Take warning . . . )


The French had more than enough troops (and tanks too . .. ) to back up the treaty's terms, but with the half-heartedness of the British -- who I primarily blame on this one -- they were unwilling to stand up.


Once Hitler re-occupied this forward position, he fortified the line and discombobulated the western front. By 1936 Belgium peeled off the Western alliance and set its forlorn hopes on neutrality -- which played a significant part in events in 1940.


Once Britain and France confronted a German defence line, they thought back to the Somme and Verdun and assaults on the Hindenberg line in 1917 that broke French morale and triggered mutiny, and were intimidated into passivity.


Hitler spent a year or two building up his forces to as more credible level, then struck against Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession.


Thus he outflanked Czechoslovakia and took away its key defence line. In turn, taking Czechoslovakia outflanked Poland. And then -- after being strategically dislocated -- at last the British found the gumption to stand up, when it was all but too late. And it WAS too late for the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles, the Belgians, the Dutch and even the French.


As for the British, it was a near-run thing.


The rest is history as they say.


So, I simply do not buy the revisionism, on the facts of the actual correlation of forces c 1934 - 36, what happened when Mussolini stood up to Hitler, and what we now know from the German generals; actually have known ever since the Liddell-Hart interviews.


As to the notion that the author of Mein Kampf could ever have been appeased, I will simply cite from that book, in Ch X of its first part:


_____________


>>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness . . . .


The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . >>

____________________


Appeasement presupposes a reasonable person willing to compromise.


Or, that by buying time one can make a better stand later. The evidence runs in the opposite direction, on both counts.


6] MME on Ac 21 - 23


MME has neatly snipped out the telling CONTEXT for Ac 21 - 23, which I highlighted.


I cited the section of the Ac -- and ALL Scripture is profitable for instruction! -- in the specific context that it was an outworking on the ground of the teachings in Rom 13:1 - 10 given just a few months previously, with the background of events in Nehemiah, Daniel and even the Pentateuch [Exodus]. In short, we see here scripture-twisting in the face of being given specific context and discussion. (Since people will usually not follow details of a complex matter step by step, this sort of strawman tactic works surprisingly often.)


The doctrine of interposition is well established and the context of Romans recognises the Roman state as a legitimate civil authority accountable to God to defend Justice. That Nero spectacularly failed in this duty once he discarded Seneca and Burris, does not change this; save that it gives further point to the issue of accountability under God.


Indeed, the famous coin incident in the gospels gives further force to this.


There is that which is of Caesar, and that which is of God. Given the reality that God is creator and that he has created the nations [cf Ac 17], Who has given Caesar that which is in his sphere of responsibility? to whom, then will Caesar account for his stewardship of justice and the power of the purse, the law and the sword? (The answers are self-evident.)


7] On force vs violence again


Force is a reality in a world in which there are wolves that have to be stopped; on pain of destroying the civil peace that protects us all.


So, whether force of words -- and "life and death lie in the power of the tongue" -- or force of the purse or force of the law and the court, or the force that backs that up, the sword, we have to address the issue of when force is just and when it is unjust.


This is a moral question, inescapably. And, it is a proper distinction to designate unjust use of force -- from tongue [e.g. destructive slander] to the sword -- as VIOLENCE.


So, words are far more dangerous and accountable than some are inclined to think, and to abuse. Of course, the naked sword is obviously a force of lethal potential, but so is the destructive tongue.


I repeat, every resort to force has to be justified, on moral grounds. And, in the context of the sword, the well known results of the breakdown of the civil peace and the domination of the sheep by the wolf make the justification plain.


I have already spoken tot he issue of the shepherd gone bad, and his correction or removal by the interposition of other civil authorities and the people. I have noted that the general election is a means to that end.


8] Strikes against Iran . . .


Of course such have not happened to date.


And, the onward tactic is a dilemma: (i) address a controversial issue on an unpopular side and alienate many emotionally, or (ii) be made to look like you are dodging issues -- never mind the actual track record above of ever increasingly tangential and polarising rhetoric using misleading rhetoric, to distract attention from and dismiss the main issue from the original post: we have an islamist fifth column at work in our civilisation.


I will go though the middle, as there is a thrd option -- the dilemma is a false one, though any response will be used doubtless to try to furter polarise the discussion. The real issue is: what is a responsible course of action in the face of a plainly growing threat.


For, only a few months back, we saw a country that had its "leaders" steal an election and abuse the power of the sword to block the people from protesting. [Notice the studied silence on such. A key step here would be to support the people of Iran and their legitimate representatives in their liberation struggle against their Islamist tyrants.]


I would think, beyond this, that a credible alternative to take out the Iranian nuke weapons programme before cities begin to go up in smoke as per declarations by Mr Ahmadinejad and co, would be a base for a serious diplomatically worked out interdiction and/or dismantling of such developments.


(Of course the gradual subversion of any such alternative -- as say the Iraq multi-billion dollar bribery of international officials scandal highlighted -- is another issue that has to be faced; and constrains the credible list of realistic options. Oil money can corrupt international institutions, as we have seen in recent years. So, the issue is neither simple nor easy to address.)


If such diplomacy backed by resolution fails, we have the very plain lesson of the 1930's in front of us. We must not forget it, lest we repeat its worst chapters, with nukes in play in the hands of an unhinged dictator this time.


That lesson is that it only takes a few years to move from a minor cloud on the horizon to a world threatening reality. But, along that path, would- be aggressors will have broken key treaties designed to protect the international peace.


So, it is those who by their arguments imply that cities have to go up in nuclear smoke and fire before serious responses can be taken [by those crippled by such blows?], who have a case to prove.


That case, I would like to hear.

____________


Onlookers, let us hope that we and our children will not face the consequences of failing to act with good sense and determination in good time even as the nuclear storm clouds gather before our eyes. And, let us hope that we will recognise the rhetorical stratagems of agents of influence and others of like ilk, that are plainly designed to confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, so that we will not see our need to act with determination before it is too late.


Good day



___________________


I trust this will be enough to help us see what is needed, if we are to move to a more responsible public discussion. END

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091105/letters/letters2.html


A must read.
Time to fight religious dogma
Published: Thursday | November 5, 2009


The Editor, Sir:
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.

And 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.

Challenge needed

The dogmas of local church denominations need to be challenged, as the Church should hold no position as a moral authority in the land. We have only to look at recent incidents of deviant and repugnant behaviour by church officials to acknowledge that many of them have no intention of themselves abiding by the rules they wish to impose by influencing legislation on the rest of the society.

Their preaching has continued to stultify minds from childhood with a poison that has rendered the nation paralysed. They will need to have their fangs removed, and the legitimacy and authenticity of their ridiculous claims proven fallacious at every turn.

Formidable resistance

An organised effort could provide formidable resistance to the continued efforts by the Church to enslave the minds of the majority of the populace. Those among the population who are at a crossroad regarding their religious beliefs need to be reassured that they are not alone, that they will be provided support as far as morale is concerned, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong in questioning the fallacies they have been force-fed since childhood.

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.

I am, etc.,

ALFRED BUCKLAND

buckram2003@yahoo.com

Atlanta, Georgia

Gordon said...

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 pervede 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 rooted in and expressing prejudice and hostility, not a sound insight.

Gordon said...

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 adn 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 foundatain-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.)

Gordon said...

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:

>> . . . 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!

Gordon said...

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 civlisation.


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:

Gordon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gordon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gordon said...

>> 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

Anonymous said...

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 scoiety 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.

Gordon said...

The above comment is of course plainly a follow up by the same anonymous commenter.

He is deeply wrong, starting from insistently reiterating the same errors I long since corrected for Mr Buckland. (This reflects the obvious, unfortunate problem of the closed, hostile, indoctrinated mind that characterises his remarks.)

I have addressed the remarks in details in a new blog post, no. 94 in the Matthew 24 watch series.

I therefore invite onlookers to go there.