Matt 24 watch, 232b: A tale of two signs, as evolutionist prof and militant atheist Jerry Coyne cheers on censorship -- or, what does the miror psychology of projection have to do with the sort of "religion is superstition" sign that FFRF has put up?

This is a case where it is useful to cross-post from Uncommon Descent, as we have a very interesting contrast of two signs to address:

_____________

>>>Coyne et al cheer on censorship — it is time to take notice . . .

December 17, 2013

Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist debate/rhetorical tactics, Education, Science, worldview issues and society, They said it . . .

Yesterday, UD News  headlined a case of radical secularist censorship in Los Angeles being cheered on by Jerry Coyne et al. The case concerns the removal of the following sign (shown under fair use) that was formerly present at a Museum of Natural History in that city:

Notice, what Coyne says in exultation over the removal of the sign:

If I get any other information I’ll convey it, but for now I’m pleased that God is out of the Museum and no longer gets credit for “creatures.”  It’s a victory for secularism, for sure.

Something is blatantly, deeply wrong.

Wrong with the push to censor. Wrong with the willingness of the museum’s leadership to be intimidated by Darwinist thuggery — and yes, this is thuggery. Wrong with professors who should value academic freedom, freedom of expression and diversity but instead are cheering on censorship.

And — most importantly, wrong in a civilisation that is so rapidly losing its way, that it too often does not see a warning-sign for what it is.

By way of illustration, let me contrast a second sign that seems to have been put up (at Advent season, nothing less) by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the Illinois State legislature building . . . which IIRC, is the same state where prof. Coyne is based; a sign reportedly put up by the FFRF in the name of freedom of religious expression:

The stereotypical, scapegoating accusatory message and significance of its timing at the Christmas season could not be clearer.

(Let’s ask: have Mr Coyne and ilk loudly called for removal of this blatant piece of bigotry and scapegoating hostility that refuses to acknowledge the most obvious facts that — despite the inevitable sins that any movement with a track record in history will also have to deal with  –  Judaeo-Christian theism is a legitimate and intellectually serious worldview with thousands of years of positive contributions to our civilisation including advancing humanitarianism, civil liberty, learning and science? I doubt it. [And while I am at it, let us remember: if we are to make sensible policy choices, we must compare real with real in light of material pros and cons, not real with utopian ideal or whitewashed . . . as in, strawman tactics make for poor and often unjust or abusive and corrupt policy. Cases in point are obvious, all around and on the ash-heaps of sound history. Which, we had better learn and value as a record of hard-bought experience and lessons; lest we repeat its worst chapters.])

{BTW: if you doubt the direct connexion between the two, ponder this comment by NewEnglandBob in Coyne’s Combox:

Critical thinking – 1, Superstition – 0.}

I took time out to comment on the news post, and as it is beginning to slide down the page, let me now headline that comment:
________________
>> This pattern of intolerance and censorship of legitimate and historically important perspectives begins to call forth an analysis of motives, attitudes and habitual patterns.

For instance, Jesus — in a psychologically deeply insightful observation — warns that we should beware and seek to address the plank in our own eye when we want to take the speck out of someone else’s eye, and says that he who is faithful/unfaithful with little will be much the same with greater power and responsibility. So, while the temptation for objectors to design theory etc is to try to twist this about and project it accusingly against us, given their refusal to acknowledge history (BA77 [OOPS: Barb] is so right to point to Newton and by extension many others down to today . . . ) and to pretend that those on our side can only be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, we need to hold up a mirror.

For instance, Egnor reports how Coyne exults:

The anonymous donor quote at the NHM has been removed. My second-hand source tells me it will not be replaced. No doubt your efforts, coupled with those of a science reporter at KPCC looking into the mess, compelled the administration to finally do the right thing. Without doubt, you and your WEIT audience were the driving forces, for which I’m grateful.

This is censorship of a legitimate perspective on science, from a context that is educational.
It is part and parcel of an increasingly widespread pattern that projects blame, base motivation, hatred/enmity to science and shrill accusations of intent to create a theocratic, right wing tyranny.
This outrageously false and unbalanced scapegoating is beginning to look like blame the victim/ blame the perceived other, projection to me.

Where, writ large and backed by growing radical secularist power, it is manifestly part of a blame the target turnabout accusation that all too easily becomes a big lie propaganda agenda.

Where also, of course, such a lie can and must be shown to be a case of speaking with willful disregard to the truth one knows or should know, hoping to profit by what is false being perceived and acted on as if it were true. In this case, through outright censorship of a donor’s plaque.

And where we are cautioned, on the mirror principle, to note with Freud et al (and I here cite Wiki speaking against interest):

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude . . .

.Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political,[13] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[14]—in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[15]

Carl Jung considered that the unacceptable parts of the personality represented by the Shadow archetype were particularly likely to give rise to projection, both small-scale and on a national/international basis.[16] Marie-Louise Von Franz extended his view of projection, stating that: “… wherever known reality stops, where we touch the unknown, there we project an archetypal image”.[17]

The philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach based his theory of religion in large part upon the idea of projection, that is the idea that an anthropomorphic deity is the outward projection of man’s anxieties and desires . . .

That last part is revealing: Feuerbach (who is where Marx began from, and IIRC is notorious for his you are what you eat materialist view . . . ) has simply swept away the serious reasons for a mature worldview that takes God seriously — and thus rightfully sees him as the Father of compassion and God of all comfort — and instead paints a ridiculous strawman caricature. Which itself invites the counter- analysis that asks, what is he afraid of in his own system that he projects to others. Not, as a mere rhetorical turnabout, but in the context of the well warranted observation that the portrait projected is manifestly a strawman so it invites analysis on mirror psychology grounds.

Now, let us apply to Coyne et al.

1 –> Obviously, they have begun by not doing duty of care to truth or fairness, about the easily discovered Judaeo-Christian theistic roots of modern science, and the historically important and quite legitimate view that echoes Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Kelvin and ever so many others down to today:

in science we seek to think God’s creative and sustaining thoughts after him, serving him and others by exploring our world to more accurately understand it and so be better stewards of it and its resources . . .

2 –> There is nothing illegitimate or unduly threatening in such a view of and approach to science. That is obvious. Indeed, we do the public and especially children a disservice if we leave them with the impression that this view has not been historically important, a source of much good, and continues to be an important view today held by many working scientists, engineers and medical practitioners in all sorts of fields.

3 –> Likewise — as as BA77 hints at just above by citing the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 (which speaks to God no less than four highly significant times, and makes rights endowed by our Creator the pivot of its argument) — it is a manifest distortion of historically anchored truth we know or should know to pretend that faith in God is an inevitable prelude to tyranny. (And yes, we are aware of and address the sad history of the sins of Christendom, cf. here on. The problem is that we are not dealing with balance here, but a persistently repeated one-sided litany designed to stir up fear, suspicion and even hate leading to destructive anger. Instead, let us state the obvious: no influential movement of consequence in history will not have its record of sins as amidst wheat poisonous tares will forever spring up. As humans we are finite, fallible, morally and intellectually struggling, and too often ill-willed and even hypocritical. The moral hazards of being human which we must all struggle with. Hence Jesus’ counsel on planks in one’s own eye: first remove the plank then you can see clearly to help the other with the sawdust in his eye.)

4 –> Just the opposite, when — in Ch 2 sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil government — Locke (building on a foundation laid by theologians and Christian thinkers, writers and statesmen during and before the Reformation) set out to ground what would become modern liberty and democracy . . . and not least through that same US DOI of 1776, he cites a comment by “the judicious [Anglican canon Richard] Hooker,” where in his Ecclesiastical Polity that worthy comments on the neighbour love ethical principle that is at the pivot of Biblical morality:

. . . 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 . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity, preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80.]

5 –> These facts are not exactly obscure or hard to learn, so there is no excuse for the sort of persistently willful distortion and projections that we are seeing, which are now manifesting themselves in cases of abuse of law, administrative power and influence, here to impose a characteristic mark of growing tyranny — undue censorship of public education.

6 –> Where, patently, there is nothing that is genuinely obscene or unduly offensive in the following inscription which was removed due to agitation, without proper accountability:

“The Nature Lab is a gift to Los Angeles to celebrate all of God’s creatures and enable NHM to broaden our understanding of the natural world through the process of scientific discovery.” Anonymous Donor 2013

7 –> So, we have serious grounds for now applying the mirror psychology principle to Coyne et al and their censorship.

8 –> Obviously, such fear God and fear that the world of nature and of human experience of the inner and outer world is so replete with signs that point to God and to our duty under him, that to advance their agenda of teenager rebellion writ large, they must do everything to induce us to fear, loathe, suspect and exclude God from our reckoning and to act with hostility to those who act through acknowledging God. (Cf here on and here on in context.)

9 –> They are also obviously deeply angry, as the all too persistent shrillness of their rhetoric reveals. But also, deep seated anger is a key motivator of the dark triad manipulative and abusive pattern of narcicissim, machiavellianism and sociopathy that is an increasing concern today. That is, the darker side of “cool,” and it is a big red warning flag. (And yes, I come from hurricane country. I know storm signs and warnings when I see them.)

10 –> Where, obviously, such anger and threatening attitudes are easily projected to others who are designated, stereotypical, strawmannised scapegoats. Which in today’s age, increasingly obviously, is what Christians — let’s be direct — are typically set up to be by radical secularists.

11 –> And as Aristotle warned, in The Rhetoric Bk I ch 2, when he discussed the persuasive power of pathos, ethos and logos, our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and angry.

12 –> So, it is time to expose the attitudes and behaviours of Coyne and others who are already resorting to and cheering on censorship, that they are beginning to build up the same pattern of “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that dismisses concerns and remonstrance, that warrants taking serious action to carry out reformation in the teeth of those who by their persistent behaviour — cf the case in view here, outright censorship — show themselves threats to liberty and self-determination and self-government of and by a free people. >>
_________________

Folks, the warning signs and flags are going up all around. Time to take heed, before things spin utterly out of control. END

PS: By way of a small push-back to Coyne et al and FFRF et al also at , let me put up two 101 level videos that speak to the general public.

First, as the idea that God is Creator is being attacked and censored, Strobel’s The Case for a Creator:






Second, in reply to the dismissal of “Religion” at the Advent season as empty and destructive superstition, Strobel’s The Case for Christ:



>>>
______________ 

I went on to clip from Coyne's comments box, as the commenters inadvertently further underscore the point:

Here is more from Coyne’s Combox, by a JGago:

Excellent news! This was the right decision by the administrators. I have already received an email from a colleague at the Museum and this are in fact great news. I know the curators and managers at the Museum played the main role by confronting the administrators, so thanks to them and to those of you who sent emails to the administrators.

This looks a lot like a deeply entrenched institutional problem to me.
Also, notice this declaration of intent by another commenter, calling himself Kevin Meredith:

Here’s what I predicted/speculated in the comments to the first post:
“Now, what would be really funny is if there’s enough of an outcry, or anonymous is outed or something, so that he/she/them agrees to let the sign come down, but doesn’t insist on donation refund so as not to look any more ignorant.”

The first part seems to have come true. The second part, re. what happens to the money, would be tougher to verify. Anonymous probably won’t ask for a refund of past cash, but I bet they withhold future payments, next year’s grant or whatever.

I wonder if these folks understand what they are revealing about themselves in light of their words and the mirror/projection principle given the underlying distortions, strawman tactics and hostile stereotypes? (As in why would someone clinging to a position that has to view/treat others as shown, project to others that they are “ignorant”? And why is he thinking in terms of “out[ing]” people — as in target-painting?) 

In the face of such a pattern, it is not melodramatic to say: gale warning. It is time for us to pay attention to what is going on and act prudently in good time before the storm hits in full force. END

Matt 24 watch, 232a: Questioning the agenda of the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) -- Is "religion" properly seen as "but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" . . . or is this an exercise in turnabout accusation, well-poisoning atheistical bigotry?

Last time, when we looked at the Freedom From Religion Foundation's poster put up in the Illinois Legislature at Advent Season:

. . . we questioned the implied accusation and bigotry against the Christian faith by making the comparison, what if at Hanukkah, the same had been done with the direct statement that "Judaism is . . . "

That comparison is not just a hypothetical example.

For, some time ago, the late Christopher Hitchens argued to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, that Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs" in order to convert the West Bank zone of Judaea and Samaria into a radical Jewish theocracy. This of course alludes to troubling OT war-texts that have been of painful concern to many Jews and Christians alike for many years. Boteach responded:

. . . any Rabbi who was to praise a Jewish murderer would be fired from his post and banished from his community. The Torah is clear: 'Thou may not murder' (Exodus 20) and 'Thou shalt not take revenge' (Leviticus 19).

Second, no Biblical story of massacre, which is a tale and not a law, could ever be used to override the most central prohibition of the Ten Commandments and Biblical morality. Murder is the single greatest offense against the Creator of all life and no Jew would ever use a Biblical narrative of war or slaughter as something that ought to be emulated. In our time Churchill and Roosevelt, both universally regarded as moral leaders and outstanding men, ordered the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants in the Second World War through the carpet- bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo. Truman would take it further by ordering the atomic holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How did men who are today regarded as righteous statesmen order such atrocities? They were of the opinion that only total war could end Nazi tyranny and Japanese imperial aggression. They did it in the name of saving life. Which is of course not to excuse their actions but rather to understand them in the context of the mitigating circumstances of the time. I do not know why Moses would have ordered any such slaughter even in the context of war. But I do know that the same Bible who relates the story also expressly forbids even the thought of such bloodshed ever being repeated.

(In short the antisemitism concern raised above is not just theoretical, for here we see a case of outright blood libel from one of the top several New Atheist spokesmen that takes advantage of high feelings on the admittedly thorny Arab-Israeli conflict, to slip in the poisoned rhetorical knife. So, it was entirely in order for Dr Torley of Uncommon Descent to ask Dr Dawkins, who used these texts as an excuse not to debate his strident anti-Christian claims in his The God Delusion with Dr William Lane Craig: "would you be willing to debate the topic of God's existence with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi holding such a view [as Boteach's]? Would you be prepared to look a rabbi in the eye and tell him, "Your God is a genocidal monster"? Or do you also consider rabbis holding such views to be beyond the pale of civilized debate, and would you shun them as you have shunned Professor Craig? "  [It is ALMOST needless to say, that there are no responsible Christian leaders who would take the same texts as a mandate for mass slaughter. (Cf. discussions here on.)])

What, then, is really going on here?

The obvious, projection to effect a turnabout accusation in light of a strong need to distract attention from the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism.

For instance, the dean of the New Atheists, the now retired Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science,  Richard Dawkins, has gone on record in Scientific American since August 1995 as follows:

 Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

Likewise, Cornell Professor William B Provine, at his February 1998 Darwin Day keynote address at the University of Tennessee (yes the same state where the Scopes Monkey trial was held in 1925), went on record (apparently oblivious to the implications that would reduce the human mind . . . including his own! . . . to utter irrationality driven by blind deterministic and/or chance forces):

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . 

 

The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

In some ways, Nobel Prize holder, Sir Francis Crick was more subtle but even more self-refuting, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis:

. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. [[Cf. dramatisation of unintended potential consequences, here.]

But plainly, if Sir Francis is included in the circle of humanity he has just painted, this dramatically undermines his own thought. 

This is why ID thinker Phillip Johnson responded that Dr Crick should therefore be willing to preface his books: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” (In short, as Prof Johnson then went on to say: “[[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [[In Reason in the Balance, 1995.])

Oops.

But there is more.  In critiquing Provine's remarks from a Judaeo-Christian perspective, Kyle Butt brings out a significant implication:

Provine’s . . . [[address] centered on his fifth statement regarding human free will. Prior to delving into the “meat” of his message, however, he noted: “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” (Provine, 1998).

It is clear then, from Provine’s comments, that he believes naturalistic evolution has no way to produce an “ultimate foundation for ethics.” And it is equally as clear that this sentiment was so apparent to “modern naturalistic evolutionists” that Mr. Provine did not feel it even needed to be defended . . . . [[However, i]f it is true that naturalistic evolution cannot provide an ultimate foundation for determining the difference between actions that are right and ones that are wrong, then the door is wide open for subjective speculation about all human behavior. [[Rape and Evolution, Apologetics Press, 2005.]

In short, it seems that the shoe is actually pretty much on the other foot.

For, it is plain that we have rights that are indeed binding obligations that demand that we respect one another. That is, we are under universally acknowledged moral government -- just look at how the atheist screams even louder than the rest when he or she imagines his or her rights have been violated!

In short, OUGHT is real.

But that brings to bear a problem, for OUGHT needs to be grounded. Grounded in a world-foundational IS that can properly bear the weight of OUGHT.

Space, time, matter, energy, blind chance and mechanical necessity obviously cannot ground such.

Indeed, after thousands of years of debates on the subject there is only one serious candidate to be such an IS: the inherently good creator God who is our Lord and Just Judge.

Where, in the most relevant sense, religion is not empty superstition at all, but the response of gratitude, worship and service that we owe to that good God.

But, someone will predictably object: look at all the crimes, wars, oppressions, injustices and hypocrisies that religion has sponsored!

(After all, that is the new atheist partly-line talking point that is being pushed all around us today. )

To which the first retort is:  look at all the crimes, wars, oppressions, injustices and hypocrisies that religion atheism -- once it gained state power -- has sponsored!

 You see, the problem is not religion per se (though religious people and institutions can fail horribly) or atheism by itself. No, it is that as Solzhenitsyn -- having suffered in the gulags of the officially atheistic Soviet Union -- noted: the line between good and evil passes, not between classes, races and nations, but through the individual human heart.

That, is our real problem: we are finite, fallible, intellectually and morally struggling, too often ill-willed and utterly unwise creatures who far too often stubbornly refuse to learn from sound counsels, conscience, history or our own experience. 

Where the next problem is that power tends to corrupt, and absolute -- unlimited, unaccountable -- power corrupts absolutely.

So, a first step forward (more to follow)  is to lay off the toxic slogans and face the troubling darkness in our own hearts, then we can begin to turn from evil to the good in repentance and renewal.

I think the great scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, is wise in his epochal 1990 essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage :

 . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . 

In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

Let us heed that hard-bought wisdom, and let us proceed in a more balanced spirit. END

Trivia: It looks like FLOTUS, Michelle, was right

Here. The pics speak for themselves.

(Not the usual KF fare -- even as just a link, but this seems to be being discussed with a bit too much of political/racial polarisation overtones.)

BREAKING NEWS: Billy Graham, the now 95 year-old world-famous Evangelist is ailing . . .

I just noticed this news report, datelined Wed Dec 11, 2013:

Will Graham Says That His Grandfather, Billy Graham, Is Very Weak and Is Ready To Go Home To Be With the Lord
‘He’s finished his race,’ he says

 By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries

BELLFLOWER, CA (ANS) -- Evangelist Will Graham, the grandson of Billy Graham, has

Billy, Franklin & Will Graham

said that at the age of 95, Mr. Graham is close to going home to be with the Lord.
In an exclusive interview at Hosanna Christian Fellowship, Bellflower, California, before he was to preach tonight (Wednesday, December 11, 2013) at a special Christian event, he spoke movingly about Billy Graham’s frail condition. “I saw my grandfather last week and he is not doing well,” said Will, the son of Franklin Graham. “He’s not suffering or anything. It’s just that old age has caught up to him and is sucking the life out of him.
“On November 7 [with his My Hope America with Billy Graham* outreach], he finished his race and up until that time, God had protected his health and gave him supernatural strength and now, the only thing left is for him to come home. God has removed his hand of protection and old age has set in. [MORE . . . ]

All I can say, is, a life's race well-run. God grant him grace to the finish-line. END

PS: I was recently informed that TBN founder Paul Crouch has passed away Nov. 30 after a decade-long fight with chronic heart disease.

Matt 24 watch, 233: Is a plumb line of judgment being taken to our civilization as we speak? (A few quick thoughts on Amos 7:7 - 9 . . . with Isaiah 5:20- 21 and Jeremiah 18:1 - 11)

In recent days, over at the Uncommon Descent blog, I have felt moved to raise the issue of plumb-line moral and general self-evident truths (cf. here and here). For, we have come to a sad pass of moral and general incoherence in our civilisation. 

So, I think it appropriate to pause and ponder a simple tool that can help us understand whether what we have built is true (accurately straight) and plumb (accurately vertical):

This simple tool and its amazing power to reveal the quality of what we have done, brings me to Amos 7:7 - 9:

Plumb lines and squares from the tomb of Senedjem,
an Ancient Egyptian architect (Source, fair use)

Amos 7:⁷ Thus He showed me, and behold, the Lord stood upon a wall with a plumb line, with a plumb line in His hand.

⁸ And the Lord said to me, Amos, what do you see? And I said, A plumb line. Then said the Lord, Behold, I am setting a plumb line as a standard in the midst of My people Israel. I will not pass by and spare them any more [the door of mercy is shut]. ⁹ And the [idolatrous] high places of Isaac (Israel) shall be desolate and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise with the sword against the house of King Jeroboam [who set up the golden calf shrines].[AMP]

Israel was put to the test, and failed. 

They failed to build aright, what they built failed the test and what they had built now had to be removed, so that a better start could be made. And so also, in the context of that failure, we can already hear the rumbles of the approaching hoof-beats of the Assyrians.

Sturgeon, reflecting on the text, suggests:

You and I, dear Brothers and Sisters, may be very thankful if God should use us as he did Amos and, if He does, we must not be envying the Isaiahs and Ezekiels. If we see a plumb line, let us preach about a plumb line! And if God should ever enable us to understand the visions of Zechariah or Ezekiel, then let us preach about them. Let every preacher or teacher testify according to the measure of the Light of God and Grace that God has given him—then we shall do well. Amos can see a plumb line and he sees it well—and when he has seen it, he tells what he has seen—and leaves God to set His seal upon his testimony.

Now, on this occasion we have nothing before us but this plumb line, but there is a great deal to be learned from it.

The first thing is this—the plumb line is used in construction.

Secondly,the plumb line is used for testing what is built.

And, thirdly, it appears from the text that the plumb line is used in the work of destruction, for the casting down of that which is found not to be straight . . . 

Our situation is far worse, for we have what happened to Israel as an example for us, to avoid their mistakes. 

And yet, astonishingly, we are busily indulging in that terrible moral inversion that Isaiah warned against:

Isa 5:¹⁸ Woe to those who draw [calamity] with cords of iniquity and falsehood, who bring punishment to themselves with a cart rope of wickedness, ¹⁹ Who say, Let [the Holy One] make haste and speed His [prophesied] vengeance, that we may see it; and let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know it!

²⁰ Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

²¹ Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent and shrewd in their own sight! . . . . 

²⁴ Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as the dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root shall be like rottenness and their blossom shall go up like fine dust—because they have rejected and cast away the law and the teaching of the Lord of hosts and have not believed but have treated scornfully and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

²⁵ Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against His people, and He has stretched forth His hand against them and has smitten them. And the mountains trembled, and their dead bodies were like dung and sweepings in the midst of the streets. For all this, His anger is not turned away, but His hand is still stretched out [in judgment].

²⁶ And He will lift up a signal to call together a hostile people from afar [to execute His judgment on Judea], and will hiss for them from the end of the earth [as bees are hissed from their hives], and behold, they shall come with speed, swiftly! [AMP]

We have but one hope:

Jeremiah18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord:

² Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.

³ Then I went down to the potter’s house, and behold, he was working at the wheel. ⁴ And the vessel that he was making from clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he made it over, reworking it into another vessel as it seemed good to the potter to make it.

⁵ Then the word of the Lord came to me:

⁶ O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does? says the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.

⁷ At one time I will suddenly speak concerning a nation or kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it; ⁸ And if [the people of] that nation concerning which I have spoken turn from their evil, I will relent and reverse My decision concerning the evil that I thought to do to them.

⁹ At another time I will suddenly speak concerning a nation or kingdom, that I will build up and plant it; ¹⁰ And if they do evil in My sight, obeying not My voice, then I will regret and reverse My decision concerning the good with which I said I would benefit them.

¹¹ Now therefore say to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Thus says the Lord: Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Return now each one from his evil way; reform your [accustomed] ways and make your [individual] actions good and right . . .  [AMP]

So, now, let us ponder, and let us tremble before The Carpenter from Nazareth, who bears the humble but so telling plumb-line in His Awesome, nail-pierced Hand. END

What cross-winds can do: "Any landing you can walk away from . . " vs "Never flying again"

At Birmingham airport in the UK, Thursday just past  a landing passenger jet was pushed sideways dangerously . . . twice . . .  before aborting and landing at Gatwick, London:


My question is, if London etc -- or even Holland, France or Germany were within reach, why did this happen? (And it seems another jet was pushed sideways but managed to land safely.)

Anyway, a warning on the limits of safety on aircraft. END

Matt 24 watch, 232: A revealing Freedom From Religion Foundation sign publicly posted at Christmas time . . .

The state capitol in Illinois -- at Advent season, nothing less -- reportedly bears the following sign from the notorious, atheistical Freedom From Religion Foundation (under the claim that this is freedom of religious expression):

It is more than fair comment to say that this sign, especially when posted in a Government venue at this time, is specifically directed at the Christian Faith and constitutes hate-driven slander with overtones of blood libel. Endorsed by the State of Illinois.

Let us think about it.

Not very long ago, it was Hannukkah, the annual celebration of the triumph over Haman who sought to destroy the Jewish people and also of the victory over Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to destroy Judaism and paganise Israel.

Can you imagine if, in the same venue at the same time as that Jewish festival only a few weeks ago, the same or a similar sign had been posted -- especially if it had made explicit the following simple but menacing change:

Judaism is but 

myth and superstition 

that hardens hearts 

and enslaves minds

. . . (which hateful horror would be directly implied by the timing)?

Do we need to remind the world that over the past 100 years, more Christians have peacefully died as martyrs for their faith than in the previous nineteen put together? 

Or, that all too many millions of these have perished at the hands of atheistical regimes?

Why, then, in the name of all that is decent, is there a willingness to post in a government venue at this time, such a sign that implies directly:

Christianity is but 

myth and superstition 

that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds

. . . ( an implication revealed to one and all simply by its timing )?

It is high time that some serious re-thinking is done. Stay tuned . . . END

Matt 24 watch, 231: December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor . . . a reminder of the impact of underestimating a potential enemy

Today is Pearl Harbor day, not only a solemn reminder of grim history, but also a reminder of the possibilities of a devastating surprise attack by an under-estimated potential enemy. 

Here (HT: Wiki)  is a strategic level map of the sortie and strike, showing also how the US Carriers were out of Pearl Harbor:

Wikipedia reports:

View of the attack in progress, from a Japanese aircraft, showing
a torpedo hit on USS Oklahoma in Battleship Row, Ford Island.
Attacking IJN aircraft can also be seen. (HT: Wiki)

The attack on Pearl Harbor^{[nb 4]} was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan). The attack led to the United States' entry into World War II.

The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan was planning in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. There were simultaneous Japanese attacks on the U.S.-held Philippines and on the British Empire in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

USS Arizona -- now a monument
-- explodes. 1,177 officers and men
were killed on the USS Arizona,
many being trapped alive
in the sunken hull. This
is almost half the death toll. (HT: Wiki)

From the standpoint of the defenders, the attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time.^[13] The base was attacked by 353^[14] Japanese fighters, bombers and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.^[14] All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk. All but one were later raised, and six of the eight battleships returned to service and fought in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship,^{[nb 5]} and one minelayer. 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 Americans were killed^[16] and 1,282 wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five midget submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. One Japanese sailor was captured.

The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. The following day (December 8), the United States declared war on Japan. Domestic support for non-interventionism, which had been strong,^[17] disappeared. Clandestine support of Britain (for example the Neutrality Patrol) was replaced by active alliance. Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, which was reciprocated by the U.S. the same day.

There were numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action by Japan. However, the lack of any formal warning, particularly while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy".

This is all history, grim history from seventy-two years ago.

But, it is history we must not forget as we see Iran moving ever closer to having the nuclear weapons that make the genocide it has repeatedly threatened Israel with a practical proposition. END

Sci-tech watch, 10: Scoliosis -- crooked spine -- correction using pedicle screws

Usain Bolt is Jamaica's most famous sufferer with scoliosis, an abnormal curvature of the spine. (One wonders what he would be doing without that impediment!)

Let us take a look at scoliosis and how it is corrected using pedicle screw surgery, by means of an infographic:

Needless to elaborate, the surgical correction of scoliosis is difficult, and one should note just how screamingly close the screws run to the spinal cord. The apparatus inserted is also quite close to the nerves that run in and out of the spine. This is one for that old prayer, Lord, guide the hands of the surgeons.

More details: Wikipedia, Brown University.

With thanks for concerns and prayers. END