In case you’re not familiar with that word, it means homosexuality, and to call it an abomination is, well, just not polite! Not to mention, it can get you “cancelled.” I’m shocked this video by Voddie hasn’t gotten taken down from YouTube, or what I’ve come to call CommieTube. I guess the totalitarian thugs who run that joint missed it in their algorithms. Hopefully, my world famous blog (yes you can Laugh Out Loud) won’t bring unwanted attention to Voddie speaking Truth to Power, cultural power, that is.
Even in our biblically illiterate time, the phrase “Sodom and Gomorrah” is somewhat familiar, but few could explain the reference. Voddie Baucham gives what in my opinion is the best talk (sermon) I’ve ever heard on the topic of homosexuality from a faithfully biblical perspective. Needless to say, this won’t get him any praise from secular cultural elites, or any non-conservative Christians, but Christianity has never been driven by what is culturally acceptable. Needless to say, but unfortunately it is needed, that has never been the case. From day one when our Savior was crucified between two thieves for claiming to be exactly who he was, he and his followers were to forever be a threat to the political, cultural, and spiritual powers of the age.
If you’re not familiar with Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), he was a significantly influential atheist philosopher, primarily because he influenced two of the great malevolent thinkers of the modern age, Marx and Freud. The misery left in the wake of their influence on the 20th century is awesome to behold in its sheer destruction. For Marx that manifested itself in the slaughter of more than a hundred million human beings, and for Freud, the psychological and emotional destruction of generations. We can add to that that many took him as an inspiration for the so called sexual revolution, and we know that hasn’t turned out so well. All three men were committed believers in a God-less universe, but it was Feuerbach who laid the foundation with his assertion that all religion was merely human wish fulfillment. His arguments were definitely not that simplistic, but he believed since there was no God, the prevalence of religion in all cultures and all times had to be explained in some way, and human psychology was it. (more…)
When I told my son, I guess the more cynical of my three children, he didn’t believe it. He, like a lot of people, figured he wasn’t even homosexual in the first place, that it was all an act to gain attention. If you don’t know who Milo is, he is a provocateur who had his 15 minutes of fame five or six years ago, was basically “cancelled,” and pretty much silent for the last five years. No longer, although I’m guessing the new Stalinists who control the media and try to control the Internet will try to keep him silent about his conversion. I’ve already seen that in play, and it doesn’t surprise me at all. We listened to this fascinating interview of Milo with Eric Metaxas, and I looked at Metaxas’ YouTube channel, and lo and behold, other interviews he did are there, but not this one. Doesn’t quite fit with the woke, homosexual activist, libertine narrative, which Milo talks about quite a bit in the interview. The Tech oligarchs are communist thugs, and they do what communist thugs do, sans the bloodshed, at least for the time being.
P.S. Notice that I do not use the word “gay.” In the 1960s, and more so into the 1970s, homosexual activists absconded with that perfectly fine word that used to mean happy. Watch pre-60s movies, or listen to pre-60s music, and you’ll often hear the word, and never does it mean homosexual. The word used in the current context is a lie because there is nothing productive of true happiness in the homosexual lifestyle, so I don’t use it.
I just finished a book by British Philosopher, and atheist, Thomas Nagel called Mind & Cosmos. The reason I read it was because of the subtitle: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. It’s a short but very dense read by a philosopher of very big mind, much bigger than mine. I had to read some passages over several times to try to figure out what he was saying, and even then I couldn’t figure it out. I did understand enough to realize that it was a colossal enterprise of spitting into the wind, of trying to hold on to a worldview that he knows has zero explanatory power. As the blurb for the book puts it, Nagel “argues that the widely accepted world view of materialist naturalism is untenable.” Right, but he’s obviously determined to not give up his materialist naturalism; the futility of the enterprise is pathetic. I don’t mean that as a put down, but that it’s sad to see such a brilliant man work so hard to deny the obvious.
Over and over again he points to the only logical conclusion of his musings, but he can’t allow the conclusion to be God. Here are a few quotes to make the point:
The existence of conscious minds and their access to the evident truths of ethics and mathematics are among the data that a theory of the world has yet to explain.
Really? How about God! The eternal conscious mind who created all conscious minds? Nope, can’t go there. How about:
The respective inadequacies of materialism and theism as transcendent conceptions, and the impossibility of abandoning the search for a transcendent view of our place in the universe, lead to the hope for an expanded but still naturalistic understanding that avoids psychophysical reductionism.
What does that even mean! So, we can have some explanation of the universe that is at once transcendent and still naturalistic? Some explanation that transcends the materialist conception of the universe, matter is all that there is, but somehow transcends matter? This kind of nonsense is all over this little book. The man is desperate to hold on to his atheism in spite of a universe that makes his atheism absurd. One more:
I do not find theism any more credible than materialism as a comprehensive world view. My interest is in the territory between them. I believe that these two radically opposed conceptions of ultimate intelligibility cannot exhaust the possibilities.
Between? Really? Let me interpret this with a question. He realizes the bankruptcy of materialism, and believes that God certainly can’t exist, so there must be something in between? Like what? Something that transcends materialism that isn’t material but isn’t God? As “they” say, clutching at straws. I think what Paul said in Romans 1 is a much more satisfying answer to his dilemma: “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so they are without excuse. ” As I said in my previous post, scientific knowledge is making the invisible qualities of God more visible than ever before, but as we can see with Mr. Nagel, it is only to those God has given eyes to see the obvious. If you refuse to see, you write books like Mind & Cosmos.
For the last couple hundred years in Western culture Christianity has been on the defensive. The 20th century saw the full flowering of militant and confident secularist materialism to the point where our cultural elites see Christianity not just as wrong and backward (especially “unscientific”), but morally evil. Known as the woke mob is not only dominant in education, Hollywood, and the media, but has now even taken over corporate boardrooms. The irony is that they refuse to follow their mantra to “follow the science” when that science leads directly to a Creator God. With the advance in scientific knowledge over the last 50 years it takes willful blindness, which rebellious sinners are really good at, to refuse to see the evidence that forces us to infer a designer from a universe so exquisitely designed for life. I recently watched/listened to the video below of Eric Metaxas having a discussion with Stephen C. Meyer about this new book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. I’m adding this to my ever growing list of books I want to read. He addresses three big discoveries that have happened over the last century that have put the materialists squarely on the defensive: (more…)
Recent Comments