Posted on 05/03/2015 5:00:52 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Way too many of us believe in a magic book negated by science and peppered with all manner of misanthropic myths.
A lawyer and an associate dean at Liberty University, a columnist for Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, and the founder of WND’s Christian fundamentalist site Barbwire.com, Matt Barber might seem like an evangelical fringe character, but, clearly, he means to have his voice heard and his pronouncements taken seriously: his work appears under the portentous slogan RELATIVISTS BEWARE: TRUTH TOLD HERE.
Yet he is affiliated with Glenn Beck, so, in pursuit of Truth-Telling, he sees fit to publish such essays as “You Won’t Believe What the Devil Said to Me!” and “Sympathy for the Devil” — a Means to Destruction, in which the authors, in complete earnestness, write of a horned-and-dangerous Beelzebub as an existent being looming over their daily lives. One would be tempted to dismiss such scribblements as ridiculous, but six out of 10 Americans do believe in Satan. Christianity, that multilevered vehicle for the dissemination of “blind and naked ignorance,” has warped the minds of a majority of Americans, and Barber’s blog reflects (sadly) mainstream religious convictions.
By a tragicomic process of inversion, thus, we have to take Barber seriously, precisely because we would be inclined to disregard him as deeply un-serious, and thereby fail to appreciate the increasing threat that Christianity poses to our Constitutionally godless Republic. The latest reification of this faith-based menace: the proliferating “religious freedom restoration acts.” Nor should we forget the already shockingly successful stealth campaign underway to circumvent Roe v. Wade and deprive women of rights over their own bodies. Both RFRAs and restrictions on abortions are the products, largely, of evangelicals whose names should go down in infamy, but who, like Barber, at least out in the red states, bask in the light of benevolence as “people of faith.”
On April 26, in response to my recent Salon article denouncing the rancid mire of superstitious gobbledygook in which our presidential candidates are wallowing, Barber published “Will Christians Be Fitted with Yellow Crosses?” The arguments he makes against my exposé are as foolish as they are grounded in widely held misconceptions regarding atheism and the nature of reality itself, and so merit rebuttal – a task I find both pleasant and entertaining.
After a desultory prolegomenon in which Barber inveighs against “the secular left’s utter disdain for both our Creator Christ and His faithful followers,” fumes over long-overdue progressive challenges to various discriminatory laws he supports, and warns about “America’s cultural Marxist agents of ruin” and the “acidic bile” of “unfiltered ‘progressivism,’” he labels me a “God-denying goose-stepper” and “paragon of paganism” who “ably puts the ’bigot’ in anti-Christian bigotry.”
Accusations of “bigotry,” trotted out with the intent to silence, should still the tongue of no outspoken atheist. We attack not religious folks as people, but the irrationality inherent in their religion, which is nothing more than hallowed ideology, and therefore is, or should be, as much fair game as, say, socialism. Would Evangelicals heed calls to “respect” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (who has just announced his candidacy for 2016) and avoid engaging in “anti-socialist” bigotry with regard to his political views? Of course not. Nor should they, necessarily, if they disagree with him. Being a socialist, just like being a Christian, is a matter of choice, save one important fact: at least socialism constitutes a coherent ideology to which nothing resembling the benighted principle of “Credo quia absurdum” (I believe because it is absurd) has ever applied.
All those who, in the public arena, advance Christianity’s bizarre supernatural propositions about our world and our origins, and worse, use them to justify legislation, should expect relentless demands for evidence from rationalists. But before Barber or other faith-addled folks take to their keyboards and type out what is usually their first argument against atheism, I’ll dispense with it myself. Yes, we atheists freely admit that no one can epistemologically prove there is no God. But the strength of our convictions should match the validity of the evidence on which they are founded. Shelley put it succinctly: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.” Verse and chapter cited from a potentially unreliable translation of a supposedly holy book composed millennia ago by unknown humans cannot pass as “proof.” But if there is no real evidence to support belief in God, there’s plenty to assume He is nothing but a figment (if a vengeful and despotic one) of our overactive imagination — a product, mostly, of our fear of death. Again, it’s up to believers to justify themselves, not atheists.
But back to Barber’s blog.
Barber takes issue with my statement about “The electorate’s gradual, relentless ditching of religion.” This has been well documented in surveys, to which I link in my essay. Unable to refute them, Barber reminds us that that “over 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian” (which I had acknowledged), and then goes on to claim that “the vast majority of those who don’t . . . nevertheless acknowledge[e] the transcendent reality of a Creator God.” A Gallup poll conducted last year blows apart this contention: 42 percent of all Americans now believe God created the universe, down from 47 percent in 2000, with 19 percent (up from 9 percent in 2000) of all Americans holding that God had nothing to do with it. So even among those purporting to believe in him, the “God as Creator” idea is losing out.
Barber then chooses to embarrass himself with a declaration that confirms he should stick to batting in the Little League of modern-day thinkers:
Every man, woman and child understands through both general revelation and human reason that this unfathomably intricate, staggeringly fine-tuned universe didn’t create and fine-tune itself. It’s a tiny minority of angry, self-deluded materialists like Jeffrey Tayler who deny this self-evident truth.
Many believers might indeed find such a boner-studded profession of ignorance credible (and surely Barber does, given that he earned all three of his degrees at religious institutions), but secularists who read grown-up books will immediately see how it contradicts what physics and biology tell us about the cosmos. The universe, we now know, did create itself, arising out of a quantum event – a “singularity,” when time and space were wrapped into one — some 13.7 billion years ago, exploding from a tiny speck of unimaginably dense, hot matter to its present dimensions. (And it’s still expanding.) Some four billion years back, it is postulated that a still-unexplained chemical occurrence gave rise to the first self-replicating biological molecule from which began life on Earth and from which we evolved according to the (eminently comprehensible) process of Natural Selection. This renders God, as Richard Dawkins put it, “an excrescence, a carbuncle on the face of science,” unnecessary for any phase of “creation.” (For more information, Barber might wish to set aside his magic book and delve into the oeuvre of the theoretical physicists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, and, of course, Dawkins’ own “The God Delusion.”)
Scientists are working hard to plug the lacunae in our knowledge. Answers will come from physicists and biologists and empirical observation, not preachers ranting about the “revelations” bespattering their “sacred” tome. Barber’s Creator God is nothing more than a shopworn deus ex machina, whose mysterious emergence poses its own obvious question: what created Him? And so on, ad infinitum.
Barber then cites my description of the “faith-deranged . . . unwashed crazies” in red-state primaries whose “religious beliefs would (or should) render them unfit for civilized company anywhere else.” This he terms “hubristic elitism” and “so 1939,” comparable to Jews being forced to wear yellow stars in Nazi Germany. “Shall we Christians,” asks Barber, “be fitted with yellow crosses, Herr Tayler?”
I chose the term “faith-deranged” with care. I meant it literally, lest there be any doubt that I intended to be merely incendiary. Derangement is clearly rampant across large swathes of America. Citizens of one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth who opt, of their own volition, to believe in a magic book negated by science and peppered with all manner of bilious behests and misanthropic myths cannot be esteemed to be thinking sanely. Given the extreme nature of the delusions of these citizens and the resulting behavior – for example, petitions whispered to an invisible celestial tyrant with the goal of securing favorable outcomes, otherwise known as prayer, and hallucinated responses from said invisible tyrant – only one conclusion presents itself: faith has disrupted their mental faculties and is producing symptoms that, were they not sheltered under the adjective “religious,” would qualify as pathological.
I do consider Barber’s addressing me as “Herr” inapt, since it raises Hitler’s overworked ghost and implies that I think that I’m carrying out the Lord’s work. Those who would dispute me might wish to consult volume one of “Mein Kampf,” in which Hitler announced: “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,” and “I had so often sung ‘Deutschland über Alles’ and shouted ‘Heil’ at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction.” They might also check the next chapter, in which Hitler predicted that “inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.” They surely would wish to know that Hitler’s Wehrmacht soldiers launched themselves into battle wearing belt buckles emblazoned with the motto “GOTT MIT UNS” – God is with us. This was all, really, par for the course. Throughout history, self-sainted barbarians have pressed their imaginary deity into service and used him to justify their lust for bloodshed.
Barber then accuses me of “knifing twixt the shoulder blades, the richly diverse, 100 thousand-plus student body at Liberty University” by calling their school a “bastion of darkness” that should be subject to “immediate quarantine until sanity breaks out.” This is the equivalent of, in his words, my “consigning all faithful Christians to a constructive encampment beyond the margins of functional society. That’s their end-game. That’s the way their boxcars roll.”
I actually like Barber’s use of “twixt” – the only instance of elegance in his otherwise pedestrian prose. But according to its own site, Liberty University has 13,800 students, not a “100 thousand-plus.” “Boxcars” — that’s Barber’s extrapolation. Atheism has no “holy book” of any sort that could serve as a manual for repression (as, say, the Bible did for the Inquisition). Furthermore, my suggestion of “quarantine” was, besides being obviously facetious, quite charitable and open-minded. After all, to earn their release into society at large, Liberty University students would be free to redeem themselves by renouncing fealty to their bogus deity and de-matriculating.
Barber says my phrase “fanatical homophobic cult” describes his “papist friends,” when I was, in fact, referring to Christ Fellowship (which Sen. Marco Rubio attends on Saturday nights). Christ Fellowship is indeed a “fanatical homophobic cult,” one so extreme it demands that employees certify their straightness. Presumably, Barber errs tendentiously, and hopes to spark the ire of the errant Catholic who might stumble upon his blog. In any case, he closes with a dull jab at President Obama: “Russia had its Stalin and China its Mao. Who needs an ‘invisible tyrant’ when we can elect one at the ballot box? Or didn’t we already do that.”
Such a statement only bolsters the point I made above, if in other words: faith deranges, and absolute faith deranges absolutely.
Barber’s blog is but a symptom of the seemingly incurable malady of faith. In fact there is a remedy — free speech, applied liberally to infected areas. Rationalists must resist all calls to show respect for religion, be it Christianity or Islam or any other faith with universalist pretensions. Recall the damage these stultifying ideologies of control and repression have done the cause of progress throughout history. And remember the stakes now, with so many of our presidential candidates flaunting their belief, and seats on the Supreme Court likely to free up, especially post-2016. We either fight back by speaking out now, or we may end up living in a Christian-theme-park version of Iran, with Ted Cruz as our ayatollah.
Yet do not despair! In the United States the winds of reason are blowing more strongly than ever: since 2012 alone, 7.5 million have abandoned religion. We atheists have the momentum. Finally, finally, we can make out religion’s “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar.”
Those sleeping the slumber of faith hang DO NOT DISTURB signs about their minds.
No rationalist should feel obliged to comply.
*****
Jeffrey Tayler is a contributing editor at the Atlantic. His seventh book, "Topless Jihadis -- Inside Femen, the World's Most Provocative Activist Group," is out now as an Atlantic e-book. Follow @JeffreyTayler1 on Twitter.
The Universe will never be fully revealed this side of His coming....I believe quite impossible to reach far enough....there will always be more...and more within the more etc.
It’s fascinating when you realize the balance and ‘Interface’ designed into our world and the universe which we do know......Yet also reminds me of scripture where God speaks of the Heavens being shaken one day.....
It’s rather like the human body.....they still do not know all the elements of how it’s arranged and interacts....we are truly “awesomely” made!
BTW I always enjoy your posts for they are revealing and interesting every time! Even though they can go beyond my limited ability to understand in full...I always learn!
The main point of our book, "Timothy," is that faith and reason — theology and science— are NOT mutually exclusive entities. Rather, they represent the fundamental complementarities of Nature itself.
We are not exactly getting rich from royalties on this book. But I don't care; and I strongly doubt that A-G cares about this, either.
We said what we wanted to say, thinking it important. The one reviewer at Amazon understood perfectly. I am so grateful to that person.
Anyhoot, the important thing is not to think that faith and reason are somehow at odds to each other, or contradict each other. Indeed, Christianity is replete with examples of the search of reason in faith — of the perennial fides quaerens intellectum.
I'm currently reading a great book, from which I have cited key passages on this thread. It was written by a Jesuit priest by the name of Robert J. Spitzer. It seems his entire mission in life is to show that faith and reason are completely reconcilable. He has created a website devoted to this proposition, the the Magis Center. I have found it a wonderful resource....
Not that I am in love with Jesuits per se. In my mind, so often in the past they have constructed modes of thinking/analysis that fall under the head of casuistry. Regarding which I do not find a dime's worth of difference from classical sophistry — recalling that it was with the Sophists that Socrates did battle in his own time. [And they judicially murdered him for it, in the end.]
Then again, I recall that one of the greatest innovations in modern science was the product of a Jesuit thinker. In particular, I would point out Georges LeMaitre, the father/founder of big bang/singularity cosmological theory....
Lots of great scientists were "men in orders." Indeed, the father of the science of genetics was an Augustinian monk — that is, Gregor Mendel....
Just some thoughts....
Thanks ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your very kind words of support for A-G and me.
Indeed, dear caww. Meanwhile, we humans "see as if through a glass, darkly." But we are also drawn unto His Light...
All thanks and praise be unto the Lord!!!
It certainly has all the most unattractive characteristics of a “religion”; a rabid following of “True-Believers,” Hell-bent on destroying anyone who might disagree with any particular ~ an insistence on strict adherence to the prescribed Liberal doctrine ~ etc.
As with all other “religions,” it is a belief system
A District Court has found Atheism to be a religion. I don’t know that the issue has gone any further than that.
As far as the issue of “Gay” marriage is concerned; I know of no other word, besides “marriage,” where its meaning is mandated by Law and the Courts (a considerable departure from the customary “evolution” of a word).
~~~~~~~~~
I couldn't agree more! As bb & A-G and I have discussed at length, mankind's knowledge of the universe will always be limited by C. All of our info is conveyed by one form of electromagnetic radiation or another. (If something is a light-year away, we're seeing "last year's news"...)
And, unless Einstein was totally wrong, we can never significantly improve the situation by reducing the distance to far-off objects.
But, God, from his Creator's reference frame, can see the entire universe, simultaneously (what we refer to as "Universal Now"... But, just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, "in His domain"...
....” just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, “in His domain”.....
Amen!...Yet I cannot help but think of the glimmers of that He gives us now. Most of all in His Word when HE reveals so amazingly His deeper truths. ...and you’re left speechless and in awe because you KNOW that that which seen revealed could not have happened in ones own understanding.
It was said to me once...that life IS difficult and full of problems, maintaining our life is hard work..... But then as we walk through these times God gives us bright moments.....a family picnic with loved ones, the birth of a new baby, a smile from the man or woman we love, catching the big fish that we’ve tried for years to snag, all these moments that’ help us to return to life and carry on’.....the hard work is still there but we are refreshed along the way...in heart.
>> But, just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, “in His domain”. <<
.
Do you mean when “The Earth and heavens departed from his face for no place was found for them?”
The physical universe will have ceased to have a purpose, much like our flesh and blood bodies will have no purpose.
Cheer up, atheists! Though the atheist may not be covered by the Religion clauses of the First Amendment, they are still fully protected by its guarantee of Free Speech, not to mention Free Association….
Sure they are... The god in the American Constitution is a “Generic God”... take your choice..
The founders were quite wise in that..
They didn’t try to BAG God...
If yer god is Jesus more power to ya..
If NOT, then make one up...
Heck ALLL Marxists(of whatever stripe) make givernment God..
WHICH; is the main glaring ERROR of marxism...
Making givernment God trasports you to “OZ”....
with wizards, witchs, strawmen, tinmen even Munchkins..
Follow the RED Brick Road... to see the wunderful wizard of TAXES...
He will tax YOU and your little dog too..
Just shows how out-of-practice I am on "doing" FR... '-)
Just shows how out-of-practice I am on "doing" FR... '-)
"Genesis: A Scientist Looks At the First Two Verses"...
At present, the effort is dormant, because I am focused on rescuing a lifelong, "senior" friend from the clutches of abusive relatives.
However, if you are truly interested, and are vouched for by my "consulting/praying partners", bb & A-G, I might give you privileged access to a glimpse of a few of the graphics that I have stored online.
Interested, caww?
bb & A-G: I may be contacting you via FReepmail...
....didn’t get enough attention from Mommy and Daddy.
But that is not to say that a "belief system" is necessarily a "religion." And therein lies the rub....
You wrote:
As far as the issue of “Gay” marriage is concerned; I know of no other word, besides “marriage,” where its meaning is mandated by Law and the Courts (a considerable departure from the customary “evolution” of a word).This is exactly what troubles me. Why on earth do we need to have official court definitions of what "religion" or "marriage" is?
Though at least one federal appeals court has found that atheism is a "religion" and thus is fully protected on "free exercise" and "equal protection" grounds, SCOTUS has not yet weighed in on this thorny question.
SCOTUS will get the gay marriage question first. God only knows what they will do with it; their decision is forthcoming, by the end of June.
What bothers me about all this is, give a problem to courts and lawyers, then all of the sudden the "clarity of definition" of the relevant terms becomes paramount. Actual human experience dating back in millennia of human history, and all common-sense knowledge of such matters derived therefrom, is totally eclipsed in this process.
"Marriage" heretofore has universally been understood by We the People and the countless generations that came before us, as the word attached to the concept of a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing, protecting, and nurturing their offspring. As such, so-called "romantic love" isn't even mentioned, let alone considered fundamental to the marital relation. Perhaps we might say that "marriage" is the legacy of biologically-neccesitated male–female bonding, for the benefit of progeny.
But the legitimacy of "Gay" marriage is entirely based on the idea of "romantic love." To confirm this idea would constitute the complete redefinition, if not outright inversion, of the common understanding of what marriage is at its very essence.
Likewise the problem of the definition of "religion." Again, courts and lawyers are always interested in the precise definition of things — usually in ways that tend to denigrate actual human historical experience.
"Religion" has been in this world ever since Man arrived. Man has ever so much more experience with this, going back millennia, than SCOTUS does. On the universal report of mankind, "Religion" pertains to a realm "not of this world," a spiritual, metaphysical realm wherein God and soul are reconciled in eternity....
But as already noted elsewhere, if atheism is absolutely committed to the denial of God and soul both, then in what way can it be said that anything the atheists are doing has anything to do with "Religion?"
See what I mean about the significance of definitions???
I think it is improper in principle for secular courts to be deciding such matters of such profound consequence to American society.
Certainly Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from acting in such "definitional" spheres. Article II Executive powers do not seem to include any such grant. The Article III courts have not been granted any such power either; their role "extends to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" — but it seems the Constitution does not grant what we have called these "definitional powers" at all, to any branch of the federal government, in the first place.
Just some thoughts. Oh, we do live in such interesting times, my dear brother in Christ! Thank you so much for writing!
I just love it, that you have compared and contrasted two (of four) of God's sublime revelations to Man — Holy Scripture and the Book of Nature (the Creation) — and found them logically, internally consistent. As I do! (And I daresay, as my dearest sister in Christ, A-G, does also!)
May our Lord ever bless you and all your dear ones!
Oh yes indeed I’m interested.
T think His Word opens and is revealed as the Universe does...there’s always more. Not only that but they both breath life!
And that, Dear Sister, is why the courts are so focused on definitions...a cynic would say they're focused on "their" authority to make definitions. That is heard in the consternation of Kennedy when he observed that the definition of marriage has been man/woman for millennia. He knew they would be bucking a bit of a trend in the definition of marriage were the Court to go with a definition that is about a decade old in their discarding of one that is millennia old. The concern might have been more "How do we sell this novel definition?" rather than "Is this homosexual marriage within our authority to force upon the nation?"
Since marriage is no place mentioned in the Constitution but the power of the People and the power of States is specifically placed over everything not mentioned in the Constitution, then Kennedy was searching for a definition to fit into his bailiwick of 'dignity', the word he has used to justify other excursions into heretofore unknown rights. He seems to think the Constitution grants a "right TO social dignity". (He is wrong, of course. Dignity, like reputation, is earned.)
Kennedy is left with declaring marriage to be about 'romantic love', if he goes down his 'dignity' pathway again. And just about every culture from the inception of time that saw value in arranged marriages will laugh at him. Every culture that valued natural law will laugh at him. Every Judeo-Christian nation in history will laugh at him.
And in the end, God will laugh at him.
As if to redefine a word will effectively "change the world." I rather doubt it: One cannot trim truth down to one's own set of personal preferences. Though heaven knows, people do try, what they end up getting is not a world transformed, but a world totally disordered.
I just read a wonderful article by David French — "The Battle of Indiana and the Promise of Battles to Come" — in the latest edition of Hillsdale College's Imprimis (April 2015/Vol 44, No. 4; it's not yet posted on their site). The article is an analysis of Indiana's recent attempt to incorporate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into Indiana law, against the fierce, massive resistance of the gay rights movement and their collaborators — in academe, the media, and even some Christian churches. Neither party to this debate got what they wanted. And so this particular culture war will continue to be waged as far as the eye can see.
Still, French is rather upbeat about American cultural prospects. Here's the way he sees it:
To understand the future, let's revisit and explain the four truths of the modern culture war.Let's hope David French's analysis proves correct.
First, the conflict is not between gay rights and religious liberty, but between the sexual revolution and Christianity.... And just over the horizon are new, widespread battles over the very definition of what it means to be male or female. Simply put, the sexual revolution questions everything about sexual morality and identity — demanding changes in every aspect of traditional sexual morality and, consequently, orthodox Christian theology.
The gay rights movement is inseparable from the sexual revolution, and the sexual revolution is inseparable from the gay rights movement. The principles of radical sexual autonomy, freedom from any form of moral judgment, and government support to ameliorate the consequences of sexual libertinism are present in the fights over abortion, gay rights, and now transgender issues....
Second, not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the "progress" of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations — for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions — this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities. None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of orthodoxy. And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents.
Given this reality, the rapid advances of the gay rights movement and its allied sexual revolutionaries — coming as they do largely from liberal and less churchgoing segments of the population —will soon stagnate as they face the challenge of persuading tens of millions of Bible-believing Americans that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Given the absence of scriptural support for this position, the gay rights movement will face many of the same challenges as the abortion lobby, and will likely meet with a similar lack of success.
Browbeating Christians into submission is not a new tactic....
Third, the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength.... [He gives several examples.]
Fourth, conservative public intellectuals are holding firm in defense of life and religious freedom. Throughout the Battle of Indiana, there was striking unity among leading conservative thinkers. The consensus was clear even among those who support gay marriage: The Left had become illiberal and dangerous. A pluralistic nation must have room for cultural dissenters, and the desire to shame and blacklist individuals and businesses had to be opposed, and opposed vigorously.
In fact, one was more likely to read about discomfort on the Left at some of the mob tactics than about discomfort among conservatives at the defense of religious liberty. This unanimity left Republican politicians relatively isolated, in the familiar position of abandoning their culturally conservative constituents to do the bidding of their corporate supporters.
Yet even this is likely to change. Most politicians are cultural followers, not cultural leaders, and if the base and the intellectual core of the conservative movement remain relatively united, Republican politicians will eventually bend....
What he definitely gets right (IMHO): "These battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to 'live and let live' — to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality."
For the time being, however, neither side looks ready to yield. So conservatives should be prepared for more — more battles over weddings, more campus intolerance, more boycotts, more buycotts, and more cultural anger and division.French closes with a very sobering reminder to us Christians:To be sure, this is not the future that anyone desires, but for Christians, it is a far better future than one of isolation, censorship, and marginalization.
...[F]or Christianity, this is nothing new. Cultural rejection is a scriptural promise and a longtime historical fact. As Christians in the Middle East and Africa face hideous violence, American Christians shouldn't feel overwhelmed in the face of relatively minimal persecution. Christianity has survived lions. It is surviving beheadings.... When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other. [Italics added]Let us not forget: Our strength is in our Lord. All thanks and praise be unto Him!
Thank you so much, dear brother in Christ, for your eloquent essay/post!
Again...Excellent!
I have copied your post for future reference....thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.