Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
You’re quite welcome, dear YHAOS!
“I confess, even though I read the thread-article several times, I don’t really get the point of it, and so have only focused my remarks on the usual debate over science in general and evolution specifically.”
Spirited: The entire essay boils down to one overarching point: Did God speak?
If He did, then we know some specifics of how He created because He imparted this knowledge to Moses. Whoever believes He really did speak will submit their wills to His authority and not to the philosophy, theories and science of men whose intellects have been corrupted since the fall.
If on the other hand, God did not speak then the entire Bible, including Christ’s work on the cross, is reduced to the ruminations of ancient people and modern men are free to speak in place of God.
Between these two positions, I stand firmly upon the first while BroJoeK stands on the second since he obviously does not believe God spoke.
“What did God mean by this or that” is a different kind of question from “Did God say this or that at all?” The first is a high minded question. The second is a Satanically minded question. Don’t conflate the two.
Don’t conflate the two.
Spirited: There is no conflation. Jesus Christ in a pre-incarnate theophany spoke to Moses in the desert concerning creation. Creation ex nihilo is the result as affirmed by early Church Fathers. Jesus Christ spoke nothing about evolutionary conceptions mind you, just creation ex nihilo.
This angers men who prefer science and evolution.
“What did God mean by this or that” is a different kind of question from “Did God say this or that at all?”
Spirited: The second is authoritative, high-minded. It’s the first that is after the heart of the devil who asked Eve, ‘did God really mean...?”
You’ve basically turned scripture itself on its head. Satan accused God of crafting a frank lie out of envy! When in fact Satan, the hypocrite, was the envying one! This is NOT a case of what of several possible meanings is intended, a question which must be answered to the best extent possible by bringing all possible good evidence to the table. And here, the observation of the natural world is being pooh-poohed as evidence because, even though it is perfectly in keeping with Romans 1:20, it has been made by some not an object to reflect upon the Lord but an object of direct worship (which is in keeping with Romans 1:21ff and the consequences exactly that).
And I’m sorry for the injury to your ego to tell you, the high minded approach DOES require figuring out meanings which might not all be what an English speaker views as literal when the Hebrew is rendered into English per the KJV or whatever your favorite translation is. To assert what you do is to engage in the famous fallacy known as “begging the question.” Isaiah 53 is one of the chief Old Testament chapters about Christ. One thing it says is that He was with a rich man in His death. We know that as being fulfilled by being placed in a tomb donated (as it turns out, lent) by a rich man. Would an English literalist have come up with this a priori, without other evidence to bring to the table? Why of course not.
You’re full of yourself and in that state can bring virtually no light but certainly a lot of heat.
By the way, speaking of oneself in the third person (as you consistently have been doing) is a sign of considering oneself loftily elevated. Be careful up there — you can get nosebleed as well as a nasty set of bruises when you fall. I speak personally and it’s because I have found I have no need of pretentiousness to be powerful.
Frankly, your angry reactions collapsing into rather uncharitable aspersions against my good name are puzzling. I’m really not sure just what troubles you. At any rate I have no intention of quibbling over words or engaging in mud-slinging.
It seems clear to me that as Jesus Christ in a pre-incarnate theophany spoke authoritatively to Moses with regard to the first chapters of Genesis then it is not for men to subject His Divine Authority to rationalism in any way and certainly not to the flagrant usurpation of His Authority by inserting the natural science and evolutionary thinking of men into Genesis as evolutionary theists do.
When evolutionary theists deny before men the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ in the book of beginnings they logically deny before men His Divine Authority all the way through Scripture. According to our Lord, this is a dangerous position to be in:
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33
If Divine Authority counts for nothing in the book of beginnings then it logically follows that it counts for nothing all the way through Scripture. This is the point made by Darwin’s Bulldog to compromising clergy ambitious to be thought scientific. He saw the consequences very clearly.
Not puzzling at all, spirited. It is a phenomenon we witness every day in the behavior of every DC Beltway Establishment politician (and all their acolytes; party affiliation of either notwithstanding). It is a last resort; the final redoubt of intellectual poverty.
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”
. . . Matthew 10:33
Well quoted, spirited. Puts the proposition to us directly. No equivocation, no evasion. Cannot be put off, cannot be held at arm’s length.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Will respond later.
Thanks for your definitions of science.
Will respond later.
Thanks for your clever logic.
Naturally, I disagree. Will respond later.
Hardly, just more of the same.
Will respond later.
Thank you so much for writing!
YOUR good name?
If you were sincere, even if you were mistaken, you’d be talking about the LORD’S good name and forgetting yours!
Oh, I affirm Christ very strongly and personally in every way. That is and was God there, ministering before, during, and after incarnation. It is through Christ I achieve every victory. It is through Christ I overcome every sin.
What I deny are cockamamie theologies that aren’t even scriptural themselves, that darken the counsel of God, and all the more when they are put out by people who are so hung up over their own “good name” that they forget that the important issue is God’s good name.
You’re quite welcome. I look forward to your thoughts!
Yes, since (so far as I know), Aquinas was the first Christian philosopher to explain the distinction between theology, based on revealed truth from the Bible, and natural-philosophy (aka "science"), which begins with input from our senses.
If that bothers you -- my calling Aquinas (not Aristotle or Plato) "the beginning", then perhaps my response in a previous thread will help:
What Aquinas did not recognize (as least so far as I know) was the possibility that the two realms might conflict -- that scientific evidence from our senses might contradict theological words derived from the Bible.
I'm only saying: that is where you must begin to study, if you wish to understand today's definition of science."
As YHAOS quoted Aquinas in post #66:
And again,
'. . . no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.'
. . . . . T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7"
In his post #106, YHAOS went on to claim:
Yes, I'm 100% certain that last point is obvious to both YHAOS and me, but I'm not at all certain if Aquinas himself spelled it out so clearly.
I am more inclined to think that Aquinas considered such contradictions impossible, and so gave them little serious thought.
betty boop: "I'm sure that would come as a surprise to Aristotle, on whom St. Thomas Aquinas principally relied in the development of his own thought."
Again, I count Aristotle & company as largely irrelevant to our discussion here of Christian philosophy, especially regarding the clear Thomasian distinction between theological truth derived from the Bible and natural-science derived from inputs from our senses.
betty boop: "Jeepers, is that really how you define "science," dear BroJoeK?
But surely, you can only be speaking of applied science here.
Don't you recognize that applied scientists need scientific theorists in order to get 'grist for their applied-science mills?'
Again, we return to the definition of "methodological naturalism" versus "philosophical (or ontological, metaphysical) naturalism".
"Science"-proper is simply a methodology for arriving at: natural explanations for natural processes -- nothing more, nothing less.
As such, it deals only with what "seems to be" -- i.e., facts we can see or measure, explained by theories of natural processes -- not some ontological explanation of "what is".
This is easy to see if you merely consider what science now tells us is "ultimate reality" -- multi-dimensional vibrating "strings".
These "strings" are said to be the smallest of sub-sub-atomic particles, so small that if a "string" were enlarged to the size of a tree, the atom around it would be the size of the entire known Universe.
So, clearly, the word "string" is a metaphor (not the thing itself) for something nobody really understands.
But it's the best natural-science can do, so far.
betty boop: "I am merely a humble student of the history of science.
On that basis, I applaud my dear brother YHAOS' observation that historical science dates as far back as 5500 B.C."
Sure technology, applied sciences and theology, all date back to ancient times, but the clear philosophical distinction between theology based on the Bible, and natural-sciences based on input from our senses did not begin to be understood until the age of St. Thomas Aquinas (†1274).
betty boop: "Such that we know "more and more and more" about "less and less and less."
Without the "cosmic picture," such fragments do not cohere, and cannot make any sense."
And yet, the least of all leasts are those tiny vibrating "strings" out of which arises the entire Universe.
So, should we be surprised if: someday we learn those strings are the source of the "Big Bang", and their peculiar "vibrations" are what control the atoms which make Life on Earth possible?
But still yet: regardless of how grandiose and all-inclusive our scientific "Theory of Everything" eventually becomes, it remains but a methodological explanation for ontological reality.
In that sense, "science" is more metaphor than metaphysics.
Of course, but always in the context of practical knowledge of natural things, which as Aquinas distinguished: we learn by input from our senses.
This contrasts, he said, with theological knowledge which begins with our understandings of the Bible.
Jefferson's list pointedly excludes any mention of theology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc.
All of those are outside the realm of "natural-science".
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.