Pro Rege Papers

I know we skipped July, but well, try some amnesia. Here’s the Quote of the Month for August:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bye-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

- C.S. Lewis, former atheist

The Case for Christianity, 1943

I found this recently on a site I was browsing. It’s a satire on Post-Modernism written by a Christian on the basis of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. While some of it is of course not reflective of the beliefs of Post-Modernists; it is pretty funny if you know the Shorter Catechism and the way many Post-Modernists talk.

Here’s a little sampling of the Post Modern Medium-Length Catechism:

Q1: What is the chief end of humankind?
A: Humankind’s chief end is to promote world peace and enjoy it forever.

Q9: What is the first commandment?
A: The first commandment is, Thou shalt make no Absolute Judgments.

Q10: What is the second commandment?
A: The second is like unto it: Thou shalt accept all views as thine own, and be not Bigoted.

Q11: Are we ourselves Bigoted in our thinking?
A: Not at all.

Q12: Not at all?
A: No.

Q13: Not even a little bit?
A: No.

Q14: No?
A: Absolutely not.

Q15: What is the only redeemer of postmoderns?
A: The only redeemer of postmoderns is the Lord High State, which though the coercer of men, condescended to feel our pain, and so was, and continueth to be, coercer and pain-feeler, in two distinct natures, and one administration, forever.

Q23: What is the duty of civil government?
A: The duty of civil government is, in matters important, clemency; in matters unimportant, severity; in all things, neutrality.

Q24: What is the principal threat to neutrality in the civil realm?
A: The principal threat to neutrality is Religious Extremism.

Q25: What is Religious Extremism?
A: Religious Extremism is, the view that certain absolute truths exist independent of the minds of men and women, that if something is true, it is true, and that A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Q26: Who are the two most dangerous proponents of Religious Extremism?
A: The two most dangerous proponents of Religious Extremism are Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh.

Q27: By what means may we defeat Religious Extremism?
A: We may defeat it by allowing it to make no Judgments in the civil realm.

Q28: Is this itself a Religious Judgment?
A: Nope.

Q29: Not at all?
A: Not at all.

Q30: Art thou sure?
A: Absolutely.

Q32: What are the Liberal Churches?
A: The Liberal Churches are those churches which, to avoid conflict with non-Christian thought, and to maintain a High Level of Relevance, have rejected certain Minor points of faith.

Q33: Wherein consisteth the worship of Liberal Churches?
A: Liberal worship consisteth in tolerance, affirmation, lighting of candles, experiencing of religious experience, and the consumption of Goodies.

Full text here:

A Post-Modern Medium Length Catechism.

Comparison with the real stuff here:

The Real Westminster Shorter Catechism.

I am very sorry to all of those who have been wondering what’s going on with this blog since February. Yeah, I was really busy. You have no idea. But, putting the past behind us, I have some interesting things lined up for this blog, so stay tuned.

For the quote of the month (the 1st anniversary of the Quote of the Month series), I have an excellent quote from a book I’ve been reading recently (and all of you should definitely read it too):

The more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions.

I was watching a PBS science special recently (some of the most profound evolutionary propaganda out there, but still interesting to explore the wonder of God’s creation) and I heard this quote from a scientist:

One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind is you should never fall in love with your theory. So it’s an idea, it’s a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so.

He was talking about an astronomical theory that he had, but he made a very good point that should be applied to all theories—including evolution.

Most of the secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution as a theory. They don’t like to question it, they don’t like to look for answers anywhere else, they don’t like to test it. All these things should be done with a normal theory, but they aren’t with evolution.

Once, a scientist wrote a preface to an edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin, saying that the book gave Western Civilization the excuse to pursue their sexual lusts. The secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution because it has given man an excuse to reject God and live as he pleases. As the racist eugenics advocate, Friedrich Nietzsche, once said,

The Greatest modern event—that God is dead…—has now begun to cast its first shadows over Europe…. In fact, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel ourselves irradiated as by a new rosy dawn by the report that “the old God is dead”; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment, and expectation. At last the horizon seems once more unobstructed.

The secular world does not want to give evolution up, even if it no longer fits all the known facts. Evolution has not, and cannot be proven. The secular community must be willing to give it up. Modifying has run its course; the theory still isn’t working. It’s time to move on to another view, one that the Western scientific community embraced for a thousand years. It’s time to move on to the view that all the facts seem to imply. It’s time to move on to the view that God has revealed to us in His Word. Maybe they will learn something in doing so.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…

Here is the Quote of the Month for February, by the Christian political theorist and former prime minister of the Netherlands:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!”

Abraham Kuyper

Hat tip: Sovereign Grace Ministries.

This is a response to Ironwolf’s reply to my previous article. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve been pretty busy lately. Anyway, I’d like to thank you for actually responding to me, as well as having civility in doing it.

The thesis of your argument is that the Golden Rule is the moral standard that you follow, and the best one for me and other people at that. However, I do have a few questions for you. Where did the principle of the Golden Rule come from? Who laid down the Golden Rule? You just said in your post that it predates Christianity, and possibly humanity itself. However, I propose that you need to have some type of source for your moral standard; otherwise it’s just something that some little insignificant creature made up. If someone just made it up, it is not binding on anyone else; it is just one man’s opinion on how others are behaving. You can’t impose your standard on anyone because neither you nor it has supremacy over humanity. However, if it came from God than it is binding on everyone, since then it is a rule that was laid down by our Maker. Therefore, it would predate time itself. But you won’t admit that it was God, so I’m anxious to know your answer.

But back to what I am saying, you might be able to be governed by the Golden Rule, but you can’t impose it on anyone. Why is the Golden Rule the only rule that man should be ruled by? Why is the Golden Rule right? Is it just because it’s evolutionarily beneficial? Or is it just because it’s good for a society? Killing everyone who is a weakling is evolutionarily beneficial. Going on a world conquest is good for your society. Those are not moral standards; they are just ideal actions that might progress something further.

The Golden Rule is based on how you would like someone to treat you. However, many different people have many different likes on how they like to be treated. Therefore, as Slingpaw said, you can’t apply it to other people based on what you do and do not like. The Golden Rule is not capable of making absolute judgments of other people. It can only supply a general principle of behavior that we should follow as creatures of God, who laid down the Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and many other religions besides) corrupt the Golden Rule by adding layer upon layer of superstition, dogma, sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry to an otherwise simple and beautiful idea: treat others with the level of respect that you would like to receive.

Who are you to say that all those things are wrong (I’m not disagreeing that they are; it’s just a rhetorical question)? Who are you to define those things? It’s just your opinion that keeping a woman from being a pastor is sexism. Many other people don’t see it that way. It’s just your opinion that you don’t want to be stoned for “mere” disrespect. It’s just your opinion that it is only “mere” disrespect. Other people, knowing what an offense it was to the covenant of God, would have admitted that they deserved stoning. You can’t judge the judgment of God, and say that it isn’t fair.

The wisdom of the Golden Rule only requires a little thought to understand

Where did that “wisdom” come from?

If I do not live by the Golden Rule then the suffering of others increases, and inevitably the increasing suffering of others increases my own suffering. In extreme cases society itself breaks down and suffering increases exponentially.

So what? If you get gratified with what you want, who cares about what happens later? Aren’t we supposed to live life in the here and now? Who cares if others suffer, it usually doesn’t affect me. (Yes, this is rhetorical, I am not advocating end-justifies-the-means ethics)

Based on your answers to my questions, I judge you, Althusius, to be morally corrupt, i.e., depraved.

This is my favorite sentence in your reply. Yes, Ironwolf, I am depraved, I am morally corrupt. But I have hope. I have a Savior who has taken my moral depravity upon himself and died because of it for me. He has taken my corruption upon Himself, and put His righteousness on me, so that I am no longer depraved before God. Yes, I still sin in this life (not by your standards, but by God’s), but the Holy Spirit is working in me to make me more like Christ. I still sin, but I have been forgiven. I have hope.

How about you? I’m sure you don’t keep the Golden Rule perfectly, and I can guarantee you that you haven’t kept God’s Rule perfectly. You need forgiveness from God.

I judge you, Althusius…your morality [is] just as questionable, when judged by the standard of the Golden Rule.

You can’t judge me; you can’t judge God, or anyone else by the Golden Rule. You can voice your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. People can still steal, cheat, murder, rape, show disrespect, lie, cuss, profane God’s name, worship demons, and work themselves into the ground, regardless of your thinking it’s wrong.

It is by the Golden Rule that I know what is good.

Good according to your standards that you can’t judge anyone else by. If anyone can make up his or her own moral standard, than Hitler’s actions were good, because they were good according to his standard, whatever it was. You are trying to make a moral standard for everyone based on what you think is right and wrong. You don’t have that authority, only God does.

I saw a post by an atheist recently that said you could be “Good without God.” This is a common myth perpetrated by atheists and others who want to build their own society without any absolute morals. It is impossible to be good without God. However, it provokes good questions that poke a hole right through the moral relativism of this day. By what standard do we measure right and wrong, good and bad? What is the basis of law and society? What is the foundation of truth? These are questions that are impossible for moral relativists to answer.

The Bible is the standard of truth and morals that Western society was built upon. It is the standard that holds up to scrutiny and criticism. It is the standard that works best with society (look at what Western culture has produced), and the one that lays out the plan of salvation. The Bible defines what is right and what is wrong. The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word is truth. God defines “good” in every possible sense. One cannot be good unless he follows God’s commands, and he cannot be truly good unless he keeps all of God’s commands perfectly (Mark 10:18). This is impossible for us to do, so we need to look to One who can fulfill all of God’s commands perfectly, and have Him put His righteous works on us. This One is Jesus Christ.

Our law in the United States is based on the fundamental principles outlined in the Ten Commandments; just look at the Ten Commandments that are engraved and painted everywhere in the Supreme Court (no, those are not the Ten Amendments). Without this standard, society breaks down. If nothing can be absolutely right or wrong, why should we obey laws? Why should we keep vows? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it right to give to charitably to other people?

Some would say that if the people involved agree, then it’s okay. But who is to say that those people who agree are right, or that their actions are right? This supposed standard is pretty flimsy. According to this standard, adultery is okay, since the two people agree. Cheating is permissible, since it is just you who are involved, looking out for your own personal good. Corporate corruption is fine as long as it doesn’t get discovered and affect the lives of others.

Some say that as long as it does not negatively affect someone else’s personal life, it is fine. But who is to say that even violating someone else’s personal space is wrong? That idea is just the philosophical conclusion of some other guy whom you don’t have to pay attention to since there is no absolute truth, and everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Another standard that some people set up is whatever makes you feel happy is good. This is also wrong. Just think of sado-masochists, who get pleasure from hurting other people. All sorts of disorder break loose in a society without a fixed standard.

Islam also has this inconsistency in a way. Their god, Allah, is an ever-changing, erratic god who can do and does do everything in a disorderly, chaotic fashion. The outflow of this is that one day something might be right, and then the next day it might not be. So blowing yourself up in a suicide bombing might fine with Allah one day, but the next it might send you to Hell. Cheating and corruption by police is okay, since you can make it up by obeying the pillars of Islam. It makes for unstable societies where democracy doesn’t work.

Without an absolute standard, it is impossible to know truth, to do good, to punish evil. Since our society is losing this sense of moral constancy, dreadful things are taking place which are an abomination to God and lead to the death of a culture. We are calling good evil, and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Homosexuality is called normal; babies in the womb are called non-human; murder is permissible; capital punishment is called a crime against humanity; abortion is declared legal and right. We are losing all standards in our society, and if we stay on this course, it will lead to our downfall.

By what standard do you measure your actions?