The End of a Worldview

The title of this post may be a little misleading. I am not talking about a particular worldview coming to an end. Instead, I would like to take a moment and talk about the results when a worldview is followed to its logical end. More specifically, I would like to talk about the Avengers: Age of Ultron movie, and why atheists probably ought to be bent out of shape about it.

Ultron was created when an AI was repurposed from Loki's staff and successfully interfaced by Jarvis. Multiple times during the movie, one Avenger or another pointed out that Ultron had picked up a lot of his view on the world from Tony Stark. Presumably, the AI was listening when Tony told Banner about his vision for 'world peace'. As a result, Ultron took in all the information it could, set it against Tony's stated objective, and came to the interesting conclusion that the best way he could benefit the human race was to initiate an extinction-level event and see what survives and evolves from it.

Ultron was strongly written and played as a madman, and yet his plan was not utterly nonsensical. It was the logical end of secular environmentalism, unchecked by the basic humanity that defies even the atheists who prefer to believe that it does not exist. According to atheistic evolution, humanity is continuously improving through evolving. According to the history proposed by the theory of evolution, this planet has gone through a number of extinction-level events - catastrophies that wiped out all or nearly all life - and risen from each one better than the one before. In defiance of entropy, this worldview (when not seasoned by any other) insists that order comes from chaos.

Tony was interrupted in his plan to attack one AI with another. Ultron had uploaded part of his broken self into the new body. Parts of Jarvis had been uploaded as well. The body was created around one of multiple key stones which appear to represent elements; in this case, the Mind Stone. However, this time, Vision's earliest-heard words were words of caution from Steve Rogers (Captain America), and he was turbocharged into existence by Thor, with whom he apparently had some sort of special bond. (Thor was the first one convinced of Vision's benevolence, the one who enacted his plan with him, and the one who spoke to him at the end.) Now, if you are going to draw a line from "Most religious" to "Least Religious" and plot the Avengers along it, Tony Stark would sit at one end, and Thor and Captain America would sit at the other. Vision was very clearly influenced by the thoughts produced by taking the religious (particularly Christian) worldview to its natural end.

Though I have been comparing Vision and Ultron, this theme moves through the rest of the Avengers as well. Ultron is willing to sacrifice a few (the residents of the city) in order to sacrifice the many, in hopes of improving the whole. At first, the more atheistic members of the team (like Tony!) insist that the few may rightly be sacrificed in order to save the many. The more religious ones overrule them, and help them understand... each individual person is important. You cannot save 'humanity' by sacrificing the unwilling in a numbers game. As Rico correctly pointed out in the book Starship Troopers, in a question of the logistics in risking multiple people to rescue a fallen comrade, "Men are not potatoes."

When Ultron and Vision face off at the end of the movie, Vision says, "There is grace in [humanity's] failings. I think you missed that."

A Christian Nation when it suits us...

Back in the dark days before science and progress and all the things we prize so much, humanity was ruled mostly by a series of tribes led by a leader who claimed either direct godhood or speakership with godhood. 'For some strange reason', it seemed that the god particularly favored the leader in that it invariably gave orders resulting in the leader having whichever property, goods, and women he wanted. These ancient 'gods' also had a tendency to value peace while the tribe was doing well and then suddenly demand war when the leader wanted to expand his territory or saw another tribe as a threat. There is no doubt that this convenience had been noticed by other tribal members, but that little seed of doubt would remain... Human leaders can be toppled, but gods are quite a different story.

One of the radical innovations brought into the world by Judaism and then Christianity was a knowable God whose precepts did not change, and to whom every man, especially leaders, were answerable. King David was punished by God for exercising his 'divine leadership' in order to take Uriah's wife for himself; King Ahab was punished by God for taking Naboth's vineyard. Under God, a leader cannot claim divine right to what he pleases. This goes on to modern times... when religion has gone wrong, even Christianity during some historical ages and in some parts of the globe, at the center you can often find a human being using it in order to gain personal power.

Socialism, whether its pretend-private form (fascism) or outright state-control form (Communism), by necessity sees Christianity as a threat. Socialism, especially liberal socialism, teaches that the world can be made a paradise as long as everybody agrees to follow the rules laid down by the human beings who created it. This devotion to the State (and hence, they argue, to the community - though the State, which speaks for the 'god' of the community, seems to deliver edicts that benefit the State more than the people... how about that?) must be paramount, and any secondary devotion to the family or another god must be suborned or destroyed. This was touted as a brand new thing, a non-religious (and therefore, somehow, pure) type of government meant to bring us into a new age, but scratch the surface and you will find the same old pagan tribalism as before.

That brings us to today.

Now the role of homosexuality in our society and our attitude towards refugees from the Middle East are really separate issues, and I do honestly believe that those on both sides of both issues should be wary of this argument being produced and spread by liberal Democrats. Have I been the only one to notice that, when 'gay marriage' is being discussed, we are a 'secular nation', yet when Syrian refugees unwittingly harbor terrorists, we suddenly have a 'Christian duty' to let them in with current vetting (or lack thereof) procedures?

Never mind your feelings about gay sex or Muslim terrorists for the moment. Ask yourself this. Are we a Christian nation, required to follow Christian edicts on aiding the needy equally with Christian edicts on forbidding sexual immorality? Are we a nation which, for cultural effect even among those who do not follow Christianity, has public schools offer prayers to the Christian God? Are we a nation that imposes a religious litmus test for leadership?

Or are we a secular nation? Do we follow the desires of our Christian forefathers to make this a country in which, as Christianity does demand, we permit only voluntary conversion? Is this a place where an atheist can have equal access to government programs and justice? Is this a nation which does not ban practices which, though they may offend God, do not cause imminent harm to innocent bystanders? Do we approach national security and response to violence, not directly as followers of a Lamb to the sacrifice, but with a no-nonsense desire to safeguard our borders first? Do we examine social welfare programs based on their cost, their merit, and their effect on our freedom, rather than enshrining a religious zeal in government procedure?

If the Democrats do not want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot appeal to Christian duty when trying to push for open borders or social welfare programs. If the Democrats do want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot use the government to force people to accept gay sex as identical to marriage, or to refer to decorated trees on public property at Christmastime as "mitten trees", or to ever, in any context (even the correct one), make reference to the "separation of Church and State".

When Democrats vie for a "secular state" in permitting the social issues they wish to promote, and then turn around and demand our "Christian duty" in government-controlled, government-mandated practices they wish to demand, they are the same as the leaders of the ancient tribalism, declaring themselves to be God (or God's direct servant) and using claims of divine power in order to force us all to follow flawed human beings as if they were perfect.

Why should this be a Christian nation?

Talk about a hot topic, especially today. What does it mean, to be a Christian nation? Is this a Christian nation? We can run the gamut, from those who believe that everyone in this nation should be taught Christianity and Christian morality in public school, and that laws should be made to enforce Christian morality, to those who believe that the Founding Fathers weren't really Christians at all, and that the most important thing is to never make any law that supports any other religion's morality at all. (Unless it happens to also support the morality held by the person who is arguing the point, of course.)

Forget all of that for a moment.

There are a few very important things that Christianity in particular, more than any other religion, brings to the philosophy that created this nation and this nation's government. They won't be found simply by attending the right kind of church for the right number of years, or swearing your oath on a Bible instead of a Koran, or even being able to quote Bible verses without sticking your foot so far down your throat that you can kick your own a-.........butt. These are principles that are simple and easily observable in the Real World, yet, in the U.S. political party which has basically repudiated God altogether, at least one of the most important is being forgotten.

Human beings are corruptible.
Government is made of human beings.
Thus, government is corruptible.

I'm going to pick on Bernie Sanders again, because he represents the epitome of this claim. Business owners, he argues, can be corruptible, because their mission is greed. (It isn't. But that's another topic.) The government, on the other hand, can be safely trusted with any amount of power.

Let me give you an invaluable little tip about socialism. When socialists, even purveyors of "democratic socialism", use the term "the people", what they really mean is the government. This makes sense, actually, doesn't it? If the government officials are elected by the people, that means that they speak for the people, right? Therefore, they practically *are* 'the people'. What's good for them is what's good for us, because they are us.

The reason why this mindset becomes a problem, the reason why socialism in all its forms has never yet worked, is because it assumes that government representatives are able to represent The People purely and perfectly. However, each representative is his or her own human being, and human beings are corruptible.

Our government was set up the way it was in hopes of reducing and decentralizing power, because it was set up by people who understand the Christian notion that man is corruptible. They practically counted on corruption in politics. The reason for separation of powers was the hope that corruption could be cornered and countered, and not given the power it needs to metastasize.

This is similar to the dual-hydraulic system in automotive brakes. You could just have one brake line with one cylinder, to make your brakes work when you press on the pedal. Instead, you have two. Why? If you lose one brake line (this happened to me a few months ago, actually), you will have weak braking power instead of no braking power. The hope is that both lines won't go at the same time, and generally, minus deliberate sabotage, they won't. The Founding Fathers never assumed, as the Democrats do, that they could create a government with no failure points. They simply tried to design a government which could have failure points without destroying the whole.

Bernie Sanders is advocating for simpler, more streamlined systems with higher government control, more centralized, to reduce the number of steps between us and our government. He believes that it will be less expensive and easier to run a country if all citizens must answer to the Federal Government in as many parts of their lives as possible. The Federal Government gives you your health care. The Federal Government handles your college education. His problem is that he really does believe - or at least preach - as if the government is the only human invention that is incorruptible.

He isn't the only one on my hotseat today, as you may have guessed from my allusion to Bible verses. Obama has been using executive orders in an unprecedented way, to circumvent a Congress which he complains is "too slow" and may not believe that his way is the right way. He is basically doing the equivalent of speeding up automobile production and making vehicles less expensive by outlawing the dual-hydraulic system instead of, say, loosening Federal restrictions on which types of extra peripherals a car might contain or, perhaps, ending Federal taxes on auto manufacturing employees.

I'm sure it sounds like a great idea.... until the inevitable corruption hits, and someone has to slam on the brakes.

What makes Christianity important in this nation? One of the most important theological guidelines is, increasingly, one of the most neglected - human beings do not become incorruptible just because they work for the government.

Don't we know that by now?

Everyone knows what I'm talking about

McCall's has a new dress pattern up, called simply "Princess dresses". It doesn't have the Disney mark on it. It does not use the word "Cinderella". Clearly it must be 'not' the dress worn by the live-action Cinderella in the new movie. McCall's has a habit of doing this, and to be honest, it makes me giggle. Last year, we had 'not' Elsa, a dress with a sheer upper bodice and a train that started just under the arms. Before that, we had 'not' Merida, a princess-seamed green dress with white elbow and shoulder puffs.

Well, I'm about to do it to you guys. I am about to make one of those posts where everyone knows what I'm talking about, but I am going to get pretty far before identifying it plainly, and I am not going to delve into the details at all. Frankly, I don't need the details to make my point.

King David, despite being described as a man after God's on heart, did some pretty dreadful things. He lusted after a woman who was not his wife. He sent for her and had sex with her. Then he got her husband killed, when her husband refused to help cover up for her pregnancy. That is arguably pretty dreadful stuff with pretty permanent results. Of course, he did not escape punishment. God sent a prophet to explain why he had done wrong, and the child died. Was this 'enough' punishment? Was it within the statute of limitations? Should God have allowed King David to learn his sin through a prophet he already knew, instead of, say, sending in someone who was unconnected to the King? What about their second son, Solomon? Was God wrong to have given Solomon the kingdom? Was it a sign that David had not 'repented enough'? King David and his son have been dust for thousands of years.

Should we forgive King David? What crime has he committed against us?

There is another man who has been dust for slightly less time. His name was originally Saul of Tarsus, but he was renamed "Paul" after his conversion. He wrote an awful lot of the New Testament and spoke clearly on a variety of sins and evils, including most of the New Testament verses against homosexual behavior. Although he did not engage in homosexual behavior as far as we know, he did hunt down Christians and kill them before his conversion. He considered himself the very best Pharisee of Pharisees at a time when that was basically the most pious thing you could be. He was even celebrated for his piousness. He had to understand that he was doing wrong, and change his ways.

Does Paul's sin make his lessons on sinful behavior irrelevant? Should we take his writings seriously?

Both of these issues are making the rounds in recent days, due to the revelation of actions committed by a young man when he was a teenager. This should indeed be a controversy, but it should be an entirely different kind of controversy than the one I see floating around article comments and chat rooms. This should be a dialog about the problems that lead to inappropriate sinful behavior and the proper criminal justice system response when the perpetrator is underaged. Instead, it has become a two-prong argument, and both prongs seem geared specifically towards targeting Christianity rather than the actual sinner.

The "King David prong" can be summed up as a movement I have seen in recent years geared towards punishing people for the 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Our Expectations". In it, someone is judged, not by whether he acknowledges his sin as wrong or tries to justify it as right, but whether he has dared to hold himself to a standard that he has violated with his behavior. In this 'brave new' situation, you are better off to keep your (and others') expectations low, to ensure that you do not fail, than to aim high and miss your mark - even if your actual shot lands much higher than it ever would have managed were you to keep your expectations small. These are the people who excuse the sin of people like Bill Clinton and Lena Dunham because the perpetrators maintain that they have committed no crime, but do their best to drive out any pastor who has admitted to adultery, acknowledged his error, and asked for forgiveness. This is the exact opposite of what Christianity should be about.

Think about yourself for a moment. Never mind other people's sins. Think about your expectations of yourself. Think about other people's expectations of you. Because I am a Christian and because my sins are generally not severe in modern society and not obvious to a casual onlooker, some people have this notion of me as this perfect sweet excellent woman, and I hate it. If I try to note that I'm not really all that wonderful, they take it as modesty. In this present day, I am downright afraid to have people take that view of me. I never know if they are going to turn virulently upon me, if I should have a sin revealed that actually horrifies them... not for the sin itself (and utterly regardless of my response to it), mind you, but for the new, manufactured 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Their Expectations".

Why do you think God used King David? Why do you think God went after Saul of Tarsus? Why do you think God chose the Israelites, a group of such unruly, stubborn, imperfect people that they kept getting showed up by pagan Romans who had more faith in Christ than the very people who had been awaiting His arrival? Do you think maybe God wanted to teach us that He can make perfect where we stumble? That God can use people who don't "Live Up To Expectations"? Christianity is not about a bunch of perfect people talking about the way we should live. Christianity is about a bunch of sinners finding out that God is patient and loving, and that His laws come from Himself. That leads us into the other prong.

We could call the second prong the "Saul of Tarsus prong". In this particular case, it centers around homosexual behavior, but it could really be used for any convenient sin. Unlike the "King David Prong", this one primarily springs from non-Christians, and it, too, misunderstands what Christianity is for.

Paul's writings show that he was very aware of his own sins and failings. Despite that, he wrote an awful lot about what was sinful and what wasn't, and what was proper behavior for a Christian and what wasn't. Did anybody ever question the appropriateness of a man who used to drag off Christians to their death in saying that the 'stronger brother' should not burden the 'weaker brother' and the 'weaker brother' should not condemn the 'stronger brother'? Why would anybody listen to someone with a "thorn in his flesh" when he says that all have sinned and that eternal life comes through the grace of God? We certainly hold people up to a similar standard today. Should a man who committed adultery (and repented of his sin) be allowed to teach about marriage? Should a woman who had an abortion be allowed to run a pro-life organization? Should a teen who got out of a gang be allowed to tell other teens how to stay out of gangs?

The whole point of being a Christian is that you are holding yourself to God's standard. You are failing to live up to God's standard. You are repenting and receiving forgiveness for your sins against God's standard. Here's another way of putting it. Would you go to a dentist who has cavities? Well, perhaps instead of looking at his mouth, you should listen to his words. If he tells you that the American Dental Association recommends that you brush twice a day, should you decide that the American Dental Association is wrong because he doesn't brush twice a day and he has gingivitis? Of course not! In fact, making that conclusion is, in debate, called "ad hominem" - it is what happens when you attack the bearer of news rather than the originator. So should someone who has engaged in sexual sin and repented of it be allowed to become the bearer of God's news about homosexual behavior? Of course! (And here I finally drop the name.) Josh Duggar does not speak against gay 'marriage' according to Josh Duggar's authority. Josh Duggar speaks against gay 'marriage' according to God's authority. Of course, it's so much easier to pound Josh Duggar into the ground than to go up against God... but you must be aware that Christianity is a place for sinners who repent, for people who miss the mark and wish they hadn't, for people who know that they are sick and are seeking out the Physician. If you want a religion of "perfect people" who are telling you "how to turn yourself perfect", go seek out Scientology. God's Law is about what works. Christianity is about what happens to you when you realize that you can't do it by your own power.

And eventually, when you stand before God and He says, "Why didn't you listen to me?" it will do you no good to say, "Because I didn't like the looks of the bearer of Your message."

The Rape Exemption

This was my response in a Facebook page for the group Ladies Against Feminism. The topic was Rep. Akin's 'unfortunate' comments, and I am pleased to say that we managed to shift the conversation from screaming about "legitimate rape" to an actual debate on the rape exemption in a proposed ban on abortion.

We had been debating for some time with a couple of feminist women who have been, predictably, proceeding from the viewpoint of secular humanist atheistic feminism. I made a response that I rather liked, and so I post it here for 'everyone' to enjoy:


The problem here is that we are proceeding from a radically different point of view. I could see how, if you do not believe in anything beyond this life, sacrificing yourself for another human being may seem like a flaw rather than a virtue. We Christians, however, follow a God who chose to sacrifice His only Son so that we could have life and have it to the full. Our God is based, not on temporal pleasure, but on love... and that love includes temporal sacrifice for eternal pleasure. Therefore a woman carrying her baby to term, even to give it up for adoption and never see it again, is virtuous.

We also are mostly pro-life... that means that we believe that a human life is created at the moment of conception, a human life as worthy of respect as any human baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, or elder. We do not determine whether a human being deserves basic human rights based on his of her size, age, race, gender, or contributions to society. It follows naturally that we believe that abortion puts to death a human being. That doesn't mean that abortion is Always Evil. Just that its benefits must be stacked up against the detriment of causing the death of a human being.

Given that, I know that from your viewpoint you would never have meant to say this... but your statement did sound as if you will proudly murder someone whether it's against the law or not, because you want to, and you should not be punished for murder because you're a woman - and this is what feminism means. Coming from our viewpoint, I'm sure you can see why feminism seems far more cruel to us than it does to those who do not believe in according basic human rights under the same situation.

Finally, we are not feminists. Rather than trying to claim that women and men are equal in physical form and meant to take identical roles in biology and society, we merely believe that women and men are to be treated equally under the law and are equally capable of petitioning God, with roles in society and biology that are very different, but equal in importance and honor. Therefore, we are very aware of a woman's role in nurturing life and giving of herself to join as partners with God Himself in bringing that life to an eventual state of autonomy. Women are tied strongly to Life in this way... it's no wonder that women have so often been the peacemakers in a society. The women of Sabine and Liberia both created peace and prosperity by joining up, confronting their men, and demanding a cease of hostilities.

As such, Life is our privilege and our business, and carrying a child to term, even an unexpected one, even a child of rape, is bestowing our gift upon the world. It is our privilege to turn something terrible into a blessing. In this way, even outside of our Christian view of sacrifice, giving life and love where there was none is, again, virtuous.

Even so, many of us *are* in favor of a rape exemption for an abortion ban. But we personally would choose life and encourage other women to do the same

Obama's Christianity

When I re-started posting regularly in this blog about a week or so ago, I hinted at an answer I was writing in a forum, where I feared condemnation for my bold way of saying things. I'd like to address that answer and that issue today. It is the issue of Obama's religion.

I enjoy reading the articles written by a Canadian conservative columnist, David Warren, and part of today's article, perhaps, says it all:

U.S. President Barack Obama is reported to be attending church again, and shows a "fresh start," by persistently misquoting from the Book of Genesis, chapter four. "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," he suggests it says. Check out the original. It is a scene in which no sisters appear, and the brothers in question are Cain and Abel. In particular, the intellectual leap from "you must not murder your brother," to "you must create and sustain a vast and ponderous welfare system, that is funded by taxing him and borrowing the rest from China," is not Biblical.

Obama claims to be a Christian. He attends church (sometimes). He reportedly reads his Bible every day. Isn't that enough to prove your Christianity? It may be enough to prove that you are an adherent of most religions, to attend service and read the holy book. Christianity, however, is so much more than what you do. Christianity is what you are. You don't become a Christian just by reading a book and attending a service. You become a Christian by repenting of your sin and following God, taking His worldview as your own, and disregarding all others. A maturing Christian changes over time. Humility replaces pride. Self-sacrifice replaces selfishness. Honesty and sincerity rule your speech and mannerisms. You strive for a higher goal, and the ends can no longer justify the means.

Now I do not have the authority to judge who is going to Heaven and who is not. I cannot tell you if Obama's name is written in the Book of Life. Ultimately, that is not my decision. Many Christians are aware of this, and many will not even say what I am going to say, because they are afraid of being labeled as 'judgmental' which, like 'tolerance', is a neutral quality that has been redefined to carry a decided connotation.

However, many parts of the New Testament make it clear that we Christians of the New Covenant have a bound duty to judge on Earth. Being mindful that we were once all of the terrible sinners who are now coming to repentance, we are only to judge those who are "inside" (claim to be Christian) and only upon a decided lack of fruit from their supposed adherence to the Church. Specifically, if one is engaging repeatedly and unrepentantly in sin, we are told to speak to him alone, then take a friend, then bring it to the deacons and elders, with excommunication as the final and most severe of punishments.

We were given this power in order to ensure that the insincere were excommunicated before they sullied the entire religion, before Christianity could mean nothing, before our detractors could claim that Christians were no more likely than anyone else to avoid cheating, stealing, divorce, sexual immorality, etc. In that, the Church in the United States has, in many denominations, failed.

Supposedly, Obama has attended a Christian church for many years. However, I say now and boldly that a preacher who says "God d**n America", who puts racial politics before the blood of Christ, is no Christian preacher and his sermon is not that of a Christian church. As for Obama himself, he has consistently made decisions and given speeches that strongly push the tenets of Secular Humanism while giving lip service to Christianity. If this is some front for his real, true, Christian self, then he will have to face God for what he's done... and his fate will be lighter than if he is indeed pretending to be a Christian while living in pride, selfishness, and greed. In the end we will know his fate, and I hope it will not be what it seems to be right now.

I have heard some people bitterly announce that conservatives believe that liberals themselves are unable to be Christians, and the reason why we doubt Obama's Christianity is merely because he is a Democrat president. Let me lay that to rest right now with a personal story. One woman from my church, a friend of my mother's, is very liberal. She honestly believes that Obama is the best thing to ever happen to this country. She thinks W Bush is a crook and a villain. But you know why? She honestly thinks that liberalism is the best way to feed the hungry and help  the poor. She isn't out for some class retribution, and she couldn't care less about racial politics.

She and her husband are out there, in the city, bringing poverty-family children to Sunday School, helping their families get the food and services they need. She and her husband are out there in the January night, freezing cold, in the dangerous parts of town, with  no paparazzi, no teleprompter, no reporters, no cameras, no recognition... giving donated coats to street prostitutes.

I don't care if she's a liberal. I don't care if she's a card-carrying Communist. I'm proud to count her as a Christian, and I'll see her in Heaven.


Obama, on the other hand... May I be wrong. I do not want to see him burn for eternity. I honestly and sincerely do not, regardless of what his misguided policies are doing to my family and my country. However, unless he shows some signs of change, personally, regardless of his politics, I cannot in good conscience claim him as a fellow Christian.