Why the U.S. is behind in science

Every President since Ronaldus Magnus (or probably even before) has bemoaned that the U.S. is behind the rest of the world in math and science. No wonder! If all you teach the young skulls full of mush in the science classroom is that they came from a monkey, how the hell do you expect them to be anything but behind in science?  Atheist metaphysics and mythology have no more a place in the “science” classroom than creationism: There’s no reason to deal with the origin of the universe or of life in science, which should be a practical discipline, not the bastard love-child of history and philosophy.  Let science teach how to do something useful, and let philosophers ponder the origins of the universe. Quit calling this abominable mixture of the practical with the fanciful “science.”

This rant brought to you by my immediate thoughts on reading “Kirsten Powers: When a Liberal is Almost Right About God and Politics” at Paul’s Passing Thoughts.

Calvinism’s Get Out of Election Free Card


Probably the best post Paul D has ever written.

Originally posted on Paul's Passing Thoughts:

ppt-jpeg4We will begin this post by reviewing the abysmal belief system that is Calvinism, but in the final analysis, there is good news for those who embrace it; at least in their own minds.

Calvinism is a hopeless belief system. Plainly, there is no assurance of salvation, and it completely devalues life. It posits God as a god that created mankind so that his wrath against sin could bring him glory. He created abject failure in order to bring himself glory. The heroes among the Calvinists are those who eloquently plunge the debts of how evil we are. That would be the Puritans. All of life’s energies are focused on realizing how worthless we are in God’s eyes. The code phrase is “giving all the glory to God.”

Then, at the one last final judgment, you find out if you hated yourself enough to get into heaven by faith alone…

View original 1,037 more words

Boss Paul the Pharisee

A commenter named Matthew Perri (blog) posted this on Paul’s Passing Thoughts (NO Authority Poster).

[sing it to the tune of "Rapture" by Blondie]

I’m Boss Paul, the Pharisee
My hypocrisy’s plain for the world to see
I travel the land and travel the sea
to make a convert who is just like ME

“All have sinned” – we know that’s true
but it never means ME – it only means YOU
My sins are all theoretical
“I’m the worst of sinners”- but don’t ask where

To be more like Jesus is what some strive
except for me – I’ve already arrived
I’m the perfect model since the road to Damascus
What were Paul’s sins? Don’t ask us!

I justify everything I do
If I testify about myself it MUST be true
I’m the only man in all history
whose testimony doesn’t need two or three

If I did something it MUST be right
Don’t use the Scripture to shed any light
Don’t do as I say, do as I do
and then you can be a Pharisee too.

What do you think?

Then at the end of a second comment he says:

The people who will protest most loudly against this truth are the modern “Pauls:” traveling evangelists, speakers, writers, abusive absentee mega-church pastors, Crusaders, and self-appointed “apostles” like Paul, who find it “profitable” to “be like Paul” rather than follow Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

I do think it is largely true that the abusiveness and vitriol in Christianity from one group against another is the result of people wanting to beat each other over the head the way Paul beats his readers in the epistles, wishing those who disagree with him would castrate themselves, calling them dogs and so on.  Paul knows it all, and if anyone disagrees with him, he says “Let them be accursed.”  He didn’t bother to even talk to any of the apostles before he went out preaching, as he proudly brags in Galatians, but if it turns out any of the real apostles disagree with him or preach something different than his made up gospel that he made up out of thin air since he never met Jesus and didn’t bother to speak to the real apostles, well then, as far as Paul is concerned, “Let them be accursed.”   The real apostles are nobodies to him, and whatever they might be, what difference does it make, God shows no partiality, he says, but he always reserves a little partiality for Paul don’t you know.  Oh yeah,  God’s not a respecter of persons, Paul tells us in Galatians when he’s bashing Peter, James, and John, but God is always a respecter of persons when it comes to respecting Paul and his ludicrous doctrines just because they came out of the mouth of the uber-apostle Paul for whom the world was made and for whom alone Jesus was born, the only person who has ever had any worth—ever—and who alone gets to boast.  For justification must be by faith (alone) “lest any man should boast,” that is, any man other than Paul, for Paul boasts constantly and even says “I will not let any man rob me of this boasting.”  Yes indeedy,

I’m Boss Paul, the Pharisee
My hypocrisy’s plain for the world to see…

All have sinned’ – we know that’s true
but it never means ME – it only means YOU

Calvinism awakens great zeal in those who find it (but its zeal for Satanism)

It has been an observation of mine for some time that those who discover Reformed Theology get excited and awaken to a newness of spiritual life. (source)

Those who find Calvinism certainly do get filled with a zeal for their Satan worship, but its absurd to call this zeal “spiritual life.” They are the Gnostics that John writes about in Revelation 2:24 who “meditate on the depths of Satan.” Truly, they are religious men! And filled with great zeal and energy! But that energy is Satanic, and the ‘god’ they worship is the devil himself.

Pope vs Putin: How supersition makes Catholics irrational

Pope Francis: “Who am I to judge?” (literal quote when asked about homosexuality)

Putin: “I will judge.” (not a literal quote, but based on his policy banning “homosexual propaganda”)

Conservative American Protestants: “Putin is a good man. I wish he was President over here rather than that Kenyan.”

Dumb American Catholics: “Putin is evil. He’s going to blow up the Vatican because no pope ever consecrated Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary.”

Isn’t that interesting? Who is living in the real world and who is living in a fantasy world?

By the way, if you were watching CNN at lunchtime on Wednesday you would have seen Obama’s speech before the UN (I think it was before the UN) saber rattling against Russia.  A speech CNN offered no commentary on when it was over but moved directly to covering the Malaysian airplane crash ad nauseam.  A speech which no news program has mentioned since!

In said speech, Obama referred to himself as “a son of Kenya,” saying “I am speaking as a son of Kenya: no big nation has a right to bully a smaller nation.”  This immediately will make you think of how hypocritical this is considering the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he immediately adds “Even in Iraq and Afghanistan we did not annex them. They have their own sovereignty today.”  As if that makes it any different really.  After all, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan invited the US in.  But Crimea asked Russia in.  They wanted to secede from Ukraine, and they even voted on it.  Its totally different.  But in any case…..He also said “This is not the cold war. The US and Europe will protect our allies.”  (I never knew the tiny insignificant country of “Ukraine” was a US ally.)  But most importantly, the self-identified “Son of Kenya,” or as I would rather call him, the Kenyan Manchild, also said:

“WE SHOULD NOT BE ATTACKING OUR GAY AND LESBIAN FRIENDS.” (Obama, Kenyan Manchild, illegitimate president pretender and New World Order operative in secret speech the media is hiding from you)

In other words, to the US government and the European Union, to the New World Order, in other words, to NATO (the military wing of the New World Order), the only thing that Ukraine is about is punishing Putin for not pushing their gay agenda.

Westcott and Hort’s textual theory

Some of the extremely rabid KJVOs obscure the issue with Westcott and Hort by personal attacks about their belief in Ghosts and so on.  The real issue with them was their textual theory.  I read the article or whatever it was where they put forth their theory once before.  The theory is basically that the church of the fourth century standardized the text of the New Testament around 350 AD or so and that this is where the Byzantine text-form came from.  But since they don’t trust the fourth century church (why they don’t is not made clear) therefore this standard text is evil.  So, therefore, they say we must scour the earth and dig up every Egyptian trash dump in existence to find every scrap of supposedly pre-4th-century papyrus to reconstruct what the New Testament said before the 4th century.

Its not Westcott and Hort themselves that are the problem, but those who carried on their theory, namely the guys behind the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts.  They’ve modified the theory slightly, but its still basically the same theory.

But if the 4th century church standardized the text, they must have had a reason.  Like, for example, that lots of bad and disagreeing manuscripts were floating around (the very manuscripts that Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, and friends, have based their editions on).

The truth is, We need a standardized text.  Who should we trust to standardize it?  I personally think the 4th century church could do as good of, if not a better job, than Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, and the rest of the modern gurus.

So the fact is, you can agree with the basic gist of the WH theory (that the Byzantine text-form is not the original text per se but is a standardization done in the 4th century by the church) and yet disagree with their conclusion (that this text is not good enough and we need them to create a new one for us).  I can accept that the Byzantine text IS a standardization done by the fourth century church, and I can still trust it a billion times more than the standardization (or 28 different standardizations) created by Nestle-Aland.

Is Jesus talking about supererogatory merit in Matt 5:38-48?

I know the word “merit” will send up red flags for Protestants, but what I mean has nothing to do with justification. By supererogatory merit I mean doing something not required, and doing it for the purpose of earning a reward (not of being justified). The reason I ask the question is because normally I’ve read Matt 5:38-48 as a set of disjointed verses (reading it in the KJV which is always printed verse-by-verse). But recently having read it in a few modern translations that arrange the verses in paragraphs, I noticed something interesting.

The verses on turning to the other cheek, giving your coat to anyone who sues for your shirt, loving your enemies, all seem to be connected to verse 46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?” So its all about trying to earn a reward. “And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?” Ah, and its about doing more than others!

This calls in question the traditional interpretation that its a sin to defend yourself, to defend yourself in a lawsuit, to hate your enemy, and presents these things as extras, something above and beyond for those who want to do more than others and earn a special reward.

So my question is basically, what do you think? Is there any basis to this interpretation or do you think its entirely wrong?

What does “Evangelical” mean?

This is a serious question.  People are always talking about the “Evangelicals” but who are they?  This is a term that has no definition up till now, and probably never will.  But if you think you know what it means, please tell me, because I have no clue.   To me, the term is simply a self-designation of those who can’t think for themselves but who follow whatever some mega-pastor says.  So they hear a mega-pastor say he’s an “Evangelical” and they start calling themselves that, without even themselves having a clue what the word is supposed to mean.

Over on the Wikipedia article on Evangelicalism I found the following paragraph:

A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these “card-carrying” evangelicals.

Seems strange, considering that today Evangelical and fundamentalist are used interchangeably much of the time, aren’t they?

And I also find there on the wikipedia that “Evangelicals” can supposedly be divided into three camps:

  1. The traditionalists, characterized by high affinity for certain Protestant beliefs, (especially penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of scripture, the priesthood of all believers, etc.)

  2. Centrist evangelicals, described as socially conservative, mostly avoiding politics, who still support much of traditional Christian theology.

  3. Modernist evangelicals, a small minority in the movement, have low levels of church-attendance and “have much more diversity in their beliefs”.

In other words, “Evangelical” doesn’t mean anything!  If the term can describe such widely differing groups, then what possible meaning could it have?  (I mean, aside from brain-dead sheeple who call themselves by a meaningless word because they hard John Piper use it.)

Paul is supplemental not primary scripture

If justification and sanctification are not separate, the Bible is nothing more than a book of confusion. (source)

Or rather, If justification and sanctification are not separate, the Pauline Corpus is nothing more than a book of confusion. Its not like justification by faith and not by works is a theme of the Bible as a whole, because it isn’t. The whole issue is that Protestantism tosses all the book outside the Paulina and redefines “Bible” to mean “Paulina.” Its pure Marcionism. [For those who don't understand the reference, Marcion's Bible consisted only of 10 Pauline epistles which he called The Apostolikon and a shortened Luke, simply called The Gospel.]

And as far as the Pauline Corpus being a book of confusion, that’s essentially what Peter tells us:

15 Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; 16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16 WEB)

Protestants will be forever confused because they treat Paul as primary scripture, whereas logically (considering his incomprehensibility) he can only be treated as supplementary scripture, as a sort of apocrypha or deutero-canon.

That is in fact how he was treated for the first 3 centuries of the church.  Prior to Augustine, the gospels and Old Testament were the primary scripture, and Paul was only brought in to back them up where Paul was in agreement with them.  Never did they take Paul seriously where he does or at least seems to contradict them.  He was only used as a supplement.

Up until Augustine, Paul was used in the same way that Jerome would later suggest the apocrypha should be used: only to support doctrines plainly taught in the primary scripture, but never to build doctrines from directly.

So the church “fathers” quoted Paul to support the importance of baptism, or the importance of faith, the fact of the resurrection.  Never, however, did they quote him on predestination or any of that type of nonsense.  Never did they take justification by faith apart from works seriously, aside from meaning that circumcision and keeping the sabbath are not required.  Never did they use it against baptism.  Because Paul was apocrypha, simply supplemental scripture, until Augustine.  Post-Augustine, however, the gospels are treated as supplemental and Paul as primary!  This is the heresy of Augustine, and unfortunately it continues in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

And the same actually goes for the general epistles too.  They were only supplementary as Paul is.  But of course, everyone still treats them as such.  Isn’t that interesting?

“Saint” Patrick was a persecutor of Christians

“Saint” Patrick was a persecutor of Christians.  He is often said to have brought Christianity to Ireland.  That’s not true at all.  He took Christianity away from Ireland, and brought it Roman Catholicism (which at that time was a heretical Calvinist-style Augustinianism).

You see, Christianity made it to Ireland as early as the 200s.  But the Christianity there was independent of Rome until “Saint” Patrick the persecutor was sent, in 432 AD, to “drive out the snakes” (real Christians) and subjugate the place to Rome.  He was specifically sent to persecute the so-called “Pelagians,” that is, those who believed in freewill and obeying the gospel rather than Augustine’s predestination and cosmic lottery.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.