Fixed Pegs versus Variable Reality.

Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, May 29, 2012
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Once upon a time, there was a people raised up by God, but who had since been lead by deception into pride. They and their leader had forgotten their dependence upon God, and become intoxicated with themselves and their own abilities, thinking themselves wise and independent. They drifted from faith and from attending to His law; they drifted from being a good and decent people. And one day an enemy approached and prepared to attack them, and so they went about preparing their city for defense and themselves for battle, but they had forgotten the Lord God in all of this preparation. Faithless people that they had become, on the last day before the battle, they celebrated, thinking it might be their last celebration. So the Lord God sent a prophet to them to deliver an oracle concerning their leader and their future.

From Isaiah:
[12] In that day the Lord GOD of hosts called to weeping and mourning, to baldness and girding with sackcloth;
[13] and behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
[14] The LORD of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: "Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you till you die," says the Lord GOD of hosts.
[15] Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:
[16] What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?
[17] Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,
[18] and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master's house.
[19] I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.
[24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
[25] In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."
-- from Isaiah 22.

This was to remind the people of their dependence upon the Lord God, which they had forgotten in their growing pride.

Forgetting the Lord, attending to the problems of the world, immersing ourselves in accomplishment, both individually and collectively, concentrating on the problem-of-the-moment to the exclusion of the Lord, almost inevitably leads to excessive pride. Pride is an internal thing; a personal thing; an emotion. As pride grows, any sense of dependence on the Lord shrinks. Pride carries with it a lack of humility, and eventually even a lack of any sense of guilt.

And where do we find ourselves today?

Among our leaders, who speaks of the Lord?

What sin is recognized as sin anymore?

What sinner is universally recognized as guilty of anything?

Is there any sense of humility or guilt left in the world?

Who bears the most fault, between citizenry, elite and leaders?

The problem facing America today is not new; it is ancient, and it is the same problem facing the larger world, and that problem is two-fold:

1. The lack of any “fixed peg” of proper purpose and direction;
2. The advance of “variable reality.”

Fixed Pegs and Variable Reality are terms that are at odds with each other. Variable Reality, like Unnatural Nature, is a nonsensical term. Reality cannot vary; nature cannot be unnatural; truth cannot contradict itself. A statement is either true, or it is not true.

Nature has a Divine Author.

On Fixed Pegs and Keys.

In Biblical times, to give someone the keys to the household was to grant that person supreme authority over the house, with full authority to act in the name of the master in his or her absence. He would wear the key, or some symbol of it, on a sash worn over his shoulder as a badge of high office and supreme trust. The master could then go about his business with complete confidence that his chief steward, the holder of his keys, would run the house and handle contingencies exactly as if the master himself were still present. The chief steward – the holder of the keys – was thus considered to be a Fixed Peg in a sure place on which the master could hang his complete trust.

If you read again the above quotation from Isaiah you will see that a chief steward, a holder of the keys to the household, failed his office and his responsibility, and betrayed his master’s trust; he was no longer a Fixed Peg that others could rely upon for steadiness, proper direction and purpose, and they were easily led astray, leaving the master’s house open to corruption.

The first “Fixed Peg” was Adam, when everything was simple and natural, and there was only one legally prohibited behavior concerning the fruit of one tree. But then, the deceiver entered the picture, and the fixed peg fell. Life became more complicated after that. But, even after that, after man breaking his covenant with the Lord God, how was it that man was able to know right from wrong, and thus find favor with the Lord, as did such men as Noah, and Abraham?

By Natural Law, written on the hearts of men.

God’s law is in our very Nature. The essence of it all – love of God, and love of neighbor – is naturally present in our innermost being. That is how Cain experienced guilt when he murdered Able. The problem of evil springs from God’s love for man. He made us because he wanted us – intelligent beings with intellect – to love Him. Not just automatically bow and scrape before Him and worship Him, but to make a free will decision to love Him. That requires free will. Free will carries with it the ability to do other than what is best, to decide wrong things. Yet love must be freely given, unforced, of true free will, else it is not love. If we decide wrongly, God respects us too much to not accept our decision, even when wrong. Thus, some of us damn ourselves; thus, some of us save ourselves.

Through the ages we have had many historical Fixed Pegs to teach us and lead us in right ways. We have had Moses, and Joshua, the Judges, the Kings and the Prophets. The formal law went from one Commandment, in the Garden, to Ten; then, when those were broken, more were piled on – some 613 by one count – to further discipline us; but they became impossible to bear. Then God sent His only Son, to redeem us, and to abrogate much of the old Law while reinforcing the original simple rules, regarding love of God and love of neighbor. And He gave us the last Fixed Peg in blessed Peter and his successors, to whom He entrusted the keys to the kingdom, and the power to bind and to loose.

The three pillars, or three Fixed Pegs upon which man could depend for correct teaching of faith and maintaining man’s covenant with the Lord God became:

1. The Church, founded by Christ and built upon Peter and his successors;
2. Tradition, consisting of the full Gospel taught by Christ and His Apostles, and handed down to us through Apostolic Successon;
3. Scripture, once it was all written, accepted and blessed by the Church.

Combination of Church and State.

Of course, the story didn’t end there; we had the disaster of the Reformation, which we spoke of in the For God and Country article, which resulted in roughly half of Christendom abandoning the first two pillars, holding only to Scripture, and relying on open individual interpretation of it.

When it looked like Luther’s revolt might be crushed, he turned to princes and nobles for protection and the legitimizing of Lutheranism, issuing the famous dictum, ”Cujus regio, ejus religio”, or whoever’s reign, his religion. Luther’s creed said “He who owns the country owns the Church, and he that makes your laws for you has the right to make your religion for you.” If he couldn’t legitimize Protestantism in the minds of men, perhaps he could legalize it in civil law. The Augsburg Diet codified the rule, instituting the Peace of Augsburg in an effort to end bloodshed between Catholic and Protestant forces.

Immediately, greed entered the arena as many nobles suddenly “converted” and then began to seize Catholic cathedrals, churches, monasteries, convents and lands for their own personal enrichment. Not always satisfied with religious property within their own domains, some nobles began jealously eyeing religious property in other domains, and the possibility of vastly expanding their own personal domains in the name of some new religion. The great tempter had done his work well.

Thanks to Luther’s Sola Scriptura doctrine (establishing Scripture as the sole authority for teaching the Christian Gospel) entirely new Christian “Denominations” sprang up, and some converted “Protestant” nobles converted again, and began to seize Protestant religious holdings, and to war against other Protestant nobles as much as they warred against Catholic ones. See the For God and Country link for more details; the important thing to note here is that the result of all of these religious wars was a permanently divided Europe, the rise of multiple “denominations,” or interpretations of Scripture, the beginning of the loss of faith entirely in a large segment of the population, and the official establishment of state rule over religion.

Luther’s inventions of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone,) Sola Fidei (Faith Alone) and the notion of the Universal Priesthood (We Are All Priests,) presented to the Christian world an entirely new Gospel never heard before. These things had never been taught by Christ or His Apostles. It cannot be said that these Lutheran doctrines are old, or somehow lost and re-found, for they never existed in the Church’s sacred Depositum Fidei and they cannot be found in Scripture; and yet they were to be enforced on populations via civil law. Ecclesial law and all ecclesial authority were subordinated to civil law.

Thus, for roughly half of Christendom, there was a New Gospel by which men were to establish their values and guide their lives. Common sense should tell you that that would be an impossibility, for the original, one-and-only Gospel message was permanently fixed for all time. The Gospel does not “evolve” and the teaching does not change. The original Gospel taught by Christ and His Apostles and handed on to us by their successors is prohibited from changing; nothing may be added to it, nothing may be detracted from it, and nothing within it may be changed. The original Gospel is the most vitally important Fixed Peg by which men may maintain their proper sense of direction and purpose, and guide their lives and their behavior.

We have before us St. Paul’s admonition against any new Gospel in his letter to the Gallatians:

[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --
[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
-- Gal 1:6-9

So, even if he – Paul – or any of the other Apostles, or even if an actual Angel were to preach a new Gospel, it was not to be believed. The Gospel was already fixed. And, we have before us St. John’s admonition at the end of the inspired words recording his vision on Patmos, regarding changing any of the words, at the close of the Book of Revelation:

[18] I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
[19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
[20] He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
-- Rev 22:18-20

Any new Gospel, from any source, is a very serious infringement on the sanctity and the integrity of the original Gospel message.

Separation of Church and State.

In the British Isles and in Europe, whenever and wherever any monarch would allow it and not condemn it, new Christian “denominations” continued to spring up now and then, thanks to Luther’s Sola Scriptura, and Protestantism continued to split and factionalize. When a particular denomination experienced oppression in any domain, some or all of them might migrate to another more tolerant domain to continue their unique form of religion. This was the primary motivator for the Pilgrims who first came to America – to practice their own Christian denominationalism without hindrance from civil government.

As we said in the Separation of Church and State argument, the original American 13 Colonies were each established as Christian Theocracies, so that citizens would not be prohibited from practicing their preferred religions. Only Maryland was established as a Catholic Theocracy; all the rest were various Protestant Denominations. But none of them lasted that way; each Colony increased its population greatly by the importation of European Indentured Servants. Colonial citizens would pay the fare for travel and immigration in return for from three to seven years indentured servitude, working either in the household, or in the family business learning a trade or a skill. At the end of the period of indenture, the new citizen was free to pursue his own happiness.

Most of the indentured servants who came over in this manner were various kinds of Protestants, so it wasn’t long before Catholic Maryland had a majority Protestant population. It was the same with other colonies – a colony that was founded as Church of England might not be predominantly of that denomination by population any more. Because the original foundational premise involved freedom of religion, with very few exceptions, all such forms of Christian worship were allowed and not hindered in any way.

When the Colonies became the United States of America, the new American Constitution, in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights, prohibited government from establishing any religion as an “official” religion of the land, and it prohibited the government from interfering the free exercise of religion. The individual states, considered sovereign states within the union, had their own constitutions, and they could do as they pleased; however, the new federal government could not and would not impose any particular religion over them.

Over time, the wisdom behind this idea was adopted at the state level, and one by one the states went through a “disestablishment” movement, the object of which was to eliminate theocracy, and incorporate the prohibition of official state religion into state constitutions, as was done in the federal constitution. If the splitting and growth of Protestant denominationalism was still slowly going on in Europe and the British Isles, the phenomenon went on steroids in America. Nowhere else in Western Civilization, since the Reformation, was Christian religion so free.

The Rise of Secularism.

During the religious wars of the Reformation in Europe, once the secular rulers were enticed into the game as potential Religious Rulers free to plunder the religious holdings of “enemy” religions, and once there were multiple “Gospels,” each being touted as the one true Gospel, some men began to doubt all Gospels. If there were many, how was anyone to know which one was true? If the Calvinists currently held the territory by force of arms, did that make the Calvinist Gospel true? That many nobles were entering this warfare for personal gain was patently obvious. Some thought they saw hypocrisy on all sides and everywhere they looked. Many began to doubt their own very ground of being, and to lose faith in God. In many eyes, religion itself was seen as a bad thing, to be avoided if not opposed.

This doubt and negativity laid the groundwork for some of the horrors of the French Revolution, which would prove to be just as anti-religion and anti-cleric as it was opposed to nobility and aristocracy. The doubt, negativity and lost faith of this period laid the groundwork for the Secularist movement, whose ultimate goal was, and remains, to drive religion completely out of culture. In the secularist view, religion is “the problem.” Obviously, removing religion from Western Culture would mean a radical change in the nature of Western Culture.

Secularism is less a culture or a way of life than an anti-culture and opposition to an existing way of life. It exists only to oppose theism and spirituality. Nevertheless its strongest supporters consider it to be a culture and themselves to be cultured. It is an ethos, of sorts, that is different than the common Judao-Christian Ethos of Western Civilization; when I ask practicing secularists what the name of their new ethos is, I just get blank stares. For want of a name for this major ethos, I have supplied one myself: the ethos of BMDFP and atheists. I base this name on the moral norms and practices clearly evident and observable among practicing secularists.

If the secularist movement was not born of the Reformation, it certainly got its biggest boost from the clear examples of open religious hypocrisy of the greedy warring nobility of the era. For this reason, I am almost prepared to refer to Secularism as a Protestant Denomination. Certainly, some secularists came to early America, and some small anti-religion segment of the population probably always smoldered beneath America’s Christian cultural surface.

In America, the Secularist movement got a huge boost, and came out of the closet, so to speak, with the predominantly secularist Supreme Court decision in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision. In that decision, the Court grossly misinterpreted the simple, clear words of the First Amendment to prohibit government from, not establishing an official religion, but rather, providing any sort of aid to any religion. Then, in the 1948 McCollum v. Board of Education the Court held that religion could not be taught in public schools, and other restrictions were put on religion in public. See the Separation of Church and State argument for how the majority secularist Supreme Court sought to turn America from a Christian nation into an atheist nation.

The important thing to note here is that this established nothing more than a legal precedent; it is not established in the Constitution itself, which still says the same things it said originally. Congress was either too secularist itself, or not motivated enough, or too numb, dumb or stupified to legislatively set this precedent aside as being unconstitutional, which it was, and which it remains. The three branches of government are co-equal and counter-balancing; there is nothing in the Constitution that grants any particular authority of interpretation to any branch over any other branch. As we showed in the Separation of Church and State, the founders and framers, including even President Jefferson, actually and quite officially did the very things these Justice Black decisions said they could not legally do according to the Constitution that they had written and ratified.

Since those Black decisions, Secularism has virtually been driving the American political bus – toward a cliff. So much for any remaining Christian Fixed Pegs. Three points on the Black Court’s gross misinterpretation of the Constitution:

1. The government, particularly the federal government, is very strictly constituted to govern; not to educate. The government is supposed to govern us, not educate us. Just as it is not constituted to practice medicine, or to practice medical insurance, our government has no business meddling in education. The ruling that public (i.e., government) schools could not teach Christian religion would be a moot point if public (i.e., government) schools did not exist in the first place. It was the “Progressive” form of Communism, introduced by Theodore Roosevelt, invigorated by Wilson, built upon by Hoover and FDR, that brought us public (i.e., government) education, among a plethora of other things and giant bureaucracies not constitutional. If it is not listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the federal constitution, the federal government has no legitimate business involving itself in it.
2. It may be argued that the Black decisions, and the legal precedents that they set, have the unconstitutional effect of:
   1. Making new law, which is the exclusive domain of the Congress, not the Courts. Government now behaves as if these decisions favoring atheism and oppressing Christianity were the actual supreme law of the land.
   2. The Court is unconstitutionally imposing the religion (or religious belief system) of atheism upon the American citizenry against their will. Atheism holds that God does not exist, although atheism cannot prove that God does not exist. Atheism is thus an unscientific, strictly faith-based belief system, and as such, is a religion, or a purely faithfully held belief system regarding the super-natural. You may call that whatever you will, but it is a religious belief system. The Court, first, and then the other two branches of government, began to unconstitutionally establish and favor atheism above all other religious belief systems, and to unconstitutionally suppress the public exercise of Christianity.
3. Over the years, while still oppressing Christianity more than any other religion, our government has encouraged a sense of equality or equal value among all religions and belief systems, including atheism, while ignoring the fact that our cultural morality – our common sense of right versus wrong – comes directly out of Judao-Christian religion. When it doesn’t suppress public religious expression or exercise outright, the government encourages the mistaken idea that It doesn’t matter what you believe so long as you believe in something, which is the mortal sin of Syncretism. It does indeed matter what you believe.

Our Christian Fixed Pegs.

Of course, despite all opposition, the Church still exists, the Depositum Fidei still exists and Scripture still exists. In the Judao-Christian Ethos page we spoke of the Ten Commandments; the First Tablet Commandments establishing and anchoring our relationship with God, or our Theology, and the Second Tablet Commandments establishing and anchoring our relationship with our fellow man, or our Morality.

In our Christian diversity, since the Reformation, specific Theology may not be addressed in civil law, in accordance with the First Amendment Constitutional restriction against establishing a state religion. However, our common Christian Morality is another story, establishing, as it does, our innermost natural sense of telling right from wrong in our dealings with each other.

Implicit in Honor Thy father and Thy mother is the sacredness of the normative family, and the presumptive right of parents to first authority over their own children, and to special social protections for the family.

Implicit in Thou shalt not kill is the inalienable right of all innocent human beings to continue to live.

Implicit in Thou shalt not commit adultery is the sanctity and inviolability and protected nature of the marriage covenant, and, again, the sanctity and protected nature of the family.

Implicit in Thou shalt not steal is the inalienable right to private property: the right of an individual to actually own something.

Implicit in Thou shalt not bear false witness is the protected and sacred nature of truth, and the moral requirement to protect it and to profess it fully and without distortion.

Implicit in Thou shalt not covet is, again, the sanctity of marriage, and, again, the protected right to own private property.

We have, as Fixed Pegs, the Seven Virtues which help to guide our lives. There are the three Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Love (i.e., Charity = the perfect love of God), and we have the four Cardinal or Moral virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.

Opposed to these virtues are the Seven Deadly Sins of Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony.

Although our Political Parties are supposed to be purely political, I submit that it is possible to identify the historic and current leadership of the Democrat Party by close association with one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins, and also by the lack of association with the Seven Virtues.

Our American Fixed Pegs.

As we saw in the American Founding Principles page, the very purpose for our national being as well as the very purpose for our Constitution is all wrapped up in the inalienable rights of man, granted by God Himself, involving:

1. The right to Equality, of all men, including Presidents, before the law;
2. The right to Life;
3. The right to Liberty;
4. the right to Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuit of Happiness means, precisely, the freedom of a man to work in his own self interest, to prosper by the work of his own hands, and the right to work enough to make profit = wealth = private property. That means that a man may work and earn more than he needs to merely survive, if he so desires.

Note well that profit = wealth = private property is demonized, hated and attacked by atheistic Marxism, an ideology that predominates in the Democrat Party, among “Progressives” in the Republican Party, in unions, among teachers, all of upper academia, the entire field of journalism, throughout the entire News Media, and in the world of popular “celebrity,” show-business and entertainment.

All of whom, it may be seen, are completely at odds with and out of touch with the vast American ordinary citizenry, who overwhelmingly struggle hard to make and increase profit = wealth = private property every working day. We call it Trying To Get Ahead. It’s just common sense. It is natural.

As it is with individual citizens, so it is with family businesses, corporations or giant mega-corporations. All are working solely and exclusively to make and increase profit = wealth = private property. Therefore, each entity, whether it might be an individual worker or a large business enterprise of any kind, works to produce more of whatever it produces than it needs to just survive and get by. And the excess over survival expenses is profit = wealth = private property, which is publicly demonized by the Democrat Party and the rest of Marxism.

Marxism says that the purpose of government is to provide and equalize income for people, which is an obvious impossibility. Government may not produce profit = wealth = private property; government may only spend it. Only workers may produce profit = wealth = private property. Before it may spend it, government must either tax profit = wealth = private property, borrow from some outside source, or simply print money. Our current government does all of these things, but still spends far beyond what is taxed, borrowed and printed; our current national debt exceeds the amount of money available in the world today.

The Democrat Party says that the purpose of private business is to provide jobs and benefits – a clear falsehood – and that the purpose of government is to “fairly” redistribute profit = wealth = private property.

What can I say?

What more needs to be said?

So the American Foundational Fixed Pegs , as envisioned by the Founders, imbue the citizenry with legal rights to:

1. Equality before the law.
2. Life.
3. Liberty.
4. Pursuit of Happiness, meaning, the ability to legally and legitimately earn, keep and hold profit = wealth = private property without limit.

As we saw in the American Constitutional Principles page, the very purpose for our Constitution is to protect the Founding Rights enumerated above. Our Constitution is an “Organizing” of government powers to protect those founding principles. From the Declaration of Independence:

… and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So the American Constitutional Fixed Pegs as envisioned by the Framers, need to be recognized. Beyond the protecting the American founding principles and citizen rights, our main American Constitutional Principles are:

1. Supreme Law of the Land, as per Article VI Paragraph 2.
2. Citizen Sovereignty; our government was brought into being with the consent of the governed, and it continues to legitimately hold the power to govern only with the consent of the governed.
3. Limited Government; the government’s legitimate interest in legislating, taxing and spending is restricted to the areas listed in Article I Section 8.
4. Separation of Powers between three co-equal and counter-balancing branches of government – Congress, Supreme Court and Presidency.
5. Federalism; government power is shared between Federal, State and Citizen levels, as specified in Amendments IX and X.
6. Protection of Citizen Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution and Amendments.

These Fixed Pegs, altogether, provide a place to stand on deck with our hands on the tiller and our eyes on the compass, to keep the ship on course. Our religious fixed pegs keep us cognizant of the ultimate goal and final destination; our political fixed pegs keep us on course for all intermediate goals, destinations and ports of call. If we would be a beacon and a savior to others who are adrift, we must first, ourselves, be able to stay the course and be a reliable fixed peg for them. If we, too go adrift, lose control and our course goes random, then all is lost.

The terms “Man Up” or “Cowboy Up” apply here. Someone around here had better be acting like an adult. What we are talking about is not just religion, and not just politics, but cultural ideology. You are called to be an ideologue; the question before you is what ideas are to be incorporated into your ideology. The question for all of us is, are we to be a people of principle, or not; and if so, exactly what principles are we to stand on?

As for me, I am that popularly demonized, scorned and ridiculed thing called a Rigid Ideollogue. The Religious principles I hold, defend and guide my life by include the Catholic Church, Catholic Tradition and the Holy Bible. The Political principles I hold, defend and guide my life by are the American Founding Principles and the American Constitutional Principles spoken of above. Beyond that, in day-to-day life, I am a realist; I am grounded in provable fact.

In my not so humble view, those who have grown to adulthood who still hold to no particular ideology are too intellectually immature for their arguments to hold any significant weight worthy of serious consideration. In fact, to not hold to any ideology is to be randomly oriented, and quite unlikely to be able to offer any serious argument or position worthy of discussion.

Enter Variable Reality.

I believe F. A. Hayek was the one who first coined the term Scientism, in his 1952 book, The Counter Revolution of Science. In that book, Hayek described the completely un-empirical, un-scientific, purely subjective, elitist, collective-thinking, “Popular-Composite” opinionated approach used by a growing majority of scientists. Way back then, it was already recognized that the long vaunted Scientific Method was falling out of use, being displaced by popular educated group-think surrounding science-topic pop-fads. Today, a lot of scientific “studies” and published articles bear more similarity to those found in publications on high fashion and celebrity news than to serious science, except for sprinklings of high-sounding language.

It is most interesting, and entertaining, to see how many of those recognized as the best and brightest of today’s scientists tie themselves into intellectual knots trying to explain matter – the object of material science. When questioning how matter came to be, they theorize that it always was, and always will be; but then, they are confronted with the scientifically arrived-at age of the universe, some 15 or so billion years, since the Big Bang. (Since God was long ago dismissed from the scientific discussion, a Creator may not even be considered.) So, with recognized great minds like that of Stephen Hawking in the lead, alternate and duplicate and “other” co-existing, but invisible, undetectable universes are popularly conjectured into being.

Black Holes are, first, mathematically predicted, then found to actually exist. But the math does funny things with Black Holes; unexplainable things. The math blows up at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, and we cannot tell, with any specificity, exactly what happens beyond that point. Further, it predicts a mathematical impossibility at the Singularity, the infinitely tiny yet infinitely gravitational thing at the center of it all, with infinitely small size, yet infinitely large mass and gravity. Infinity, itself, is a mathematically impossible number.

So, the Black Hole is scientifically conjectured into being a “gateway” to the unseen “other” universe(s) earlier imagined into being. A thing falls into a Black Hole, into the Singularity, and comes out the “other side” into an Alternate Universe that cannot be detected from this universe. So the Black Hole provides a Worm Hole, or a gate-way, to some possibly reversed universe, similar to the Bizarro-World of old-time Superman Comic Books.

Popular scientific collective thought conjectures that a star or other object catastrophically collapses to form a Black Hole, and when it does, its new Singularity, unseen by us, spews out another Big Bang new alternate universe creation that we cannot detect or even be aware of.

Modern science is not too concerned with the inability of mathematics to explain any or all of this, because, it is further popularly conjectured, sooner or later someone will invent a “New Mathematics” to more properly address it all.

Right.

The problems with this should be but rarely prove to be obvious to all observers. Another word for “conjecture” is “guess.” No matter how lofty, no matter how educated or scientific it may be, no matter how much consensus it enjoys, a guess never ever rises above the level of being a guess. But modern Scientism, or scientific group-think and consensus, has repeatedly treated Pure Hypotheses as if they were Recorded Observations, or as if they were Tested Hypotheses, or even as if they were Proven Theories. Many of these unproven hypotheses, these conjectures, are simply added into official scientific education, little different than E=MC², to be treated as axiomatic truisms to be handed on and built upon, even though they are nothing more than interesting popular guesses.

The modern common language of Material Science has incorporated and increasingly over-used newer terminology such as It Is Thought To Be … , It Is Widely Held That … , Some Think That … , The Consensus Holds That … , and so forth, to support modern Material Science “Theories.” Scientific Consensus is their sole support.

Modern Material Science is now a house of cards.

The Historical-Critical Method applied to the study of Holy Scripture is a good example case-in-point. Here we see historians, theologians, linguists and archaeologists wrestling with deep analysis of ancient literature, and applying what they think is pure empiricism and the scientific method to the most para-normal literature ever to exist. They base virtually their entire “Theory” regarding the proper sequence in the development of the Synoptic Gospels on a personage called “Q” who is supposed to have written something all the inspired authors had access to. Here’s how I described it in the Historical-Critical Scripture Analysis page:

For example, the personage of Q, who was imagined or theorized into existence to help solve the synoptic problem. There exists in all the universe not one single shred of empirical evidence supporting existence of the person they call Q, or any theoretical document called Q or authored by Q, which is supposed to have made the rounds of the inspired authors, in a proper sequence. Q was dreamed up, guessed at, given broad consensus and peer approval, and is today accepted as if an objective truth. That's how historical criticism works.

So what, you might ask?

Well, it seems that historical-critical scholars, who, you will remember, are primarily theologians, and many Catholics among them, have adopted the material scientists tool, the empirical scientific method, with which to study the paranormal and the super-natural. To do that, they have to put aside their ethos, in order to assume a neutral, objective position on the matter being studied at the moment. In other words, they put their faith aside. And, remember, to do good critical thinking, one must begin the exercise from a position of skepticism in order to properly criticize the argument put forth for criticism.

Which explains why historical-critical scholars seem to have never met a miracle they couldn't question: they have to find a material explanation, or call it into question.

Therefore, the parting of the Red Sea becomes a wading exercise in the Sea of Reeds. The Virgin Birth becomes invented or “developed” theology as the authors consult with and copy from each other, and from Q, and then write their Gospels.

So, today, respected theologians, ordained priests among them, have no problem at all with softening the teaching surrounding events and miracles that are even articles of the Creed itself, and still call themselves believing Christians. I witnessed this sort of thing, first hand, at the Athenaeum of Ohio's Ding Dong School of Scripture study.

May God protect us from the experts.

The problem exemplified here is not only related to the attempted application of worldly empiricism to the other-worldly and ephemeral. It goes even deeper than that, when you consider that all involved think themselves to be applying the Scientific Method to the question, when in fact what they are doing is amplifying and replicating nothing more than guess-work, theorizing and Group Think. Material Science itself is reduced to consensus-building. Here’s the new and bogus Scientific Method in a nutshell:

If a hypothesis enjoys heavy consensus, and no alternative or countering hypotheses enjoy equal or greater consensus, then, that hypothesis may be elevated to the lofty level of the Scientific Theory, even despite the lack of any evidences or proofs of any kind.

This has been a growing trend for a very, very long time.

”Evolution” and Variable Reality.

As we showed in the Refuting Darwin page and all the other articles linked to in the right-hand column of that page, especially the Refuting Origin of Species page, the old-time, tried and true Scientific Method was never, ever even applied to Darwin’s theory of evolution, by Darwin or by anyone else. That should serve as an explanation of why I refer to it as Darwinism, a strictly faith-based belief system regarding the origin of species. No event of natural speciation has ever been observed, in all of world history, whether in the field or in the laboratory, nor has evidence of any such event ever been found or shown anywhere in the gigantic and continually growing fossil record.

Question evolution, and you will be considered to be an ignoramus, a troglodyte and a flat-earther, by virtually everyone. Ask for proof of Darwin’s theory, and you will get evidences of mutation, breeding, races and genetic inheritance, all very strictly within species, but no such evidences between species, and a lot of lists of important, highly respected names of supporters. You will get lots of consensus and group-think, but I promise you, you will get no proof, and no empirical evidence whatsoever supporting evolution of species.

“What’s your alternative theory?” will be their challenge and their only defense, and unless you have some alternative theory that is as popular among enlightened, modern, secular, highly educated, sophisticated elites, including a lot of TTRSTF with advanced degrees in Darwinism, your lack of an acceptable alternative theory will be held to be scientific proof supporting Darwinism.

Their position is the one that ignores, resists and adamantly avoids empirical evidences and scientific proofs, and yet I am the one who is the ignoramus, troglodyte and flat-earther.

What can I say?

”Sub-Conscious Minds” and Variable Reality.

As we showed in the Refuting Freud page and all the other articles linked to in the right-hand column of that page, especially the Refuting Repressed Memory page, the old-time, tried and true Scientific Method was never, ever even applied to Freud’s theory of the sub-conscious mind and repressed memory, by Freud or by anyone else. That should serve as an explanation of why I refer to it as Freudianism, a strictly faith-based belief system regarding the unconscious mind and its relationship to mental illness. No unconscious mind has ever been observed, in all of world history, whether in the field or in the laboratory, nor has evidence of any such observation ever been recorded anywhere in the gigantic and continually growing historical record of the study of the human mind.

Think about it: how would one even detect an unconscious or a sub-conscious mind, let alone observe and study one? How would anyone detect, observe and study a repressed memory? How, exactly, would the scientist present one for peer review, so that others could examine the exact same unconsciousness under the exact same conditions, to independently study it and perform independent experimentation on it, so as to independently test and verify or invalidate Freud’s statements about it?

But it gets even better, for those of us who recognize the tragic-comedy in all of this, and can laugh at the humor, when not grieving for the patient-victims. In the Freudianism description we delved lightly into the Gnosticism, Mysticism and para-normal additions to Freudianism made by Carl Gustav Jung, in the sub-pseudo-science known as Jungianism. Jung, with the full approval of Freud, introduced the world to the study of Para-Psychology, delving into the study of disembodied subconscious minds – minds not associated with any physical person – that are floating around all about us in the ether. So, where Freudianism describes in detail the subconscious mind of a living patient, the Jungian addition to Freudianism describes in detail the subconscious disembodied mind that is detected while just floating around in space. See?

Oh, and we mustn’t forget Jung’s Collective Subconscious-ness, involving as it does a sort of para-normal, unconscious Culture of many unconscious mind-types floating around out there.

It almost makes me want to go into business, collecting, studying, classifying and treating unconscious embodied minds, and finding, appeasing or sending away unconscious disembodied minds, for a fee, and maybe writing books about it and getting rich. After all, when things go crash, bang, boom in the night, who ya gonna call? Detecting, finding, treating, trapping or driving away various kinds of unconsciousness should be a whole lot easier than nailing jello to the wall, especially if you are absolutely scientific about it. Right?

I think I may have found my calling: I’m gonna be a Para-Psycholigist, and no one will ever be able to judge my work, since they won’t even be able to see it. Yes-sir-ee, this could be the path to wealth, fame, scientific popularity and social celebrity.

”Social Science” and Variable Reality.

As we showed in the Refuting Marx page and all the other articles linked to in the right-hand column of that page, especially the Refuting Marxism page, the old-time, tried and true Scientific Method was never, ever even applied to Marx’s theory of Perfect Political Organization, by Marx or by anyone else. That should serve as an explanation of why I refer to it as Marxism, a strictly faith-based belief system regarding the ideal utopian achievement of Equality, Fairness and Social Justice and its relationship to the current, unfair, exploitive state of the world today. No Communist Utopia has ever been observed, in all of world history, nor demonstrated in the field or in the laboratory, nor has evidence of any such observation ever been recorded anywhere in the gigantic and continually growing historical record of the study human political organization. Nor has any intermediate step of Socialism ever existed that did not persistently and consistently trend toward inevitable economic collapse and social disaster.

As we said in Refuting Marx, Marxism is an evil fraud; it is an artful plan for instigating violent revolution to achieve pure dictatorship, while slyly masquerading as a grand, ingenuous Utopian Ideal aimed at achieving worldly perfection in the socio-political order.

And today, we have as America’s Secretary of State, Madam Hillary, who wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on Saul Alinsky, and we have America’s President, Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) who taught Alinsky strategy and tactics at the college level. Alinsky tactics involved avoiding bloody revolution, or at least putting it off until the last possible moment, and working to achieve dictatorship from the inside, doing whatever it takes to make progress toward that end. As Chairman Mao put it, swim in the sea of the people. As Van Jones put it, drop the radical pose to achieve the radical end. The Alinsky-ite revolutionary puts on a suite and tie, his true radicalism goes underground, and then he smiles at everyone as he works to destroy and bring down the system from within. The goals of the revolution are to be achieved through deep deception and treachery; treason is the name of the game.

While it may seem odd to many older Americans, I submit that Madam Hillary and Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) just may be mortal enemies of each other, even though they are both Democrats. They are also Marxist ideologues and potential future dictators, and there can be only one dictator.

I submit that the entire Democrat Party is steeped in Marxist ideology to such a degree that, among Party operatives, Marxism prevails over our American Founding Principles and our American Constitutional Principles. I am talking about elected and appointed Party officials, not the voters. (There are many Democrat voters coming to Tea Party meetings.) Whether these Marxist Democrats are naïve and duped idealists or actual under-cover revolutionaries, history will judge. But know this: there is nothing whatsoever in Marxism that is in any way compatible with the American Founding Principles or the American Constitutional Principles. One cannot be a Marxist ideologue and not be an anti-American.

The phony Straw Man villain Marxism publicly demonizes and aims to bring down is Capitalism = The Free Market, which Marxism falsely proclaims to be a controlled system of greed and exploitation. However, Capitalism = The Free Market is a natural thing; it only comes into being when and where men enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that it is unplanned and uncontrolled. To whatever degree the economy is planned and controlled, to that same degree does it cease to be natural, and cease to be Capitalism = The Free Market. The true enemy Marxism really aims at is Liberty. The achievement of absolute dictatorship necessitates the elimination of citizen liberty, which would, of course, be the death of the natural system of Capitalism = The Free Market.

Despite the remarkable positive economic difference America has made on the world stage, the treacherous stratagems of Machiavelli, Hegel and Marx continue to metastasize beneath the surface here and abroad. We have our Alinsky-ites, and the perpetrators of the Cloward-Piven strategy, seeking to overload various government and corporate systems, and promote systematic failure, anger, unhappiness and revolution in a thousand different ways. What needs to be recognized is that the Marxists are not really seeking to bring down The Rich; many of them are rich; what they seek to destroy is liberty-induced Success. Successful individuals, successful families, successful business enterprises, all, are to be made to turn over the proceeds from their success to (theoretically) less successful individuals, families and enterprises – but actually, to the dictator-to-be, or his Party, to do with as they please.

Marxism has never had a better shot at toppling America than right now.

As we said in The Professional Liars of Journalism page, and the various articles linked in the right hand column of that page, the entire main-stream media is in cahoots with and acting as a propaganda wing of the current Communist Party. (I mean Democrat.) Pro-Marxist propaganda reported as news everywhere is the reason so many Americans today are completely oblivious to the current Marxist threat.

”Nature” and Variable Reality.

Since Material Science divorced God from science, and since God has been virtually eliminated from enlightened, modern, secular, highly educated, sophisticated elitist thought and conversation, man has sought to put himself – man – in charge of nature. If he cannot convince himself that he is the creator of nature, at least he can convince himself that he is now solely responsible for nature’s ongoing existence. And so he has. It didn’t take much doing.

The Eco-Nazi Movement page is all about that. And, really, so is the Femi-Nazi Movement page. And, really, so is the Homo-Nazi Movement page. As a matter of fact, probably most of the WebPages on this site address some facet or some part of man, lacking any Fixed Peg to keep him properly oriented, victimized by Variable Reality, seeking to assume control over nature and order it about, changing it for the better, seeking to make the world perfect.

There are far too many opportunities to articulate this point here; let me just pick homosexuality in the interest of brevity, and because homosexual marriage is such a current hot topic. We are told repeatedly that homosexual marriage, like abortion, is “acceptable” by the majority of us; yet every single time such topics appear on a voter ballot, they fail rather dismally. The only pro-homosexual marriage laws, like abortion laws, that are ever passed are passed by legislatures, without a public vote. Put it up to the public, and it will fail, every single time. No exceptions. The statement that “Social Issues,” meaning, of course, moral issues, should be avoided because they are losing political issues is patently false, and always was. Legalized abortion and homosexual marriage are only unpopular in contrived polls, never in public elections. And supporters know that; that’s why you never see these issues on public ballots during major elections. The Democrat Party will do everything in its power to keep such issues off of public ballots, and Establishment Republicans and Progressive Republicans will help them in that effort.

At the root of it all is the false statement that homosexuality is normal, and that the homosexual is born homosexual and has nothing to say about it. Of course, the normal statement defies simple arithmetic. Homosexuality could only be normal if heterosexuality were abnormal, a situation refuted by the numbers. Plus, we have the procreative aspect of sex, which is denied by homosexuality. The procreative aspect would seem to imply that heterosexual sex is normal, and that any form of sex that defeats the procreative aspect would be abnormal.

The statement that the homosexual is born that way is merely a statement with nothing behind it. There is no empirical evidence at all backing it up. There is and can be no proof of the statement. It is subjective opinion, pure and simple. The fact that many homosexuals have been “cured” of homosexuality should not be ignored. Nor should we ignore the fact that many go back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality, or live half their lives one way, then the other.

The homosexual movement is just another form of seeking social approval of sexual impurity and immorality. There is little difference between adultery, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation or any other form of sexual license. Those who practice or approve of any one of them will in all likelihood approve of some or all of the others. The social and cultural problem unique to homosexuality is that homosexuality is the only form of sexual licentiousness that is getting in our faces and publicly demanding to be recognized as both natural and moral. And it is winning, in that regard.

How many times have you heard politicians, pundits and celebrities, even those who disapprove of homosexual marriage, speak of homosexuality itself as socially and morally acceptable, or of known public homosexual individuals as wonderful people? Of course, to roundly condemn homosexuality is to get yourself branded a Homophobe, which is a bogus, invented political word for a mental disorder, designed and used to make people think that you are mentally ill. It appears today to be universal: nobody in the public eye, including even many priests, ministers and rabbis, will roundly condemn homosexuality as sinful or immoral or unnatural.

That’s why I say that homosexuality alone, among all forms of sexual impropriety and impurity, is winning the social argument. We have homosexual stars, celebrities and hosts of TV shows; there are open homosexuals everywhere you look in public. We’ve looked at the normalcy aspect, and the natural aspect, so let’s look at the moral and sinful aspect of homosexuality. Why is it wrong?

Well, because God said so. All those who hold or pretend to hold to any particular branch or denomination of Judaism or Christianity need to look at what God said about it in more detail. It is, after all, a Fixed Peg we can depend on. To keep it simple, let’s just look at Holy Scripture.

From Genesis:
[1] The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth,
[2] and said, "My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the street."
[3] But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
[5] and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
[6] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[7] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[8] Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
[9] But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door.
[10] But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
[11] And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.
[12] Then the men said to Lot, "Have you any one else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
[13] for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
[14] So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
[15] When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city."
[16] But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city.
[17] And when they had brought them forth, they said, "Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed."
[18] And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords;
[19] behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die.
[20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there -- is it not a little one? -- and my life will be saved!"
[21] He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
[22] Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zo'ar.
[23] The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zo'ar.
[24] Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
[25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
[26] But Lot's wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
[27] And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD;
[28] and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomor'rah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
[29] So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
--Gen 19:1-29

From Leviticus:
[22] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
--Lev 18: 22

[13] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
--Lev 20:13

From Romans:
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
[17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
--Rom 1:16-27

From 1 Corinthians:
[1] When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
[2] Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
[3] Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!
[4] If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?
[5] I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood,
[6] but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
[7] To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
[8] But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.
[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
[11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
[12] "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.
--1 Cor 6:8-11

From 1 Timothy:
[8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
[11] in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
--1 Tim 1:8-10

From 2 Peter:
1] But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
[2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
[3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.
[4] For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;
[5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
[6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly;
[7] and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked
[8] (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds),
[9] then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
[10] and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones,
[11] whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a reviling judgment upon them before the Lord.
--2 Pet 2:1-11

From Jude:
7] just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.
--Jude 1:7-8

Pick your version of the Bible, including the King James; they are all the same. Read these passages in full context. There are probably others I’ve missed.

Now, if you call yourself a Christian or a Jew, how, exactly, could you come to the point of not publicly and loudly renouncing homosexuality as sinful and immoral? To get there, you would have to renounce Holy Scripture. Are you really ready to do that?

This, like so many other things, has gone too far.

It’s time to wake up. It’s time to repent, fast and pray. It’s time for a turning. We need to return to covenant, and to recognition of what that word means. It’s time to become fixed pegs upon which future generations may depend for steadiness of course. It’s time to return to recognition of God’s nature, and glory in it. When we again give glory and praise to God Almighty, and recognition of His ultimate authority over man and nature, then we will begin the return to greatness as a people.

What kind of a people are we?

Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life. Please God, and live forever!

Do not reply to this automatic email.

Respond to this article at the link below :
Fixed Pegs Versus Variable Reality.

This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Visit Vic Biorseth on FaceBook at the link below:
Vic on FaceBook