Tuesday, October 20, 2015

ON VIDEO-
.Cop kills boy who flashed high beams
.Nietzsche
.Streets too!
.Why did ‘Arab Spring’ start?
.Who got the Nobel Prize?
.Hey- look at the snipe I found
.Marx

NOTES ON COP VIDEO- I read the CNN story-
The cop had a new SUV- and obviously the vehicle ‘seemed’ like it had high beams on.
Why?
Because this was the 3rd time innocent citizens ‘flashed’ their beams at the SUV.
Now- this cop obviously was pissed off that people did this- because it happened on at least 2 other occasions.
The 17 year old boy dropped his brother off at CHURCH [note- not some gang kid- or drug deal] and was on his way to his girlfriend’s house.
The cop already pulled at least 2 other people over- for doing the same thing.
So- he’s out- has the ‘power’ to pull you over- not for a crime- but for pissing him off.
The kid was stunned with a stun gun- this could have caused him to jump up and act aggressive- because the stun gun was too close and simply ‘shocked the hell out of him’.
The cop states in his report that he thought the kid might have been ‘calling in local militia to help him’.
Why lie like this [besides the fact that criminal cops have a long history of this].
He’s making it look like he was in fear for his life [another lie].
The cop does have bruises on him- yet the video does not show this part- why?
He might have beat the hell out of himself.
So- he shoots the kid – 7 times mind you- in the back [couldn’t 1- or 2 bullets have done the job?]
The fact that he unloaded his weapon- into the kid’s back- shows you he was raging.
The judge who reviewed the case and sided with the cop.
What’s the problem here?
There are actually real criminals you could be getting- but instead he was on a ‘mission’ to pull everyone over that had problems with his new SUV that was blinding everyone he drove past.
Instead of reporting the problem to his supervisor- about the vehicle- he used his authority to harass the people who innocently notified him that they thought his high beams were on.
This was an unjustified use of force- and he should be fired- and go to prison.

NEW TEACHING- [past posts and verses below]
 I mention on the video Nietzsche’s book ‘Twilight of the idols’.
It is considered a classic of Western Literature- though he espouses anti-Christian themes- to say the least.
I don’t think I’ve written on Nietzsche before- so I’ll do a quick teaching.
He was a German philosopher/thinker that challenged traditional ideas of morality and truth.
He believed classical philosophy [Socrates] made a mistake in teaching that man was to strive be moral-
Nietzsche believed that truth did not really exist- that ‘truth’ was simply words that the powerfully use to impose ‘standards’ on people.
He was initially a philologist- one who studied language- Greek and Roman textual criticism.
He later turned to Philosophy.
Nietzsche believed in ‘the death of God’- and rejected right or wrong.
To him these were simply ‘artistic expressions’ that the powerful foisted upon man.
Now- in the field of philosophy- those who reject ultimate truth- are called relativists.
And relativists- who reject objective truth- and God [not all do] are usually categorized as Nihilists.
Meaning if there is no real purpose to our existence- than in the end- we are without- well- ‘purpose’.
Some believe Nietzsche tried to create a purpose in his denying of God and ultimate truth-
His idea of ‘Affirmation’ and Becoming- taught that man should strive- without moral constraint [meaning if you have to- step on your fellow man- after all- to ‘love they neighbor’ is simply some false ‘truth’ that Christianity- and God [which to him are not true] have tricked man into a false value system].
So in Nietzsche’s world- the true purpose of man is to become the powerful one [the superman] who now has the right- thru language- to determine what ‘truth ‘ is.
I still think- in the end- this worldview is Nihilistic [no hope] and foolish. But- being his works have had a great influence on western Thought- that’s why I covered him on the video.
The book I mentioned [Twilight of the idols] had the sub-heading ‘How to philosophize with a hammer’.
He went all out- in a sort of fury- to challenge the Christian world view- and God himself.
The ‘idols’ he was smashing were God- and the upper class.
Like Marx- some of the thinkers who challenged Christianity- at times saw the church as a great hindrance to man.
Nietzsche was one of these men.
In the book mentioned above he said ‘morality is anti-nature’.
In actuality- that’s what Christianity teaches.
That man has a sinful nature- and he can only be free from this bondage- thru the redemption in Jesus Christ.
Nietzsche went insane later in life- he had contracted Syphilis- world views do indeed have consequences.

In the book he saw art as an expression of ‘the human will to power’. He said all language is an expression of art.
So- relationships of language to reality are established by acts of violence and power.
If you have the upper hand- and the power to impose your reality on others- then the words/morals you choose to impose- become the standards-
And there is really no other ‘outside’ truth or reality.
His ideas were insightful—but simply not true.
Since Nietzsche many thinkers have advocated a view that language has no real meaning- that truth does not exist.
Yet- all of them live their lives by some ‘objective reality’.
And they use language- all the time- to defend their views [if language is simply a form of art- that the hearer can put his own interpretation to- then it would be impossible to teach anything- even Nietzsche's own views].

Nietzsche said ‘Christian morality is a command- it possesses truth only if God is truth’.
Actually- I agree with him on this.
 PARTS OF PAST POSTS- [verses below]
In one of the Masses from Rome- the English interpreter used a word I though was strange.


I’m not sure if she was using the right word- even though it ‘fit’.


The new Pope- Francis- was speaking Latin.

And the interpreter was saying ‘immolation’.

Talking about Christ’s passion.


Now- the word immolation means burning- if you remember my political posts of a couple years back.


When I covered the Arab Spring- the first nation to rebel was Tunisia.

In the streets of Tunis a merchant ‘self immolated’- burned himself to death- as a sign of protest against oppressive govt.


This sparked the Arab Spring.


So- how cold this fit in with the Passion of Christ?


In the Old Testament we have a system of sacrifices- animals being sacrificed- as a sign of the future sacrifice of Christ.


One of the notable ones is the Burnt Offering.


Jesus- according to the book of Hebrews- fulfilled the sacrificial system by his death on the Cross.


During his earthly ministry he spoke about fire- baptism.


He says to the disciples one time ‘can you be baptized with my baptism’?

They answer yes.

Jesus says they will indeed be baptized with it- but not in the way they think.


He was talking about the ‘baptism of fire’.

The suffering they would have to face in the coming days.


He in essence was saying ‘you too must pass thru the fire- like me’.


Jesus said at one time ‘I have come to set fire on the earth- and how I wish it were already started’.


Huh?


Fire?


Self immolation- what’s your point.


Jesus was talking about himself- he was going to be the ‘brunt offering’ the ‘self immolation’ that would spark the ‘Kingdom spring’- see?



In Zechariah 12 it speaks about those who fight- war against Jerusalem- Gods people.


One of the images is those who set themselves against it will get burned.


That the governors of Judah [the elders]- they are like ‘sheaf’s of fire’ In the midst of the wood- all who lay hold of it get burned.


Yes- Jesus was the ultimate sheaf- they lit he torch- so to speak- at Calvary.


They did not realize what they were doing.


They started a fire that they could not put out.




2009- ALL THINGS?

Today is really my first day back- real time [I’m posting this right after I write it].

I have been journaling for the past 3 months- but that’s a little different.

Okay- out of all the news events- Boston marathon bombing- Ricin letters [by the way- last I saw they seem to have arrested the wrong guy].

(1332) Been doing some reading on church history/philosophy, it’s interesting to see the role that theology/Christianity played in the universities. Theology is referred to as ‘the queen of the sciences’ and philosophy was her ‘handmaid’. They saw the root of all learning as originating with the study ‘of God’. Many modern universities have dropped the term ‘theology’ and call it ‘the study of religion’. The study of religion is really the study of how man relates to God, his view of God; this would fit under anthropology/sociology, not under theology. Modern learning has lost the importance of the study of God and the role it plays in all the other sciences. The classic work of Homer [8th century BC] called the Iliad, has Achilles debating whether or not he should ‘stay and fight along the city of the Trojans’ and attain the legacy of a warrior; or to go ‘back to my homeland and live a long life’. He chooses to fight and lay his life on the line. The themes of the classics [courage, heroism, etc.] are biblical themes, even if God is not directly mentioned. The point being to try and exclude God from learning is silly, you can’t do it. Around the 17-18th century  you had the philosophy of Existentialism rise up, as an ‘ism’ it really is a misnomer; ‘ism’ is a suffix that you add to the end of a word that makes it a system- ‘humanism’ ‘secularism’ etc. but existentialism is a word that means ‘anti-system’. Nevertheless the person who popularized this belief was a Christian, Soren Kierkegaard. The system he was rebelling against was the dead institutionalism of the Danish church, he felt that Christianity devolved into dead orthodoxy and lost all of its passion for true living and experiencing God. Nietzsche would pick up on this philosophy and apply it to atheism, and in the 20th century men like Albert Camus and John Paul Sartre would also embrace it from an atheistic worldview. They would say things like ‘man is a useless passion’ or write books titled ‘Nausea’ summing up the human condition. Though the 19th century atheistic humanists tried to give value and exalt the state of man, in their rejection of God and Christianity they were taking away the foundation for mans value. If you tell society that they arrived on the scene by some cosmic accident of evolution, and when you die you dissipate into nothingness, then how do you at the same time glory in his natural abilities to reach some point of Utopia? As the late Frances Schaeffer said ‘they were philosophers who had both feet planted firmly in mid air’. The point being when you neglect the reality and role that God and Christianity play in every sphere of life, you are then removing the foundation that these spheres were built on, true science and learning derive their basis from God. The greatest scientific minds of the past were either Christians or Deists, they were too smart to try and reject the reality of an eternal being.


[1586] FREUD-NIETZSCHE AND MARX- Today I need to do a little more on our study of Modernity [the thinkers who have influenced Western culture/thought from the 1700’s- 2000’s]. At this time I have 3 separate studies I have started on-line; Classics of literature, Great Christian thinkers of history, and Modernity. As time rolls on- I will gradually post all new studies once a year in a monthly post [most of the time it will be February] and as I update them you can read the most recent ones from the most recent years.

Okay- I am skipping a bunch of stuff to jump into the thinkers who represent the most popular forms of atheism- Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. But first we need to take a look at Ludwig Feuerbach. L.F. [Ludwig Feuerbach] laid the groundwork for these other more famous rejecters of God and Christianity. During the enlightenment period it was rare for the critics of religion to hold an outright atheistic view- men like Hume and Voltaire- though true critics of the church- did not come out openly and deny the existence of God. It was also difficult [impossible?] to hold professorships in the universities if you were a doubter of God. Both Hume and Voltaire did not hold positions. F.S. was Hegelian in a way [he followed Hegel’s idea that ‘God’ comes to self consciousness thru the development of humanity] but F.S. was a Materialist- Hegel was an Idealist. Remember- idealism is the philosophical system that sees reality existing in forms/ideas first- then later comes the material thing. The great ancient philosophers- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all Idealists. F.S. espoused the idea that reality starts with the material existence of man first- and thru religion man ‘projects’ the idea of God/spirit into society- and as man and Christianity develop [all good things for F.S.] that the ultimate truth that we learn on this journey is that man is really all there is- his ‘phase’ of God and religion were simply necessary stages for man to arrive at this self conscious state in which he finally realizes that man is all there is- God was a ‘crutch’- a needed one- but never the less simply a projection of mans mind until he came to full maturity. For F.S. ‘theology [the study of God] is anthropology’ [the study of man]. So in this sense he follows Hegel- the development of man and society is the development of God- but Hegel starts with spirit projecting ‘himself’ into creation- and F.S. starts with man/matter first- and man projects this idea of God/spirit as a secondary reality. The philosopher Paul Ricoeur describes F.S. and his disciples as holding to a system of belief called ‘the hermeneutics of suspicion’. This meaning that religion and God are not just things that seem to be irrational [according to certain enlightenment critics] but that religion itself is a mask that adds to the suffering of man- that man is under the dominion of false ideas- ideas that have been developed by those who want power over others- and these taskmasters use religion as a tool to oppress the ignorant masses. This idea will come to full bloom in the mind of Marx. Marx referred to religion as a ‘false consciousness’ that kept man in servitude to others who ruled over them- and religion itself was the tool that kept these ignorant masses in check. Nietzsche thought religion had its roots in weakness and sickness- and that the most decadent used it to control those who were actually more moral than the leaders. Freud saw religion as an effect of repression and the actual cause of mental conflict and guilt- he blamed religion for all the psychosis that man is afflicted with in life. The next few posts in this study [whenever I get to them?] I will try and develop all 3 of these famous thinkers ideas- show the errors in their own thinking- and the aftermath of generations who have tried/fleshed out their philosophies- and have found them dreadfully lacking in the end.

[1623] CHRIST CHURCH? A few weeks back I was going to write a post from the words of St. Peter found in the New Testament ‘The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God [Christ’s church= house of God] and if it starts there- what will the outcome be for the rest of the world?’ [paraphrased it]. Right after the ‘thought’ the major events off the coast of Japan hit and we have this trilogy of disasters to deal with [Earthquake, Tsunami, Nuclear meltdown]. I did find it ‘strange’ that the recent events started with Christ Church New Zealand- and seemed to spread from there. I heard a Geologist the other night- he had previously predicted the earthquake that hit Ca. during the World Series a few years ago. He said the sign of the dead fish recently washing up in Ca. was not a coincidence- he said the fish can sense a change in the earth’s magnetic field [prior to an earthquake] and that in Japan these fish kills are actually called ‘earthquake fish’. Wow. You do hear lots of talking heads during these types of events- yet it would be nice to know the truth on these types of things. The last year or 2 we had earthquakes along the Pacific Rim; Chile, New Zealand and of course Japan. If you look on a map you see the Pacific Ocean and you can draw a circle around the perimeter- the part that affects us is the West coast- so they already have a run on Iodide pills [fear of the radiation crossing the Pacific from Japan] and some are predicting an earthquake. The other night I caught a quick news flash of Saudi Arabia sending troops into Bahrain to fight back against the protestors- as it flashed by quickly- I said ‘geez- this is a major event- and it’s getting lost in the media frenzy’. Then O’Reilly spent 15 minutes on a real important life changing story- a stripper who works with a snake- the snake bit the woman on her breast- the snake died from the silicone from the breast implant. Another news show spent almost the whole hour on sports- even the president did another March madness prediction- at a time when the world has protestors in the streets- who thought we would help them [Libya] and they are actually saying ‘Obama- where are you- where’s Bush?’ Now- whatever your view is on intervening [no fly zone- etc.] the fact is if the feeling around the globe is that we are not taking these things seriously enough- then the image of the president doing March Madness picks does not look good. So what do we make of it all? When Peter said ‘judgment must 1st start at Gods house’ he of course was not directly talking about the city of Christ Church, New Zealand. Yet in a prophetic sort of way- these types of things can be signs of what’s to come. One of the important developments has been the fact that the Arab/Persian nations have indeed chosen to ignore the pleas from the U.S. to go easy on the protestors- and they simply have said ‘screw you- look at what you did to Egypt- we are gonna go the Gadhafi route’ [to a degree]. Saudi Arabia crossing into Bahrain- a small Persian Gulf nation where we have lot of troops stationed [and the 5th fleet docked] is a major development. The markets [both Asian and U.S.] have fallen over the fears that the Nuke disaster is already as bad as Chernobyl- and the unrest in the Middle East and Africa is not getting better. So we pray- we show the world that we don’t just throw our hands up and say ‘the end of the world is here’ but we also recognize it is in mans nature to deny the reality of judgment- the reality that mankind faces times where things build up and the planet suffers for it. In the 19th century there was a movement in Christian theology called ‘Liberal theology’- not liberal in politics- but a whole genre of teaching/thought that challenged a lot of the ‘old time’ beliefs [like original sin] and focused on the ability of modern man to rise above the ignorance of the past [even in religious thought] and man was on the road to a true Utopian society that would never fail. This belief was strong- both in the universities of Germany as well as in the politics of the Western world. Then you had the world wars- 8 million people killed in the first one- and 50 million in the 2nd one. Men like Karl Barth [a Swiss theologian- teacher] would challenge the liberal view of mans ‘inner divinity’ and he would blast the Christian world with his famous ‘the epistle to the Romans’ his commentary on Paul’s famous treatise- released in 1918. Though Barth is what some describe as 'Neo- Orthodox’ [the strong Reformed teachers don’t appreciate Barth very much] yet he did bring the church back to the biblical doctrines of original sin and mans inability to ‘save himself’. Barth saw the reality of the WW1 and rejected the Utopian belief that man was so advanced that he would reach for the sky- and grab it! Today we see lots of shaking in the world- some are focused on March madness- some find it profitable to do a story on a stripper- we need to keep our eyes [and bibles] open- mankind is in need of God- man has gone thru stages where he thought the ‘old belief’ in God would fall away- to the contrary- the govt’s of man [apart from God] seem to be the thing that’s falling away.

I covered this years ago in our apologetics posts- it was interesting to have re –read this from this author [Isaacson].

He is a good author- and explains stuff well.


Okay what was the other stuff that some objected to?

Some associated- wrongly- the theory of Relativity- with the modernist philosophy called Relativism.

Relativism [remember the philosophy stuff?] said that there was really nothing as objective truth- that what you see might be just as true as what someone else sees.


You might both be looking at the same thing [morally- murder- etc.] yet to one it might be wrong- to the other- right.


This idea- Relativism- was strongly rejected by many philosophers- especially those with a Christians/Theist background.


Even today this is one of the major debates going on in the world of the philosophy.


But- some confused what Einstein was saying- and they thought [or used it] to back up the ‘moral’ philosophy of Relativism.


This was a mistake.

Einstein himself- as I mentioned in an earlier post- was not a relativist at all- that is when speaking about moral absolutes.


So some began to associate him- as one of the new ‘Jew’ scientists- who were introducing dangerous doctrines to the world.


Yes- some of the objectors to Einstein objected on the basis of this new ‘Jewish science’ that was breaking away from the moors of Christian science- whose father was Isaac Newton.


See how both anti Semitism- and religious belief played a role in this?



I’ll end with a quote from a famous man of the time- an up and coming politician- I mean he could awe his audience like no other.


Obama- Clinton- even the great communicator- Reagan- were no match for this man when it came to giving a speech.


He said ‘Science- once our greatest pride- is today being taught by Hebrews’.

Who said this?


The future leader of Germany- Adolph Hitler.







.
VERSES- Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Mark 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
Mark 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
Mark 10:37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
Mark 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mark 10:40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
Mark 10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mark 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mark 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

.





No comments:

Post a Comment