Basics Of Reality

Words mean things. “This is a green fence,” can be parsed, the adjective “green” and the noun “fence” can be made more precise, but the basic meaning of words is clear. I once had a business trip to plant where everyone spoke French. They found the one man who knew a little English. Between my knowledge of a little French and his knowledge of a little English, we completed our transaction. The old I Love Lucy show has a classic skit of a trip to Italy and the difficulty of a language (in that case several languages) barrier. No matter how difficult, language barriers can be overcome because words have meaning.

While some people believe that all reality is nothing but an illusion, for the rest of us, the material universe exists. We use words to describe it. The simple existence of the world is consistent with our experience. As John opens 1 John “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” Reality either came into existence at some point in time or it is eternal. We describe this material existence with words.

Entropy says that all mass/energy transformations either conserve existing mass/energy at the level before the transformation or make the mass/energy less useable (a downward transformation as to the total available mass/energy). There has never been an observed exception to entropy.

This is consistent with the statement “In the beginning God created.” In six days God input and organized the mass and energy of the universe. Then God rested, that is, ceased inputting and organizing mass and energy. Later, God told Moses what He did and Moses recorded it in writing.

Today, the vast majority of mankind chooses to believe that this record is not true. They claim that their belief in deep time is based on evidence. But the evidence available to us today must be interpreted. We observe the surface of the sun, interpret that data and make assumptions about how the interior and core of the sun operate. These can be valid scientific theories, as long as we accept the limitation of being unable to verify our theories with observations.

These limitations apply to everything dealing with the past. In the recent past, we have written records to support the observable data. The recent past can be as recent as the assassination of JFK, or it can be the eruption of Mount Vesuvius burying Pompeii in A.D. 79. But without written records, we depart from science and rely entirely on interpretations of what we can observe today.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time. A God Who can speak the universe into existence can also place the photons of light across billions of light years in an instant of time.

Radometric samples are accurately handled and honestly evaluated in laboratories all over the world. But using the result of accurate laboratory information to arrive at a deep time date is a leap of faith. It is simply impossible to know either the original condition of the sample or the conditions prior to any witnesses who wrote down their observations. Since we know nothing of the condition of the original sample or what has happened to the sample since then, the laboratory results can only give us the oldest possible date in a range of dates. The interpreter also believes that nothing ever had any affect on the sample. A true scientific interpretation of the data would say that the age of the sample could be anywhere within a range beginning just before the sample was tested up to the oldest possible date.

Any date relying on counting existing material, such as the salt content of the ocean, varves, the number of craters on the moon or the layers in a glacier all require assuming deep time to be true to return a value using deep time. There is no observable evidence possible to scientifically prove that present processes formed the salt in the sea, the position of the continents, the number of craters on the moon, the formation of glaciers or any other current process.

The Grand Canyon was formed by an upthrust (uplift). Once we recognize that catastrophes, even local ones, formed the world we know and see today, we must state scientifically that the present is not the key to the past.

Using language in the normal way we use language, the only evidence of deep time is a religious leap of faith. If you believe in deep time, it is because you choose to. Not only is there no evidence of deep time, because we cannot send observers back in time (not even with the Hubble telescope), evidence is not possible.

“Unbelievable” is the proper response if you do not believe. Because it is completely belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith and Victory Requires Searching with Heart and Sword A review of The Center Circle Two: Weapons of Warfare by Steve Biddison

 

What does Landru need to free his world from his conquering foe? Where can he look for allies when those he depended on shake his trust to its core? Will a journey to the Great Pyramid and Stonhenge give him the teacher he needs to understand his faith? Who will fight with him when the only army he has left is trapped on another world, in another time?

The Center Circle continues to promote division rather than unity in the second installment, but Landru and Brenna grow in understanding and maturity. The Weapons of Warfare are only part of what Landru has to search for, and Biddison’s success in this book is more in teaching readers how to deal with limitations than in tidily resolving all the problems. Not everything that was lost is found. Not everything that was broken is fixed. But the hope he gives as things begin to come together keeps the reader going.

There are no tidy resolutions, but that’s what Book Three is for, I think. In the meantime, just as our faith grows and our battles go on, the Center Circle characters show us glimpses of hope that we. too, can find victory through faith.

http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Warfare-Center-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B008LEJC24

Unlike Stephen Crane’s Red Badge of Courage, They Met At Shiloh Gives Us Hope

Review of They Met at Shiloh by Phillip M. Bryant

I think I was required to read The Red Badge of Courage in High School. Normally a compliant student, I failed to complete that assignment. I don’t really like war stories, particularly graphically realistic and gruesome ones. I did, however, finish reading They Met at Shiloh. Yes, there is extreme realism in the description of the battle scenes and aftermath. But even if you’re very squeamish like me, here’s why you should read it anyway.

I swear I was there, trudging down those endless roads, rolling up those bedrolls, changing from my nightcap to my forage cap, hot, cold, sweat-soaked and rain-soaked, right along with these characters. Michael, Stephen, Robert, Phillip — I know them. Bryant gives such a richness of detail to his scenes, his clothing, and his characters. I smelled the powder and the blood. I saw that horrible pool you must read about to understand.

Above all else, I saw how real men felt and described their different Christian faiths, something glaringly missing from anything Stephen Crane might have written. Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, as well as those who only scratched their heads at another’s belief (or screamed that it was hypocritical and false) all had their say. Crane gave us no hope. Bryant didn’t “save” everybody, or straighten everybody out to one belief, even. He let them grope, struggle, and come to grips or turn away in bewilderment as real men do.

That isn’t to say the message of what brings a man peace in Christ wasn’t clear. It was realistically presented, but not everybody understood what was happening or how it applied to them. Green soldiers think they understand how to do battle before they really engage. Some run. Some fumble. Some understand and do exactly what they must to do their duty. So it is with the lost. As prepared or unprepared as they may be by our poor efforts, God gives the increase.

 

 

 

Belief Excerpts from Antidisestablishmentarianism I from Chapter 11. What Is Science to a Secular Humanist?

Like any religion which enthrones man in God’s place, there is a desperate and irrational need to attack true religion. “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence,”³ says Richard Dawkins. In the Bible, in the founding documents of US history and in the US court system prior to the liberal takeover, belief was (and still is in reality) a legal term. Belief is the decision of a juror based on evidence. Faith is the action one takes based on belief based on tested evidence. The modern Secular Humanist twists the word “faith ” to mean the opposite of its historical definition. “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”⁴ This is the “blind leap of faith ” of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy, not the historic meaning of faith found in the Bible and US history.

The faith of the secularist, which is truly “in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence,” has a religious belief that the material universe is all that is, was or ever will be. The material universe is the ultimate reality. “Who is more humble?” asked Carl Sagan, “The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book [the Bible] must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”⁵ Sagan is pretending humility while arrogantly dismissing the possibility that God might have actually written down His words out of love for his creation.

_________________________________________

1 Pierre Charron, De la sagesse (Of Wisdom, In Three Parts), French version, 1601, Translated by Samson Lennard, Eliot’s Court Press for Edward Blount and Will, Aspley, London, c.1615.

2 Charles Watts, “The Secularist’s Catechism,” complied in an undated book published by Watts & Co. entitled: Pamphlets by Charles Watts, Vol. I, originally written in 1896.

3 Richard Dawkins, from a speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, April 15, 1992.

4 Dawkins, The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: “Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder,” BBC1 Television November 12, 1996.

5 Carl Sagan, in an interview with Charlie Rose, late-night PBS talk show host, 1996.

The Religion of Physics IV: What is “Scientific Evidence?”

All quotes, unless otherwise noted, are by Stephen Hawking from his book A Brief History of Time.

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”

“If they will not believe you (Moses) or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” Exodus 3: 8,9 NASB

In the Bible the word belief means intellectually examining the evidence, and accepting the evidence. The Bible uses the word belief the same way we think of a juror examining the evidence. The juror votes according to what he believes about the evidence. Actively following up on that evidence is faith and passively following up on the evidence is trust.

Anyone can examine evidence, come to certain conclusions about that evidence and believe that their conclusions are correct. Orville and Wilber Wright believed that a heavier than air machine could fly. Their faith in that belief built an airplane. After building the airplane, they trusted in what they built and flew it. Our beliefs can be incorrect. We can place our faith in things which are not true. We can trust in things which are not true and people who will let us down.

The difference between the religion of Stephen Hawking and the Bible is absolute truth. The Bible claims to be absolute truth. Though few people today believe that it is absolute truth, all honest people know that it claims to be absolute truth. The religion of Secular Humanism demands that there is no absolute truth.

A very tiny number of people ever gain access to the multimillion-dollar equipment necessary for modern physics experiments. Only a tiny number of that tiny number are privileged enough to set up and run their own experiments. Of these who run their own experiments, very few ever see the experiments of others. These physicists are trusting in the records of others. They believe that the total sum of the experiments performed worldwide will reduce or eliminate error. They have faith in the peer review process.

They also believe, with a dogmatic faith, that the records of the Bible are untrue, or at least unscientific. Yet the historic record of Moses meets every test for science. It has multiple, credible witnesses. It was repeated. It can be falsified. It accurately predicted the future. It is based on observation and reason, Men reject Moses, not because of science, but because their religion is opposed to Moses.

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the Word of Life.” 1 John 1:1. NASB This is both scientific and legal testimony. John is either telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or he is lying.

The scientific information of the Bible records that the processes which govern the universe today are different from the processes which brought the universe and life on this planet into existence. These records are as scientific as the photographic plate which record the collision of antimatter with matter. As anyone can mistrust or disbelieve the photographic plate, or the interpretation of the information on that plate, so we can mistrust or disbelieve the scientific information recorded in the Bible.

Secular Humanists believe that the miracles of Moses were not scientific because they cannot duplicate them today. Yet these same men believe in peer-reviewed studies which they cannot duplicate, such as a supernova. The only difference is that they believe in the results of these studies, while they reject the historic accounts of Moses.

The scientific records of Moses have no less authority than the peer-reviewed studies produced today. The basic difference is the information. Modern peer-reviewed studied usually have false conclusions for the primary content. The actual scientific data is usually contained in footnotes, appendices and attachments. In the published articles the conclusions usually lead. I believe the reason for this common layout is the difficulty very educated men have understanding how the available data supports their conclusions.

By contrast, the scientific data in the Bible is clearly laid out. From the beginning of the Bible we must simply choose to believe or reject the clearly laid out evidence of the witnesses. The data in the Bible is scientific.

Introduction to Antidisestablishmentarianism

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.¹
John Adams

Sometime in the early twentieth century, Secular Humanist indoctrination convinced almost everyone in the United States that “an establishment of religion” in the first phrase of the first amendment of the United States Constitution is vague and can mean just about anything. “The state of the facts and evidence,” as John Adams so eloquently put it, is the exact opposite.

Section One of this work documents what the founders meant by the phrase “an establishment of religion. ” The Founding Fathers made as clear a statement as the English language permitted. The Constitution of the United States is founded on English law and to a lesser extent, various European laws, especially German and Dutch. In each of these countries, an Establishment of Religion was the collection of taxes to support education, welfare and public worship. The various governments appointed the teachers, welfare workers and pastors and expected these people to support the government in turn.

The original state constitutions not only permitted, but openly encouraged establishments of religion, especially in the areas of welfare and education. The foundation of the US Constitution is the fact that federal government was to have no control whatsoever in these areas. Their concept of a separation of Church and State was the exact opposite of what the courts have rammed down our throats for the past hundred years. The church should have the right to pray and teach without any federal intervention whatsoever. Judges should have the right to post any Scriptures they want. The courts should have no authority whatsoever to comment. Removing a state judge from office for posting the Ten Commandments is not merely an Establishment of Religion. It is the Inquisition.

Section Two documents the foundations of Secular Humanism and how it grew to become America’s Establishment of Religion. The words “Secular Humanism ” come from various groups in the 1950′s. The phrase “Secular Humanist ” is found in court documents to describe this set of beliefs. Secular Humanism is as old as civilization, but the primary foundation of twenty first century Secular Humanism is Plato’s Republic. In America, Secular Humanism can be said to have originated with Thomas Paine. Secular Humanism has specific beliefs which are written down in various manifestos. Like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Secular Humanism has many variations. Though Secular Humanists do not like the term, the most accurate words to describe these variants are “sects ” or “denominations. ” Like Christians, Muslims and Jews, many Secular Humanist denominations do not get along with one another. Therefore, we have attempted to point out the beliefs which have the greatest agreement.

Section Three defines science, since Secular Humanists claim that science separates them from all other religions. Since true science is founded in the belief, faith and trust of the Bible, all of these words are defined carefully and in detail. In the Bible, belief, faith and trust are legal terms. Believe means to examine the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Action taken on that belief is faith. Trust is the passive version of faith.

The Scientific Method is the biblical version of belief, faith and trust applied to the material world which God created for us. In the Bible, the Scientific Method recognizes that God is the creator, that we are required to be responsible managers of the material world God has given us and that there is a final judgment after death which will include how well we managed the gifts God allowed us to use.

Our book concludes with Section Four, the results of having Secular Humanism as an Establishment of Religion. With the exception of America’s founding documents and the ancient documents such as Plato, Plutarch and Genesis, hundreds of other quotes could easily be substituted for the quotes that appear here. There is nothing new or unique in this book. It is a combination of what used to be common knowledge in America before Secular Humanism took over and destroyed the education system and current events. If we were to start over today, we would pull different stories from the daily news. Though the individual stories would be different, the points would be the same. “There is nothing new under the sun ” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or to state the same thing another way, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

America’s Established Religion is Secular Humanism. This work is dedicated to exposing, defining and disestablishing it.

____________________

1 John Adams, “Argument in defence of the [English] soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial,” December 1770.

2 “Alabama’s Judicial Ethics Panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a Federal judge’s order to move a ten commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building. ” Friday, November 14, 2003. Posted 6:56 AM Eastern time. CNN.com

Analyze, Analyze, Analyze

A message to parents and students:

Never, ever, ever read a book, watch a movie, or see or hear a play or story or poem performed without answering these questions:(Don’t read a book to your child or let anyone read a book to you without doing this, either.)

Do “wise” and “good” people in the story believe that spirits inside everything can guide people?

Do they follow a religion that is supposed to be older than Christianity or the Bible and therefore “better”?

Do they live “close to the earth” in simple lives without technology and don’t believe in any kind of killing, even for food or to punish great evil?

Do they believe that tribal people and animals are smarter and nobler than civilized people?

Does the work say to “listen to your heart” or “trust your feelings” because that’s how you’ll know what the right thing to do is?

Does it emphasize separating children from adults and forcing them to trust themselves to make extremely important decisions? (An exception to this is if a child is separated from parents but can rely on the biblical training he received from them, not just his own emotions, abilities and reason.)

Do children go through much of the work relying on other children?

Do children distrust adults in conventional authority positions (parents, teachers, police, community leader)? Is this presented as “the only choice” and at the end of the book “the right thing to do”?

Do children rely on very unconventional people who live outside accepted systems of moral values and mature practices? (Some examples are the uneducated or dropouts, street people, former criminals who are “streetwise” young, inexperienced persons in lower authority positions (like a “cool” teacher in a very strict school)?

Does it say that things are going to happen for reasons that nobody can control (not even God’s overall plan)?Does it imply that whether what someone does is right and wrong is just a matter of opinion?

Does it encourage strong expressions of anger, grief and depression when things don’t go the way a character wants? Does it say having an adventure, joining a secret club, or helping friends can be more important than being with your family or doing what you’ve been told?

Are the men (dads or male principals or bosses) bad, stupid or weak?

Are the women strong and smart and good?

Are any good men unable to help, dead or far away?

Does it make fun of traditional hard work and self-discipline?

Is training for a job or learning to play an instrument boring, stupid or pointless?

Are young people encouraged to cut classes or skip work for something more important?

By contrast, does it glorify martial arts and Eastern religious practices as superior to any western or Christian-based discipline? (This is not to say that unarmed self-defense and fighting skills are wrong or evil in themselves, but they are frequently taught along with Yoga, meditation and eastern religious practices in opposition to Christianity.)

Are people who have a lot of education boring?

Are military people excessively strict, bad-tempered or stupid?

Are people who quote from the Bible or classic Christian-origin works treated as odd or foolish?

Are strong emotions emphasized and encouraged, no matter how extreme or out-of control they may be?

Is self-control de-emphasized and made to seem wrong or unnecessary?

Are manners old-fashioned and respect for adults non-existent?

Is concern for and service to others not as important as “making time for yourself”?

Does it have a good, strong story, or is it just a bunch of exciting, scary, mysterious or funny things with no real purpose or ending?

Does it seem to leave out anything to do with faith or praise people who don’t believe in anything?

If you have to answer yes to more than a couple of these questions, ask yourself if you should have anything to do with this work. It may have won all kinds of awards. The best educational authorities may recommend it. But it may be very wrong and get you thinking wrong.

Everyone seems to know that four things are obvious to avoid: violence, sex, drug abuse and bad language. But examine each of these points and consider whether our perspective on these is even correct.

What about displays of affection and a degree of intimacy between husband and wife? These are almost non-existent but should be common. In most cultures of the world girls marry very young, and marrying an older man is considered normal and desirable. We consider it practically incest. Husbands and wives seek comfort, understanding and fulfillment with friends instead of each other. Husbands are plain, rather stupid, and have no clue about how to treat their wives. They want sex all the time and ask for it boorishly. They are at least mildly incompetent at their jobs. Wives are attractive, smart, make jokes at their husbands’ expense, and keep everything running smoothly, from finances, housework and careers to discipline and child-psychology. These anti-marriage concepts fill the pages and the screens of what we accept as desirable family fare. Movie insiders say actors who are married in real life cannot play a creditable husband and wife in a movie. There is no “chemistry” unless there is an adulterous flavor to the screen romance. These works do everything they can to justify adultery. A person is trapped in a terrible marriage with an abuser or an insane or terminally ill spouse and must seek consolation with a lover. Parents who restrict or forbid dating and young romance are always unreasonably strict, have no good reason for forbidding this young love, and punish supposedly far out of proportion to the action.

“Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable; if anything is excellent or praiseworthy think about such things” Philippians 4:8

Preface to Antidisestablishmentarianism

The most religious people on earth are those who claim not to have any religion. Dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted, they refuse to allow anyone to so much as speak their opposition. Yet these same people demand political power and tax support. The mildest opposition, such as the mere mention of Intelligent Design (not God), has blacklisted tenured professors. Just two parents in a middle school in Texas made the national news by objecting to Gideon Bibles placed, without comment, on a table outside the school office.¹ Such people dishonestly claim that they are not religious and “religion” is a group of mythologies. The truth is that they are the ones promoting mythology. In every aspect of life they promote this mythology with unproven dogmatic assertions under the guise of “Science” vocabulary. After hijacking the word “Science,” they use the courts to elevate their misuse of the term to an established religion.

Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology. It is divided into various academic disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Biology. However, what the federal courts, the academic community and the mainstream Western media mean by science is uniformitarianism. It is the cosmological foundation of the religion of Secular Humanism. “Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (II Peter 3:4). This concise description of Uniformitarianism clearly shows that it is completely and entirely a religious belief in antiscientific myths.

Secular Humanists use words which have been in the English language for hundreds of years but give them “new” meanings. However, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV). The words believe, faith and trust are all historic judicial terms and they also form the foundation of the true scientific method. What Secular Humanists promote as their version of the scientific method consists of preconceptions, presuppositions and assumptions. It is the opposite of an open mind.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.² The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

Liberals, Secular Humanists and materialists, however, use the word “belief” as a synonym for a philosophical position, just an opinion. Faith and trust to them are metaphysical words which mean different things to different people. And this is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Secular Humanists have redefined hundreds of words to support their religion, such as sin, judgment and anthropology. A conversation with them can be very difficult since they use historical English words but mean something entirely different.

The traditional role of religion is to place priesthood as intermediary between God and man. The traditional role of an establishment of religion places the government in that intermediary role between God and man. In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church put itself between man and God, as other religions have in the past. Johann Tetzel, a “professional pardoner,” sold indulgences representing forgiveness for sins in Germany. Indulgences were based on the “storehouse” of good works believed to exist because of the sacrifice of Christ and the good deeds and prayers of past saints. Tetzel was said to promise that, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”³

Selling indulgences was the final act of many which brought on the Reformation. People wouldn’t have bought them if they hadn’t believed the Catholic Church alone could placate God on their behalf. Martin Luther convinced the princes of Germany that they did not need to send their money to Rome because they could go to God directly. Rome sent armies to collect the money. Even Modern Roman Catholics who do not believe that their church today claims to stand between them and God have to admit that the medieval Roman Catholic Church did.

The combined power of Church and State restricted personal worship, scientific study and access to historical truth. Today Secular Humanism has done the same by removing foundational truths from education. It excludes study and discovery that contradicts uniformitarianism. It rewrites history to undermine morality and freedom of expression.

The union between the medieval Romanist church and the state came to an end in two ways. In Southern Europe during the Renaissance, art, architecture, literature, and learning opened up to all men, not just those who were part of the church and state system. The Renaissance left the power intact, however. In Northern Europe, the Reformation abolished the need for a church like Rome through the great affirmations of the Reformation: The Scriptures are the absolute authority; Justification is by faith alone apart from works; and every believer is his own priest with direct access to God. The Reformation made a special priesthood class unnecessary because men could pray directly to God and read His Word on their own.

The medieval Roman Catholic Church kept the Scriptures almost exclusively in Latin to prevent ordinary people from studying them, forcing people to come to the priest. The priest would not only tell them what the Scriptures said, but he also mingled that with the church’s interpretation. In order for ordinary people who did not know Latin to read the Bible for themselves, the Scriptures had to be translated into the language of the ordinary people. Translation work by Reformers was essential to enable ordinary men to read the Scriptures for themselves, even though it was punishable by death under the Church-State system. The Renaissance and the Reformation worked together in the development of moveable type to make printing and distribution of translations of the Scriptures easier. Renaissance scholars revived interest in studying forgotten manuscripts and making translations into the vernacular. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament provided a basis for more accurate translations of the Scriptures.

The Medieval Romanist Church-State system took away freedom by forcing man to rely on and accept its teachings. The Renaissance and the Reformation restored freedom by returning art, science, and all forms of learning to ordinary people. In particular the people were able to worship God as the Scriptures taught, without Church-State control. Modern western culture, and American culture in particular, was founded on this religious freedom. American culture is more Christian than European cultures, but neither of these cultures can survive if the foundation of religious freedom is destroyed.

It is this Christian foundation of religious freedom which is the real target of Secular Humanists. These Secular Humanists have taken outrageous liberties in their unrelenting quest to replace religious freedom with their established religion of Secular Humanism, which they incorrectly call science or Natural Law. Their major tool is the US court system. Sympathetic US courts have consistently supported Secular Humanism by using every possible opportunity to replace the word religion with the ancient concept of Natural Law. However, since Natural Law has been used so many different ways, the courts had to standardize the term Natural Law. Their version of Natural Law goes back to Plato’s Republic. Though Plato never used the phrase “natural law” in his Republic, translator Benjamin Jowett’s notes state that, “Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the first who conceived a method of knowledge…”⁴ Plato’s Republic is at least the foundation of modern Natural Law, if not the detailed finished product. Together with Aristotle, Plato is supposed by secularists to have laid the foundation for learning and development of the Sciences. This is really is essence of Natural Law.

Jowett goes on to say that Plato provided for a means to spread his method of acquiring knowledge. “In the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates, the first care of the rulers is to be education.”⁴ Jowett makes it clear that Socrates meant to impart much more than mere academic knowledge, just as Natural Law means to teach more than mere Science. Socrates promoted “the conception of a higher State, in which ‘no man calls anything his own,’ and in which there is neither ‘marrying nor giving in marriage,’ and ‘kings are philosophers’ and ‘philosophers are kings;’ and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life.”⁴

Many know that Plato in his Republic based his state on a philosopher/king. Few, however, are aware that he believed in communism and free love and that these two “natural” principles were to be foundational principles of the state. Though the preceding condensation by Benjamin Jowett is an excellent job, as you can read for yourself, the actual words of Socrates, as quoted by Plato, are much longer and more difficult to understand. “None of them will have anything specially his or her own.” “… Their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them [the legislator gives selected women to selected men]… they must live in common houses and meet at common meals … they will be together … And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other…” “… Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes … have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one … cities will never have rest from their evils.”⁵

The philosopher/king, according to Socrates, was to lay these foundational ideas through education. Though he did not use the phrase “establishment of religion,” Plato clearly advocated an established religion. It was to be put in place by a philosopher/king through education based on a state where “no man calls anything his own” and where there is neither “marrying nor giving in marriage.” Though this education would begin with children, it would continue throughout a person’s entire life. This is the Natural Law which the US Court system has imposed.

The US needs to disestablish its Establishment of Religion and reestablish religious freedom. In the 1800′s churches which tried to break away from the Church of England were called disestablishmentarians. The people who fought against the disestablishment of those churches within the Church of England in the 1800s were called Antidisestablishmentarians. Today, the mainstream media, liberal politicians, the academic community, the liberal courts and all others who file lawsuits, blacklist, fire, refuse to hire, tax, legislate against, libel, slander and do whatever is necessary to maintain their positions of privilege and power are modern Antidisestablishmentarians.

1 (No author) “Parents Fuming as Texas Schools Let Gideons Provide Bibles to Students,” Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Fox News.com. “A spokeswoman for the school district said that a number of materials are made available to students this way, including newspapers, camp brochures and tutoring pamphlets. College and military recruitment information is available all year long. The Gideon Bibles were made available for just one day. ‘We have to handle this request in the same manner as other requests to distribute non-school literature — in a view-point neutral manner,’ Shana Wortham, director of communications for the district, wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

2 Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to James Bayard. “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would un-hesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

3 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 7, “The Reformation,” Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

4 Plato, The Republic (c. 360 B.C.), translated by Benjamin Jowett over a period of 30 years until his death in 1893, completed posthumously by Lewis Campbell. (Introductory material (in double quotes) and paraphrases of Plato’s ideas (in single quotes) were written by Jowett.)

5 Plato, The Republic, Book Five Dialogue excerpts among Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon and Thrasymachus have been placed in parentheses within Jowett’s introductory material.

Who We Are and What We Believe

We are Michael and Mary Findley, Christian educators for over 30 years in many parts of the country. We have homeschooled, taught in Christian schools, directed Children’s Church ministries and taught Sunday School for adults and children. We have created videos for cable television, infomercials and public awareness videos, as well as teaching videos and 3D fiction productions. We graduated from Bob Jones University. Michael has a BA in Bible and an MA in Church History with postgrad coursework in Math, Science, Physics  and Computer Science. Mary has a BA in English.

We need to preface a statement of our beliefs by quoting from the Preface of our book Antidisestablishmentarianism.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.2 The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

This explains what we mean by belief. Not opinion, not blind acceptance, but a conclusion or verdict based on tested evidence.

We believe the Scriptures are authoritative, a true foundation for right understanding in all areas of life. They are the basis of true Science, accurate History, and correct standards for life, conduct, and judgment.

Our church background is independent Baptist. (See the Blog post “Why I Am a Baptist” for details on this.) We have attended many different kinds of churches, as well as services at truckstop chapels, throughout the country. We have friends who come from nearly every denomination and have had discussions with Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, among others. In these discussions we have two rules: Be civil and be honest. When the speaker can’t meet these two conditions, the discussion is over.

We do not believe a person can pick and choose what to believe in the Bible or decide what to consider symbolic or literal. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” (Dr. D. A. Waite, Ephesians.) The Bible does use figures of speech and symbols. Jesus Christ is neither a lion nor a lamb, and He does not have a sword sticking out of his mouth. These are figures of speech and symbols. They do not make any part of the Bible less true or authoritative.

Why I Am A Baptist

I believe in denominations. You actually believe in denominations too. You don’t? Then give me your $20 bill for my $1 bill. Not that kind of denomination? I believe that the word denomination is used the same way with money and with faith.

Both a $1 bill and a $100 bill are money. One is just more valuable than the other. In the same way, all believers are believers, whatever their denomination. They are all saved. Some denominations are more faithful and obedient to God’s Word than others. Some are $1 bills and others are $100 bills. And though it breaks God’s heart, there are many, many counterfeits.

Since the Word of God commands us to be faithful, we need to carefully examine the various denominations to be as faithful and obedient as possible. This is not about what is wrong with everybody else. This is why I am a Baptist.

The Baptist-Anabaptist goes back as far as New Testament/Church era written records. Many periods of Church History have witnessed the destruction of written records. A continuous, unbroken tradition is impossible. But Baptist beliefs are not a novelty.

Doctrinally, Baptists and Bible Churches have the same faith. The Bible Church movement began as a separation of practice when many Baptist Churches abandoned the historic Baptist Faith. To the grief of God’s Holy Spirit, many Bible Churches have now departed from that same faith. It is easy to point to Baptist and Bible Churches who no longer believe these distinctive Baptist doctrines.

Baptists believe in the Apostolic Confession of Faith. We believe in the absolute authority of Scripture. There are three levels of authority in every believer’s life. The inerrant Word of God, human laws, such as a stop sign, and some human laws with divine sanction, such as a pastor or a family.

Baptists believe in the priesthood of every believer. While someone who has walked by faith for years is a friend of God, the prayer of a small child has the same standing with God.

Baptists believe in justification by faith alone apart from works. Works are necessary to demonstrate that we are saved and we can examine the fruit of someone who claims salvation but shows no evidence of good works. Works are not part of justification, because all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. We are incapable of doing good works before we are justified.

All reformed Protestants believe these points. Baptists also believe in the autonomy of the local church. While there are often mission churches begun by other churches, eventually the new church must become self-sufficient.

The most import distinction, where the name Baptist comes from, is the nature of the Church. Catholic and Reformed Churches believe that the Church is grafted into Israel and at least for this present age, replaces Israel. Baptism replaces circumcision, Sunday replaces the Sabbath and communion replaces the temple sacrifices. Baptists believe that the Church is a New Covenant. Though we are grafted into God’s promises and God is working through the Church instead of Israel in this age, the Church in no way replaces Israel. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are symbolic only; they confer no grace in and of themselves. They are for believers only. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward act. Baptism is only for those who are old enough to understand what it is and are ready to join the Church.