Coming Implosions 2

 

 

Click here to go HOME  

and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of uptospeedgoforit.com

--------

 

Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is begin to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...

 

Subject: The Ultimate Battle for Planet Earth, Part 2

(Wed., March 17, 2010)

(approx. 5145 words, 9 pp.)

 

The Ultimate Battle for Planet Earth... last man standing, Part 2

(or)

More thoughts on reclaiming planet earth for Christ as a condition of the Creation

(or)

The spirit of our age: "...everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned...

things fall apart (and) mere (moral) anarchy is loosed upon the world... the hour... at last"

(or)

It is all a matter of eliminating one false worldview, religion, and philosophy after another

 

Where did we leave off in Part 1? Is this the end of the Age? Is the so-called "Second Coming" now "at hand"? And what exactly is "the Second Coming," anyway? I think quite possibly this is the end of the Church Age, and the clock started ticking, not simply with the re-establishment of Israel, as some say, but philosophically and spiritually with the degeneration of modern humanism or atheism into a silly, ridiculous and absurd postmodern atheism accompanied by a degeneration of modern Liberal Christianity into a silly, ridiculous and absurd postmodern Liberal Christianity, and this then became the spirit of our age, the so-called "zeitgeist" for the whole world, no less, a sure sign of the end when "mere (moral) anarchy is loosed upon the world..."

 

How and when who knows? Maybe now, or at least soon?

But as with the World War I and changing zeitgeists of the early part of the 20th century, how these current postmodern alternative spiritualities, religions, philosophies and worldviews as well as the handful of misguided variations on Bible Christianity will all play out for the generally acknowledged state of knowledge for mankind on earth, who is to say? As we saw last time the only philosophy left standing with any intellectual credibility (for the last 60 or so years no less) is Bible Christianity in its assertion of both the Natural and Special Revelation as valid.

The real question may be not if but when will this all play out? When will we all agree in universal consensus on earth that Bible Christianity is the only intellectually valid worldview? In 10 years? In 5 years? In 50 years? Next week? Next month? As with the Reformation, things can bubble under the surface for generations and even centuries, and then it just happens. Somebody nails 95 theses to a door and the whole damn thing blows up overnight! On the other hand, even earlier in history, it took a number of centuries going pretty slowly, no less, for the Christian faith to pervade the whole Roman Empire as an intellectually valid belief system.

 

Bible Christianity could easily triumph worldwide in the next 50 years...

In my opinion even without some cataclysmic event like a World War I, Bible Christianity could easily triumph worldwide in the next 50 years. As we saw last time in Part 1, not only is Bible Christianity in itself highly rational, desirable and Godly (or holy), but almost all possible competitors are sadly lacking and are usually pretty irrational, un-Godly and generally undesirable.

Certainly Christian Liberalism is overtly irrational higher spiritual experience (Gnostic), and its "unity, tolerance, and oneness" is certainly not holy or Godly, and even though such Liberalism has a certain initial appeal, it is ultimately not desirable, if for no other reason than "unity, tolerance, and oneness" is not really workable for moral theory, culture, political science, law, education, etc., and liberation theology (black or white) of the Herodian suffers no better upon analysis...

 

Liberation theology (black or white) of the Herodian suffers no better.

I would say the same sorts of things (that is, irrational, un-Godly and generally undesirable) for Marxist liberation theology (in all its variations) as well as for a more traditional outright secular Marxism. In any case, liberation theology (black or white) has a certain appeal to it initially (one must concede), and it is certainly enjoying a season of being in vogue after the last presidential election, but in truth mere redistribution and state control (of virtually everything) is not a desirable idea, nor very workable, nor does it make for a prosperous economy in theory or in practice (current Democrat Party notwithstanding, tragically, very tragically I would say).

Economics is the major selling point of Marxism, of course, and in truth after its obvious economic failures (both in theory and Soviet/ Cuban practice), Marxism goes downhill fast and picks up speed in its descent into demagogue ("social justice") politics, trillion dollar political slush funds, politically correct (that is, closed minded) education, revisionist history big time, ultimately hedonistic morality, totalitarian state legal positivism, and on, and on, and on. (For crying out loud with any reflection at all on this situation, how could anyone think this is all a good idea?.) But, as Francis Schaeffer correctly said in the 1970s, Marxism in its numerous variations tends to sell itself with a catchy slogans of economic or social justice or such changes, hopes, and even utopian illusions, etc.

 

Bottom-line? The Kingdom Era is in sight!

So, if we lose liberation theology in the black church, and Liberalism in the white church (the so-called "Great Apostasy"), and if Roman Catholicism manages to find its way back to the Bible (wouldn't that be something), the Body of Christ will become unstoppable in the realm of the spirit and in the meantime outright other religions (outside of variations on Bible Christianity) will implode even more easily and so here we are ready to move into a Kingdom Era, but again how and when all of this is going to unfold, I do not know and do not claim to know!

 

I am very happy being a philosophy teacher, that is my calling, clearly

I am a philosophy teacher, and I am very happy being a philosophy teacher, and that is my calling, but I stand by my position, namely: There are 3 basic, possible, intellectually interesting options for modern man, namely, atheism, Bible Christianity, and undesirable corruptions of Bible Christianity. So, to the Bible faith I say, "Do it, or donít do it, but donít re-do it!" And a "donít-do-it" atheism is dead, for all practical and intellectual purposes, and that is especially so once modern humanism (that is, modern atheism), which was trying to base itself on Reason, gives up its effort for outright irrational, absurd, radical subjectivity atheism, known philosophically as postmodernism.

In short, modern atheism saw itself as based on Reason, but it wasnít, and it goes down in flames! But rather than giving up on atheism (which it should have), modern atheism gave up on Reason itself! In any case, if one does not buy into modern humanism in the first place, one cannot go into postmodern humanism in the second place. But it hardly matters because, as the cynic of antiquity, the postmodernist of the last 50 or 60 years has checked himself out of any knowledge or philosophy discussion with his irrationality and his supposedly stuck in endless subjectivity, and as the Greek cynic Diogenes of old, all the postmodernist can do is sit in silence in the marketplace and wag his finger in the air? (And in his spare time maybe become a tenured faculty member?)

 

So, as Yeats asks, is a "Second Coming" Revelation at hand?

So, as Yeats asks, is a "Second Coming" Revelation at hand? Certainly our social, philosophical, and religious fragmentation is a "centre" not holding? Big time of the last 200 to 300 years and even 500 years and even more intensely in the last 50 to 60 years? And without question too often "the best" seem to "lack all conviction" and even more clearly "the worst are full of passionate intensity." Is the Kingdom Era "at hand" with Christ as Lord of the nations with worldwide peace, justice, and righteous?

Maybe, but in historical terms what is "at hand"? Months? Years? Decades? Generations? Hard to say, but with the implosion of all the faulty worldviews, philosophies, ideologies, religions, and spiritualities ("Christian" or non-Christian), something much larger than ourselves is going on here it seems very clear to me....

 

Time in all history to, at last, get serious and reasonable? Too much at stake not to?

Jesus had a "Kingdom of God" message and spiritually that is seen to have come at Pentecost for the Body of Christ, and one enters into this spiritual Kingdom by "believing and receiving," and, so, again, here we are today, almost 2000 years later... and going strong... picking up the very same themes and going forward, as valid today as they were 2000 years ago...

All we have to do now is have a great nationwide, indeed worldwide, awakening to the (theological) truth and (spiritual) reality of the Gospel, and we can then get serious at last about politics, law, economics, education, and general moral and cultural reform. We need to re-establish the nation on its solid foundational first principles with liberty and justice for all, and not merely play politics, as too often both political parties do today...

 

Barack Obama is probably the greatest strictly "political leader" who has ever lived

Obama and the Democrats have put together an amazing coalition of atheists, radicals, spiritual Liberals of various stripes (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish) along with outright hedonists, postmodernists, etc., and I think it is one of the most remarkable and effective ideological and political coalitions in the history of our nation, and I would say even of the world, in order to pursue a Liberal to radical agenda. This is an unprecedented and amazing accomplishment, and it is my personal opinion that Barack Obama is probably the greatest strictly "political leader" who has ever lived, and probably who ever will live. Clearly this is no small accomplishment.

However, it is in my view time to get serious and reasonable about politics, law, education, even religion and stop mere coalition building and political machine making simply for oneís own political power in order to implement some sort of foolish Liberal or even outright radical agenda to "re-make" the nation, etc. There is simply too much at stake at this hour for the nation, and indeed for the whole world and all history, and we need leaders who understand the issues of our time and have a firm and genuine desire to re-establish the nation on the Laws of Nature and Natureís God with liberty and justice for all. All of this will probably only come by way of a restoration of Bible Gospel Christianity in the Church and general culture.

 

Reasonable and desirable: the political principles and the Gospel

If there is a return to a Bible Christianity as true and intellectually valid and as so seen by a majority of the nation as a whole, there simply will not be enough people left in the radical humanist to liberal religious humanist demographic to re-elect Barack Obama or presumably any other Democrat to office who holds to the Liberal to radical agenda, which Democrats are widely said to do almost to a man, or woman, as the case may be. Once the Bible faith again becomes the religious foundation of the nation as a intellectual, cultural, and spiritual condition of the age, we can, and I think will, at that time get serious about re-applying in a reasonable and desirable manner the political principles and ideals upon which this nation was established, but probably not before then.

However, short of a Great Awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel, this re-establishing of the society, culture and the nation with liberty and justice for all will probably never happen. And, further, there will be in my personal opinion probably no Great Awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel until the major church groups get back on track and on message (of all things), and this will probably not happen unless and until a Gospel message and even the entire Christian cosmology is seen as the only intellectually valid philosophical and religious position for mankind on earth, which it now is, of course, and presumably will be forevermore... yours truly at your philosophical service... not really "the last man standing," as they say, but actually this is more a last philosophical worldview standing, and the last man standing is Christ, not any philosopher today, that is, as all other faulty and hollow worldviews and religious structures and ideological edifices implode, all those belief systems which have either denied Bible Christianity and its cosmology outright or tried to re-make or re-do Bible Christianity in an undesirable manner... which amounts often to a denial of Christ, himself, in an irrational and/ or un-Godly and man-centered manner, and often even in a virtually demonic fashion... But what do all these things mean for the return of Christ and the Kingdom Era?

 

I, personally, am a so-called Post-millennialist

I, personally, am a so-called Post-millennialist. I realize completely this is an area of great controversy, and it is actually not a doctrinal essential one way or another, but for me it makes the whole Bible make more sense. The long and the short of this is what? One either believes the Bible is literally true in its central messages, or you donít. If you do, you are a Bible Christian, if you donít, you are probably (these days) anyway a re-do it Liberal (more than the other 2 major corruptions), or an outright non-believer. However, simply believing the Bible is literally true does not automatically interpret the Bible, and this becomes something of a big problem for secondary issues or so called non-essentials.

There are 3 views on the Kingdom Era and Christís return in the clouds. 1.) There is not actually to be a Kingdom Era at all. This is an A-millennialism. I find it to be impossible to so read either the Old or New Testament. The other 2 Bible Christian views are 2.) Christ returns in the clouds for the Saints to rise in the air to meet him before the millennial or Kingdom Era, called Pre-millennialism, and 3.) Christ returns in the clouds for the Saints to rise in the air to meet him after the millennial or Kingdom Era, called Post-millennialism. This is my personal position, and certainly a minority one within the Bible Christian community today.

 

Not a moot point... for the literal Bible Christian

Most Christians have gone Liberal and do not believe in the literal Bible Gospel message of the atonement and rebirth nor the cosmology from the Creation to the Final Judgment nor a literal heaven in order for Christ to ever return nor is there ever to be, for the Liberal, a literal Kingdom Millennial Era. Hence, the pre and post millennial thing is a moot point for the Liberal, but not for the literal Bible Christian believer. It is my view that Christ literally rules for 1000 years in spirit, but not in a physical body, but the saints rule with him not just in spirit but also physically until the end of the Kingdom Era at which time God is said to make a new heaven and a new earth, hard as that is for us to imagine, no doubt.

In short, the Bible clearly says the saints are going to rule the world for 1000 years with Christ, no less, this makes the Post-millennialist view extremely Biblical, with Christ ruling in spirit for 1000 years, and all things considered, in my opinion, this makes the (minority) Post-millennialist view correct and hence superior to the (majority) Pre-millennialist view, and certainly superior to the A-millennialist view, which has few if any adherents. So, is this the Kingdom-on-earth hour? Is it "at hand"? Quite possibly?

 

If not now, when? And if now, then we today? And if not us, who?

Paul in the Bible, under divine inspiration says we will judge angels, and this is usually taken to be fallen angels or demons, and we believers are generally held to share in the throne with Christ in the Kingdom Era. (1 Cor. 6:2-3, Daniel 7:22, Revelation 2:26, 3:21 (big time), 20:4 (also big time)) If these generally accepted interpretations are correct (or variations on them), and if these prophecies apply to a future time from when they are given, which they obviously do, is it now? I assume so. If not now, when is it? This is especially true if we are at the end of the Church Age, which many feel or sense we are.

The two main views from my 6 study Bibles are we share in the judgment of demons at either the end of the Church Age or possibly at the End of the Kingdom Era. My personal view is that it is the end of the Church Age and that be now, and the saints be us. I would say Christian worldview thinking is such a "judgment," and we believers are the saints, I do believe. Further the false rulers in this world and spiritually the demons over them have faulty political thinking, rationality, or "wisdom" and in essence ideologies. (Clearly, but see 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and related such passages) Further, of course, the saints rule over the nations with Christ in justice and righteousness in the Kingdom Era, even sharing the throne!

But why do we judge demons with Christ at the end of the Church Age and not the end of the Kingdom Era? I think because the end of the Church Age (now?) will be the last opportunity to judge demons depending on how long it takes for all demons (personal hang up and worldview) to be bound into the Kingdom Era. The Bible seems to indicate devils are all going to be bound in the Kingdom Era (most think), further somehow connected with our judgments. Again, from a strictly philosophical point of view demons (as such) do not make much sense for me personally, as a purely practical matter. Having said that what does make much sense and something that we tend to totally disregard or misunderstand is the underlying spiritual reality of our lives, be it Godly or un-Godly.

 

Even Hegel could see this for crying out loud

In my opinion it was Hegel, of all people, the quintessential bad guy for some Christians, (if so, it would be all the more relevant) who more than anyone else came (in an age of material humanism) to see the spiritual nature of man, culture, societies, historical ages, etc. What does this mean?

All alternative religions as well as all faulty political ideologies, which tend to be de facto substitute religions, have not only false truth claim aspects, usually even very irrational ones though the persons holding to them cannot see it, but they also have underlying spirits. I think, the saints today deal pretty well (these days as of the last 10 or 15 years) with the faulty worldview thinking or faulty philosophical truth claim aspects in this situation, but not so well with the underlying spiritual aspects of bad philosophical, religious, and political systems of thought.

 

There is a truth and spirit aspect not just to Bible Christianity

In short, there is both a truth and spirit aspect not just to Bible Christianity, but also to false religions as well as political ideologies, which have generally become secular religions for the atheist. Not to split hairs here but "ideology" is a fairly recent word in English (about 200 years old) and, hence, it is not generally or traditionally or historically the way we understood ourselves in America, or even in the West. Further, with the demise of Christianity (both Bible and Liberal Christianity), the 19th and 20th centuries increasingly became known as "the age of ideology," which tended to be secular and it created political belief systems and structures of thought (Marxism, fascism, etc.), which the people holding to them thought were profound and rational, which they were not, and these ideologies also had spirits, and not very pretty ones at that! And this is what we do not tend to think about.

There is something going on in the realm of the spirit (demons or no demons) with false religions and ideologies as well as something going on in the realm of the intellect where the person in the false religion or ideology thinks he is being rational, but virtually anyone standing outside a given false religion or ideology can see that it is not rational at all. Therefore, one is not simply being irrational in oneís faulty religion or ideology, one is also being spiritually deceived, clearly, and, in fact "deception" tends to imply a "deceiver" for there to be a "deceived." In fact, this is more or less the way C. S. Lewis sets up The Screwtape Letters, and it is how Paul talks about deception and doctrines of devils and how Jesus talks about those of their father the Devil with no truth (no less) in them. (Wow.)

 

Now, not to split hairs...too many anyway...

Now, not to split hairs here, but the word "ideology" has frequently, indeed, usually a negative connotation, even denotation, but it need not necessarily. It can just mean a body of interrelated ideas usually about social political matters, says the dictionary. Still, the word tends to be used for, even reserved for, a body of interrelated ideas about social political matters, which becomes a de facto religion (and even cosmology). Hence, we usually do not talk of Lockeís or Jeffersonís or Lincolnís or even Woodrow Wilsonís "ideology".

The fact is in modern times "ideology" tends to be a body of interrelated ideas about social or political matters that actually displaces traditional religion, and, hence, that is why they are sometimes called de facto religions or secular religions, and, hence, they tend to be huge intellectual edifices that are in the Bible connected with doctrines of demons, which are usually very irrational, unholy or un-Godly, and undesirable, but the people holding to them think they are brilliant, rational, and very desirable, and whether Godly or un-Godly, they generally do not care!

 

The Devil is a pretty smart fellow and the plot thickens here...

The Devil is a pretty smart fellow and the plot thickens here. The, in essence, totalitarian Marxist-Leninist John Dewey based his radical, radical humanist views on being "pragmatic" and "non-dogmatic," which I think implies and was meant to be "non-ideological"! But in point of fact John Dewey was probably the most dogmatic and ideological thinker America has ever produced. He was a very dogmatic, irrational materialist humanist atheist as well as a radical closed-society totalitarian Communist and egalitarian, presumably for everyone but himself of course, all in the name of being "pragmatic" and "scientific".

Recall that in something of a similar manner Karl Marxís claim to fame was that he was being "rational" and "scientific," which if there were any two things Marx was not, it was "rational" and "scientific," as fellow atheist Bertrand Russell shows in painful detail. However, while material humanist Russell could see the irrationality of Marxís particular material humanism, big time, Russell simply could not see the almost complete irrationality of material humanism (that is, materialist atheism) generally and hence of his own philosophical position, no less, though in my opinion Russell probably did more to fight for the supposed rationality of material humanism than any other person who ever lived.

 

Intellectual content is only half the story, the other half is spirit, Godly or un-Godly!

The point is the intellectual content (or, that is, supposed substance truth claims) is only half the story of all of these political ideologies of modern times as well as alternative world religions as well as even Liberal Christianity (of mere unity, tolerance, and oneness), certainly pre (and probably post) Vatican II Roman Catholicism (with faulty tradition supposedly equal to Scripture) and political liberation "theology" (black or otherwise).

All of these three groups of philosophical and/ or religious systems (atheism, false religions, and faulty Christianity) are not rational, or they are based on faulty first principles, but they also have an un-Godly spirit to them such that one does not care that there is an un-Godly spirit at play or one thinks oneís un-Godliness is actually Godly, as the Grand Inquisitor probably did in fact, though Dostoevsky has him realize he has flipped to Satanís camp to make his story work! (Quite brilliant when you get right down to it.)

 

It seems clear we are often actually human victims of demons

And if you really want to get into this, it certainly appears that it is the un-Godly spirit of these clearly false belief systems, that causes you to think stuff that is not only irrational but sometimes just flat nutty and outrageous, to be not only rational, but brilliant and insightful, and it is here in this clear deception that the un-Godly spirit seems to have a life of its own, and we see the fingerprints of Satan or one of his demons?

Further, this means all these irrational, crazy and misguided people in all of these faulty philosophical, ideological and religious systems, even violent and destructive ones, are actually human victims of demons, and this seems to be very consistent with what Scripture says. In short, it is a fact of human existence on earth that we often think that which is irrational, un-Godly, and truly undesirable is actually rational and not just desirable but flat wonderful, like little-Lucifer Saul Alinsky does of his Marxist community organizing, where he states he is un-Godly and rebellious to God and damn proud of it.

 

Historically in America, anyway, prior to the 1960s...

Historically in America, anyway, prior to the 1960s anyone who openly made amoral, irrational or un-Godly sorts of statements as well as outright liberation theology statements would have been immediately dismissed from the political scene by both political parties and the mainstream media. Not so after the 1960s. These various generally postmodern type people are now championed as role models and heroes for our youth, and they are often in charge of many of our educational institutions.

Donít forget in the early 20th century John Dewey (often called Americaís top educator of the 20th century) was as radically left as one can get, but he was not doing it in the name of Marxism but in the name of "pragmatism" and "rationality." However, after the 1960s Rorty, Deweyís self-proclaimed philosophical descendant, is doing essentially the same stuff as Dewey, but openly as a postmodern or irrational Trotskyite.

This is as outrageous as Alinsky, of course, but in its own way there is, again, something very refreshing about it. Why? It is being intellectually honest, is it not? However, people who openly advocate irrationality and Marxist totalitarianism are not going to survive and succeed in the long run, at least in my opinion, but in truth some of this stuff has to run its course in history, and it is all pretty much prophesied in the Bible, is it not? I think we have probably elected our last liberation theology (black or white) president, but I may be wrong.

 

Where Obama did not make his mistake!

My personal view is the place where Obama made his mistake is he should have said he joined the church to turn his back on his Alinsky-type community organizing, and not to further it! However after the 1960s in America, anyway, being an open follower of Lucifer does not have a particularly negative connotation anymore (since most people no longer believe that Lucifer-type stuff is real), and further it is clear to me that Obama had to reassure to his radical left atheist base that he was in no way deserting the radical leftist cause by his joining a church!

In short, he was more concerned about possibly alienating his base than he was about offending the American public, which he calculated correctly was well beyond being offended in such matters after the 1960s because today only about 20% of the population is said to hold to a traditional Bible Christianity, and the other 80% often even have a very negative view of Bible Christians, and so insulting them or offending them could actually also further his career and ambitions.

My own view is that professorial Obama is a modern Marxist and not a postmodern one. I think Obama actually sees his black liberation theology, that is, Marxism, to be rational, while people like Rorty and Sartre are under no such illusions or even delusions. They see Marxism to be an outright irrational power grab for the peopleís good, of course, or at least so they say. As far as Alinsky goes, I do not think he cared much one way or another if he was being rational or irrational. Alinsky is for me an uninteresting intellectual lightweight, though he is said to be to this day the guiding light of the left and of all true Democrats, tragically I would say. And so here we are. Shall we dance?

 

About my only prayer is...

About my only prayer (these days anyway) is that humanity on earth will be delivered from all demonic deceptions and outright nutty, irrational, un-Godly, and generally undesirable philosophies, religions, and ideologies as well as even corruptions of Bible Christianity within the Church. After that we should do quite well I would think... here on this beautiful ball of dirt and water, flying thru space, teeming with plant and animal life, with its seasons of warm and cold, sunny days and not so sunny ones, days of youth, and not as youthful days, as Solomon said... everything in its season... Maybe this is the season, at long last, for Satan and company to make what will presumably be their not so graceful exit? Wouldn't that be nice? What will this decade bring? I guess we will know soon enough...

 

Bottom-line of this? Bible Christianity as most correct, reasonable, and desirable

The truth is we tend to center on the political (specifically), and understandably so, but in reality the political tends to reflect the underlying social and cultural conditions of a society and those reflect a given underlying spirituality, be it Godly or un-Godly. It is my view that Bible Christianity is the most correct, reasonable, and desirable religious and spiritual position, and the more we get away from a Bible Christianity in spirit or truth, the more we get into undesirable and irrational or unreasonable places in spirit and truth.

The degree to which faulty doctrines, worldviews, philosophies, religions, ideologies, etc. are possibly of literal demons is, of course, subject to debate, but without any question given the often said-to-be 100 million or so dead from war in the 20th century, one must assume the nutty, irrational, even outrageous false religions and humanist systems we have seen to date have been pretty clear outright demonic deceptions, which have, hopefully, pretty much run their course in history, especially so with a worldwide triumph of the Gospel in spirit and truth, and a worldwide triumph of the whole cosmological story from the Creation to the Final Judgment, with a possibly soon coming accompanying Kingdom Era of peace, justice, and righteousness on planet earth for all the nations and for all people everywhere, now and forevermore... (except for a brief time at the end of the Kingdom Era, or so Scripture says, anyway..)

================================