(/\ /\ Click above to go Home, or Back to MainSection, or to the other numerous Wednesday Updates) 

--------

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 1

(Wed., February 17, 2010)

(approx. 4225 words, 9 pp.)

The Ultimate Battle for Planet Earth... last man standing, Part 1

(or)

(or)

(or)

Times, ages, historical eras have different spirits, temperaments, attitudes, etc. The spirit of our age is one of irrationality, radical subjectivity, and even outright hedonism, I would say, but times, ages, historical eras also have different philosophical structures and belief systems, indeed, whole paradigms of thought usually rationally internally consistent within their own terms but often built on faulty foundational first principles which cause the whole massively built philosophical edifice to be quite hollow and subject to implosion...

Where are we spiritually speaking? What is our zeitgeist?

Where are we spiritually speaking? What is our zeitgeist? Postmodernism! That is, you have your "truth" and I have my "truth" and neither is based on Reason but whatever one "feels." This is utterly ridiculous, of course, and as I often say surreal or Alice-in- Wonderland. The fact is Bible Christianity is true theologically and cosmologically speaking, and very rational or reasonable, and very real spiritually speaking, though none of this is generally held to be the case today by many people especially the more "educated." I have no statistics, but I would speculate the more education one has, the less likely one is to be a Bible Christian. In truth, this really has little to do with "education," as such, but more the spirit of our age.

The falseness of Bible Christianity is almost simply a given of our time and certainly of higher education today. We have fragmented into a whole host of humanistic worldviews and competing religions and spiritualities (such as, modern humanism, postmodern humanism, secular liberalism, religious liberalism, Christian liberalism, Jewish liberalism, New Age, Marxism, liberation theology, black liberation theology, radical feminism, hedonism, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, post Vatican II Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, etc., etc. etc.) but all of them tend to agree that Bible Christianity, as such, is not the name of the knowledge game, nor the name of a desirable spiritual reality game.

However, in my opinion, all of the faulty worldviews, philosophies, religions, and political ideologies, and so forth which are outright religions or, in essence, de facto secular religions along with the huge intellectual edifices they have constructed over the past 200 to 300 years and at times with breakneck speed over the past 50 or 60 years are going to implode, in the coming weeks, months, years, and certainly decades and generations, almost inevitably, given their hollow irrational, usually outright un-Godly and generally undesirable natures.

Our fragmented time is very much like the end of the Roman Empire when Augustine and others were writing. There were countless philosophies, religions, and alternative spiritualities to Bible Christianity at that time, but in truth most of them were not very good and had little going for them, and with time only Christianity would emerge as intellectually valid. And, in my view, we are at a similar last man standing position (for Bible Christianity) in our own time. Why is this?

For modern man over the last 200 to 300 years (and ultimately even 500 years since the Renaissance and Reformation) there have been basically 3 philosophical and spiritual options on the table: Bible Christianity, atheism, or developing a new spirituality out of Bible Christianity. In essence this is for Bible Christianity a situation of "do it, don’t do it, or re-do it." In my opinion, 1.) Christian Liberalism, 2.) historical pre-Vatican II (and ultimately post-Vatican II) Roman Catholicism and 3.) black liberation theology are all some sort of "re-do it."

Christian Liberalism tries to deconstruct the text as myth, conspiracy, endless metaphor, fake, forgery etc. etc. All of these efforts, in my opinion, fail utterly in huge intellectual edifices. Roman Catholicism after Vatican II certainly equivocates on sole Apostolic authority, supposedly even equivalent to Scripture for whatever doctrine it wishes to assert, but Vatican II stops well short (in my opinion) of embracing outright Bible Christianity, as such, though Roman Catholicism certainly now holds, correctly, that it is accepting Christ and not their particular denomination as such that makes one a Christian! The historical and spiritual importance of this Vatican II concession cannot be overstated, but in the end it may be just a start?

Vatican II was, in my view, a massive mea culpa, probably history’s greatest and one of the most important and dramatic events in the history of mankind on earth, without question (I would say), but this does not automatically turn Roman Catholicism into an outright Bible Christianity (I think most would say), though without question one was free to believe on Christ directly in the Catholic Church, if one so desired, before or after Vatican II, but this fact alone did not make a direct salvation faith a part of official Roman Catholic teaching, and it was even denounced prior to Vatican II, and this is why Vatican II is so important. However, even with this massive major concession to the Reformation, in the end Vatican II was probably more Liberal ecumenical to all religions, than it was a Bible turn as such, and of course they were attempting to correct past errors ("update" things) without falling into the Liberalism or Modernism of the Apostate Protestant denominations, and I just don’t think they succeeded, noble effort though they made.

This is not a doctrinal matter but a personal opinion: It is my opinion that Thomas Merton is something of a microcosm of Vatican II and even 20th century Roman Catholicism generally. I am convinced, personally, that God was using Merton not to call modern humanist man back to a spirituality of the Christian faith, but in fact Roman Catholics back to the spiritual reality of the Christian faith, and in fact he did do this to a significant extent, successfully I would say. You might call this Merton’s Mission?

That is the good news. However rather than taking the very real spirituality of the Christian faith into a re-discovery of Bible Christianity (in effect, and almost in an outright Protestant sense of personal spiritual experience), Merton, I think, mistakenly interprets his presumably very real spiritual Christian experiences as a general mysticism embodied in all the great religions, etc., etc. Big mistake. You might call this Merton’s Mistake, which Vatican II also makes, in the opinion of many, and which I personally made for some good number of years myself.

I would even say because Merton does not take his (much needed 20th century) spiritual revelations where God wants him to, namely to a Bible Christianity (as, say, Lewis certainly does), but rather to a Liberal ecumenicalism, God takes Merton home early, which He is wont to do to people theologians often say, when one gets too far off track in one’s mission or assignment. In any case, so much for my take on Merton's Mission and Mistake, Liberal Protestant Christianity, and Vatican II Catholicism, which definitely does not embrace outright a rejection of the atonement and Resurrection, as Protestant Liberalism had done, though in fact after Vatican II some Catholic theologians, in my opinion, as a practical matter do go wobbly (as the expression goes).

Finally, liberation theology and black liberation theology have most clearly thrown in the towel altogether on the Bible faith for a place in the palace or in this case the White House. Castro and kind do little for me, but some people in the Church find them to be spiritual brothers in arms, of course. My own view is if you cannot figure out Marxist dictatorships are no friends to Christianity (let alone not the same thing as Christianity), you are not just deceived and foolish, you have true serious issues. The Polish Pope had this same view of course, famously, no less, so much so that it is said to have led to the attempt on his life!

Variations on Bible Christianity as generally irrational, undesirable, even un-Godly

Variations on Bible Christianity have some intellectual and even at times spiritual appeal, but the bottom-line is they are generally irrational, undesirable and even at times an outright un-Godly "re-doing" of the Bible faith. For example, Christian Liberalism, which tends to turn the Gospel into a mere spirit of unity, oneness, and tolerance with no literal salvation/ atonement Gospel message nor Christian cosmology is certainly irrational and un-holy, and in the end even undesirable. Or, pre-Vatican II Catholicism was hardly known for its openness or religious political tolerance. This was hardly Godly, desirable or rational and is what led to Vatican II, no less.

However, by contrast, most other world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, etc. have had very little if any intellectual appeal for modern man (humanist or non-humanist) over the last 200 to 300 years for pretty obvious reasons. They are not very good or credible, and they are pretty easily chewed up and spit out for all but those not caught up in one or another of them.

As an aside to this writing, some Western humanists have dabbled in Buddhism, but hardly the real thing, and others in New Age, that is, some supposed general higher amoral spiritual consciousness or experience without any really worked out religious or spiritual substance (or even cosmology). New Age seems to me to be a cross between a supposed Eastern or Hindu mysticism and just good old fashioned Western witchcraft and even occult, but in truth New Age is very similar to Liberal Christianity.

New Age tends to have no rational belief system to assert or refute, but it fiercely advocates there is a spiritual component to life, which is generally self-evident to all but the most harden materialist atheist humanist. So, the point remains: Bible Christianity: do it, don’t do it, or re-do it, those are your 3 interesting intellectually viable options, and all forms of "re-do it" simply do not and have not worked well, apart from the failures of the myriad of outright false world religions at this time. But what of the "don’t do it" option on Bible Christianity?

The big intellectual impetus concerning Bible Christianity for the last 200 to 300 years has been, of course, "don’t do it" or, that is, outright modern atheism or materialist humanism, which was supposedly based on "Reason" but in fact it was not, concerning both the Natural Revelation of Jefferson and Cicero and the Special Revelation of Augustine and Paul, no less. Postmodern humanism of the last 50 or 60 years has, of course, thrown in the towel on Reason and even Truth altogether on anything but hard science and math, and embraced outright an irrationality and absurdity to life, which was implicit in the modern humanist view that preceded it (since values were supposedly only mere subjective preferences).

The postmodern humanist is simply doing the math on modern humanism, correctly in fact, but the truth is modern humanism was not intellectually valid in the first place in order to take it where it leads in the second place and in order to wind up with intellectually uninteresting supposed "death of philosophy" supposedly stuck in endless subjectivity and absurdity. After 1950 and the rise of French Existentialism and postmodernism generally in the 1960s there are really almost no intellectually interesting humanist philosophers, in my opinion, outside of Albert Camus (who died in 1960).

By contrast, the Natural Revelation of Solomon, Socrates and Cicero is self-evident to all but the most depraved humans, and the Special Revelation with its new spiritual life in Christ and its truth claims of Christ’s walking out of the grave (as a fact of history) are confirmed by both Reason and personal spiritual experience, pretty easily actually, and so also is the historical playing out of God’s covenant relationship with man through Abraham and Moses and ultimately to Christ, which is a covenant that goes back prior to Abraham to the first man, so-called "Adam".

Christian rebirth is seen to restore fallen man’s spiritual or heart condition and ultimately Scripture says God will re-make our bodies and the earth itself at the end of the Kingdom Era, but these doctrinal interpretations and debates are somewhat secondary to the point at hand. The Christian cosmology is true from the Creation to the Final Judgment, and it is based on the reasonableness of both the Natural and Special Revelation, again, because all but the most depraved can see there is a God in the order of the universe, and in the origin of the universe, and in the desirable moral order of human existence, and even in the obvious reality of Good, and it is clear that Jesus walked out of the grave because elaborate conspiracy theories (the only real possible alternative to the Bible truth and faith) do not and cannot work, reasonably speaking.

So, all forms of outright atheism or humanism with their accompanying political ideologies are flawed and usually irrational, un-Godly and undesirable, and this is so even if millions think they are brilliant, insightful, profound or reasonable, they are not, intellectually speaking. And "re-done" Bible Christianities, whether in essence of the Pharisee (essentially "official" historical Roman Catholicism of authority equal to Scripture), the Sadducee (contemporary Liberal Christianity, modern or postmodern), or the Herodian (usually some form of Marxist or other outright humanist replacement) are also flawed intellectually speaking. And even more obviously non-Christian religions tend to be even more highly flawed, intellectually speaking.

In fact, all of these alternative believe systems (whether outright atheist/ humanist or not) are humanist or man-centered, sometimes a spiritual humanism and sometimes a materialist humanism but all are humanist nonetheless, as Augustine correctly pointed out 1600 years ago, no less, and in truth much as Socrates did in effect 2400 years ago! "Man" is not "the measure of all things." (You might say this website is breaking no new ground here, as a slight understatement!!!) So, what is this Bible Christianity that is in our day, 2010, the only philosophical system left standing intellectually speaking?

Christ preached a "Kingdom of God" message, the Apostles "believe and receive"

The fact is Christ preached primarily a "Kingdom of God" message as a spiritual reality more than anything, though ultimately to be fulfilled on earth as a political condition of the nations in justice and righteousness. And the Apostles preached a simple and basic "believe and receive" message for this new spiritual life and being in Christ, and it is this message that can be corrupted by the often demonically inspired 3 basic corruptions of the Pharisees (irrelevant manmade rules, regulations, and authority for rightness with God), the Sadducee (no literal Gospel or Bible cosmology) and the Herodian (bread and worldly power). Each of these has its own problems and manifestations in history.

Again, Vatican II probably went more Liberal than Bible Christian, though it opened the door big time for a possible Bible-based Vatican III in the future. Is Christianity accepting any given church group or denomination as authoritative (Catholic or otherwise) or is it accepting Christ as Lord and Savior? Not a difficult call for many, but it is for some. I am personally firmly convinced that with the dramatic Vatican II official Roman Catholicism is now set up to make an outright Bible faith move, but when this will happen who can say?

By contrast, theological and Biblical Liberalism is an intellectual "re-do it" of its own and is now going supernova, especially with its increasingly ridiculous postmodern "higher criticism." The letter to the Romans is not a profound theological statement of the Christian faith but actually a chocolate chip cookie recipe, what could be more obvious? No, says the next higher critic, it is actually a banana pudding recipe! No, says a third postmodern Liberal higher critic, it is actually about apple pie, with a thin crust, of course! This is all clear postmodern absurdity, even silliness. However, for both the non-believer outright as well as for the Liberal "higher critic" conspiracy (as the atheist/ humanist H. G. Wells realized) is the only real hope to deconstruct the New Testament, but it is extremely difficult to make conspiracy work for the Old Testament and virtually outright impossible for the New Testament. And so here we are.

Bottom-line: Our choice on earth at this hour in 2010 is between an Apostles’ conspiracy or Christ! Not a difficult call for me, but it is for some. This means all the other religions outside of Bible Christianity as well as atheism and all attempted variations on Bible Christianity are not really intellectually interesting, though some variations on the Bible faith do have an initial appeal at times, and often it can take generations and even centuries for these things to play themselves out.

Having done this for some decades now, I am convinced that the 1920s and 1930s hold the key to understanding everything for the state of human knowledge on earth. Why is this? Intellectually, speaking the 1920s and 1930s (and perhaps the years slightly before and after) tend to be the culmination of modern humanist thinking of the previous 200 or so years as well as the culmination of modern Liberal (higher critic) Christian thinking of almost as long a time back to the 18th century.

First, Liberal Christianity... Higher criticism Liberal Christianity culminates with Harry Emerson Fosdick’s "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" in 1922. He openly denounces the historical Bible faith in all of its essentials that came out of the Reformation for a New (liberal) Christianity with another Jesus and in essence another Gospel. He basically denounces the atonement outright, no supernatural events possible (and hence no literal God of Genesis 1:1), and in essence no cosmology, return of Christ, Final Judgment etc. Interestingly he reserves his specific denunciation of the Resurrection for another place, but this is somewhat irrelevant for this analysis.

Hence, without any question (in my opinion), Fosdick in 1922 is the culminating, unsurpassed and even unequaled statement of higher criticism Christian Liberalism of the previous 100 or more years before him. Further, in my opinion, all higher criticism Liberal Christianity that follows Fosdick is to this very day a vastly inferior also-ran, whether modern myth and conspiracy theories or postmodern Bible words mean other things theories, which actually was Fosdick’s position, well ahead of the larger postmodern movement more generally. (Fosdick had, it seems, in 1922 already thrown in the towel on myth and conspiracy, for primitive man’s language and all that nonsense.)

The 1920s and 1930s and that modern atheist humanism... a true philosophical feast

However, the true philosophical feast of the 1920s and 1930s and even into the 1940s is modern humanism, which in those years is also in a massive culmination, in its own way, of the modern humanism that had preceded it since the Enlightenment. My favorite 3 modern atheist humanists are H. G. Wells, Will Durant, and Bertrand Russell, all three of whom have provided me with endless hours of truly wonderful reading and sometimes ridiculously outrageous reading, as Russell frequently is (everyone agrees?), but having said this he as Wells and Durant are liberal (open society) humanists, and of course all 3 of them see all history culminating not only in modern humanism of their own day (the 1920s and 1930s) but in their own personal versions of modern humanism!

John Dewey is also a modern humanist (that is, basing his atheism supposedly on Reason), and hence, he is similar to Wells, Durant, and Russell, but Dewey is a closed-minded and closed-society modern humanist totalitarian, and he is not fun to read. (We will discuss him later.)

Crucial point: Wells, Durant, and Russell were generally modern humanist/ atheists

Wells, Durant, and Russell were generally modern humanist/ atheists. What does this mean? It means they still believe in rationality, and they still believe in truth, and they tend to be moral relativists who have not degenerated into an outright hedonism, as the postmodernists who follow them will do. (Recall from our videos that the modern humanist atheism born largely in the 18th century is a refined, not outright, hedonism of the Epicureans as even Russell points out.)

Postmodern humanism/ atheism follows modern humanist atheism after World War II because if values are not facts, a central tenet of modern humanism since the Enlightenment, then they are preferences which become merely subjective, usually outright hedonistic preferences, and preferences to be imposed as self-acknowledged indoctrination in education and totalitarianism in the state, since there is no real Reason to appeal to in education or politics (for the postmodernist). The point the postmodernist himself is going to make after the 1920s, 30s and 40s after World War II (and, in essence, philosophically after Wells, Durant, and Russell) is that if modern humanism is true, it slides inevitably into a postmodern outright hedonism and absurdity and usually some form of statism (whether explicitly totalitarian or not). There is much truth to this, but in fact modern humanism from the 18th century to the mid 20th century was not true or rational in the first place.

Values are clearly facts, unless you are irrational and morally depraved, and modern atheistic humanism which started in the 18th century was never based on Reason in the first place, which it claimed to be its central selling point. To my knowledge it is not until 1927 that the modern humanist atheist Russell tries, at long last, to make rational arguments for the non-existence of God in "Why I am not a Christian," and he fails almost completely at every point rationally speaking, and, hence, the supposed rationality of modern humanism of the previous 200 plus years is gone, as well as the philosophical and intellectual validity of modern atheist humanism generally. Russell in bold audacity takes on, in effect, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Kant (among others?), and is clearly turned into humanist hash, but he understands (to his credit) they must all go down for his supposedly rational modern humanism to stand, and in reality he fails to take any of them down, rationally speaking!

After Wells, Durant, and Russell humanism degenerates into our current postmodern silliness and depravity and absurdity of whatever you feel is good, true, and right for you is in fact good, true, and right for you, and whatever you don’t isn’t, etc. Bottom-line? If Wells, Durant, and Russell go down with their culminating modern humanism in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, the modern humanism of the previous 200 years goes down with them, and the postmodern humanism that follows them to this very day is not only an also-ran humanism or atheism, but it is also a pretty pathetic also-ran humanism of a postmodern sort based on a radical subjectivity, outright hedonism, and open absurdity as supposedly "true" (of all self-contradictory things!).

What does this all mean? After the 1920s, 30s and 40s, both modern humanism and modern Liberal (higher critic) Christianity (and many would argue Liberal Judaism) go into postmodern silliness as supposedly intellectually brilliant and profound and so forth! Not only is this ridiculous and absurd but both postmodern humanism and postmodern Christianity are B-O-R-I-N-G, the greatest sin any philosopher can commit?

This is a massive bottom-line to all history!!! Liberal Christianity (whether modern or postmodern) of the last 200 to 300 years to this very day and Humanism, as outright atheism, (whether modern or postmodern) of the last 300 years also to this very day are complete toast intellectually speaking.

This means for the past 300 years of human knowledge of the three 1.) Bible Christianity, 2.) Liberal Christianity (a spiritual humanism) and 3.) outright atheism (that is, a materialist humanism), only Bible Christianity and its philosophical worldview (asserting both a valid Natural and Special Revelation) has any intellectual credibility whatsoever, and in fact Bible Christianity has tons of it, last position or man standing, big time, and it has been last position or man standing for the last 50 or 60 years, at least for anyone who bothered to do a Rational investigation or analysis of the situation!

This means Liberalism and humanism tend to be empty, hollow, irrational, un-Godly and undesirable structures on the verge of total implosion in a consensus of human knowledge on earth? So, as Yeats asked, Is "the Second Coming" (now) "at hand"? And what exactly is "the Second Coming," anyway? We will attempt to answer both of these questions definitively next time once and for all, as well as some other very related and relevant questions for us today in 2010 concerning these matters and the Kingdom possibly "come round at last" on earth, so join us for Part 2 of Coming Implosions, on Wednesday, March 17, 2010...