(/\ /\ Click above to go Home, or Back to MainSection, or to other Tuesday Reports.) 

------

Subject: The 3 major obstacles to the Logos Kingdom come on earth

(Tues., June 28, 2011)

(approx. 6085 words, 11 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

We are continuing this "Kingdom come" step-by-step business concerning education in the same way as we did not being able to "see" that we have minds or that "reasons" can be "causes" in Part I, or that the state can do real wrong and violate one’s real Rights from God in Part II, and this last point is obvious for all people not totally infected with the ultimately absurd and morally depraved disease of "legal positivism." And here in Part III, in my opinion, 99 people out of 100 can "see" the major issues in education by common sense when pointed out to them unless they have been negatively influenced by someone who cannot "see" them. Stick with me on this, again, please, because you, my dear reader, have almost certainly been thoroughly indoctrinated, and you do not even know it. How sad?

The interesting story of you, my dear reader, and of one crusading John Dewey

This is a true story. The names have not been changed to protect the guilty. The story is more complicated than I am making it out to be here, but the case in point here is true and highly representative of the actual larger story.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, one John Dewey, an American educator and philosopher, becomes convinced that he is smarter than 99.99% of people alive in his day and who have ever lived. Why? Because he "sees" a total picture of mankind’s condition on earth that virtually no one else sees supposedly and ever has seen in the entire history of mankind. Never mind that his "new" insights are a resurrection of ancient Epicureanism, as we saw last time and as his good friend Bertrand Russell tells him. Dewey does know that or care. Dewey is for his part convinced that he has finally found true knowledge, and that he has to impart it to everyone, including you, my dear reader, to this very day. (Seriously.)

What vision has Dewey and a small group of his associates had, you ask? They have come to "see" a cluster of supposed "truths." First and foremost they have come to "see" clearly there is no God and believing in God is an irrational "dogma." Further, there was no creation or beginning to the universe. That is also an irrational "dogma." Further, we do not have minds, and so there is no mind-body problem. That is also an irrational "dogma." And, of course, there are no real, Rational moral truths, that is, again, you guessed it, also an irrational "dogma."

And, of course, a simplistic Darwinian evolution is true and proven with no real possible scientific problems. To think otherwise is what? Supposedly, again, an irrational "dogma" of now discarded religion. And, of course, for Dewey and his friends the state will control every aspect of your life, and you will not be free to engage in free enterprise, and nor go to an un-controlled church, etc. But we are going to put the political and legal and even economic to the side and stick here mostly with the moral, atheist, and Epicurean issues.

What Dewey is arguing, and I think correctly, is that probably 99.99% of people really cannot "see" as he can "see" that there is no moral good (you cannot really do anybody wrong), there is no God, that we don’t have minds, that there are no potential problems with a simplistic Darwinian evolution, etc., he and a small group of friends list these various things in the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933.

The fact that virtually none of these things will stand up to Reason or common sense of probably 99% of people does not matter to Dewey and his friends, they are on a crusade to teach their supposedly brilliant and truly rare "insights" to the entire society, and in order to do so one must have these idiotic insights taught in the American educational system and to the exclusion of all other views and especially all other traditional and common sense views on morality and otherwise, and there will be no debate. And there will be no debate.

How in the world will Dewey and company pull off this clearly idiotic, morally depraved plan in the American education system? What Dewey figures out, as all totalitarians do, is the way to change and control the society is simply to dictate what will and will not be taught as "true" in the schools, no matter how nutty, irrational or even morally depraved it is. But how in the world can one pull off such a plan in America of all places?

Dewey figures out that if you control the teachers you control the schools, and, hence, you control what people take to be knowledge in any given society or historical era, and of course one does not get to be a teacher unless one has a degree and is certified and approved, etc. You should be able to see where this is going and where it in fact went.

All you have to do is start teacher colleges and indoctrinate future teachers with your idiotic list of supposed insights as true knowledge, and as what one must teach in the school system in order to be a certified teacher. And as older un-indoctrinated teachers retire, you fill their positions with people who teach and actually can only teach (since they know nothing else) your list of idiotic views, which in reality are in violation of Reason and common sense of 99% of people presumably, at least under normal conditions.

This means if you went to school several generations after Dewey and friends in the 1970s, you were probably taught most of the list of idiotic insights listed above (from 1933) of Dewey and friends as true and as the very point of education, no less, and your teachers did not really know anything else to teach you, such as the Stoics versus the Epicureans or that the current Epicurean position of Dewey and company that your teachers were taught in order teach you is hardly the beginning and end of the matter of ethics and morality, as a slight understatement!

And in fact the same way Camus and Sartre have a falling out over totalitarianism, Russell and Dewey have a falling out on what you teach the teachers to teach as "true." Russell is just as much an atheist and even Epicurean as Dewey, but Russell is uncomfortable with Dewey’s close-minded Epicureanism and literally indoctrinating future teachers with it. Why is this? Russell is in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, and Dewey is not! Dewey is in the tradition of Marx, who of course had no problem whatsoever with "indoctrinating" people with nonsense, to say the least.

But, regardless, by the 1970s in America you are getting a nutty "politically correct," that is close-minded Epicurean education (that is true to Dewey’s humanist list), and you do not know that, and in truth your teachers probably could not have taught you anything else if they had wanted to.

I have done this for a good number of years now, and I would venture to say you probably think I am wrong about all of this, especially if you are college educated, so I am going to prove to you Mr. Wise Guy or Miss Smartie Pants that you are not as smart as you think you are, and you have in all likelihood been totally hoodwinked and brainwashed and indoctrinated by America’s politically correct, that is close-minded hedonistic, atheist, educational system, and you have no idea what has been done to you, sad to say.

I have to get a little autobiographical here to make things move faster, and I do not recall all of the historical details off the top of my head, but they are somewhat irrelevant to the larger point and story. I personally took countless philosophy courses over a 12 year period at 3 universities, 2 of which were considered top in the world. At one of these schools I studied with a guy from Princeton, who himself had studied with a top biologist from Oxford or Cambridge in England, I forget which, and the professor I had taught on the problems of simplistic Darwinian evolution among many other things. I also had a guy from Northwestern who taught on the problems with simplistic Darwinian evolution, and I had guy from the University of Chicago who also taught on the problems with simplistic Darwinian evolution, who for his part had been taught by a guy from Harvard.

I am not trying to school name-drop here, but I personally actually went to some of the top schools in the world and did considerable upper level course work and had some of the top professors in the world, or at least people who are considered to be the top professors, at least in the fields of philosophy and philosophy of science and so forth.

If you want to cut your teeth on this stuff, scientific theories are generally testable, repeatable, observable, and predictive. Darwinian evolution is virtually none of these things you will note, so big scientific problem right off the bat. Further, there is no simple cell to start Darwin’s process, and there are no transitional species, and there are supposed to be millions of them, and there is no known possible macro-change mutation process to create them, though there is a well-known adaptation and micro-evolutionary change process within species.

You might say from all of this that Darwin is something of a mixed bag. And the actual debates that take place are about whether Darwin can be fixed or salvaged or made to work, etc. In fact, probably the most famous evolutionist of the 20th century (from Harvard as I recall) tried to salvage Darwin with his "punctuated equilibrium" theory which ironically looks almost identical to creationism of all things! But be that as it may these are the kinds of discussions you can have at the top schools with the top teachers in the world today. That is, the issue is salvaging Darwin or can the problems with Darwin be fixed, etc.? As a simple fact these types of discussion go on somewhat regularly, for better or worse, you might say, and this is no big "secret," but unless you are at the top schools in such advanced classes you probably don’t know any of this!

What does this all have to do with John Dewey and why you, my dear reader, have in all likelihood been thoroughly indoctrinated by Dewey and friends and their subsequent teachers, and you do not even know it! Dewey and friends wanted to teach that simplistic Darwinian evolution is true, proven, and that is the end of the matter. And they asserted to allow in possible scientific problems with a simplistic Darwinian evolution model is supposedly not science but religion, against the religion of atheism, of all things. Is that true? Yes, it is.

In something of an Inherit the Wind manner Dewey and friends held Darwin’s theory to be not only science but to be totally true, proven and that is the end of the matter, supposedly, and to be anti-Darwinian or to question Darwin or his theory is supposedly not "scientific." And this is where the indoctrination thing gets into the American educational system, that is, supposedly Darwin is completely true, completely proven, and that is the end of the matter, according to Dewey and friends.

However, the fact is Darwin is not completely true, few if any non-indoctrinated people would dispute that today, and further the harden macro-evolutionists and spontaneous generation people are trying by their own statement to salvage Darwin, and, hence, it follows that Darwin is not completely proven to say the least, and it is certainly not the end of the matter to assert that Darwin as a totality is established as a so-called fact, but because it was Dewey’s and company’s desire (in effect) to teach simplistic Darwinian evolution is (in effect) "true, proven and the end of the matter" then that is what we teach, and that is what most "educated" people think. I kid you not, as you well know. But why? Because that is what virtually all "educated" people have been told.

This gets really crazy, but it is very practical.

This gets really crazy, but it is very practical. Rather than getting into the actual and somewhat complex problems with Darwin and whether can they be fixed, etc. (as I did in upper level courses with presumably the top people in the world on the subject), I would like to look at another aspect to this subject. Some years back, I think it was the Kansas state legislature decided to teach the children in high school "the truth" by saying Darwin is a theory but not yet completely proven, whether it is true or false.

And, for my part, having spend a good number of years (on and off) discussing problems with Darwin at the top schools in the world, I knew as a fact (for better or worse) it is the case that Darwin as a totality is still being debated, questioned, and certainly not proven. But the vast majority of people with a college education do not know this. Why? I assumed at the time of the "just a theory" controversy it was because most people have not taken the top courses at the top schools in the world, rather they have simply been indoctrinated with many things on Dewey’s list, including that Darwin is (in effect) true, proven, and that is the end of the matter.

International uproar of the un-informed corrupted ruling elite...

As I recall there was not only a national but international uproar over the Kansas state legislature’s decision to tell the kids that Darwin’s theory is at best a work in progress, you might say. I even heard (but did not myself read) that newspapers in Europe were writing editorials ridiculing the Kansas legislature! Of all things!

But why would any major newspaper do that? Two reasons. One is the editorial writers have not been to the top schools in the world taking the top courses, nor have their sources, or maybe secondly because they actually think Darwin is completely true, proven and that is the end of the matter.

But why do they or most people like you, my dear reader, think that? Because that is what your teacher taught you! But why did your teachers tell you that? Because John Dewey and company told them to teach you that blatant falsehood, and not the fact that the theory, especially as a totality, is under great discussion, for better or worse, and with efforts to salvage it and so forth.

To show you how crazy this gets it has become a part of the definition of being well educated- indoctrinated to believe that Darwin is completely true, proven and that is the end of the matter, but in reality if you believe that, you are simply a victim of an atheistic, irrational, close-minded Epicurean education system. Bloom’s point is the close-minded Epicurean educational system has stopped teaching the pros and cons of all positions, let alone Darwinian evolution (not one of Bloom’s concerns), and today’s close-minded Epicurean education fails to consider even the possibility that the no-mind, hedonistic, no "higher moral law" position could be false. Why?

Because it goes against the nutty, irrational "dogma" and "vision" of Dewey who was, of course, smarter than 99.99% of people, and he is rightly called the Father of Modern American Education. And Dewey’s and friends’ agenda is all being paid for by the tax payer and hard working people of America, directly or indirectly. And one of Obama’s and the Democrats’ key positions is much, much more money for these politically correct "educators." I wonder why?

Certainly there is something going on here in the realm of the spirit as much as the realm of the mind. Why? Dewey and company are clearly not stupid but pushing nutty, irrational even morally depraved positions as if they are brilliant, and allowing no other positions to even be discussed. Paul this calls this sort of stuff "doctrines of demons" that can take one captive, and I think correctly so.

The fact is man-made global warming by carbon dioxide has an even more bizarre history than even simplistic Darwinian evolution as true, proven and that is the end of the matter. Why? Because there is clearly something going on in the realm of the spirit as well as the intellect with the hysteria and power-plays surrounding this topic.

We have looked extensively at the fact that people, for whatever the reason, tend to "see" and "not see" different truths about life, and hence subsequently tend to think about things differently in the realm of the intellect. But the phenomenon of the irrational hysteria surrounding man-made global warming by carbon dioxide is something different yet again.

This is a true story with a few little changes to make the points flow a little more smoothly and to disconnect it from anybody directly a part of it. In the mid 1970s many people were talking about a new coming Ice Age, but I had a professor, who though not a scientist, had a scientific theory of his own. His novel at-that-time theory was the earth was like a green house, and carbon dioxide was a "green house gas," and if we produced enough of it, it would overheat the planet, and we would all die, etc. And this guy was a crusader for his theory with everybody he encountered. And he was virtually hysterical, and he held we had to stop burning virtually everything, immediately, or we would all die, etc.

I thought the theory was interesting though I was a bit skeptical, and I suggested to him (he was a very intelligent individual) that he do a study of the climate over the centuries and determine if we are actually warming significantly in our time, and if so, if it can be connected to an increase in carbon dioxide. This seemed rather obvious to me, if I do say so myself.

The question was to have actual data to support the hypothesis (in order to make it into actual science), and it should be fairly easy to come by the data if the situation was as dire as he thought. But he answered me by saying we do not have time to collect scientific data, because if my hypothesis is true and if the situation is as dire as I think it might be, we will all be dead or the North Pole will melt by 1985, etc. This guy was like Al Gore except 15 or more years ahead of him. It was an interesting hypothesis but with hardly a shred of scientific evidence (as far as I could tell), but this interesting idea created by my professor and others caused a similar total hysteria in the entire nation to such an extent as to change entire industrial and economic policies for the nation and the entire world. And, of course, this stuff was taught in schools at all levels as true and proven science, with little or no actual data to justify such hysteria and conviction for the truth of this hypothesis.

This is not a matter of intelligence nor of "seeing" the truth of man-made global warming by carbon dioxide, rather it is in the realm of the spirit an irrational fear, even hysteria, based on an unproved theory, which can and should be proven or at least semi-proven, so to speak, before one becomes so hysterical about it, and proving it should be fairly easy if someone is so motivated, but apparently no one is?

Man-made global warming is true, proven and that is the end of the matter; that is what we are told and taught because that is what its advocates say or maybe even think, but it is generally based to date not on scientific evidence or it would be all over the newspapers presumably, but rather the theory is based on a fear, indeed hysteria, that it might be true. This means that most of this issue is not a matter of "seeing" nor a matter of the intellect but of spirit.

The truth is in the realm of the sprit we as humans are subject to highly irrational fears and phobias for whatever the reasons, but this is not the kind of thing that should grip an entire nation in some crazy irrational way such that everybody thinks it and is worried about it, and we, again, start teaching it as "true, proven, and that is the end of the matter." Why? The supposed truth of man-made global warming by carbon dioxide is not the result of some specific plan by Dewey or even Al Gore, but it seems to have become something of a mass irrational group think, for whatever the reason, and the state has to intervene and control things, and again as with education more generally the solution is to return to a Rational discussion of the issues in education, this time not of Epicurean hedonism, but of science, of all things!

In any case Dewey and later friends did not think a simplistic Darwinian evolution was true and proven etc., but they wanted to teach that because to do otherwise would interfere with their atheistic totalitarian designs for nation by way of the education system. It is virtually impossible to set up a Stalinist totalitarian state when people believe in God and a real "higher moral law" for the individual or nation, and Dewey and friends in the 99.99 percentile atheist elite understood this completely, or so they say themselves, and I agree completely with that assessment, but I do not think "God" and a "higher moral law" are irrational "dogma," and I think you have to be pretty depraved to think that, and so do the overwhelming majority of un-indoctrinated people I would speculate.

Look, at best Darwinian evolution in some of its most important aspects (not all of course) is on serious life support systems with more and more people now saying the almost unthinkable but obvious to all but the most hardened true believer, namely, it is totally dead in its spontaneous generation aspects and in all likelihood in its macro-evolution aspects.

The almost certain implications of this are huge, of course, namely, there is a Creator God just as the Founders thought, and a "higher moral law" for the state just as the Founders thought, and a real personal morality for the individual, again, just as the Founders thought, and the supernatural reports of Scripture are also almost certainly true given an historical case study of them, and correspondingly the "legal positivism" (the state can do no real wrong), which the morally depraved, corrupted ruling 1% elite hold to be case and teach as exclusively true, without question, is dead in the water, forever, as is hedonistic, atheistic Epicureanism, which the morally depraved, corrupted ruling 1% elite also hold to be case and teach as exclusively true in the schools, and in fact the entire set of assumptions (of no possible supernatural and no real Righteous God, etc.) of the Christian and Jewish Liberals and of the so-called "higher critics" generally is also pretty dead in the water, presumably forever as well.

Tough luck for the morally depraved, corrupted ruling 1% elite, but by this stage in the game, they themselves are the victims of a morally depraved, corrupted close-minded Epicurean education system because this is about the only thing taught in the schools as even possibly true for the last 40 or 50 years. So at this point in 2011 one has to be probably in your 60s or 70s to have received anything like a truly decent education in America by historical standards anyway, because this is what was consciously, by design, removed from the schools by Dewey and friends and their indoctrinated followers.

Think about it, the society and even education of all things have become so messed up that we cannot apply common sense and even basic Rationality to hedonism for the individual, to tyranny for the state, and to social policy and even to hard science, of all things. Education, the culture, society and government have lost their Rationality, common sense and ability to "see" the most basic truths of life.

But regardless we tend to "see" different things to be true, and we tend to teach to others what we "see" to be true or what we have been taught to teach, and with education this is the real problem because teachers can only teach what they have been taught to teach, and most educators today cannot teach anything but an atheistic, close-minded Epicureanism in general education or "legal positivism" of one stripe or another in law or some form of "higher criticism" in the seminaries (as we will see next time).

I personally got a great education at 3 different universities in the 1970s concerning the history of Western philosophy, but you had to cherry pick the courses to find professors who both knew the history of Western philosophy and wanted to teach it, and in the 1970s this was becoming more and more difficult because the mission statements and core requirements of the schools were changing to fall in line larger close-minded Epicurean objectives.

This gets so crazy that Dewey as Marx and eventually Rorty and many others wanted consciously and specifically to remove the history of Western philosophy from the curriculum entirely quite simply because they felt it would interfere with the indoctrination of the people who would eventually become America’s teachers, law professors, and seminary professors in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a great violation of Reason and common sense to argue for hedonism, tyranny, and the state as God, and it pretty much requires removing all of America’s founding documents from the curriculum as well as the entire history of Western philosophy and all the great debates within that history, and of course the profound Christian influences on that history as well.

Just as one example, in classic studies one used to read Cicero extensively because he is so influential and important in history as things play out, but not read the Epicurean Lucretius, who was mentioned and summarized but not studied. However, today if you do anything with antiquity you probably do Lucretius and not Cicero, who is now not even mentioned.

The same is true with the great philosopher Justin Martyr, out of the curriculum and not mentioned, but in truth Justin is un-refuted to this day, and he does Christian apologetics and philosophy which changes the course of history and man’s knowledge on earth also to this very day, for better or worse, but most people have never even heard of him, while in fact his Logos Christology will solve almost all of our problems and is crucial for a developing a Kingdom Christianity.

Justin and Cicero are both "politically incorrect" to a close-minded Epicureanism, or that is atheistic hedonism, and so they were obviously very consciously removed from the curriculum by close-minded Epicureans in the early part of the 20th century, not very complicated? But, actually also so removed were the centrally important for America Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, were they not?

Or, another example the Bible was traditionally not seen as a threat to education, as the United States Supreme Court holds, outrageously! Indeed, quite the opposite. It was a foundational aid, but today it is virtually the only book in America banned by the Supreme Court from education by government. Isn’t that interesting? Why?

Close-minded Epicureanism will almost certainly not succeed in the presence of the Bible, of course, but Justin Martyr thinks almost the same thing could be said of Socrates. Why? The truth is atheistic hedonism is really a pretty lousy theory and not really very desirable and certainly not Rational, and in complete violation of common sense, and in order for it to succeed you have to get rid of all opposing views.

This is identical to the old Soviet Union where one got a doctrinaire Marxism as true and only Marxism. And the fact is Marxism is actually also a pretty lousy theory, which can only survive and thrive by shutting down Rational discussion and the presentation of any opposing views.

Much hedonistic stuff is a matter of the 1% "seeing" it, as supposedly brilliant, and then teaching it to millions, yet again. Is it really true that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality? I just cannot "see" the sameness. But of course for the radical, politically correct, close-minded Epicurean, he cannot "see" the difference, and he is serious, and one must accept that, and you are not allowed to teach they even might be different, or that there may some real differences in men and women (Bloom’s big one) or you cannot get your degree and even eventually get government money (for your school) or even student loans in some cases, etc. Why?

Statism can play its own brand of politically correct and outrageously tyrannical hard ball? The state does not have to sell itself in the public arena of ideas with the public, so the citizenry is stuck with whatever decrees some unseen policy director decides is current policy in education and elsewhere. How much publicly funded and state enforced postmodern, closed-minded hedonistic nonsense do we have in education? Who knows really? Presumably only the morally depraved, corrupted ruling 1% elite know, and all of this corruption is yet to be investigated by the news media or House hearings? But, regardless, today’s educational system is dominated by a radical ancient Epicureanism that does not have or even allow in an ounce of historical knowledge or philosophy (concerning America or otherwise), and 99% of the population just sits like a bump on a log and takes this nonsense, and pays for it!

A bottom-line here is traditionalists probably need to start creating and demanding statements of purpose for public financed education, presumably no less blunt than the Humanists have done with their Manifestos and other writings to implement their irrational, hedonistic educational agendas at public expense. (Indeed this could have been one argument for keeping the federal government and politics out of education entirely in the first place?)

Yet again, one might think every Leftist Epicurean as well as "legal positivist" politician should probably be tarred and feathered (figuratively speaking, of course) and run out of Washington and all the state capitals on a rail, but I do not think they should be publicly humiliated nor the Liberals who champion them, but they should certainly, by the democratic process, be removed from any position of major power or significant influence in government, law, and education, and not just these Epicurean, atheist, hedonist Radicals but also the countless Liberals who champion them?

In politics in particular this will be presumably every single Democrat and about half the Republicans, as the Tea Party will tell you if you bother to find out what they have to say, as they attempt to expose the corruption of Constitutional law as well as foolish policy decisions, fiscally and otherwise. Still, for our purposes here almost all of this mess has been created by people who, tragically, do not know how to do otherwise because they are themselves victims of our close-minded Epicurean educational system of the morally depraved, corrupted ruling 1% elite, corrupted at least by historical standards and to what presumably 99% of people normally "see" to be true. And this is probably the larger spiritual problem and tragedy, apart from politics, as such.

There is a real complication here to be blunt and fair to all involved, and that is we are several generations into all of this so-called "politically correct" generally postmodern nonsense. Many professors (through no fault of their own) not only buy into all the irrational hedonist stuff for the individual and irrational "legal positivist" statism for government but do not know there are any alternatives, or they have been so programmed to think in a variety of postmodern ideologies they cannot think any other way or any longer "see" things that are clear to anyone with the most basic common sense, and indeed this, again, is much, almost exactly in fact, as the ancient Epicurean who could not "see" any basic Natural Revelation of God and moral Good, which is clear to almost anyone with any common sense.

To common sense it is self-evident we have minds, the state can do real wrong and hence is not God, and hence there is real moral Good or Justice for the state, and we can, indeed, do others wrong, and hence there is a real moral (non-hedonistic) Good for the individual, and there is even Rational order to the Nature of man’s Good personally and politically, as well as Rational order to the physical world, which we call science.

The bottom-line here is...

The bottom-line here is today’s Epicurean says, in effect, to the Rational Moral Theist, I cannot "see" your real moral virtue for the individual nor a real Justice for the state (the ancient Epicureans were actually very apolitical) nor your Rational moral order to the Nature of things. And the Skeptic says I cannot decide between the two because I "see" valid points in each position and no conclusive answer for absolute total certainty.

Modern science comes along centuries later after antiquity of course, and the Epicurean and Skeptics of modernity accept science as Reasonable, correctly, but the modern Epicureans continue to throw out any real, Rational Moral order to the Nature of things, while the modern Skeptics do not throw out but refuse to embrace Rational Moral Theism.

And then history after the 18th century proceeded to unfold as outlined above, changing what people "see" and do "not see" by common sense or lost common sense and changing what you "see" and "see" as Rational and Good, and Paul argues this inability to see the Rational and the Good happens when you say "no" to God in your heart or radically change the definition of God, to be, say, all Love as license or an "angel of Light," etc., which in essence is the Great Apostasy and the virtual definition of Christian Liberalism, which we will see next time...

So, two "devil’s devices" down, "legal positivism" in the law schools as well as ancient Epicureanism and today’s close-minded Epicureanism (that is, close-minded, irrational, actually boring atheistic hedonism) in the colleges and universities. Now on to our third consideration "higher criticism" in the seminaries, which is clearly a more overt "Devil’s device" dealing with the (truth) substance and (spiritual) reality of the Christian and Jewish religions, specifically, next time, so join us then in the next few weeks on a coming Tuesday ...