By Paul Wolff
As I write this article the answer to the title question is easy to answer. No one murdered him. Bruce Jenner is still alive, though not well. If you are reading this article soon after I write this, then you likely will think that these facts make what is written below pure speculation at worst, and blind prophesy at best. I admit that what follows may include some speculation (though not as much as you might think) but it is not prophesy, and I pray that the outcome for Bruce Jenner is wrong, though I will show that the guilt of the murderers is certain, even if they do not fully accomplish the wicked deed.
If you are reading this after the death of Bruce Jenner, then you will likely think the answer to the title question is clear: Bruce Jenner died by his own hand. He murdered himself. That is what the news reports say, and that is what the lawful death certificate says, so few people will bother to think further about the facts of this tragedy. The only problem is that it isn’t completely true. As happened at the death of entertainer Michael Jackson, some idiot like Jesse Jackson (no relation) will likely be quoted as saying, “We didn’t see this coming.” That is not true with either Michael Jackson or Bruce Jenner, except among those who willfully turned a blind eye to the events which led to the tragedy described above.
I am not saying that the facts of the case will not fully support the official story of suicide. That will be true as far as it goes. The problem that I am concerned with is that it will not go far enough to explain why it happened the way it did. As I write this I have absolutely no idea about the details of how it happened (because it hasn’t happened, yet). But I am sadly confident that some series of events will play out and result in the suicide of Bruce Jenner. After this happens some may suggest that my general foreseeing of this is either a lucky guess, or magic, or prophesy. I assure you it is none of these. It comes from a knowledge of the human condition, and a study of how these things work according to what George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (see my article “Conserving History”)
Those who know human behavior can see that history does have a tendency to repeat itself. As the events unfold it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The final outcome eventually becomes inevitable. The only mystery is the dirty details. That is what happened with Michael Jackson. No one was surprised when Michael Jackson died that he, himself, was mostly to blame for his own death. Yes, Jesse Jackson claimed ignorance, but I believe even that was disingenuous. I also do not want to dismiss the role that Jackson’s doctor played in his death. He certainly was guilty of murder, though if it wasn’t him it would have been someone else. I don’t doubt that Jackson had seen plenty of ethical doctors who tried to help him and prevent his self-destruction, but he kept firing them until he found one who cared more for money than his well-being and would do what he wanted. Michael Jackson had been engaging in self-destructive behavior for over 20 years before his death. Ever since he first cut off his nose everyone could see that his life would not end well.
Bruce Jenner is obviously not a well man. Some are trying to say that he is no longer a man at all, and they are the murderers I alluded to above, and I will get to the specifics of their guilt soon, but of course Jenner is still a man, and will remain a man until the day he dies. Any man who thinks he is a woman is obviously not well. Furthermore, a man who thinks he is a woman and then acts on this false belief is beyond unwell, and is actively self-destructive. Even worse is a man who thinks he is a woman and acts on this false belief to the extent that he makes himself appear sort of womanly and presents himself as this woman-like person on worldwide TV and in magazines.
As I write this Bruce Jenner is only two questions away from his ultimate demise. They are:
1) “Why am I still unhappy and/or unfulfilled?”
2) “What have I done?”
These questions are sure to come very soon after Bruce Jenner becomes yesterday’s news. However, neither of these questions must necessarily lead to the suicide of anyone, including Bruce Jenner, but when these questions arise who will be there to give him the honest answers that will lead him toward healing rather than feeding him more lies which will only deepen his despair?
Why is (was) Bruce Jenner still unhappy and/or unfulfilled after “becoming” a woman in his own eyes and in the eyes of media? I have no doubt that after his death the loudest voices will say that it was the naysayers who “pushed him over the edge” or something to that effect. However that is obviously false. As far as I know all those around Jenner and those in the media to whom he is seeking affirmation are only giving the message that he was “brave” and “courageous”, and that anyone who says otherwise is denounced as “bigoted” or “hateful” so these voices are pretty much silenced. The only voices that Jenner is hearing are those who are telling him what he wants to hear and they are the ones who are truly responsible for his death.
The claim that those who state the truth, and say “the emperor has no clothes” are bigoted haters is so ridiculous that it would be hilariously funny if it weren’t so tragic. This is a man’s life they are destroying. That is why I say they are murderers. Neither Bruce Jenner, nor anyone like him, can ever be happy or fulfilled as long as he believes he is something that he is not (and can never be). Bruce Jenner won the men’s decathlon at the 1976 Olympics. Bruce Jenner was born male, and every cell in his body testifies to the fact that he is a man and will be until the day he dies. There is nothing anyone can do to change any of these facts. It is certain that simply playing dress-up and pretending to be a woman doesn’t change a man into a woman.
If anyone cares for Bruce Jenner they will tell him the truth that he is a man and can’t change that reality, no matter how much he feels differently, or desires to feel differently. Any feeling or desire which is inherently contrary to an unchangeable fact is certain to result in frustration or confusion or sadness or depression or despair or any combination of these. It is not hateful or hurtful or bigoted or wrong to tell someone the truth about themselves just because they don’t want to hear it. On the contrary, it is surely far more hurtful to encourage someone in his delusion, because once he comes to his senses and begins to understand what a fool he has been then he is more likely to despair.
If you type “Bruce Jenner” into your Internet search engine you will likely find many of the biography pages of this man have been edited to refer to him completely as a woman, even though he has fathered six children. It is a willful lie to refer to this man as a woman, but the media are nearly universal in this false conceit. Just because Bruce Jenner says (or even believes) that he is a woman, it does not make it true. As an illustration, I may want to believe that I am God, but that doesn’t make it true. I may convince myself and others that I am God, but that doesn’t make it true. Even if I believed with all my heart that I am God, and were able to convince everyone in the whole world that I was God, it would still be false. There is no amount of wanting nor believing that can make something false into something true. All claims to the contrary are lies.
All those who heap praises upon Bruce Jenner affirming his delusion that he is a woman are not helping him in any way. They may think they are doing him a great favor, but in truth they are doing him a great disservice. In fact, they are guilty of murdering him. It is true that they will never be found guilty in the legal sense, but they are guilty in the moral sense. Jesus taught in His Sermon on the Mount that in God’s eyes it is not enough to avoid taking someone’s life directly, but that God considers it murder to hate or neglect or even insult one’s neighbor. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ (an insult) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:21-22)
One example of how these kind of actions can result in murder was Jack Kevorkian. Not all of the people whom Kevorkian was guilty of murdering died by his hand alone (though many were actually murdered by Kevorkian, even though the cause of death was ruled “suicide”). He caused the death of many people simply by misusing his credibility as a “doctor” (he was actually a pathologist) to convince many people that their lives weren’t worth living. Although Kevorkian was falsely portrayed as dealing with patients who were already dying or chronically ill, most of the people killed by Kevorkian (60% according to a Detroit News study) were neither dying, nor were they chronically ill. Some had depression, but instead of treating the depression, and giving comfort, Kevorkian pushed them from depression into despair until they all wanted to die – to the extent of killing themselves or even letting Kevorkian murder them. He did this claiming “compassion”, but it is not really compassionate to tell people that they are better off dead.
I understand that many people will claim that the argument that I have presented in this article is “bigoted” or “hateful” but there is nothing truly bigoted nor hateful in this essay. I do not wish any harm on Bruce Jenner nor on those who are encouraging him in his delusion. On the contrary, I only wish the best for all these people. However, I am certain that the only way they will even begin to find peace and contentment is if they learn to live as the gender they are, rather than as the gender they think they are, or want to be. It is a false delusion to believe that you will be happier or more content playing a gender charade pretending to be a different gender than you are.
What may yet save Bruce Jenner is his Christian faith, if he still believes. If Bruce recognizes his sin and repents of all this foolishness, and then trusts in Jesus to forgive him for his rebellious delusions, then he will truly find peace, and will be able to live with himself as he is. When the world has gotten from Jenner what it wants and then has no use for him, it is likely that only his Christian friends, and family, will care enough for him to give him the forgiveness he needs to live with himself. I’m
not saying that he won’t still desire to be a woman, but once he
repents then he will live a lot longer because he will be less likely to
fall into despair once the worldly people turn against him.
I am not unaware that what I have written above has broader implications about gender confusion than just how it applies to Bruce Jenner or so-called “transgender” identity. The arguments I made above apply just as well to all forms of perversions of natural, or God-given, sexuality including: adultery, homosexuality, narcissism, and others. It is only in the interest of space that I do not deal with these issues here further.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Monday, February 4, 2013
Darwinism is Bad Religion
by Paul Wolff
The radio program Issues Etc. had an interview on June 8, 2012 about Creation and Faith and Reason. Guest Ken Samples was asked to respond to the charge some Darwinists make against Christians that “The idea of god is the result of intellectual laziness.” His response was that “Science can only work within a specific universe, and it was the Christian world-view that fueled the desire to discover nature, because God had created it.” This answer shows the historical truth that Christians invented science which discovers how the world works through experimentation because they believe in a God who is rational and created an orderly world. That is a fine answer, but I would answer the question a different way.
It is very telling that the Darwinists are concerned about “intellectual laziness.” Darwinists are storytellers and myth purveyors. Charles Darwin did not come to his conclusions from his observations. Darwin started with the assumption that there is no God and he went from there to try to find evidence that might possibly fit his hypothesis. The Origin of Species is a book of fiction which attempts to describe a naturalistic world without God. This is a world which doesn’t exist. It is not even the world that science observes!
No one has ever observed any living thing evolving into something else. There is no natural mechanism for evolutionary change. All the claimed examples of supposed evolution are better explained by natural variation already contained in the genes of the observed organism. The mechanism of the genes works for long term stability, not change. So when Darwinists complain about the “intellectual laziness” of creationism (or even Intelligent Design) what they mean is that they think themselves better storytellers than those scientists who are more interested in the truth than in inventing a fictional godless universe.
Many of the specific explanations that Charles Darwin proposed have been disproved by science. Nevertheless, the idea of a godless universe has so captivated sinners that they won’t let it die. The myth of a naturalistic universe that has evolved without God has been rewritten many times since Darwin’s day in an attempt to account for scientific discoveries. Darwinists will admit to this, and will admit that the current theories of evolution have very little in common with The Origin of Species except for the idea of a universe without God. In this way the “science” of evolution has become more about creative fiction writing than about making scientific discoveries.
The practice of science has become about innovation, but this is a change from what it should be. The scientific method is all about discovery, not innovation. The innovation comes when the scientific discoveries are applied, but that’s engineering and medicine, not science. The scientific method is all about observing and testing ideas about how the world works. These days much of what passes for science is really wild speculations based on unproven assertions. There is a lot (mostly dealing with Darwinism & evolution) which doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, and when scientific investigation shows the weakness of these ideas then the real scientists are accused of being anti-intellectual by the Darwinist zealots, but the Darwinists cannot prove evolution with the same scientific investigation.
I believe that Darwinism was completely disproved over 50 years ago with the discovery by Watson and Crick of how the DNA molecule is structured (even though Francis Crick, at least, remained a Darwinist, and James Watson may have done so, too). If the DNA molecule works the way that Watson and Crick discovered, then there can be no macro-evolution. The structure of the DNA molecule works like a computer program which is so incredibly complex that it could not have come together accidentally. The DNA molecule is also remarkably stable in its transmission of accurate information. This means that mutations are extremely rare, and when there is a mutation it nearly always diminishes the functionality of the organism (i.e. kills it) rather than improves it. That is why we have living fossils like the coelacanth fish which hasn’t changed appreciably in 400,000,000 years (according to Darwinists).
Some Darwinists say that “science disproves the existence of God.” but they are the ones being “intellectually lazy.” First of all, science cannot prove nor disprove God, and for anyone to say otherwise is “intellectually lazy.” If God truly is God (and how could He be otherwise), He is above His creation, and cannot be limited by it or especially by naturalistic explanations of what creatures think God must be. Secondly, Darwinism assumes from the start that there is no God and only tries to describe a world without God. It doesn’t prove God’s supposed nonexistence. Darwinists say, “If there is no god, then evolution must be true, so therefore there can be no god.” This is circular reasoning at its worst so that it ends up being a non sequitur.
The science of “intelligent design” (I.D.) came about because there is good evidence in science which contradicts Darwinism and the I.D. scientists are honest enough to try to account for these facts. The science of I.D. cannot prove the existence of God, nor the opposite, but it can disprove naturalistic evolution. Darwinists have no answer to the scientists who have shown that I.D. has experimental merit. That is why Darwinists frequently respond by attacking the motives of the I.D. scientists rather than disproving their findings. In this way Darwinists act more like religious zealots suppressing the truth rather than as true scientists eager to find the truth about how the world works, no matter what that truth may be.
Darwinism’s claimed fundamental mechanism of change is accidental mutation. You don’t get a science that relies on repeatable experimental observations from Darwinism. This is what Ken Samples was saying in his Issues Etc. interview. Darwinism relies on accidents and random mutations, and that is something that is not repeatable. In fact, the complexity of the needed mutations is so vast that it is statistically impossible. Note that it is not improbable, it is impossible. Because of this, Darwinism is anti-science. If all that exists came about by random chance and accidents, then nothing is sure or predictable or reliable, and there can be no science as we know it because nothing can be predictable.
There may be some creationists who are intellectually lazy, but to label all who believe in God as such is dishonest. There are enough flaws in the theory of evolution that it must be questioned. Those who ignore the gaps in order to maintain that evolution describes how the world came to be are not scientists, they are atheistic religious zealots who aren’t really honest about the proper use of science. Darwinism isn’t just bad science, it is bad religion.
The radio program Issues Etc. had an interview on June 8, 2012 about Creation and Faith and Reason. Guest Ken Samples was asked to respond to the charge some Darwinists make against Christians that “The idea of god is the result of intellectual laziness.” His response was that “Science can only work within a specific universe, and it was the Christian world-view that fueled the desire to discover nature, because God had created it.” This answer shows the historical truth that Christians invented science which discovers how the world works through experimentation because they believe in a God who is rational and created an orderly world. That is a fine answer, but I would answer the question a different way.
It is very telling that the Darwinists are concerned about “intellectual laziness.” Darwinists are storytellers and myth purveyors. Charles Darwin did not come to his conclusions from his observations. Darwin started with the assumption that there is no God and he went from there to try to find evidence that might possibly fit his hypothesis. The Origin of Species is a book of fiction which attempts to describe a naturalistic world without God. This is a world which doesn’t exist. It is not even the world that science observes!
No one has ever observed any living thing evolving into something else. There is no natural mechanism for evolutionary change. All the claimed examples of supposed evolution are better explained by natural variation already contained in the genes of the observed organism. The mechanism of the genes works for long term stability, not change. So when Darwinists complain about the “intellectual laziness” of creationism (or even Intelligent Design) what they mean is that they think themselves better storytellers than those scientists who are more interested in the truth than in inventing a fictional godless universe.
Many of the specific explanations that Charles Darwin proposed have been disproved by science. Nevertheless, the idea of a godless universe has so captivated sinners that they won’t let it die. The myth of a naturalistic universe that has evolved without God has been rewritten many times since Darwin’s day in an attempt to account for scientific discoveries. Darwinists will admit to this, and will admit that the current theories of evolution have very little in common with The Origin of Species except for the idea of a universe without God. In this way the “science” of evolution has become more about creative fiction writing than about making scientific discoveries.
The practice of science has become about innovation, but this is a change from what it should be. The scientific method is all about discovery, not innovation. The innovation comes when the scientific discoveries are applied, but that’s engineering and medicine, not science. The scientific method is all about observing and testing ideas about how the world works. These days much of what passes for science is really wild speculations based on unproven assertions. There is a lot (mostly dealing with Darwinism & evolution) which doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, and when scientific investigation shows the weakness of these ideas then the real scientists are accused of being anti-intellectual by the Darwinist zealots, but the Darwinists cannot prove evolution with the same scientific investigation.
I believe that Darwinism was completely disproved over 50 years ago with the discovery by Watson and Crick of how the DNA molecule is structured (even though Francis Crick, at least, remained a Darwinist, and James Watson may have done so, too). If the DNA molecule works the way that Watson and Crick discovered, then there can be no macro-evolution. The structure of the DNA molecule works like a computer program which is so incredibly complex that it could not have come together accidentally. The DNA molecule is also remarkably stable in its transmission of accurate information. This means that mutations are extremely rare, and when there is a mutation it nearly always diminishes the functionality of the organism (i.e. kills it) rather than improves it. That is why we have living fossils like the coelacanth fish which hasn’t changed appreciably in 400,000,000 years (according to Darwinists).
Some Darwinists say that “science disproves the existence of God.” but they are the ones being “intellectually lazy.” First of all, science cannot prove nor disprove God, and for anyone to say otherwise is “intellectually lazy.” If God truly is God (and how could He be otherwise), He is above His creation, and cannot be limited by it or especially by naturalistic explanations of what creatures think God must be. Secondly, Darwinism assumes from the start that there is no God and only tries to describe a world without God. It doesn’t prove God’s supposed nonexistence. Darwinists say, “If there is no god, then evolution must be true, so therefore there can be no god.” This is circular reasoning at its worst so that it ends up being a non sequitur.
The science of “intelligent design” (I.D.) came about because there is good evidence in science which contradicts Darwinism and the I.D. scientists are honest enough to try to account for these facts. The science of I.D. cannot prove the existence of God, nor the opposite, but it can disprove naturalistic evolution. Darwinists have no answer to the scientists who have shown that I.D. has experimental merit. That is why Darwinists frequently respond by attacking the motives of the I.D. scientists rather than disproving their findings. In this way Darwinists act more like religious zealots suppressing the truth rather than as true scientists eager to find the truth about how the world works, no matter what that truth may be.
Darwinism’s claimed fundamental mechanism of change is accidental mutation. You don’t get a science that relies on repeatable experimental observations from Darwinism. This is what Ken Samples was saying in his Issues Etc. interview. Darwinism relies on accidents and random mutations, and that is something that is not repeatable. In fact, the complexity of the needed mutations is so vast that it is statistically impossible. Note that it is not improbable, it is impossible. Because of this, Darwinism is anti-science. If all that exists came about by random chance and accidents, then nothing is sure or predictable or reliable, and there can be no science as we know it because nothing can be predictable.
There may be some creationists who are intellectually lazy, but to label all who believe in God as such is dishonest. There are enough flaws in the theory of evolution that it must be questioned. Those who ignore the gaps in order to maintain that evolution describes how the world came to be are not scientists, they are atheistic religious zealots who aren’t really honest about the proper use of science. Darwinism isn’t just bad science, it is bad religion.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Racism: A Universal Definition
With Corollaries
(First in a series)
by Paul Wolff
Note-1: Why a universal definition? A universal definition of racism is required to avoid the relativism which condemns all racism except that which benefits me. A universal definition of racism is needed because racism is always evil, no matter who is supposed to benefit from it and no matter who is supposed to be harmed by it. One cannot adequately fight racism unless one is able to identify it in all its forms from the very beginning. If you use a definition which leaves out some forms of racism that is like trying to close the door to the hen house after the fox has had a chicken dinner and carried off a few more to feed her pups. I once read a book in which the author explicitly defined racism in such a way which only condemned that which sought to benefit “white” and diminish “black” but not the other way around. Such a definition was very convenient for the author who sought to condemn “white racism” while turning a blind eye to her own racist views. By defining racism in this way, she was able to portray herself as righteous and others as “racists”(see Corollary 1b & Corollary 4).
Note-2: This definition assumes that there is one human race. I believe that all people are descended from Adam and Eve who were created by the Almighty, Triune God in the beginning. Such belief, however, is not necessary to come to the same conclusions presented here concerning race. Since all creation shows the glory and the wisdom of God, who created everything (see Psalm 19:1), there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence to confirm what I say here, especially in the realm of genetics. All the characteristics which have been used to define multiple “races” are superficial or subjective and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny (that is to say these unique characteristics either don’t exist or they are not peculiar to any one group of people to the exclusion of any others).
Note-3: The only valid universal distinctions between people are the original distinctions created by God in the beginning, that is, the gender distinction of men and women. Curiously, the “intellectual” culture would diminish the valid distinction of gender and embellish the invalid distinction of races. Scientific research affirms that there are only two genders (male and female) and that the differences between the “races” are only superficial or subjective. Because people are sinful they want to justify their sinful behavior so they invent additional “genders” to justify their wicked behavior and they invent additional “races” to cover up their insecurities and make them feel superior to other people.
Note-4: The primary evil of racism is in dividing people by making false distinctions. All the other evils of racism necessarily follow from this primary evil. Making these false racial distinctions is where racism begins. It is the primary evil because all of the other evils of racism follow from this false idea and without this there is no racism. The desired outcome of racism which is the benefit of one “race” over “another” is only a secondary evil which cannot be undone by “reverse racism.” The evil of racism is only multiplied by this false solution.
Corollary-1a: Racism is not hatred, though they are related. Racism always leads to hatred, but it doesn’t begin there. Racism begins by saying that there are racial distinctions. Then racism says that among these imagined distinctions one (or more) is better than another (or others). Then racism says that one or more is best and others are worse. Then racism says that one is good and others are evil. It will go further if not checked – the last step is that the “good” must to seek to destroy the “evil”. Therefore racism exists along a continuum, and though some points along the continuum seem to be more evil than others, it is all racism and none of it is good.
Corollary-1b: No one would ever become a racist if racism always equated with hatred. It always starts innocently by wanting only good things for the group to which one belongs or otherwise identifies with. In this way racism is easy. That is why it is so prevalent in our culture. Even though racism isn’t hatred it is still evil, even in its most “innocent” form. Simply acknowledging divisions among people which don’t exist in reality creates an “us vs. them” mentality which leads racists to believe that one is better than another, or one is deserving of special or favored treatment over another based on the criterion of the division.
Corollary-2: Racism does not always mean that you believe that your own race is superior or even worthy of special consideration. The most obvious view of racism is that people believe that their race is superior and worthy of special consideration to further the good which their own race brings to the world. I have seen racism where people believe there own race is inferior, but worthy of special consideration. I have also seen racism where people believe their own race is superior, but believe another race is worthy of special consideration. All of these ideas are evil.
Corollary-3a: There is no such thing as black people. All people are varying shades of brown. The pigment which makes up the brown color in people’s skin (melanin) is the same in all people, and has infinite degrees of variability, even in the same family. It isn’t a “yes or no” kind of thing. The term “black” or “negro” or any such variation, is an exaggeration which most often has pejorative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-3b: There is no such thing as white people. The reasons are the same as in Corollary-3a above. All people are various shades of brown. The foolishness of making these false distinctions is seen by the fact that there are some people who are considered “white” who are darker brown than others who are considered “black”. The term “white” is an exaggeration which may have positive or negative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present (or absent) in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-4: In a racist society, some things which are called racism are not. Much that is not called racism is. This is a tricky one. Racists don’t usually want to be identified as such because if they admitted the truth then they could no longer claim that what they are doing is righteous. They usually call their racist favoritism “justice” or “balancing the scales” or some such noble deed like “favoring those who are most deserving”. However, in a racist society those who treat all people equally and expect the same kind of civilized behavior from all people without regard to race are called “racist” because they do not give preferential treatment to those of the favored “race” and those who rely on that favoritism to make their lives easier complain that this is “racist” when it is truly the exact opposite.
Corollary-5: Racism is not only found in the church, the Christian church is primarily responsible for the propagation of racism in society. This one is not obvious. Whether racism starts in the church or not, I cannot say. It may or it may not begin in the church, but whenever the church takes a stand against racism it cannot continue in Christian society. Also, whenever the church is silent or complicit in acknowledging racist attitudes then it only gets worse in the secular society.
Corollary-6: America in the early 21st Century is a racist society. It has been racist at least since the 17th century (and maybe was so even before Columbus discovered the New World). Neither the Civil War of the 19th century nor the Civil Rights laws of the 20th century eliminated racism. The specifics have shifted, however. The favored “race” is currently those people who are considered “black” in some form or another. The only accepted racism is that which favors those who are considered “black” or sometimes “Hispanic” (but rarely “Asian”) over those considered “white.”
Corollary-7: The descendants of aboriginal North Americans are likewise not helped by racist preferential treatment. “Reservations,” “Indian Casinos,” and other preferential treatment of so-called “Native Americans” are cruel racist jokes and do not truly serve the needs of the people who “benefit” from them. Both society as a whole and members of these groups are best served by assimilating into the greater culture as have the vast majority of subsequent immigrants such as Germans, Scottish, Irish, Italians, etc.
Corollary-8: Darwinists are inherently racist based on their false ideas about God and the origin and “evolution” of Man. They may claim otherwise, but whoever believes in some form of Darwinian evolution already believes that there is this process of “evolution” where creatures somehow magically (i.e. against all that is scientifically known) transform into something different and more “advanced”. Because of this Darwinists will always think that some people are better or more “evolved” than others.
(First in a series)
by Paul Wolff
Racism is any thought, word, or action which divides the one human race into multiple “races” based on superficial or imagined characteristics.
Note-1: Why a universal definition? A universal definition of racism is required to avoid the relativism which condemns all racism except that which benefits me. A universal definition of racism is needed because racism is always evil, no matter who is supposed to benefit from it and no matter who is supposed to be harmed by it. One cannot adequately fight racism unless one is able to identify it in all its forms from the very beginning. If you use a definition which leaves out some forms of racism that is like trying to close the door to the hen house after the fox has had a chicken dinner and carried off a few more to feed her pups. I once read a book in which the author explicitly defined racism in such a way which only condemned that which sought to benefit “white” and diminish “black” but not the other way around. Such a definition was very convenient for the author who sought to condemn “white racism” while turning a blind eye to her own racist views. By defining racism in this way, she was able to portray herself as righteous and others as “racists”(see Corollary 1b & Corollary 4).
Note-2: This definition assumes that there is one human race. I believe that all people are descended from Adam and Eve who were created by the Almighty, Triune God in the beginning. Such belief, however, is not necessary to come to the same conclusions presented here concerning race. Since all creation shows the glory and the wisdom of God, who created everything (see Psalm 19:1), there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence to confirm what I say here, especially in the realm of genetics. All the characteristics which have been used to define multiple “races” are superficial or subjective and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny (that is to say these unique characteristics either don’t exist or they are not peculiar to any one group of people to the exclusion of any others).
Note-3: The only valid universal distinctions between people are the original distinctions created by God in the beginning, that is, the gender distinction of men and women. Curiously, the “intellectual” culture would diminish the valid distinction of gender and embellish the invalid distinction of races. Scientific research affirms that there are only two genders (male and female) and that the differences between the “races” are only superficial or subjective. Because people are sinful they want to justify their sinful behavior so they invent additional “genders” to justify their wicked behavior and they invent additional “races” to cover up their insecurities and make them feel superior to other people.
Note-4: The primary evil of racism is in dividing people by making false distinctions. All the other evils of racism necessarily follow from this primary evil. Making these false racial distinctions is where racism begins. It is the primary evil because all of the other evils of racism follow from this false idea and without this there is no racism. The desired outcome of racism which is the benefit of one “race” over “another” is only a secondary evil which cannot be undone by “reverse racism.” The evil of racism is only multiplied by this false solution.
Corollary-1a: Racism is not hatred, though they are related. Racism always leads to hatred, but it doesn’t begin there. Racism begins by saying that there are racial distinctions. Then racism says that among these imagined distinctions one (or more) is better than another (or others). Then racism says that one or more is best and others are worse. Then racism says that one is good and others are evil. It will go further if not checked – the last step is that the “good” must to seek to destroy the “evil”. Therefore racism exists along a continuum, and though some points along the continuum seem to be more evil than others, it is all racism and none of it is good.
Corollary-1b: No one would ever become a racist if racism always equated with hatred. It always starts innocently by wanting only good things for the group to which one belongs or otherwise identifies with. In this way racism is easy. That is why it is so prevalent in our culture. Even though racism isn’t hatred it is still evil, even in its most “innocent” form. Simply acknowledging divisions among people which don’t exist in reality creates an “us vs. them” mentality which leads racists to believe that one is better than another, or one is deserving of special or favored treatment over another based on the criterion of the division.
Corollary-2: Racism does not always mean that you believe that your own race is superior or even worthy of special consideration. The most obvious view of racism is that people believe that their race is superior and worthy of special consideration to further the good which their own race brings to the world. I have seen racism where people believe there own race is inferior, but worthy of special consideration. I have also seen racism where people believe their own race is superior, but believe another race is worthy of special consideration. All of these ideas are evil.
Corollary-3a: There is no such thing as black people. All people are varying shades of brown. The pigment which makes up the brown color in people’s skin (melanin) is the same in all people, and has infinite degrees of variability, even in the same family. It isn’t a “yes or no” kind of thing. The term “black” or “negro” or any such variation, is an exaggeration which most often has pejorative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-3b: There is no such thing as white people. The reasons are the same as in Corollary-3a above. All people are various shades of brown. The foolishness of making these false distinctions is seen by the fact that there are some people who are considered “white” who are darker brown than others who are considered “black”. The term “white” is an exaggeration which may have positive or negative connotations as to the state of one’s soul which may or may not be accurate, but either way has nothing to do with the amount of melanin present (or absent) in the skin. Neither do any such superficial physical characteristics have anything to do with a person’s worth, or lack thereof.
Corollary-4: In a racist society, some things which are called racism are not. Much that is not called racism is. This is a tricky one. Racists don’t usually want to be identified as such because if they admitted the truth then they could no longer claim that what they are doing is righteous. They usually call their racist favoritism “justice” or “balancing the scales” or some such noble deed like “favoring those who are most deserving”. However, in a racist society those who treat all people equally and expect the same kind of civilized behavior from all people without regard to race are called “racist” because they do not give preferential treatment to those of the favored “race” and those who rely on that favoritism to make their lives easier complain that this is “racist” when it is truly the exact opposite.
Corollary-5: Racism is not only found in the church, the Christian church is primarily responsible for the propagation of racism in society. This one is not obvious. Whether racism starts in the church or not, I cannot say. It may or it may not begin in the church, but whenever the church takes a stand against racism it cannot continue in Christian society. Also, whenever the church is silent or complicit in acknowledging racist attitudes then it only gets worse in the secular society.
Corollary-6: America in the early 21st Century is a racist society. It has been racist at least since the 17th century (and maybe was so even before Columbus discovered the New World). Neither the Civil War of the 19th century nor the Civil Rights laws of the 20th century eliminated racism. The specifics have shifted, however. The favored “race” is currently those people who are considered “black” in some form or another. The only accepted racism is that which favors those who are considered “black” or sometimes “Hispanic” (but rarely “Asian”) over those considered “white.”
Corollary-7: The descendants of aboriginal North Americans are likewise not helped by racist preferential treatment. “Reservations,” “Indian Casinos,” and other preferential treatment of so-called “Native Americans” are cruel racist jokes and do not truly serve the needs of the people who “benefit” from them. Both society as a whole and members of these groups are best served by assimilating into the greater culture as have the vast majority of subsequent immigrants such as Germans, Scottish, Irish, Italians, etc.
Corollary-8: Darwinists are inherently racist based on their false ideas about God and the origin and “evolution” of Man. They may claim otherwise, but whoever believes in some form of Darwinian evolution already believes that there is this process of “evolution” where creatures somehow magically (i.e. against all that is scientifically known) transform into something different and more “advanced”. Because of this Darwinists will always think that some people are better or more “evolved” than others.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Conserving History
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana The Life of Reason (1905-1906) Vol.1, Reason in Common SenseHistory is greatly devalued in our society. This is especially true at the University level where studies have shown that students graduating from even formerly prestigious Ivy League schools know less when they graduate than when they finished high school. Although I didn’t go to such a prestigious school as Harvard I had a similar experience with an ultra-liberal Liberal Arts university education. I believe that the reason students come out knowing less than when they started is that the schools not only teach students to have contempt for historical facts, but they also teach revisionist (i.e. wrong and/or untrue) history. It took me years to unlearn most of the crap that I learned at the University, and I am not sure I have done it all.
Since Santayana’s famous quote has many close variations, I went searching to get the accurate quote and I found the more contextual quote above. I was a little surprised (pleasantly so) that it promotes a kind of conservatism, though I suppose if I had put more thought into it before now I would not be so surprised. The famous part of the quote logically flows from the idea that progress builds on retentiveness, and constant change results in perpetual infancy.
I do not promote conservatism for the sake of conservatism, nor for the sake of progress, but only for the sake of Christ Jesus. Faithful Lutherans are natural conservatives. Dr. Martin Luther was very careful in his reformation of the Church to keep everything that testified of Christ and only to toss out those things which were anti-Christian. Luther did this while being criticized by Rome for being a radical rebel, and while being criticized by the radical reformers for not being willing to go farther and throw out everything that reminded people of the Roman church.
Luther was conservative in the best possible way because he retained everything good (Christ) and only threw away what was harmful (semi-pelagianism, works-righteousness, etc.) Because the radical reformers acted more against Rome than for Christ they (and their present day descendants) ended up more like Rome in substance (works-righteousness) even though the Lutherans seemed more like Rome superficially in their liturgy and worship practices.
Though I am not sure that Santayana would have agreed, the dim view (“condemned”) of repeating history is a worldly acknowledgment of mankind’s original sin. Original Sin is the inherited corruption that all people are born with since Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden. Man is corrupt by nature so any innovation disregarding the mistakes of the past will end up in wickedness. Here history simply confirms the truth of Holy Scripture in the teaching of Original Sin.
A conservative view of history and education is nothing new. God commanded such a view going way back to ancient times. He told His people through Moses, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” {Deuteronomy 6:5-9 (ESV)} The purpose of this command was to encourage the people to remember God’s promises to send a savior to redeem the world from sin. Forgetting God’s history of salvation meant condemnation. Remembering God’s promises (and trusting in them) meant salvation and everlasting life after death.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Who have you forgotten today?
It has been my observation that Christ has been forgotten. This has happened not only in society, where you would expect Him to be forgotten, but it has happened in the Church where He ought to be continually remembered in everything that we do.
This blog will chronicle my further observations of the tragic consequences in Church and society where Christ has been forgotten.
This blog will chronicle my further observations of the tragic consequences in Church and society where Christ has been forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)