Revelation and Myth
The word revelation simply means an unveiling or the lifting of the veil. We often use the word in a religious sense as an unveiling of the Uncreated One or the essence we call God, but the word God is a metaphor that points beyond itself to what is beyond and transcends human intelligence. The word God itself is a revelation because it brings that mystical essence a step closer to our consciousness. The word God to some degree enables us to communicate with each other about this mystical essence and our experiences of it. We men have been analyzing and refining our knowledge of this Totally Other since the dawn of human consciousness. Some have even pretended to be that consciousness when men had a corporal view of God. It was the nation of Israel that first codified that God could not be imaged by the human mind, a revelation which could be traced back to Moses and his encounter with God on the sacred mountain. The Uncreated One is not a creature that man has the right to name just as Adam named the animals brought before him. Be careful about speaking of God.
It’s not hard to figure out how revelation worked. In the past, men experienced the Totally Other in various ways. When they talk to others about their experience there seems to be a thread that connected these experiences, a thread which basically said that there was something beyond the mere physical. Something so lofty that the human mind could not comprehend it. It was this something that primitive man gave the title God.
This helps us to understand the ancient myths. Myths mediated the presence of God to mankind through story and poetry. It was through these forms of mediation that the ground and foundation of All Beings began to reveal himself to mankind. This is why we see a thread, though sometimes thin, of the same themes in myth and story throughout the world.
You could say that the myths were the temples God used as a meeting places with men. They were the bridge that spanned the chasm between the spiritual and the physical. Myths are metaphors that come alive in story form. In the New Testimony, Jesus became the living temple and bridge where man can meet God. Unfortunately, some men are metaphorically disadvantaged because of their concrete thinking, which came about by a scientism that denies anything other than our sense experiences.
What about Jesus and revelation? Well, Jesus is the image or revelation of God. He said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” The apostle Paul refers to him as “the image of the invisible God.” Paul goes on to say that God packed into Jesus everything that humans could possibly know about God. So in that sense Jesus is THE revelation of God. Jesus became a living metaphor that pointed to God. That’s why John could say the word (revelation) became flesh and dwelled among us (John 1:14). He goes to say, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (John 1:17-18) The Word, The myths, The Forms and The Archetypes all took on a bodily form in Jesus. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority (Col 2:9-10).
 Definition of Myth:1 a: a usually Definition of Myth:1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon creation myths b: PARABLE, ALLEGORY Moral responsibility is the motif of Plato’s myths.
 In his book “The Idea of The Holy: An Inquiry into The Non-Rational Factor in The Idea of The Divine and Its’ Relation to The Rational”, Rudolf Otto gives an excellent overview of these mystical experiences and encounters with the Totally Other.
 Hebrews 1:1-3 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe”.
 “The Varieties of Religious Experience” by William James. Also note the works of Joseph Campbell.
 “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:18-20).
The New Atheist and the Social Justice Movement
New Atheists. “These are attitudes masquerading as ideas, emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty”.
What is the source of the new atheist movement? The new atheist movement is an offshoot of the social justice movement which came to the forefront in America after 911. However, its roots can be traced back to a number of intellectual and political influences. These influences include social Marxism, post modernism and critical theory all of which were planted in the United States after World War II by European scholars who migrated here after the war. A number of movements can be traced to these roots, e.g. the social justice movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement and the libertarian movement and yes, the new atheist movement, all of which can be traced to the Frankfurt school in Germany and to what is now called social Marxism. The thing that all these movements have in common is their hatred of power and authority or should I say someone else’s power and authority.
Post modernism and critical thinking teach that all power structures are basically oppressive and therefore, need to be destroyed. These power structures include the family, religion, especially Christianity and government. Of course, they fail to see that the university itself is a power source linking them to the very thing they criticize. They also fail to consider that these power structures they are so critical of were part of the systems which allowed and fostered the development of civilization and without these structures, it is doubtful that humankind would have advanced as far as it has. The parasitical college professors who came up with postmodernism and critical thinking, would not have had the leisure time to develop their theories if it was not for the power structures that they are now condemning.
Post modernism and modernism both share two basic errors that center in their view of human nature. One, is that human nature is a black slate and the second is that man is basically good. The blank slate people believe that there is no basic operating system in the human mind. Therefore, humans are totally controlled by their environment. The keyword is totally. In other words, according to this view humanity has no nature. Everything is socially created by one’s culture and the institutions of that culture. Free will is an allusion and all institutions are created to maintain the power of the ruling class. Therefore, all institutions are oppressive.
Of course, the glaring question is, how can you have an inherently good nature if you don’t have an operating system that directs your nature into natural goodness?
At this point, we begin to see a divide between modernism and postmodernism. For the postmodern, man is a blank slate and everything is socially created, if so, then the concept of good and evil can only be a social construct for the benefit of the oppressors. Of course, religion and Government are the institutions used to foster this construct using the tools of morality and law. The logic of this is that government and religion being forms of oppression must be destroyed. This clearly seems to be the case with Carl Marx. Marx believed that when communism reached its completion or perfection, there would be no need for religion or government to control the people. Of course, all of this was based on the dubious doctrine of progressive evolution and Nietzsche’s idea that the will to power is the chief motivating force in human beings. The truth is that human beings are motivated by numerous attitudes and emotions.
It is here that we begin to see the beginning of the social justice movement that in turn gave birth to the new atheist movement. Both movements are grounded in Marxism and its attacks on religion. The early Marxists attempt to use the state to destroy religion, failed. So, the new Marxists are attempting to use atheism to create the brave new world of Marxism. If the new atheists destroy religion, there is no place for atheism to go other than complete communism. It was atheism that gave rise to Marxism and communism, not the other way around.
One of the seeds of postmodernism is the false belief of modernism, which is that man is basically good and if left alone will evolve into an angelic being, who can live by pure reason. In this rational, you can hear the whisper of postmodernism and the noble savage who symbolizes humanity’s innate goodness, which is one of the him false narratives and myths of modernism.
Most thoughtful people have come to realize that western civilization is under attack from many sides. Its institutions are being assaulted by feminists, socialists, Marxists, globalists, the new atheist movement and the Libertarian movement. All of these leftist movements have a number of things in common. They are deconstructionists that want to destroy what now exists so it can be replaced with something new. In this, they want to destroy or change the institution of family, religion and government. In contrast, you have the conservative movement that believes that these institutions are a part of the natural order and should be maintained. The conservative movement does not believe these institutions are perfect, and if possible, they should be improved. However, they do not believe that they can be perfected because human nature at its base level cannot perfect anything.
The bottom line is that the new atheist movement is more of a social movement that has created attitudes and emotions that are the driving force of the movement. This of course is the very opposite of what the new atheists believe about themselves. They fancy themselves as intellectual and progressive in their social views when, in reality, they are nothing more than the products of cultural and intellectual brainwashing. They have deified the attitude and emotions of rebellion similar to that of the French Revolution. They are angry at the human condition because it is a threat to their comfort, ease and pleasure. They are the adult version of the spoiled child and they feel like victims of a meaningless life.
 Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies Hart, David Bentley
 The libertarian movement has many different degrees. Here I am taking about the far left that hide in their ranks.
 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen Hicks
 This includes gender.
Who made God? 2
When you hear the question, “who made God?” you should notice the first word is always who never what. The Who of the question infers the idea of cause-and-effect. That is that everything must have come from something equal or greater than itself. We intuitively understand that we are conscious and personal beings, so we infer automatically that if something created us; it must be conscious and personal in the sense of having a personality.
Of course, the answer also depends on one’s definition of God. If you believe that God is simply an idea in someone’s mind, the answer is the person that believes in him made him up. However, if you believe that God is an infinite being outside of time and space without beginning or end, the answer would be totally different. It would be something like God is the uncreated one without beginning or end and the first cause of all things. So, a reasonable answer to the question who made God? would be, what God are we talking about? This question the atheist cannot answer because they don’t believe in God. To ask a person that believes in an infinite creator the question “who made God?” would be nonsense, because the answer is within the question and the definition of God.
However, when an atheist asks the question “who made God?” this is a proof that they have an idea or image of God in their minds. You must have an image of something before you can say you don’t believe in it. So, the proper question to the atheist is what god are you talking about? They in turn might say the Christian God or the Jewish god. Now here’s the problem with the majority of atheists whom I’ve talk to, they do not have an inkling of theological knowledge, which means that the God they have an image of is a figment of their imagination to begin with, i.e. a straw man. In most cases, an intelligent believer would not believe in the image of the God that most atheist hold in their minds. For the Christian any image of God that an atheist has in their minds is an idol and Christians known that idols do not existence. ” Dear children, keep yourselves from idols”(1 John 5:21).
Who Created God?
A father was reading a story to his young son about cosmetology and likened the earth to a ball sitting on the back of a huge turtle. The young boy replied “but dad who made the turtle and what is holding up the turtle” “The father replied it’s, “turtles all the way down.” To deny a first cause in the end is to deny reason and the principle of cause-and-effect which simply says that everything must have a cause that is equal or greater than itself. If I find a complex computer in the wilderness I would automatically look for an intelligent life form that created it. I could say that it always existed but it seems that that would be begging the question and surely wouldn’t answer the need for a cause or the ground for understanding the computer. Young children may ask, “who made the turtle” grown men do not.
Deep Time and Evolution
Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch closer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. But this is exactly what some atheists attempt to do. They think they have explained existence by explaining evolution in some kind of narrative form. However, they have a number of large problems. (1) They must first prove that evolution is a science. That is if you believe that science is made up of knowledge that follows what is known as the scientific method……….(2). let’s assume that you prove that evolution is a science. Then you must prove one theory of evolution. That is, you must prove that evolution is non-dirtected from outside of nature.(3) Then after proving 1 and 2 you must show how evolution of any kind proves that there is no God. In actuality, if you prove one and two all you have proven is that you have the ability to explain how something changed into something else. This may prove that you are intelligent and maybe that you have kissed the Blainey stone and that you are a great storyteller, but it proves nothing else. An explanation that can never be proven by the scientific method is not science in the literal sense of the word. Moreover, after all that work you still are not even close to explaining how something came from nothing.
In 2000 Henry Gee who was the Senior Editor of Nature published his book “Deep Time” which was somewhat ignored by the scientific community and especially evolutionist. In the book he maintains that span of time in which evolution took place makes it almost if not impossible to have any rational conclusions about the fossil record. In speaking about the two conflicting views of evolution progressive and non-direct he says the following: “The failure of both use of evolution rest, once again, on the failure to understand that deep time cannot sustain scenarios based on narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is central to my argument. Next time you see a fossil ask yourself whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it could be your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then is futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not science.” Page 114 of Deep Time.
 G.K. Chesterton
 A few atheist in recent time have attempted to explain how something could come from nothing. However, a close reading at their books always end up pointing to a cause that is something.
 “There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon—in this case, Evolution—as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no. In other words, there was no scientific way to test it. Like every other cosmogony, it was a serious and sincere story meant to satisfy man’s endless curiosity about where he came from and how he came to be so different from the animals around him. But it was still a story. It was not evidence. In short, it was sincere, but sheer, literature.” “The Kingdom of Speech” by Tom Wolfe.
 The two main theories of evolution. There is Darwin’s that espouses random undirected evolution and there is the progressive that believes that there is a built in progressive element that improves and directs the species.
 Gee joined Nature as a reporter in 1987 and is now Senior Editor, Biological Sciences. He has published a number of books, including In Search of Deep Time (1999),A Field Guide to Dinosaurs (2003) and Jacob’s Ladder (2004).
Hi – I’m reading “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” by J. P. Moreland and wanted to share this quote with you.
“Science cannot be practiced in thin air; it is based on many assumptions this, each with its challenges. And the business of stating, criticizing, and defending its assumptions is not scientific but philosophical. Just as the structure of a building cannot be more reliable than the foundation on which it rests, so the conclusions of science (i.e., the structure) cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science (i.e., its foundation).”
The book can be purchased in Kindle form on Amazon.
Sent from my iPad