Is God Dead?

God is Dead

“Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: ‘I am looking for God! I am looking for God!’ As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding?... ‘Where has God gone?’ he cried. ‘I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers.’”

That famous last sentence, spoken by Friedrich Nietzsche’s “madman” was repeated in deed a few weeks ago by another madman named Jared Loughner.

Ever since that terrible moment, we have listened to both left and right lay blame at the foot of the other…mostly based on supposition before facts had been gathered.

The fact is that Loughner was a madman, a schizophrenic.  But in his lucid moments he thought…he philosophized…he had an understanding of the world.  The “worldview” to which he subscribed, according to friends, is called nihilism…the same espoused by Nietzsche.

According to Patrik Johnsson of the Christian Science Monitor, Bryce Tierney, said of Loughner, his childhood friend: “By the time he was 19 or 20, he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing – illusion."  Like the Joker in the Batman franchise, Loughner wanted to create chaos for the sake of chaos, Tierney said. "There's no rhyme or reason, he wanted to watch the world burn."

When Nietzsche told us that “God was dead,” his point was that the concept of God no longer held sway to modern men – as seen by the mockers.  Since our science, technology, and philosophy had figured everything out, we had no more need for God…or his morals.

Nihilism, as a philosophy, views human existence as meaningless and that nothing has real value.  Life is “absurd” (Camus).  Random chance is the reason behind the universe.  The cosmos is not moving toward a purpose and human history has no goal or end.  Human beings are not the favored creation of a loving God, but simply evolved primates.  Our “Creator” is not God – he is dead.  Our god is chance plus random mutations plus natural selection and the will to power (Nietzsche).  There is no life after death.

Apparently, in his sane moments, these were the beliefs of Mr. Loughner…his philosophy of life.

In the same way that one suicide bomber doesn’t speak for all Muslims, I guess one nut doesn’t speak for all nihilists…but look at what is missing from this philosophy of life.  Morals.  Values.

Nihilists like Loughner deny the existence of values.  In their thinking, values are mere expressions of likes and dislikes.  Who’s to say what is right or wrong?  Is there such a thing as right and wrong?  If a “moral” life brings satisfaction, follow it.  If not, then morality has no rationally justified demand on you.

The moral equivalency of all ideas taught to Jared Loughner by our schools and society – “believe whatever works for you”- is one step short of nihilism.  Hopefully, most young people won’t take that last step.  Loughner did.

When God is dead in our schools and society…when we teach that there are no firm moral truths…that we are essentially evolved animals…how do young people know where to draw the line?  We tell them, “Right and wrong are subjective, so do what you like…except murder.”  The next “logical” step is that these kids do what they like…even murder.

I’ll spare you the preaching.  You can join us on Sunday if you want to hear that.  Let me just say today that perhaps Jared Loughner, in his insanity, has proven that Nietsche was a prophet.  In America, God may be dead.  And we might be the ones killing Him.

James A. Mann, Ph.D.

Lead Pastor, New Life Church of Denton

www.newlifedenton.org

Posted via email from agoracommunity's posterous

Who Gives in American: Interesting Results

One might fault Ann Coulter for strident tone and lack of civility, but most often the points she makes ring true.  I've exerpted from her December 22, 2010 column which discusses a recent study by Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) about charitable giving in America.  The question on the table: who gives to charity?  Well, it turns out that conservative Christians are the most generous with their income.  Secular liberals - least generous with their income.  Interesting.

I have removed most of Ms. Coulter's funny lines and commentary for the purpose of this blog, but I do encourage you to go directly to her column and read the better version of the article.  You'll get a chuckle.

Meantime,  the story goes like this...

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even
blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave
as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by
about 45 percent.


On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe
in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50
times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend
religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of
income.


Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed
liberals "genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did" --
probably because liberals are always telling us that.



So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept
coming out the same. "In the end," he says, "I had no option but to
change my views."


Another very other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a
Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with
conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study
showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but
conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.



The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and
federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous
than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living
in the liberal Northeast.

JMS 1/1/11

The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism

The article is a “must-read” by Charles Murray, the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  Not only does he give great argumentation behind the concept of American Exceptionalism, he warns of a slide toward European socialism.  Interestingly, the two promises made by the social democratic agenda (namely the “equality premise” and the “new man premise”) can be found in the book of Genesis.  At the risk of over-spiritualizing, the serpent promised: “When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God (equality), knowing good and evil (new man).”  Enjoy…and may we see the political Great Awakening in our lifetimes!

 

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-europe-syndrome-and-the-c... european syndrome and the challenge to american exceptionalism

 

 

James A. Mann, Ph.D.

Lead Pastor, New Life Church of Denton

www.newlifedenton.org

Posted via email from agoracommunity's posterous

The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism

The article is a “must-read” by Charles Murray, the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  Not only does he give great argumentation behind the concept of American Exceptionalism, he warns of a slide toward European socialism.  Interestingly, the two promises made by the social democratic agenda (namely the “equality premise” and the “new man premise”) can be found in the book of Genesis.  At the risk of over-spiritualizing, the serpent promised: “When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God (equality), knowing good and evil (new man).”  Enjoy…and may we see the political Great Awakening in our lifetimes!

 

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-europe-syndrome-and-the-c... european syndrome and the challenge to american exceptionalism

 

 

James A. Mann, Ph.D.

Lead Pastor, New Life Church of Denton

www.newlifedenton.org

Posted via email from agoracommunity's posterous

What's not said is often more important: A warning sign

Proving the old adage, "What's not said is often most important", one can begin to see the near future of the Texas economy.  Because of a relatively conservative state government, we've been largely spared the dramatic recession that most of the rest of nation has faced.  But anyone who thinks that's forever is simply naive, misinformed, or denying reality.  Increased federal deficit spending, increased regulation and intervention in the
private sector, new health care and other extensive legislation that expands the role (and cost) of government, and continued high defense
expenditures are national factors even an economy the size of Texas cannot withstand forever.

In the volatile political climate of 2010, there is no real reward for waving the lantern of warning and this blog is certainly not the first to do so.   But for the record, I make the assumption that the national economy will not soon turn around.  Personal and business taxes will increase dramatically after January 1, further crimping any hope of economic turnaround in the short term.  That's a bad combination for a nation trying to recover, but these signs point to more trouble ahead in terms of the national (and thus state and local) economy.  So now the trouble comes knocking on Texas' door. 

It's fascinating that no politician is discussing the issue.  It's also interesting to note that national coverage of Texas continues to be positive because of what has not yet happened (see this recent Heritage Foundation commentary as a good example).  It's downright discouraging though, that none are even really hinting at the trouble ahead except in terms of blaming someone else for the situation.  From an election standpoint, I understand the strategy.  From a citizen standpoint, I hoped for better. 

So why a discussion of fiscal policy in a faith based blog?  I believe it speaks to issues of responsibility, integrity, and community. 

1. First, what is  your level of understanding on these issues?  Are you too busy to consider your responsibilities as a citizen? 
   
2. Second, what does this say about the integrity of individuals in government when there is possible deliberate deception regarding fiscal news? 
   
3. Finally, the choice of living in a free society includes decisions about our community - so why should you care about how your money is appropriated and spent?

If you are interested, here's a start.  This excerpt from Robert Garrett in the Dallas Morning News is a comprehensive discussion of the state's fiscal situation.  And if you don't like the Morning News, it wouldn't take long to find several other reputable articles and resources.  I encourage you to look, think, and where needed, to act.

Legislature likely to cut deep to meet possible $25 billion budget gap | Denton Record Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas | Latest News

With the next legislative session little more than 11 weeks away, lawmakers' budget aides huddle on Thursdays at the Robert E. Johnson Building near the Capitol – in secret, as is Texas' budget-making norm, but amid more strident than usual warnings about keeping information confidential.

Even as the hired help prepares a menu of unpleasant options for leaders, though, Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst campaign in full brag mode. The state's two leading Republicans boast that Texas was last into the recession, has dodged major cuts so far and is well-prepared for any challenges because it has pinched pennies.

Comptroller Susan Combs, who sets the limits for how much the Legislature can spend, has declined to lower her January 2009 revenue estimates, even though they wereabout $2 billion too optimistic for the budget year that ended Aug. 31.

Combs, a Republican, made even more rosy forecasts for this year, although sales tax receipts so far don't support them. She is due to deliver her final estimate to the Legislature in January.

Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, head of the Senate Finance Committee, and House budget chief Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, declined to be interviewed about the huge deficit.

The outlook keeps deteriorating.

Earlier this month, a Texas Education Agency official testified that declining property values will force upward – by $2 billion to $3 billion – the state's obligation to public schools. Last week, the Health and Human Services Commission disclosed that federal Medicaid matching money will dip by $1.2 billion more than expected, because Texans' personal income rose in comparison to other states in recent years.

Experts and former officials sized up the developments as meaning that a late-August deficit estimate by senior legislative staff members – $20.6 billion, as reported by The Dallas Morning News – is now on the low side. They say the number has reached $23.8 billion to $24.8 billion, and could go higher if the economy doesn't pick up.

Article in Denton Record Chronicle

Here's a link to Jim's article, published today in the Denton Record Chronicle.  It's his commentary on the Anne Rice rescinds her faith news story that has stirred a little dust among the faithful and the not so faithful.

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/religion/stories/DRC_Mann_Column_0827.94e71a77.html

Obama's Faith - by Paul Kengor

The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama's recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.

While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the figure of greater interest to me — and not surprising — is the percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or, more generally, about his faith at all.

"[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined," reports Pew. "More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows." Pew added: "Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama's religion is."

This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: "fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009)."

The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it's easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is — rightly so — confusion about what Obama believes.

Uncertainty builds
I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton — books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.

For the record, in one of those books — the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a "lifelong, committed Christian" — I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. "Obama is a Christian," I reportedly confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.

As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama's beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.

Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:

Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a "born-again" Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the "Reformed" tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.

Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I'm being cited by liberals who point to Reagan's infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama's infrequent church attendance doesn't mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:

Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill., in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan's attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan's personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.

The record
For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a "Christian-turned-secular mother" — herself a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents — and was the son of a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" and a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."

As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.

Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright's services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.

Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again."

Our puzzling president
All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama's presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I'm asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can't give a good answer. It's a problem I didn't have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.

In short, and I don't mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we're getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.

Of course, it shouldn't be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn't Obama simply do the same? This isn't rocket science.

Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama's problem isn't a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren't sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include "God and Ronald Reagan," "God and George W. Bush," and "God and Hillary Clinton." This column, which first appeared in USA Today, is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.