Essential Principles of Christian Universalism
In 1878, a group of Universalist ministers in Boston, (which included A.A. Miner, T. J. Sawyer, C. R. Moor, O. F. Safford, and A. St. John Chambre, and others) prepared a statement which embraced essential principles held in common by the Universalist ministers generally. This statement was:
We, the Universalist ministers of Boston and vicinity, observing the widespread agitation in the religious world with respect to the final destiny of our race, and more especially of those who die in impenitence and sin, and desirous that our views on this important subject should not be misunderstood, after much earnest thought and prayerful consideration present the following, not by any means as a full statement of our faith, but as indicating its general character:
1. We reverently and devoutly accept the Holy Scriptures as containing a revelation of the character of God and of the eternal principles of his moral government.
2. As holiness and happiness are inseparably connected, so we believe that all sin is accompanied and followed by misery, it being a fixed principle in the divine government that God renders to every man according to his works, so that "though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished."
3.Guided by the express teachings of revelation, we recognize God not only as our King and Judge, but also as our gracious Father, who doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men; but though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
4. We believe that divine justice, born of love and limited by love, primarily requires "love to God with all the soul," and to one's neighbor as one's self. Till these requisitions are obeyed, justice administers such discipline, including both chastisement and instruction, and for as long a period, as may be necessary to secure that obedience which it ever demands. Hence it never accepts hatred for love, nor suffering for loyalty, but uniformly and forever preserves its aim.
5. We believe that the salvation Christ came to effect is salvation from sin rather than from the punishment of sin, and that he must continue his work till he has put all enemies under his feet, that is, brought them in complete subjection to his law.
6. We believe that repentance and salvation are not limited to this life. Whenever and wherever the sinner truly turns to God, salvation will be found. God is "the same yesterday, today, and forever," and the obedience of his children is ever welcome to him.
7. To limit the saving power of Christ to this present life seems to us like limiting the Holy One of Israel; and when we consider how many millions lived and died before Christ came, and how many since, who not only never heard his name, but were ignorant of the one living God, we shudder at the thought that his infinite love should have made no provision for their welfare, and left them to annihilation, or, what is worse, endless misery. And it is but little better with myriads born in Christian lands, whose opportunities have been so meager that their endless damnation would be an act of such manifest injustice as to be in the highest degree inconsistent with the benevolent character of God.
8.In respect to death we believe that, however important it may be in removing manifold temptations and opening the way to a better life, and however, like other great events, it may profoundly influence man, it has no saving power. Salvation, secured in the willing mind by the agencies of divine truth, light, and love, essentially represented in Christ -- whether effected here or in the future life -- is salvation by Christ, and gives no warrant to the imputation to us of the "death-and-glory" theory, alike repudiated by all.
9. Whatever differences in regard to the future may exist among us, none of us believe that the horizon of eternity will be relatively either largely or for a long time overcast by the clouds of sin and punishment, and in coming into the enjoyment of salvation, whensoever that may be, all the elements of penitence, forgiveness, and regeneration are involved. Justice and mercy will then be seen to be entirely at one, and God be all in all.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Congress Gives Themselves a Raise? WTF!?!
Here we are, in the middle of a recession, they economy is a mess, mostly due to their malfeasance, over-regulation, refusal to cut spending, corruption, and in general, allowing the advancement of socialism to continue unabated, and they DARE give themselves a raise?
Well, nice to show that in terms of being disgusting, Congress is the gift that keeps on giving.
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
Well, nice to show that in terms of being disgusting, Congress is the gift that keeps on giving.
Monday, December 15, 2008
I Want This Guy On My Dodgeball Team
Love him or hate him, his Spider-man like reflexes can not be denied. Maybe his W-Sense was tingling...
Absurdities Exposed: Letters From a Universalist Minister
In keeping with my reprints of interesting Universalist writings, I found this:
NOTE: Originally, writings were personal letters to an orthodox Christian acquaintance by Rev.M.J. Steere in 1861.
ABSURDITY: MAN CREATED FOR ENDLESS MISERY.
Universalism proper contemplates one single truth, well worthy to swallow up all others, viz., the Bible doctrine of the final salvation of all men from sin; and this in opposition to their being forever annihilated, or forever damned.
Certainly, rational and scriptural as your penal doctrine seems to you, to me it involves the most alarming absurdities. Some of these latter I will now consider; and First. Your faith implies that "God, the Father," casts vast multitudes of intelligent, immortal beings, in his own image, and places them in this world of trial, either foreordaining that he will, or foreknowing that he shall, damn them forever. And this seems to me an absurdity.
The Creator dwells in his own self-sufficiency. Of course, he is independent of everything outside of himself, and, therefore, can have no occasion, in creating, or in dealing with his creatures, to seek selfish ends; a thing, which is alike forbidden, by the revelation of his essential nature. "For God is Love." Now that such a God should interest himself in begetting immortal beings, "of his own will, and in his own image, to feel his wrath forever — to be forever dying, but never dead, — to have their capacity for suffering forever filling up, but never full, does seem to me absurd in the extreme.
For, mark, no matter how long the creature's probation may be, ten minutes, or ten years, or ten thousand years, eternity equally follows; and the eternity of the creature's anguish was equally present to the Creator, when he set him up in being.
You may say, as an Arminian, — not as a Calvinist — that God did not foreordain the creature's ruin; but you will not deny that he endowed the creature with a susceptible nature, which, coming in contact with the world, into which he thrust him, he foresaw would work his certain ruin. And what you will not deny is, in the premises, all I ask you to admit. For, either way, the creature's endless misery was present to the divine mind, at the moment of his creation.
I do not intend dwelling long on this point. But permit me to ask if the doctrine in review, considered in its relation to the creating hand of God, does not appear to you absurd? so absurd, that, as you steadily contemplate it, your whole soul does not reel and stagger as with the very giddiness of skepticism itself? And here let it be borne in mind:
First. That it was optional with God whether to create the subject of foreknown, everlasting misery, or not.
Second. That, having created such a being, it is optional with him whether to sustain him in his anguish forever, or to permit him to sink out of it into nought.
Now to say that a God of infinite Love and Justice should sink under his endless curse, the beings whom he has thus created, endowed, and circumstanced!
ABSURDITY: THE POPULAR DEVIL
Your creed implies that God, the Father, sustains a mighty being called Devil, filled with all malice against every thing good, in going about to effect the endless misery of his human creatures. And this all seems to me an absurdity. In discussing it, no question need be raised about the personal existence, origin or character of this evil being, further than to say:
1. That, whatever Devil there is, God the Father made. That, however he may have been originally created, and whatever evil character he may have since taken on, the Creator has not been disappointed in him.
2. That, whatever strength he now has to do mischief, the Creator gives him.
3. That the Creator can control him, or destroy him, at pleasure— which is, indeed, implied in the third of these propositions.
The Devil, then, is the offspring of God, no less than we. And it is in God that he, no less than you and I, "lives, and moves, and has his being." He, too, is one of the Father's great family of intelligent moral beings, and, as such, is bound to all the other members, by the ties of a lofty relationship.
Now that God should create such a being, foreseeing what he would be and do, what havoc he would make of his other children, and that, having created him, he should preserve and sustain him in his work of inseparable devastation through his realm, seems to us exceedingly absurd. And in view of it, we think the simple question of Crusoe's man Friday, "Why not God kill Debbil," was well put.
Nor can intelligent Christians ever see anything but absurdity in the notion that God the Father should create such a being, and give him the freedom of the universe for the everlasting destruction of his children. They, too, may well wonder why God does not, at least, shut him up, for the protection of the race on which he preys. We can easily conceive that, when such a being as this Devil enters Paradise, "damnation should follow." But we cannot conceive how it can be possible that, when the infant human race is nestling there in peace, a God of goodness should let him in!
We are indeed told, that the Devil shall yet be bound " for a thousand years," after which he shall be "loosed" again for a little season." During that happy time, of course, his havoc of human souls shall cease, and perdition's supply of anguish be cut off. But the loving Christian heart, in view of the souls constantly dragged down to the pit all around him, earnestly asks, "Why delays that happy hour? Why comes not the angel with the chain now? Why is not Satan bound to-day, this minute? Nay, why was he ever let loose? And when he shall, at least, be bound, why shall he ever be let loose again?
For the Devil and his works, as understood by your faith, are matters of the highest, deepest, broadest, longest, most overwhelming interest. I feel it so, as I consider what he has already done, according to your creed, for many of my ancestors and yours, and what he is still doing. When he, himself, first sunk into the pit, Milton makes him exclaim: "Farewell, happy fields, Where joy forever dwells. Hail, horrors, hail! Infernal world! And thou, profoundest hell, Receive thy new possessor!'"
And when I consider what multitudes he has dragged, according to your faith, dragged down with him, my gushing heart can but sympathize in the question of the simplest child of nature, "Why not God kill Debbil?"
But still you will, perhaps, seek relief from the terrible absurdity of your orthodox position, by reaffirming that God the Father did not create that evil one a devil, but that he has made a devil of himself. Be it so. And what relief is gained? Evidently none at all; for, first, no chance has happened to the Deity. The devil is only the being that God foreknew or foreordained in his creation. And, second, if the question why God created him were satisfactorily disposed of, the question why he lets him run, have free course, and glorify himself in hell, by dragging others down into it by millions, still remains unanswered, or answered only with a glaring absurdity.
But I must say only two or three things more relative to this matter. And First, we know that God so loved all the individuals of the human race, that he gave his Son "a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," according to the Scriptures.
And, Second, you, through your creed, virtually affirm that God created the mighty being, called "the Devil," let him loose, and now sustains him in working the endless ruin of the responsible masses whom he gave his Son to save; so out-generaling the Son of God that, while the latter, by the mightiest exertions of his love, succeeds in winning only "here and there a traveler," into the "narrow way" to everlasting life, the former succeeds in perpetually thronging, with his captives, the broad way to the black caverns of endless woe!
And Third, when asked how you will dispose of the dreadful absurdity here involved, you will say — I know not what. But for ourselves, we see no way of disposing of it, and feel bound to look, with not a little suspicion, upon whatever system of theology involves it. Such system, however time-honored, and however sanctioned by majorities, and by great and worthy names, should, to say the least, be accepted only after the most thorough examination, and under evidence the clearest and most direct from God.
ABSURDITY: INFANTS SAVED, ADULTS LOST.
The popular creed implies that it is only at the most appalling hazard, that a human being survives its infancy on earth; that, for it to die in infancy is to make its eternal salvation sure; whereas, for it to live to the age of accountability on earth, is to be exposed to endless woe, and, probably, to make that woe sure. And this, also, seems to me an absurdity.
Whatever may be the logical limits of any modern creeds, the salvation of infants is now practically regarded as secure, — afflicted parents are now everywhere taught to dry their tears on the funeral of their infant offspring, under the comforting assurance, that the flower that bloomed so sweetly upon their bosom for a day, withered, not that it should die, but only in process of transplantation to more genial skies.
Infants then are saved. And if the half and more, who breathe the vital air, die in infancy, then so many are saved, — saved, certainly and necessarily; and that, too, without the least possible spiritual peril or exposure. And thus, a great host is being gathered from earth into heaven, without any earthly probation at all. Such is the faith of the church today.
And now let us turn and look at the other half of our race, — that portion of it, which by dint of better constitutions, more care, and many prayers, survive their infancy — live on earth till they reach the hour of responsibility, — till they know the difference between moral right and wrong, and begin to act in reference to it.
Now, saying nothing about total depravity, or original, sin, it is believed, and very justly, that all these latter, become sinners. And becoming sinners, it is believed they are under condemnation to endless woe. And, further, it is believed that from this condemnation there is no escape save by a radical change of heart. And, finally, it is believed that no such change can take place, beyond the grave. Of course then, all sinners who do not experience that change on earth are lost forever. But, obviously, that change is experienced by only a very small part of adult persons who go from earth to the tomb. And, therefore, only a very small part of them are saved; while all the rest sink to perdition!
And thus, brother, according to your creed, it comes to pass, that, while infants are all saved, in Heaven, adults, — those who come to the years of accountability on earth — are nearly all lost. Perhaps you may query, whether the fact that relatively, so few experience radical regeneration, is so obvious. But it seems to me your mind shall not have gone over the present aspect of our race, and run back through the ignorant, barbarous, pagan past, before you will be satisfied, that, in the light of history and observation, nothing can be more obvious. For, if we know anything about the human race, up to the present time, we know that only an infinitesimal portion of them, have, in this life, been, in the orthodox sense of the term, regenerated, while all the rest have died in sin.
Now we submit, whether it does not seem very absurd, that the Great Father should deal so differently with those who enter eternity very young, from what he does, with those who enter it only, not quite so young! — that he should take the former directly to himself in heaven, while he leaves the latter, a little time longer on earth, so exposed to the play of passions which he himself ordained, amid circumstances of temptation, which he himself provided, that, for the thousands of years of time past, their absolute endless ruin should be the law, and their final salvation only the exception; so that, while very little children all ascend to Heaven, most of their parents sink to hell!
The absurdity involved here, seems to me no less than dreadful. Yet is it part and parcel of the popular faith — inseparable from it. So that if that faith is true; this absurdity is true; and if this absurdity is true (I speak in a paradox) what an appalling truth for a family circle, and (pardon me, but I mean it all,) what a temptation to infanticide. Take breath and read on, but find no fault with our illustration unless it is severer than truth.
A few years since, a fugitive slave mother, overtaken by pursuers, took the lives of her children, rather than see them remanded into slavery. We judge not her bloody act here. Some pronounced it heroic; others diabolical. It was certainly very dreadful. But the maternal perpetrator of the wild deed, comforts herself with the thought that her children are forever free in heaven.
Here is another mother who believes the popular doctrine of endless punishment. Her only child is yet an infant. She looks upon it, loves it, considers its exposure to everlasting death, if it grow up on earth, kisses and destroys it. This done, she comes forward to the communion table. Arraigned by the church for her unnatural offence, she excuses herself by saying to her pastor in the chair, "You have taught me that if my child die in infancy, its eternal salvation is secure; whereas, if it live to years of responsibility, it probably must sink in hell forever. I could not bear to see it thus exposed to endless woe! No, I could not, for it was the child of my love! And because I loved it, I have saved it. Yes, my sweet little one is now in heaven!"
And thus addressed, what can the pastor do, but either hold his peace, or deny his faith, or take refuge in mystery. If he says to the mother, "Verily, you have grossly sinned," she easily replies. "Be it so, seeing I have forever saved my child from sinning! It well becomes mothers to sacrifice themselves for their childrens' sake. This I have done!"
And if the pastor say, further: "God's great sovereignty must not be arraigned;" she easily adds, "Certainly not; I have not arraigned it, but done only what it demanded, at my hand, in view of my dear child's welfare! I have committed my child to God, in the only possible way to make sure of its salvation!"
And if the pastor further add, with gravity, "You have by this act shut yourself out of heaven," she readily replies, "Be it so, seeing I have shut my dear child out of hell! And yet, how is it that I should be sent to that dreadful place for using the only certain, or even probable means of saving my child from it?" Thus this infanticial mother might proceed.
And what, I again ask, in all seriousness, could her pastor and church do, but take her strange case into charitable consideration? What could they do less than this, when they considered that she had acted only in view of the plain logical consequences of the creed they had put into her hands.
Perhaps you will shrink from this illustration, as too dreadful! And it were too dreadful for any purpose under heaven, other than that for which it is introduced. And yet, in view of that purpose, it falls infinitely short of the fact — it is tameness itself! For, infinitely more dreadful is the thing illustrated! Only just think of it, — an infant, immortal, crossing the line of accountability at the imminent hazard of everlasting death! Think of it, did I say? It cannot be thought of more than in part. For the damnation of the popular creed to which the little innocent is thus exposed, infinitely surpasses all knowledge, all thought. Its perdition is a wide-spreading wilderness, dark with woe, which no imagination can traverse; a boundless ocean of sorrow, over which no thought can wing itself!
And how must the Christian mother, whose eyes are open to the subject, feel, as from day to day she hears the tramp of burning surf, nearer and nearer at hand, as her child nears the fatal line of accountability. How can she then but wish her child secure? And what can seem to her too unnatural or rash, if it but promise it a safe asylum? How can she but wish it in heaven? And should she, in the frenzy natural to her dilemma (for to such a dilemma frenzy is but natural), do as did the slave mother, mentioned above, would she not be, at least, as excusable? Nay, more? For what are the few years of hard bondage to which that slave mother could not bear to see her child doomed, compared with the endless bondage of black despair?
So your creed — so orthodoxy! And shall we not, as men of common sense, common candor, and common humanity, seriously suspect the truth of any exposition of the divine word which involves an absurdity so cruel, crushing, crazing; so dishonoring to our father God?
How true it is that on absurdities absurdities grow — each new one more glaring than that from which it sprung!
ABSURDITY: MEN FIX EACH OTHER' S DOOM.
Your creed plainly implies, that men, both good and bad, may, and often do, determine the endless destiny of their fellow beings, by determining the length of their probation, virtually putting them into heaven, by cutting off all liability to lose it, or into hell by cutting off all opportunity to escape it. And this, also, seems to me an absurdity.
We have already presented one illustration of the above proposition, in the supposed case of the mother who made the "calling and election" of her infant sure, by taking its life. Another is found in a sad accident, which occurred at one of our New England seminaries a few years since. Two young gentlemen were in their room, amusing themselves with a musket, quite unconscious of its being loaded, when the one innocently shot the other, thereby determining his soul at once to heaven or to hell forever.
And still another illustration is found in the death of the drunken rowdy, who fell, at the head of the rum-sellers' mob, at Portland, a few years ago. The balls which, at the order of the resolute city marshal, laid him low, cutting off all opportunity for repentance, carried his soul directly to endless torment. Illustrations to our purpose are also presented in war. Two armies meet. Fearful are the imprecations! Dreadful is the carnage! Balls and bayonets are the swift instruments of everlasting death!
The soldier perishes forever, who might reform and be saved if permitted to return to his home of piety. At the hand of his fellow man, he falls lower than the grave. Nor may any tell how many of our revolutionary colonists are now, in endless despairs sent there by the hired Hessians of George the Third. Nor how many of those whose bones have been brought from the plains of Waterloo, as a fertilizer of British soil, are now in the endless despair to which they were consigned by British swords.
And this, especially, when it is considered, that, of all conditions, that of a soldier, in active service, seems least adapted to promote fitness for heaven. Of course, it is a mystery to us how orthodox Christians can advocate war, or their chaplains kneel mid guns, and swords, loaded and barbed with everlasting death! For these, in their view, are the terrible arbiters of souls' destiny, cutting off their probation, and thereby saying, as with the authority of the Infinite, You shall have no more chance to escape.
These are they that rise up in the place of God, and "shut to the door" against their victims forever. Alas! for the orthodox advocate of war! Let me do him the justice to say, that I think he believes in his creed less than in humanity and common sense.
But, further, our point finds illustration under the operation of the code duello, — that miserable product of dark ages, — that most foolish, meanest mode of settling difficulties — that wretched footman of chattel slavery, accompanying its desolating car, as it dashes into the fair fields of Christian civilization.
The duel settles more than questions of chivalric honor. Instance a case. A and B meet at a public house, drink, altercate, challenge, and accept, choose their seconds, retire and fight. The question of honor is settled by the death of B. And not only that, but the question of B's endless damnation also. The fatal ball settles both. For, while A blows the smoke from his pistol, and retires a victor, leaving the body of the slain to his surgeon and friends, its spirit, prematurely driven out, and thereby excluded all chance of salvation, is met by evil angels in the threshold of eternity, and dragged down into the pit forever.
Thus, according to your penal view, is a question greater than honor settled by the duel. And what does the highwayman do? He meets the moneyed worldling in the way, robs him of his treasure and his life, and throws his body into the thicket, or leaves it in the ditch. But is that all? O no! He also robs his soul of all chances to repent, and tosses it into the thick darkness of despair — buries it alive in hell forever!
So your creed. But the absurdity we are exposing finds a fuller illustration, in cases in which the murderer repents in prison, and finally dies, regretting that he sent the murderer into perdition. Such cases used to be, by no means, very infrequent.
We recently read of one, but have not the details now at hand. Let us suppose such a case, and see its bearing upon the subject in hand. A young lady, respectable, but not converted, is met and ravished, under a dark night, by a villain, who destroys her life to escape detection. Sent thus hurriedly to her God in sin, she is, by the conditions of your creed, of course, lost. No cycle of eternity but shall witness her unrelieved despair. Her soul is assassinated. Out of a dark night of time, she is hurled into a darker night of eternity. The brutal hand that cut her probation short off, thereby plunged her infinitely below the sphere of possible life, shut her up in woe, bolted the door upon her, threw away the key, and left her to pine in anguish forever.
So your creed! And now, leaving her there in her woe, let us turn to look after her murderer. As "murder will out," he is detected, arrested, executed. But, while in prison, blessed with a probation which he forbade to his victim, he comes to himself, heeds his spiritual advisers, repents, exhorts the multitudes from the scaffold, and swings from it into Paradise. And there, because he had much forgiven, he loves much, and never ceases to give thanks for the prison confinement through which the mercy of God reached him.
Thus in heaven the murderer sings. But the young lady, his victim, where is she all this time? Lost! lost! He may have time for repentance, but not she. That was forbidden her, by the red hand that plunged the dagger to her heart. Mercy may come to his prison, but not to hers. That red hand of his may live to be washed, and forever twine wreaths for the immaculate brow of Him whose wrath she must forever bear.
Now, brother, your creed, taken in connection with the history of crime, obviously involves multitudes of cases, similar to any and all which we have stated above. This, you will admit. And, admitting this, can you, as the heart of a man beats in your bosom, fail seriously to query whether that creed is not at fault? Can you be confident in that theology, which thus makes the frantic mother, the officer of justice, the warrior, the duellist, the highwayman, and the libertine, the arbiters of the eternal destiny of their victims; so that, in the case last stated, if it was the hard fate of the young lady to be abused, scared into frenzy, and murdered, it was her harder one to be, by her murderer's hand, consigned to the bottomless pit; while he, by the grace of God, which he denied to her, has space for repentance, and goes up to sing in heaven!
Be your own commentator upon what I have said. The notion that the Living Father has made the endless weal and woe of men thus dependent upon the frenzy, ambition, lucre, lust, and brutality of their fellow beings, well, "he that can receive it, let him receive it." But let him be very sure that he has an unmistakable "thus saith the Lord," on which to rest, a faith so at war with reason and all the humanities.
ABSURDITY — HEATHEN LOST.
This green earth, and you and I walking over it! These spangled heavens, and you and I walking under them! Grand conceptions. How they overwhelmed the Psalmist, when'" at eventide," lifting up his eyes in the contemplation of the immensity of God's works, he exclaimed, "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and stars which thou hast ordained, what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?"
But the Psalmist was, in this case, hardly peculiar. All thinking men are, sometimes, consciously rapt in Jehovah, as king David was. And when I, in my humbler measure, have been so carried away in thought, I have felt a strong sympathy with the man who, on being told that an aged neighbor, recently deceased, was probably in perdition, coolly replied, "I think the Author of this vast universe can find some better business than to be damning forever that poor old man!"
But, you will say, this is a strange opening for a familiar letter; and yet, if you will consider it well, I think it will not prove an unprofitable one. But to bring our thoughts into line again, we proceed: That a very large proportion of all who have lived upon and left the earth, up to the present time, have lived upon and left it, heathen. This is the fact. Your creed implies that they are lost. This is the seeming absurdity. Idolatry very early appeared among men. Its prevalence is attested by very early records, and from the dawning of historic ages down to the present time, it has been the law, and truer worship only the exception.
Very important, therefore, is the question, what has become of the countless millions of our great brotherhood who have died in idolatry? Paul would not have his brethren ignorant "concerning those who had fallen asleep," even though they had fallen asleep heathen. No more would we be ignorant of the condition of the multitudes of our heathen relation, who, after groping their dark and evil way on earth, have fallen on sleep. Well is it that the geologist deciphers the records of material paleontology upon the charred tablets of our crusted globe. But far better is it, that the religious antiquarian should inquire after the spiritual, which accompanied the material — after the millions upon millions of immortal spirits which have, from age to age, been leaving their bodies behind them, in the dust of the grave.
This question of the heathen's eternity is a vast one, everywhere stirring men up, either to the abandonment of the popular penal creed, or to such modifications of it, as require the abandonment of the stereotyped plates from which have been stricken off a thousand editions of it. This, as we have before said, is the creed. 1. Death does nothing to fit a soul for heaven. 2. No soul can be fitted for heaven after death. 3. Therefore all who die unfit for heaven are lost forever.
Under this view the heathen are disposed of in a syllogism, thus: 1. All who die unfit for heaven are lost. 2. The heathen die unfit for heaven, and therefore, 3. The heathen are lost. With so simple a word, are the heathen of all ages disposed of under the popular creed, — the creed which, probably, finds no more truthful expositor, than the Rev. Dr. Wayland, long president of Brown University, one of the clearest reasoners and thinkers of the age, and whose published works are giving him a just celebrity upon two continents. In his "Moral Dignity of the Missionary Enterprise," a discourse whose sublime completeness, makes it well worthy to stand at the head of a volume of discourses on missions, the doctor says:
"We have considered these beings, [the heathen,] as candidates for an eternity of happiness or misery, and we cannot avoid the thought that they are exposed to endless misery. Hence, you will observe, the question with us, is not, whether a heathen, unlearned in the gospel, can be saved. We are willing to admit that he may. But if he be saved, he must possess holiness of heart; for without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is in vain to talk about the innocence of these children of nature, It is in vain to tell of their graceful my theology. Their gods are such as lust makes welcome. Of their very religious service, it is a shame even to speak. To settle the question concerning their future destiny, it would only seem necessary to ask, what would be the character of that future state, in which those principles of heart, which the whole history of the heathen world develops, were suffered to operate in unrestrained malignity? No. Solemn as is the thought, we do believe, that, dying in their present state, they will be exposed to all that is awful in the wrath of Almighty God."
Thus does this clear thinker and writer give the only fair and legitimate exposition of his creed, in reference to the heathen. All different ones set that creed at naught. To be consistent, we must either abandon the cardinal principle of that creed, or else believe that the vast multitudes of heathen who have, from age to age, swarmed up in the earth, and swept away into eternity, a broad deep rolling river of immortal beings, are now swarming in Hell; that they are there this moment, and there forever to remain, suffering all that is awful in the wrath of Almighty God!" — This was the thought which the doctor could not avoid without denying his faith. And, surely, it is "solemn," and can but make us shudder — shudder for the heathen, shudder for the honor of God, and shudder with the exclamation, "what if we had been born heathen five thousand years ago!!"
But is not this thought so solemn that it degenerates into an absurdity? Is it not so expressive that it expresses nothing; so overdone that it does nothing; so shocking to common sense that the heart, on reflection, cares little for it. For, surely if the heathen do, for want of the Gospel, go thus quickly down to hell, over the sulphurous gateway by which they enter, to come up no more, might well be written in emblazoned characters, which should shine out like live coals upon the dark, "CHILDREN of God, drinking the WRATH of God, for want of OPPORTUNITY to ESCAPE it!"
Do you not feel that the doctrine I reject, whether true or false, by the terribleness of its absurdities, sets all human language at defiance! Are not some of them such, that, shrinking from their contemplation, your only rest and safeguard against what is called heresy, is in putting an interdict upon your common sense and consciousness. Do not some of the absurdities noted in these letters meet you at every turn, and often confront you so boldly, that you are obliged to attempt to deal summarily with them, while at the same time, you are astonished that they will not more readily "down at your bidding?"
We close this letter, praying that, under the sure guidance of the word and spirit of God, you may find your way out of them; and that way I think you will have discovered, when you sufficiently consider Jesus as the exponent of the Father’s love.
---Found here.
NOTE: Originally, writings were personal letters to an orthodox Christian acquaintance by Rev.M.J. Steere in 1861.
ABSURDITY: MAN CREATED FOR ENDLESS MISERY.
Universalism proper contemplates one single truth, well worthy to swallow up all others, viz., the Bible doctrine of the final salvation of all men from sin; and this in opposition to their being forever annihilated, or forever damned.
Certainly, rational and scriptural as your penal doctrine seems to you, to me it involves the most alarming absurdities. Some of these latter I will now consider; and First. Your faith implies that "God, the Father," casts vast multitudes of intelligent, immortal beings, in his own image, and places them in this world of trial, either foreordaining that he will, or foreknowing that he shall, damn them forever. And this seems to me an absurdity.
The Creator dwells in his own self-sufficiency. Of course, he is independent of everything outside of himself, and, therefore, can have no occasion, in creating, or in dealing with his creatures, to seek selfish ends; a thing, which is alike forbidden, by the revelation of his essential nature. "For God is Love." Now that such a God should interest himself in begetting immortal beings, "of his own will, and in his own image, to feel his wrath forever — to be forever dying, but never dead, — to have their capacity for suffering forever filling up, but never full, does seem to me absurd in the extreme.
For, mark, no matter how long the creature's probation may be, ten minutes, or ten years, or ten thousand years, eternity equally follows; and the eternity of the creature's anguish was equally present to the Creator, when he set him up in being.
You may say, as an Arminian, — not as a Calvinist — that God did not foreordain the creature's ruin; but you will not deny that he endowed the creature with a susceptible nature, which, coming in contact with the world, into which he thrust him, he foresaw would work his certain ruin. And what you will not deny is, in the premises, all I ask you to admit. For, either way, the creature's endless misery was present to the divine mind, at the moment of his creation.
I do not intend dwelling long on this point. But permit me to ask if the doctrine in review, considered in its relation to the creating hand of God, does not appear to you absurd? so absurd, that, as you steadily contemplate it, your whole soul does not reel and stagger as with the very giddiness of skepticism itself? And here let it be borne in mind:
First. That it was optional with God whether to create the subject of foreknown, everlasting misery, or not.
Second. That, having created such a being, it is optional with him whether to sustain him in his anguish forever, or to permit him to sink out of it into nought.
Now to say that a God of infinite Love and Justice should sink under his endless curse, the beings whom he has thus created, endowed, and circumstanced!
ABSURDITY: THE POPULAR DEVIL
Your creed implies that God, the Father, sustains a mighty being called Devil, filled with all malice against every thing good, in going about to effect the endless misery of his human creatures. And this all seems to me an absurdity. In discussing it, no question need be raised about the personal existence, origin or character of this evil being, further than to say:
1. That, whatever Devil there is, God the Father made. That, however he may have been originally created, and whatever evil character he may have since taken on, the Creator has not been disappointed in him.
2. That, whatever strength he now has to do mischief, the Creator gives him.
3. That the Creator can control him, or destroy him, at pleasure— which is, indeed, implied in the third of these propositions.
The Devil, then, is the offspring of God, no less than we. And it is in God that he, no less than you and I, "lives, and moves, and has his being." He, too, is one of the Father's great family of intelligent moral beings, and, as such, is bound to all the other members, by the ties of a lofty relationship.
Now that God should create such a being, foreseeing what he would be and do, what havoc he would make of his other children, and that, having created him, he should preserve and sustain him in his work of inseparable devastation through his realm, seems to us exceedingly absurd. And in view of it, we think the simple question of Crusoe's man Friday, "Why not God kill Debbil," was well put.
Nor can intelligent Christians ever see anything but absurdity in the notion that God the Father should create such a being, and give him the freedom of the universe for the everlasting destruction of his children. They, too, may well wonder why God does not, at least, shut him up, for the protection of the race on which he preys. We can easily conceive that, when such a being as this Devil enters Paradise, "damnation should follow." But we cannot conceive how it can be possible that, when the infant human race is nestling there in peace, a God of goodness should let him in!
We are indeed told, that the Devil shall yet be bound " for a thousand years," after which he shall be "loosed" again for a little season." During that happy time, of course, his havoc of human souls shall cease, and perdition's supply of anguish be cut off. But the loving Christian heart, in view of the souls constantly dragged down to the pit all around him, earnestly asks, "Why delays that happy hour? Why comes not the angel with the chain now? Why is not Satan bound to-day, this minute? Nay, why was he ever let loose? And when he shall, at least, be bound, why shall he ever be let loose again?
For the Devil and his works, as understood by your faith, are matters of the highest, deepest, broadest, longest, most overwhelming interest. I feel it so, as I consider what he has already done, according to your creed, for many of my ancestors and yours, and what he is still doing. When he, himself, first sunk into the pit, Milton makes him exclaim: "Farewell, happy fields, Where joy forever dwells. Hail, horrors, hail! Infernal world! And thou, profoundest hell, Receive thy new possessor!'"
And when I consider what multitudes he has dragged, according to your faith, dragged down with him, my gushing heart can but sympathize in the question of the simplest child of nature, "Why not God kill Debbil?"
But still you will, perhaps, seek relief from the terrible absurdity of your orthodox position, by reaffirming that God the Father did not create that evil one a devil, but that he has made a devil of himself. Be it so. And what relief is gained? Evidently none at all; for, first, no chance has happened to the Deity. The devil is only the being that God foreknew or foreordained in his creation. And, second, if the question why God created him were satisfactorily disposed of, the question why he lets him run, have free course, and glorify himself in hell, by dragging others down into it by millions, still remains unanswered, or answered only with a glaring absurdity.
But I must say only two or three things more relative to this matter. And First, we know that God so loved all the individuals of the human race, that he gave his Son "a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," according to the Scriptures.
And, Second, you, through your creed, virtually affirm that God created the mighty being, called "the Devil," let him loose, and now sustains him in working the endless ruin of the responsible masses whom he gave his Son to save; so out-generaling the Son of God that, while the latter, by the mightiest exertions of his love, succeeds in winning only "here and there a traveler," into the "narrow way" to everlasting life, the former succeeds in perpetually thronging, with his captives, the broad way to the black caverns of endless woe!
And Third, when asked how you will dispose of the dreadful absurdity here involved, you will say — I know not what. But for ourselves, we see no way of disposing of it, and feel bound to look, with not a little suspicion, upon whatever system of theology involves it. Such system, however time-honored, and however sanctioned by majorities, and by great and worthy names, should, to say the least, be accepted only after the most thorough examination, and under evidence the clearest and most direct from God.
ABSURDITY: INFANTS SAVED, ADULTS LOST.
The popular creed implies that it is only at the most appalling hazard, that a human being survives its infancy on earth; that, for it to die in infancy is to make its eternal salvation sure; whereas, for it to live to the age of accountability on earth, is to be exposed to endless woe, and, probably, to make that woe sure. And this, also, seems to me an absurdity.
Whatever may be the logical limits of any modern creeds, the salvation of infants is now practically regarded as secure, — afflicted parents are now everywhere taught to dry their tears on the funeral of their infant offspring, under the comforting assurance, that the flower that bloomed so sweetly upon their bosom for a day, withered, not that it should die, but only in process of transplantation to more genial skies.
Infants then are saved. And if the half and more, who breathe the vital air, die in infancy, then so many are saved, — saved, certainly and necessarily; and that, too, without the least possible spiritual peril or exposure. And thus, a great host is being gathered from earth into heaven, without any earthly probation at all. Such is the faith of the church today.
And now let us turn and look at the other half of our race, — that portion of it, which by dint of better constitutions, more care, and many prayers, survive their infancy — live on earth till they reach the hour of responsibility, — till they know the difference between moral right and wrong, and begin to act in reference to it.
Now, saying nothing about total depravity, or original, sin, it is believed, and very justly, that all these latter, become sinners. And becoming sinners, it is believed they are under condemnation to endless woe. And, further, it is believed that from this condemnation there is no escape save by a radical change of heart. And, finally, it is believed that no such change can take place, beyond the grave. Of course then, all sinners who do not experience that change on earth are lost forever. But, obviously, that change is experienced by only a very small part of adult persons who go from earth to the tomb. And, therefore, only a very small part of them are saved; while all the rest sink to perdition!
And thus, brother, according to your creed, it comes to pass, that, while infants are all saved, in Heaven, adults, — those who come to the years of accountability on earth — are nearly all lost. Perhaps you may query, whether the fact that relatively, so few experience radical regeneration, is so obvious. But it seems to me your mind shall not have gone over the present aspect of our race, and run back through the ignorant, barbarous, pagan past, before you will be satisfied, that, in the light of history and observation, nothing can be more obvious. For, if we know anything about the human race, up to the present time, we know that only an infinitesimal portion of them, have, in this life, been, in the orthodox sense of the term, regenerated, while all the rest have died in sin.
Now we submit, whether it does not seem very absurd, that the Great Father should deal so differently with those who enter eternity very young, from what he does, with those who enter it only, not quite so young! — that he should take the former directly to himself in heaven, while he leaves the latter, a little time longer on earth, so exposed to the play of passions which he himself ordained, amid circumstances of temptation, which he himself provided, that, for the thousands of years of time past, their absolute endless ruin should be the law, and their final salvation only the exception; so that, while very little children all ascend to Heaven, most of their parents sink to hell!
The absurdity involved here, seems to me no less than dreadful. Yet is it part and parcel of the popular faith — inseparable from it. So that if that faith is true; this absurdity is true; and if this absurdity is true (I speak in a paradox) what an appalling truth for a family circle, and (pardon me, but I mean it all,) what a temptation to infanticide. Take breath and read on, but find no fault with our illustration unless it is severer than truth.
A few years since, a fugitive slave mother, overtaken by pursuers, took the lives of her children, rather than see them remanded into slavery. We judge not her bloody act here. Some pronounced it heroic; others diabolical. It was certainly very dreadful. But the maternal perpetrator of the wild deed, comforts herself with the thought that her children are forever free in heaven.
Here is another mother who believes the popular doctrine of endless punishment. Her only child is yet an infant. She looks upon it, loves it, considers its exposure to everlasting death, if it grow up on earth, kisses and destroys it. This done, she comes forward to the communion table. Arraigned by the church for her unnatural offence, she excuses herself by saying to her pastor in the chair, "You have taught me that if my child die in infancy, its eternal salvation is secure; whereas, if it live to years of responsibility, it probably must sink in hell forever. I could not bear to see it thus exposed to endless woe! No, I could not, for it was the child of my love! And because I loved it, I have saved it. Yes, my sweet little one is now in heaven!"
And thus addressed, what can the pastor do, but either hold his peace, or deny his faith, or take refuge in mystery. If he says to the mother, "Verily, you have grossly sinned," she easily replies. "Be it so, seeing I have forever saved my child from sinning! It well becomes mothers to sacrifice themselves for their childrens' sake. This I have done!"
And if the pastor say, further: "God's great sovereignty must not be arraigned;" she easily adds, "Certainly not; I have not arraigned it, but done only what it demanded, at my hand, in view of my dear child's welfare! I have committed my child to God, in the only possible way to make sure of its salvation!"
And if the pastor further add, with gravity, "You have by this act shut yourself out of heaven," she readily replies, "Be it so, seeing I have shut my dear child out of hell! And yet, how is it that I should be sent to that dreadful place for using the only certain, or even probable means of saving my child from it?" Thus this infanticial mother might proceed.
And what, I again ask, in all seriousness, could her pastor and church do, but take her strange case into charitable consideration? What could they do less than this, when they considered that she had acted only in view of the plain logical consequences of the creed they had put into her hands.
Perhaps you will shrink from this illustration, as too dreadful! And it were too dreadful for any purpose under heaven, other than that for which it is introduced. And yet, in view of that purpose, it falls infinitely short of the fact — it is tameness itself! For, infinitely more dreadful is the thing illustrated! Only just think of it, — an infant, immortal, crossing the line of accountability at the imminent hazard of everlasting death! Think of it, did I say? It cannot be thought of more than in part. For the damnation of the popular creed to which the little innocent is thus exposed, infinitely surpasses all knowledge, all thought. Its perdition is a wide-spreading wilderness, dark with woe, which no imagination can traverse; a boundless ocean of sorrow, over which no thought can wing itself!
And how must the Christian mother, whose eyes are open to the subject, feel, as from day to day she hears the tramp of burning surf, nearer and nearer at hand, as her child nears the fatal line of accountability. How can she then but wish her child secure? And what can seem to her too unnatural or rash, if it but promise it a safe asylum? How can she but wish it in heaven? And should she, in the frenzy natural to her dilemma (for to such a dilemma frenzy is but natural), do as did the slave mother, mentioned above, would she not be, at least, as excusable? Nay, more? For what are the few years of hard bondage to which that slave mother could not bear to see her child doomed, compared with the endless bondage of black despair?
So your creed — so orthodoxy! And shall we not, as men of common sense, common candor, and common humanity, seriously suspect the truth of any exposition of the divine word which involves an absurdity so cruel, crushing, crazing; so dishonoring to our father God?
How true it is that on absurdities absurdities grow — each new one more glaring than that from which it sprung!
ABSURDITY: MEN FIX EACH OTHER' S DOOM.
Your creed plainly implies, that men, both good and bad, may, and often do, determine the endless destiny of their fellow beings, by determining the length of their probation, virtually putting them into heaven, by cutting off all liability to lose it, or into hell by cutting off all opportunity to escape it. And this, also, seems to me an absurdity.
We have already presented one illustration of the above proposition, in the supposed case of the mother who made the "calling and election" of her infant sure, by taking its life. Another is found in a sad accident, which occurred at one of our New England seminaries a few years since. Two young gentlemen were in their room, amusing themselves with a musket, quite unconscious of its being loaded, when the one innocently shot the other, thereby determining his soul at once to heaven or to hell forever.
And still another illustration is found in the death of the drunken rowdy, who fell, at the head of the rum-sellers' mob, at Portland, a few years ago. The balls which, at the order of the resolute city marshal, laid him low, cutting off all opportunity for repentance, carried his soul directly to endless torment. Illustrations to our purpose are also presented in war. Two armies meet. Fearful are the imprecations! Dreadful is the carnage! Balls and bayonets are the swift instruments of everlasting death!
The soldier perishes forever, who might reform and be saved if permitted to return to his home of piety. At the hand of his fellow man, he falls lower than the grave. Nor may any tell how many of our revolutionary colonists are now, in endless despairs sent there by the hired Hessians of George the Third. Nor how many of those whose bones have been brought from the plains of Waterloo, as a fertilizer of British soil, are now in the endless despair to which they were consigned by British swords.
And this, especially, when it is considered, that, of all conditions, that of a soldier, in active service, seems least adapted to promote fitness for heaven. Of course, it is a mystery to us how orthodox Christians can advocate war, or their chaplains kneel mid guns, and swords, loaded and barbed with everlasting death! For these, in their view, are the terrible arbiters of souls' destiny, cutting off their probation, and thereby saying, as with the authority of the Infinite, You shall have no more chance to escape.
These are they that rise up in the place of God, and "shut to the door" against their victims forever. Alas! for the orthodox advocate of war! Let me do him the justice to say, that I think he believes in his creed less than in humanity and common sense.
But, further, our point finds illustration under the operation of the code duello, — that miserable product of dark ages, — that most foolish, meanest mode of settling difficulties — that wretched footman of chattel slavery, accompanying its desolating car, as it dashes into the fair fields of Christian civilization.
The duel settles more than questions of chivalric honor. Instance a case. A and B meet at a public house, drink, altercate, challenge, and accept, choose their seconds, retire and fight. The question of honor is settled by the death of B. And not only that, but the question of B's endless damnation also. The fatal ball settles both. For, while A blows the smoke from his pistol, and retires a victor, leaving the body of the slain to his surgeon and friends, its spirit, prematurely driven out, and thereby excluded all chance of salvation, is met by evil angels in the threshold of eternity, and dragged down into the pit forever.
Thus, according to your penal view, is a question greater than honor settled by the duel. And what does the highwayman do? He meets the moneyed worldling in the way, robs him of his treasure and his life, and throws his body into the thicket, or leaves it in the ditch. But is that all? O no! He also robs his soul of all chances to repent, and tosses it into the thick darkness of despair — buries it alive in hell forever!
So your creed. But the absurdity we are exposing finds a fuller illustration, in cases in which the murderer repents in prison, and finally dies, regretting that he sent the murderer into perdition. Such cases used to be, by no means, very infrequent.
We recently read of one, but have not the details now at hand. Let us suppose such a case, and see its bearing upon the subject in hand. A young lady, respectable, but not converted, is met and ravished, under a dark night, by a villain, who destroys her life to escape detection. Sent thus hurriedly to her God in sin, she is, by the conditions of your creed, of course, lost. No cycle of eternity but shall witness her unrelieved despair. Her soul is assassinated. Out of a dark night of time, she is hurled into a darker night of eternity. The brutal hand that cut her probation short off, thereby plunged her infinitely below the sphere of possible life, shut her up in woe, bolted the door upon her, threw away the key, and left her to pine in anguish forever.
So your creed! And now, leaving her there in her woe, let us turn to look after her murderer. As "murder will out," he is detected, arrested, executed. But, while in prison, blessed with a probation which he forbade to his victim, he comes to himself, heeds his spiritual advisers, repents, exhorts the multitudes from the scaffold, and swings from it into Paradise. And there, because he had much forgiven, he loves much, and never ceases to give thanks for the prison confinement through which the mercy of God reached him.
Thus in heaven the murderer sings. But the young lady, his victim, where is she all this time? Lost! lost! He may have time for repentance, but not she. That was forbidden her, by the red hand that plunged the dagger to her heart. Mercy may come to his prison, but not to hers. That red hand of his may live to be washed, and forever twine wreaths for the immaculate brow of Him whose wrath she must forever bear.
Now, brother, your creed, taken in connection with the history of crime, obviously involves multitudes of cases, similar to any and all which we have stated above. This, you will admit. And, admitting this, can you, as the heart of a man beats in your bosom, fail seriously to query whether that creed is not at fault? Can you be confident in that theology, which thus makes the frantic mother, the officer of justice, the warrior, the duellist, the highwayman, and the libertine, the arbiters of the eternal destiny of their victims; so that, in the case last stated, if it was the hard fate of the young lady to be abused, scared into frenzy, and murdered, it was her harder one to be, by her murderer's hand, consigned to the bottomless pit; while he, by the grace of God, which he denied to her, has space for repentance, and goes up to sing in heaven!
Be your own commentator upon what I have said. The notion that the Living Father has made the endless weal and woe of men thus dependent upon the frenzy, ambition, lucre, lust, and brutality of their fellow beings, well, "he that can receive it, let him receive it." But let him be very sure that he has an unmistakable "thus saith the Lord," on which to rest, a faith so at war with reason and all the humanities.
ABSURDITY — HEATHEN LOST.
This green earth, and you and I walking over it! These spangled heavens, and you and I walking under them! Grand conceptions. How they overwhelmed the Psalmist, when'" at eventide," lifting up his eyes in the contemplation of the immensity of God's works, he exclaimed, "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and stars which thou hast ordained, what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?"
But the Psalmist was, in this case, hardly peculiar. All thinking men are, sometimes, consciously rapt in Jehovah, as king David was. And when I, in my humbler measure, have been so carried away in thought, I have felt a strong sympathy with the man who, on being told that an aged neighbor, recently deceased, was probably in perdition, coolly replied, "I think the Author of this vast universe can find some better business than to be damning forever that poor old man!"
But, you will say, this is a strange opening for a familiar letter; and yet, if you will consider it well, I think it will not prove an unprofitable one. But to bring our thoughts into line again, we proceed: That a very large proportion of all who have lived upon and left the earth, up to the present time, have lived upon and left it, heathen. This is the fact. Your creed implies that they are lost. This is the seeming absurdity. Idolatry very early appeared among men. Its prevalence is attested by very early records, and from the dawning of historic ages down to the present time, it has been the law, and truer worship only the exception.
Very important, therefore, is the question, what has become of the countless millions of our great brotherhood who have died in idolatry? Paul would not have his brethren ignorant "concerning those who had fallen asleep," even though they had fallen asleep heathen. No more would we be ignorant of the condition of the multitudes of our heathen relation, who, after groping their dark and evil way on earth, have fallen on sleep. Well is it that the geologist deciphers the records of material paleontology upon the charred tablets of our crusted globe. But far better is it, that the religious antiquarian should inquire after the spiritual, which accompanied the material — after the millions upon millions of immortal spirits which have, from age to age, been leaving their bodies behind them, in the dust of the grave.
This question of the heathen's eternity is a vast one, everywhere stirring men up, either to the abandonment of the popular penal creed, or to such modifications of it, as require the abandonment of the stereotyped plates from which have been stricken off a thousand editions of it. This, as we have before said, is the creed. 1. Death does nothing to fit a soul for heaven. 2. No soul can be fitted for heaven after death. 3. Therefore all who die unfit for heaven are lost forever.
Under this view the heathen are disposed of in a syllogism, thus: 1. All who die unfit for heaven are lost. 2. The heathen die unfit for heaven, and therefore, 3. The heathen are lost. With so simple a word, are the heathen of all ages disposed of under the popular creed, — the creed which, probably, finds no more truthful expositor, than the Rev. Dr. Wayland, long president of Brown University, one of the clearest reasoners and thinkers of the age, and whose published works are giving him a just celebrity upon two continents. In his "Moral Dignity of the Missionary Enterprise," a discourse whose sublime completeness, makes it well worthy to stand at the head of a volume of discourses on missions, the doctor says:
"We have considered these beings, [the heathen,] as candidates for an eternity of happiness or misery, and we cannot avoid the thought that they are exposed to endless misery. Hence, you will observe, the question with us, is not, whether a heathen, unlearned in the gospel, can be saved. We are willing to admit that he may. But if he be saved, he must possess holiness of heart; for without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is in vain to talk about the innocence of these children of nature, It is in vain to tell of their graceful my theology. Their gods are such as lust makes welcome. Of their very religious service, it is a shame even to speak. To settle the question concerning their future destiny, it would only seem necessary to ask, what would be the character of that future state, in which those principles of heart, which the whole history of the heathen world develops, were suffered to operate in unrestrained malignity? No. Solemn as is the thought, we do believe, that, dying in their present state, they will be exposed to all that is awful in the wrath of Almighty God."
Thus does this clear thinker and writer give the only fair and legitimate exposition of his creed, in reference to the heathen. All different ones set that creed at naught. To be consistent, we must either abandon the cardinal principle of that creed, or else believe that the vast multitudes of heathen who have, from age to age, swarmed up in the earth, and swept away into eternity, a broad deep rolling river of immortal beings, are now swarming in Hell; that they are there this moment, and there forever to remain, suffering all that is awful in the wrath of Almighty God!" — This was the thought which the doctor could not avoid without denying his faith. And, surely, it is "solemn," and can but make us shudder — shudder for the heathen, shudder for the honor of God, and shudder with the exclamation, "what if we had been born heathen five thousand years ago!!"
But is not this thought so solemn that it degenerates into an absurdity? Is it not so expressive that it expresses nothing; so overdone that it does nothing; so shocking to common sense that the heart, on reflection, cares little for it. For, surely if the heathen do, for want of the Gospel, go thus quickly down to hell, over the sulphurous gateway by which they enter, to come up no more, might well be written in emblazoned characters, which should shine out like live coals upon the dark, "CHILDREN of God, drinking the WRATH of God, for want of OPPORTUNITY to ESCAPE it!"
Do you not feel that the doctrine I reject, whether true or false, by the terribleness of its absurdities, sets all human language at defiance! Are not some of them such, that, shrinking from their contemplation, your only rest and safeguard against what is called heresy, is in putting an interdict upon your common sense and consciousness. Do not some of the absurdities noted in these letters meet you at every turn, and often confront you so boldly, that you are obliged to attempt to deal summarily with them, while at the same time, you are astonished that they will not more readily "down at your bidding?"
We close this letter, praying that, under the sure guidance of the word and spirit of God, you may find your way out of them; and that way I think you will have discovered, when you sufficiently consider Jesus as the exponent of the Father’s love.
---Found here.
Friday, December 12, 2008
RIP Bettie Page
One of the sexiest women who ever lived has left us. A true cultural icon, she inspired artists and imitators. 
Heaven just got a little bit hotter.
Heaven just got a little bit hotter.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Answers to 21 Anti-Universalist Objections
Answers to 21 Anti-universalist Objections
Steve Jones
Objection 1: If universal restoration is true, why be a Christian now?
Answer: We ought to follow Jesus, first of all, because it is the right and good thing to do. Second, that we might enjoy a purpose in our existence, an abundant life, a freedom from the tyranny of evil and an escape from the mundane offerings of this world.
Objection 2: If all will be saved someday, why evangelize?
Answer: See the answer to the first objection.
Objection 3: Without the threat of endless hell, some people won’t respond to God or seek to do good. If universalism were revealed true, many Christians would give up the faith and live ungodly lives.
Answer: Such people are unworthy of the Christian name. They obey God as slaves under the lash, not as children seeking to live in the Father’s love. I refuse to allow them to drive my interpretation of human destiny.
Objection 4: Doesn’t justice demand that some people pay for their sins forever?
Answer: No. The wages of sin is death — we’ll all make that payment. But if God wishes to pardon all, what slight is that to His justice? I am commanded by Christ to forgive all who have offended me. Is that an injustice? If not, then why would it be unjust for God to do exactly what He expects of me?
Objection 5: The Bible contains language of exclusion. Some will “not see life” or have “no inheritance in the kingdom.” Others will “go away into eternal punishment.”
Answer: Yes, but the Bible also includes language of universal inclusiveness. Paul said that “every knee will bow” and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Objection 6: True. But for the wicked, that confession will not come from the heart — only from the almighty, subjugating power of Christ.
Answer: A coerced confession would not be “to the glory of God the Father.”
Objection 7: Still, doesn’t a lot of Scriptural language rule out universalism?
Answer: Evidently not. Only a few centuries after Christ, we have records of many scholarly Christians who spoke the New Testament language, used the same “exclusionary” and “condemnatory” phrases found in its pages — yet, they were open universalists.
Objection 8: If the authors of Scripture were universalists, why didn’t they just say it plainly? Why do they write things so apt to be misunderstood?
Answer: The Psalmist wrote, “All flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever.” (Psalm 145:21) How much plainer can you get than that? The same kind of language occurs in the New Testament. It is true, however, that the Bible is not a universalist catechism or primer. The latter Scriptures give us a glimpse into the faith of the early church, but not a full explanation of everything Christians believed from the ground up. The New Testament is concerned mainly with (1) the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah, (2) the proclamation of the long-awaited kingdom of God, (3) the healing of problems in the early churches. It does not answer all our eschatological queries with unmistakable plainness. Besides that, Paul tends to be difficult to understand — even another biblical author thought so. (2 Pet. 3:15-16)
Objection 9: Aren’t you just projecting wishful thinking onto the Bible?
Answer: I may be. But a thing is not false simply because we would like it to be true. The Christian message is supposed to be good news. Why not embrace the best news possible?
Objection 10: What if you’re wrong about this? What if universalism isn’t true?
Answer: Well, then I’m wrong. Any person with an ounce of humility will consider this a real possibility about a given belief. No one is infallible. But if I am wrong, I would rather err on the side of mercy than wrath. I would rather be guilty of making God too loving than too condemning.
Objection 11: Doesn’t universalism minimize the seriousness of sin?
Answer: Jesus told us to forgive everyone who has sinned against us. Does that minimize the seriousness of sin?
Objection 12: What about sins that are “unto death” or that will never be forgiven?
Answer: It is within the power of God to punish these offenses without inflicting either eternal torment or annihilation.
Objection 13: If universalism is true, that means Hitler will enjoy the same eternity as the most pious saint.
Answer: Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. That was the belief of Paul.
Objection 14: Are you denying that “it is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgment”?
Answer: No. Some may have to face a fearful judgment on the other side of the grave and endure some retribution for what they have done. The universalist hope is that they will be reconciled eventually, that God may be “all in all.”
Objection 15: Isn’t the idea of reformation after death unbiblical?
Answer: No. It is biblically obscure, but not anti-biblical. Early Christians practiced a proxy baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29). They also believed that after his crucifixion, Jesus preached to the dead imprisoned in hades (1 Pet. 3:19-20; 4:3-5). The Bible never tells us that it is “too late” for any change once we have died (contrary to the warnings of so many evangelists).
Objection 16: Jesus said that “God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.” (Matt. 10:28) Doesn't that pretty much refute universalism?
Answer: To say that God has the power to do something is not the same thing as saying that He WILL do it. For example, John the Baptist declared that “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matt. 3:10) No one expected that to happen, of course.
Jesus' utterance is part of a send-off to his missionaries who were ready to preach the kingdom of God and face severe opposition. The point was this: Do not be consumed by the fear of men, but instead fear the one who truly holds the power of life and death. It need not be viewed as a definitive statement of “what happens when non-Christians die.”
Objection 17: Won’t people live carelessly if you teach such a thing?
Answer: I can’t help that. People live carelessly under the threat of endless torments, too.
Objection 18: Doesn’t universalism encourage the unbiblical notion of the “immortality of the soul.”
Answer: Some universalists believe in the immortality of the soul (as do many non-universalists). Some don’t. My opinion is this: The eternal life to come will be the result of the resurrection, the gift of Christ — not some undying component in the human personality.
Objection 19: Most Christians throughout the course of church history — and even today — would strongly disagree with you on universalism.
Answer: Majority vote does not determine truth. More often, it’s the other way around.
Objection 20: Calvinists tell us that God does not love all people.
Answer: He surely must. Jesus told us to love all people, even our enemies, and to do good toward them. God’s love is perfect and, therefore, must surpass ours — not fall below it.
Objection 21: Won’t the inclusion of everyone diminish the significance of salvation for the saints?
Answer: Why would it? Generally speaking, a big party is better than a small one.
Steve Jones
Objection 1: If universal restoration is true, why be a Christian now?
Answer: We ought to follow Jesus, first of all, because it is the right and good thing to do. Second, that we might enjoy a purpose in our existence, an abundant life, a freedom from the tyranny of evil and an escape from the mundane offerings of this world.
Objection 2: If all will be saved someday, why evangelize?
Answer: See the answer to the first objection.
Objection 3: Without the threat of endless hell, some people won’t respond to God or seek to do good. If universalism were revealed true, many Christians would give up the faith and live ungodly lives.
Answer: Such people are unworthy of the Christian name. They obey God as slaves under the lash, not as children seeking to live in the Father’s love. I refuse to allow them to drive my interpretation of human destiny.
Objection 4: Doesn’t justice demand that some people pay for their sins forever?
Answer: No. The wages of sin is death — we’ll all make that payment. But if God wishes to pardon all, what slight is that to His justice? I am commanded by Christ to forgive all who have offended me. Is that an injustice? If not, then why would it be unjust for God to do exactly what He expects of me?
Objection 5: The Bible contains language of exclusion. Some will “not see life” or have “no inheritance in the kingdom.” Others will “go away into eternal punishment.”
Answer: Yes, but the Bible also includes language of universal inclusiveness. Paul said that “every knee will bow” and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Objection 6: True. But for the wicked, that confession will not come from the heart — only from the almighty, subjugating power of Christ.
Answer: A coerced confession would not be “to the glory of God the Father.”
Objection 7: Still, doesn’t a lot of Scriptural language rule out universalism?
Answer: Evidently not. Only a few centuries after Christ, we have records of many scholarly Christians who spoke the New Testament language, used the same “exclusionary” and “condemnatory” phrases found in its pages — yet, they were open universalists.
Objection 8: If the authors of Scripture were universalists, why didn’t they just say it plainly? Why do they write things so apt to be misunderstood?
Answer: The Psalmist wrote, “All flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever.” (Psalm 145:21) How much plainer can you get than that? The same kind of language occurs in the New Testament. It is true, however, that the Bible is not a universalist catechism or primer. The latter Scriptures give us a glimpse into the faith of the early church, but not a full explanation of everything Christians believed from the ground up. The New Testament is concerned mainly with (1) the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah, (2) the proclamation of the long-awaited kingdom of God, (3) the healing of problems in the early churches. It does not answer all our eschatological queries with unmistakable plainness. Besides that, Paul tends to be difficult to understand — even another biblical author thought so. (2 Pet. 3:15-16)
Objection 9: Aren’t you just projecting wishful thinking onto the Bible?
Answer: I may be. But a thing is not false simply because we would like it to be true. The Christian message is supposed to be good news. Why not embrace the best news possible?
Objection 10: What if you’re wrong about this? What if universalism isn’t true?
Answer: Well, then I’m wrong. Any person with an ounce of humility will consider this a real possibility about a given belief. No one is infallible. But if I am wrong, I would rather err on the side of mercy than wrath. I would rather be guilty of making God too loving than too condemning.
Objection 11: Doesn’t universalism minimize the seriousness of sin?
Answer: Jesus told us to forgive everyone who has sinned against us. Does that minimize the seriousness of sin?
Objection 12: What about sins that are “unto death” or that will never be forgiven?
Answer: It is within the power of God to punish these offenses without inflicting either eternal torment or annihilation.
Objection 13: If universalism is true, that means Hitler will enjoy the same eternity as the most pious saint.
Answer: Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. That was the belief of Paul.
Objection 14: Are you denying that “it is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgment”?
Answer: No. Some may have to face a fearful judgment on the other side of the grave and endure some retribution for what they have done. The universalist hope is that they will be reconciled eventually, that God may be “all in all.”
Objection 15: Isn’t the idea of reformation after death unbiblical?
Answer: No. It is biblically obscure, but not anti-biblical. Early Christians practiced a proxy baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29). They also believed that after his crucifixion, Jesus preached to the dead imprisoned in hades (1 Pet. 3:19-20; 4:3-5). The Bible never tells us that it is “too late” for any change once we have died (contrary to the warnings of so many evangelists).
Objection 16: Jesus said that “God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.” (Matt. 10:28) Doesn't that pretty much refute universalism?
Answer: To say that God has the power to do something is not the same thing as saying that He WILL do it. For example, John the Baptist declared that “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matt. 3:10) No one expected that to happen, of course.
Jesus' utterance is part of a send-off to his missionaries who were ready to preach the kingdom of God and face severe opposition. The point was this: Do not be consumed by the fear of men, but instead fear the one who truly holds the power of life and death. It need not be viewed as a definitive statement of “what happens when non-Christians die.”
Objection 17: Won’t people live carelessly if you teach such a thing?
Answer: I can’t help that. People live carelessly under the threat of endless torments, too.
Objection 18: Doesn’t universalism encourage the unbiblical notion of the “immortality of the soul.”
Answer: Some universalists believe in the immortality of the soul (as do many non-universalists). Some don’t. My opinion is this: The eternal life to come will be the result of the resurrection, the gift of Christ — not some undying component in the human personality.
Objection 19: Most Christians throughout the course of church history — and even today — would strongly disagree with you on universalism.
Answer: Majority vote does not determine truth. More often, it’s the other way around.
Objection 20: Calvinists tell us that God does not love all people.
Answer: He surely must. Jesus told us to love all people, even our enemies, and to do good toward them. God’s love is perfect and, therefore, must surpass ours — not fall below it.
Objection 21: Won’t the inclusion of everyone diminish the significance of salvation for the saints?
Answer: Why would it? Generally speaking, a big party is better than a small one.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Phillipians 2: 10-11
So when His name is called,
every knee will bow,
in heaven, on earth, and below.
And every tongue will confess
"Jesus, the Liberating King, is Lord,
to the glory of God our father (The Voice)
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (NIV)
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (KJV)
Here Paul is discussing how we should love one another and be servants towards one another, because Christ humbled Himself by becoming our servant unto death, and we ought to be willing to do the same for our fellow man.
But what does this last part mean? God exalts Christ above all so that everyone, on earth OR UNDER THE EARTH shall both bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.
Again, I take ALL to mean ALL. Every to mean every.
Even the people living at the center of the Hollow Earth. Everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord, which means, sooner or later, everyone is going to be at the party. See ya there :)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Victory Day in Iraq
An interesting perspective on the conflict in Iraq from the Gay Patriot:
Now personally, I feel we "won" the war the day that statue came down. On that day, Saddam's government was toppled, and the rest has been mop-up and rebuilding. The primary mission was accomplished, to be replaced by a new mission of nation building.
It is much easier to defeat an enemy than to build a new nation, and the past several years have proven that out.
Either way, I like Bruce's perspective on this, and found it well worth repeating.
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, thank you American warriors. Thank you to those Americans who supported them, and thank you to the President and the rest of our government who did whatever they did to bring about this victory.
Thanks and praise be to the God who watched over all of us. Annuit Coeptis
By any and all accounts of measuring success (including the American liberals’ ever changing goals), we can finally mark the day that America can finally declare “Victory In Iraq.” A number of bloggers were declaring 11/22/2008 (last Saturday) as “V.I. Day” — and that date is as good as any.
But it was this week that, militarily and politically, the Armed Forces of the United States of America Officially Won The War In Iraq.
BAGHDAD — The long, costly story of American military involvement in Iraq moved closer to an end Thursday when Iraq’s parliament approved a pact that requires all troops to be out in three years, marking the first clear timetable for a U.S. exit since the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.
The vote followed months of talks between U.S. and Iraqi negotiators that at times seemed on the point of collapse, and then days of dealmaking between ethnic and sectarian groups whose centuries-old rifts had hardened during the first four years of the war.
Three United States heroes are primarily responsible for Victory In Iraq: General David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and the Commander In Chief, President George W. Bush.
However… the ultimate credit and praise goes to the nameless and faceless: The many, many American heroes in uniform (some still fighting; some never coming home), the American civil servants in the Green Zone, the countless Americans volunteering in Iraq out of compassion, and millions of ordinary Iraqis stepping up out of the dust clouds and raising their voices for freedom.
The War Against Islamic Fundamentalism is far from over. But the forces of evil suffered a known defeat in the sands of Iraq at the hands of Western liberal democracies. It wasn’t pretty — but war is hell.
AMERICA SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF THE VICTORY IN IRAQ. Yes, it came at a terrible cost, as all marches toward freedom do. But history shall be the ultimate judge of how the Post-9/11 world is safer because Saddam Hussein was not a part of it.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Now personally, I feel we "won" the war the day that statue came down. On that day, Saddam's government was toppled, and the rest has been mop-up and rebuilding. The primary mission was accomplished, to be replaced by a new mission of nation building.
It is much easier to defeat an enemy than to build a new nation, and the past several years have proven that out.
Either way, I like Bruce's perspective on this, and found it well worth repeating.
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, thank you American warriors. Thank you to those Americans who supported them, and thank you to the President and the rest of our government who did whatever they did to bring about this victory.
Thanks and praise be to the God who watched over all of us. Annuit Coeptis
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
A Good Article On Christian Universalism
Okay, I finally got my character to level 55 and made my Death Knight in WoW, so finally I may be able to begin posting again. To start things out I'll make up my usual Sunday posting on faith and the salvation of all with this adaptation of an article from the 1880s:
Some good stuff here, well worth pondering.
The Beauty of Christian Universalism
Christian Universalism appears to me very simple, consistent, and beautiful. It regards this world as God's, and the whole human family as His children. It accepts without distrust the fundamental fact of the gospel, that God, out of his great love to mankind, now alienated from him by sin, sent his only begotten Son to seek and to save that which was lost, and by redeeming men from sin, to restore them to their right relations with God, and thus fit them to glorify and enjoy Him forever.
It teaches that whatever mystery or difficulty there may be in the work of redeeming and saving souls, it is precisely the same in one and all. The truth, the grace, the love, the spiritual power, that can seize and transform one sinful soul, yours or mine, a Peter's or a Paul's is able to seize and transform all souls, for it can accommodate itself to all possible diversities of character and all conditions of life.
It is in virtue of this comprehensive power and fitness for the work it has in hand, that the gospel of Christ is qualified to be, and is to become, in fact, a universal religion. If there is one human soul in the universe that Christ cannot subdue and bring into willing subjection to his law, he is not "the Savior of the world," as inspiration proclaims him, and not the Savior the world needs.
Yet this redemptive work, let me add, is always carried on in perfect accordance with man's moral nature. Transcendent and divine as the power is, it operates in harmony with all human powers, so that, while Christ subdues our hearts to his will and brings them in subjection to his holy law, there is no violence done to our personality or our own will. We never act more freely than when we recognize the divine love, and sweetly yield our wills, ourselves, to its all-conquering power.
It was his prophecy and promise, as he stood in the immediate presence of the cross, that if he were lifted up from the earth, thus signifying by what death he was to die, he would draw all men unto himself (John 7:32). And this word "draw" expresses admirably the attractive forces of the Christian religion and Christ's method of accomplishing his work. Men are not driven to goodness and heaven, but are drawn thither. And we cannot properly consider the power of the divine love, as exhibited in the mission of Christ, without feeling convinced that it is sufficient to do all that Christ undertook. Prophecy assures us that he will not fail nor be discouraged in his work, but bring it at last to a glorious consummation.
As there is one God, who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (I Tim. 2:3-6). And that Christian seems to me weak in the faith who does not see in his Lord and Master a will, a love, a patience, a persistence, equal to the great work he came to do.
Nor do the various punishments which necessarily befall the sinner, whether here or hereafter, in any manner interfere with Christ's redeeming purpose, or interrupt the processes of his grace. On the contrary, they may always be, as we know they often are, the means of breaking the stubborn will, and so preparing the heart for the readier reception of the divine love and law. And as Christ in his history has experienced all the states of human existence, having sojourned and suffered in this world, descended into Hades, and ascended into heaven, that as the Apostle says, "he might fill all things," so he embraces in the arms of his redeeming power and love the whole human family in all their possible states of being, whether alive upon earth, or whether they lived before the flood, or are to live in the ages to come. He tasted death for every man, and is therefore to be the Savior of the world.
In the language of the Apostle we say, "Wherefore, God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:9-11). And it needs no argument to show that universal homage to Christ and this confession of him as Lord can be nothing else than a personal and individual act. No man can make this confession for his neighbor and the Apostle elsewhere assures us that these acts of homage and allegiance can be performed in no other temper than that of profound sincerity. "No man speaking by the spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost" (I Cor. 7:3).
In the realm of the spiritual, forms and ceremonies count little, and unmeaning or forced confessions, in which the heart does not utter its own feelings and convictions, count nothing at all. The Apostle, in declaring that every knee is to bow in the name of Christ, and every tongue to confess him Lord to the glory of God the Father, was surely not speaking of any mere outward service or any hypocritical homage, and quite as little of that confession which orthodoxy madly dreams will be extorted from the damned in hell.
The salvation of the whole human race is what God proposed in the creation. It is what Christ came into the world to effect, and for the accomplishment of which he was given all needed power in heaven and earth. To this end he died the death of the cross, and thus tasted death for every man; and I submit that such self-sacrificing love cannot suddenly cool, or readily give over to endless torment souls for which it thus willingly suffered.
I should be ashamed of myself, if, believing in God and in Christ, I still feared their ultimate failure in this great work of redemption, whose history fills the Bible. God never fails. I cannot associate failure with him even in thought. It is for him who inhabits eternity, and who is at once omniscient and omnipotent, to say, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:10). And I beg those of the contrary part to reflect that the final issue of the divine government, whether it be in harmony with our theology or theirs, must be what God saw it from the beginning, and what, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, he himself proposed.
The above article was adapted, with slight editing, from the book "Endless Punishment In the Very Words of Its Advocates" by Thomas J. Sawyer, S.T.D., 1880
Some good stuff here, well worth pondering.
Friday, November 21, 2008
L.Neil Smith on Sarah Palin
I have long admired the books of libertarian sci-fi writer L. Neil Smith. People have often called him a proper heir to the works of Robert Heinlein, with his novels being full of fun-loving, gun-toting free thinkers. I'm not sure I would go that far, being I feel Heinlein's stature will probably never be matched, but I do love the guy's books.
He made some very interesting comments about Palin, liberals, and the election on his website:
Gotta give props to Mr. Smith for his insightful commentary here.
/Hat Tip to the Libertarian Republican for this one.
He made some very interesting comments about Palin, liberals, and the election on his website:
Apparently liberals can't handle the idea of a woman with power if that woman isn't another liberal.
Enter Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. When Mad Jack McCain announced the choice he'd made of Palin as a running mate late last summer, I was delighted and surprised. It wasn't simply the only smart move the Hanoi Senator had made during his campaign, it was probably the only smart move any Republican had made since Eisenhower ended the Korean War.
High on the list of reasons I was delighted and surprised was that we'd have an excellent chance now to see clearly just how sisterly all those left-wing socialist feminists could be toward the third woman in American history likely to score herself a vote in the Electoral College.
The first, of course, being Tonie Nathan, a Libertarian.
What I saw and heard during the next three months exceeded even my wildest imaginings—and remember, I'm an imaginer by profession—a vitriolic spew of blind, visceral, dogmatic hatred that the nation's "progressives" hadn't lavished even on Randy Weaver, back when Ruby Ridge was in the headlines, nor on Timothy McVeigh after the explosion in Oklahoma City. Some feminists even claimed that, somehow, Palin wasn't a woman. Meaning, of course, that she dared to cherish values differing from those a woman, in their demented view, is supposed to cherish.
One so-called female so-called comedian referred to Palin as a "...little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican, thin-lipped bitch", unintentionally describing herself by temperament, if not by political persuasion. She also warned the vice presidential candidate that she (Palin) would be gang-raped by her (the comedian's) "big black brothers" if she (Palin) visited Manhattan.
This to a real woman who, at least by implication, knows how to deal with a rapist the way a rapist ought to be dealt with, not with a little plastic whistle or a sisterly candlelight vigil, but with... well, let's just put it this way: there are places in Alaska where you're not allowed to venture unless you're carrying at least a .357 Magnum.
Same way the streets and subways of New York should be.
The so-called female so-called comedian also warned Palin to "stay away from the Old Testament", whatever that means, and referred to Palin's religion as "new goyish crappy shiksa funky bullshit!" Then, not realizing how funny she was being unintentionally, she added, "I'd just like [Palin] to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views." I believe this calls for a new category of bigotry. How about "anti-Gentilism"?
Observers as disparate as freethinking liberal Camille Paglia and conservative Michael Barone have suggested that Palin became a target for bitter militant feminist hatred not simply because she opposes abortion, but because she declined to abort her own fifth child when she learned, in advance, that he would be afflicted with Down's Syndrome.
However not everything is about fetuses, and I believe there is a much wider and deeper reason that the left have unzipped and exposed themselves this way. There is a war going on, after all, between the so-called "dominant culture"—for which read the Parasitic Class—and the American Productive Class that clothes, feeds, and houses this country and much of the world and generally keeps the whole thing running.
The Parasitic Class decided for themselves long ago that we, the members of the Productive Class, should keep our places, work hard, turn over all our money to our "betters", and shut up. They, the Parasitic Class, for the most part alumni of Ivy League universities—alma maters of most of the morons who got us into, not only the current economic, military, and constitutional mess we find ourselves in today, but all of the economic, military, and constitutional messes of the 20th century, as well—would do the thinking, planning, and ruling.
Unannointed by such an Ivy League education or even the minimum requirement for membership in good standing in the Parasitic Class, a law degree (after trying other schools she graduated in media from the University of Idaho), Palin's an upstart, a usurper, a bounder, crimes that transcend even her protected status as a female. She isn't even from "Flyover Country"—nobody who's anybody ever flies over Alaska.
Perhaps as important, Palin isn't some pallid East-coast hotel dweller, accustomed to room service, but a real human being, a real live female who can do all of the things listed in the song "I'm A Woman"—she can handle a rifle, hunt, fish, clean and cut up wild game, make something edible out of it, keep house, raise five kids, keep her husband interested since they were in high school together, plus run a city and run a state—and most of the things any human being should be able to do, according to The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
In short, she's a Heinlein woman.
That, I submit, is why she's hated by those females who are not Heinlein women, and by those Milquetoast males who are desperately afraid of the kind of real woman she is. That's why she was betrayed by her own party—Mit Romney's faction—which was the source, as it develops, of many of the most vicious falsehoods that were spread about her. That's why she's being blamed for McCain's pathetic failures, in an attempt to make sure she won't have a political future.
And that the peasants won't revolt.
The 2008 election is behind us now, a part of history, and the collectivists who triumphed are going to enjoy it while they can. The observations I've made here might be unimportant, except that, owing to the ascension of their god-king, we're going to be living with these animals for a while. In the end, it may be that the best thing Sarah Palin's candidacy accomplished is exposing them for what they are.
Gotta give props to Mr. Smith for his insightful commentary here.
/Hat Tip to the Libertarian Republican for this one.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Instead of the Usual Sunday Bible Study...
Been a real hard couple of days, grinding my tush off in WoW since the new expansion. here then in lieu of my normal Sunday sermon is something I pulled off of MMOFringe.com.
Commentary: All dogs go to heaven. God has reconciled the whole world in Christ, not just people and creatures with "souls." All existence "goes to heaven." Your pets, your rocks, and your pet rocks.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Watchmen Trailer
I am very much looking forward to this movie. One of my favorite graphic novels, I remember WAITING for these as Alan Moore first wrote them.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
It's Here!
So there I was at midnight last night at my local Gamestop, waiting in line with forty other nerds as we chatted about what servers we play on, PvP, PVE, Hunters, Pallys, nerfs, the doom that came to SWG, and other geeky recondite matters, when I realized just how lame we all really are...
But I still got my copy of the Wrath of the Lich King expansion for WoW.
Here, once again, is the Cinematic trailer:
Death Knights FTW!
But I still got my copy of the Wrath of the Lich King expansion for WoW.
Here, once again, is the Cinematic trailer:
Death Knights FTW!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I, Robot
Wow check out this VERY realistic robot...
The article going with it:
Pictured: The robot that can pull faces just like a human being
The article going with it:
Pictured: The robot that can pull faces just like a human being
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Two Nerds Talking About Star Wars Games
Jedi Diggnation Discussion from Kevin Rose on Vimeo.
The guy on the left used to play a Wookiee on my server in Star Wars Galaxies. I was friendlier with his colleague Josh Brentano, aka the great Mantelo Mandalorean. These guys were all from TechTV back in the days before it mutated into G4.
Now they drink beer on the internet. Nice work if you can get it.
Monday, November 10, 2008
What Would Cap Do?
I often ask this question of myself, when deciding things, especially about freedom, force, and heroism. In this case, I am asking the question, what would Captain America do, if he could pick his own director for his movie?
Well, he'd probably pick a man like Joe Johnston. Joe shows he understands old-fashioned values, how to be corny-but-cool, and how to create that "I love America" with just the right combination of hip and sappiness.
As the director of The Rocketeer and October Sky he has shown that he UNDERSTANDS. He knows that sense of wonder and that American "can-do" spirit.
He is one of the few guys who started out as an effects artist and went on to become a really effective director.
Well, according to Hollywood Reporter, he has been selected as the director for Captain America: the First Avenger.
Joe Johnston has inked a deal to direct "First Avenger: Captain America," Marvel Studios' take on its classic comic book character. Marvel's Kevin Feige is producing.
No writers are on board, but the studio, which is hearing pitches, expects to hire shortly.
Johnston first met with Marvel two years ago. When the two parties clicked, general talks turned into Captain America-specific meetings, with much of the project's current direction resulting from those early conversations.
"This is a guy who designed the vehicles for 'Star Wars,' who storyboarded the convoy action sequence for 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' " Feige said. "From 'Rocketeer' to 'October Sky' to 'The Wolfman,' you can look at pieces of his movies and see how they lead to this one."
The article discusses the ultimate plan a bit more:
Kicking off with "Iron Man," Marvel Studios' slate of movies --including "Thor" and the "Iron Man" sequel -- is building toward an "Avengers" movie set for release in 2011, in which the characters from the films team for one big adventure. "Captain America" is scheduled for release May 6, 2011.
"Captain America" will be a World War II-set movie, and the character will appear in the modern day-set "Avengers." Executive producing on "Captain" are Louis D'Esposito, Stan Lee and Marvel Studios' chairman David Maisel.
Color me excited. Color me red, white and blue.
1 John 2:2
It was through His sacrificial death that our sins were atoned. But He did not stop there -- He died for the sins of the whole world. (The Voice)
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.(NIV)
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV)
Here we have the Beloved Disciple discussing how we should not sin, but IF we do (and of course we do every day), we should not live in fear because Jesus was a fully proper and effective sacrifice NOT only for our sins, but for the sins of the world. Once again, we can see, as I have discussed before, the infinite power of an infinite Son of God atoning infinitely for finite sin.
No matter how much YOU and I sin, it is some finite number. Huge, but finite. No matter how much everyone sins, it is still some finite, although much greater number. No matter how many permutations of sin there are, they are limited within time -- therefore, some finite number.
Jesus, being of God and of man -- 100% of both, is the mathematical intersection of the finite and the infinite. As a finite man, he lived completely by faith and thus was sinless. He then was sacrificed on the cross as an offering for sin. His finite nature and his infinite nature combine, thus covering ALL men.
In fact, the whole world -- or even further -- all of existence. Even beyond what exists but all that is possible, since such is contained in infinity, with a few more left over.
Amen.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
1,000 Visitors!
At least since I started keeping track with Sitemeter, which was on September 11th, 2008. Thanks for reading!
EDIT/Update: I did not know that Hollywood Reporter would be announcing the director of Captain America: the First Avenger when I posted this pic. Cap is just sort of my unofficial mascot for this site, since he is the "Sentinel of Liberty" and all that. Pretty neat "coincidence" that the info was released the very next day.
EDIT/Update: I did not know that Hollywood Reporter would be announcing the director of Captain America: the First Avenger when I posted this pic. Cap is just sort of my unofficial mascot for this site, since he is the "Sentinel of Liberty" and all that. Pretty neat "coincidence" that the info was released the very next day.
Iranian Dissident's Warning To Barack Obama: Negotiating Won't Work
You can't negotiate with evil. Compromising with evil merely emboldens and empowers it. I HOPE our President-elect actually listens to the people who understand the Jihadi regime in Iraq and CHANGEs his opinion:
Hat Tip to Pat Dollard
Hat Tip to Pat Dollard
Aftermath
Machosauce's take on the election:
Although I certainly don't agree with everything the guy says, he has a very interesting analysis of how the election went down, and why McCain failed.
Although I certainly don't agree with everything the guy says, he has a very interesting analysis of how the election went down, and why McCain failed.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
More on How the Conspiracy is Behind Obama
I just can never get enough of this stuff. Hat tip to the Libertarian Republican who found this at the Whole Truth Coalition:
Part 1:
part 2:
Part 1:
part 2:
Friday, November 7, 2008
Ron Paul on Alex Jones
Now that the "sanity" of the election is over, it's time to turn to watching the Conspiracy:)
Ron Paul on Alex Jones, Part 1
Part 2:
Ron Paul on Alex Jones, Part 1
Part 2:
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Michael Crichton RIP
Best-Selling Author Michael Crichton Dies
"Jurassic Park" Author And "ER" Creator Succumbs To Cancer. He Was 66.
(CBS) Best-selling author and filmaker Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, after a courageous and private battle against cancer, his family said in a statement. He was 66.
Crichton was a brand-name author, known for his stories of disaster and systematic breakdown, such as the rampant microbe of "The Andromeda Strain" or dinosaurs running amok in "Jurassic Park," one of his many million-selling books that became major Hollywood movies.
Crichton also created the hospital drama "ER" for television. His most recent novel, "Next," about genetics and law, was published in December 2006.
"While the world knew him as a great story teller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us -- and entertained us all while doing so -- his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes," the statement said. "He did this with a wry sense of humor that those who were privileged to know him personally will never forget."
Through his books, Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way all could understand.
"He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he leaves behind the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire to understand, and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world," the statement added.
Born in Chicago Oct. 23, 1942, Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
Crichton's 2004 bestseller, "State of Fear," acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. His views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
Crichton's first bestseller, "The Andromeda Strain," was published while he was still a medical student. He later worked full time on film and writing. One of the most popular writers in the world, his books have been translated into thirty-six languages, and thirteen have been made into films.
Crichton won an Emmy, a Peabody, and a Writer's Guild of America Award for "ER." In 2002, a newly discovered ankylosaur was named for him: Crichtonsaurus bohlini.
A private funeral service is expected, but no further details will be released to the public.
As I was gathering books for a display at work, I realized I had read quite a few of them: Terminal Man, Eaters of the Dead, Andromeda Strain, Rising Sun, Jurassic Park, Sphere, and Congo.
He was a giant of the literary world, the film world, and the world of science. His work against the false science of the global warming religion was admirable as well. A true Renaissance man, he will be missed.
Happy Guy Fawkes Day!
Remember Remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...
Why the Republican Party Has Failed
The Republican Party has fallen apart for two primary reasons over the past several years: big spending and corruption.
They have tarnished their reputation by spending more than democrats, and becoming beholden to lobbyists. The Contract With America generation betrayed the people who voted for them, and were rightly tossed out of office in 2006, and because they lost the base with their poor behavior, lost the game to an organized, energized opposition in the form of the Obama movement.
It is time for Republicans to find their roots in limited government and constitutionalism, once they have done that -- and convinced the people they mean it -- they will return to power.
I am already seeing some bad signs. The McCain campaign is beginning to blame Palin, instead of realizing that she helped more than she hurt -- and that after the September economic meltdown, there wasn't much anyone could do to help McCain win.
Instead of looking at the facts, they are looking for blame. Best way to divide a party, and the best way to fail. The Democrats successfully united after a bitter feud between Hillary and Barack, the Republican Party needs to learn the same lesson.
(Crossposted over at MMORPG.com)
They have tarnished their reputation by spending more than democrats, and becoming beholden to lobbyists. The Contract With America generation betrayed the people who voted for them, and were rightly tossed out of office in 2006, and because they lost the base with their poor behavior, lost the game to an organized, energized opposition in the form of the Obama movement.
It is time for Republicans to find their roots in limited government and constitutionalism, once they have done that -- and convinced the people they mean it -- they will return to power.
I am already seeing some bad signs. The McCain campaign is beginning to blame Palin, instead of realizing that she helped more than she hurt -- and that after the September economic meltdown, there wasn't much anyone could do to help McCain win.
Instead of looking at the facts, they are looking for blame. Best way to divide a party, and the best way to fail. The Democrats successfully united after a bitter feud between Hillary and Barack, the Republican Party needs to learn the same lesson.
(Crossposted over at MMORPG.com)
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Now That It Is Official
McCain has conceded with a gracious speech, it is time to celebrate a truly historical moment in our nation's great history. We have elected our first African-American president, and that is a truly wonderful thing.
At this moment I feel there are a few things that need to be considered.
We are a nation still at war. And, although the media and the Democrats have spent the last several years trying to undermine us in the war out of the petty hatred of President Bush, cheering every setback in Iraq, using every American death as an excuse to declare surrender, and otherwise endangering us in the biggest struggle in our history -- I hope and pray Republicans DO NOT DO THE SAME.
The time has come to set aside the crap and unite behind our new President and continue with this struggle, which will probably outlast him.
Hopefully, now that Democrats will own this war, this great struggle, they will really try and win it with the rest of us. I predict they will, and that will be the greatest thing about Obama and his super-majority.
I also hope and pray that Obama learns from Mr. Clinton, and does not over-reach as Clinton did in his first two years. I hope he governs as a pragmatic centrist, doesn't raise taxes enough to harm the economy, and doesn't over regulate us. I hope he isn't fooled by the global warming fascists, and avoids harming us over a chimera.
I have hope for a certain change. Let us unite and fight the evil we face. Please.
At this moment I feel there are a few things that need to be considered.
We are a nation still at war. And, although the media and the Democrats have spent the last several years trying to undermine us in the war out of the petty hatred of President Bush, cheering every setback in Iraq, using every American death as an excuse to declare surrender, and otherwise endangering us in the biggest struggle in our history -- I hope and pray Republicans DO NOT DO THE SAME.
The time has come to set aside the crap and unite behind our new President and continue with this struggle, which will probably outlast him.
Hopefully, now that Democrats will own this war, this great struggle, they will really try and win it with the rest of us. I predict they will, and that will be the greatest thing about Obama and his super-majority.
I also hope and pray that Obama learns from Mr. Clinton, and does not over-reach as Clinton did in his first two years. I hope he governs as a pragmatic centrist, doesn't raise taxes enough to harm the economy, and doesn't over regulate us. I hope he isn't fooled by the global warming fascists, and avoids harming us over a chimera.
I have hope for a certain change. Let us unite and fight the evil we face. Please.
I Think I'll Call It For Obama
Now that Fox has given Ohio to Obama, I think it's safe for me to call the election. Unless there is some strange mavericky miracle, Obama is our next president.
Let us hope he is nothing like he has said he was going to be, and nothing like his record. Let us hope for hypocrisy, and not his apparent commitment to socialism. Pray for pragmatism, and start holding his feet to the fire.
He will have a super majority; if anything goes wrong, it'll be all the Democratic Party's fault.
Well, being a libertarian means never having to say you are sorry.
Let us hope he is nothing like he has said he was going to be, and nothing like his record. Let us hope for hypocrisy, and not his apparent commitment to socialism. Pray for pragmatism, and start holding his feet to the fire.
He will have a super majority; if anything goes wrong, it'll be all the Democratic Party's fault.
Well, being a libertarian means never having to say you are sorry.
And So It Begins!
Will it be a long night or a short night? Close or a blowout? Only time will tell...
National Overview
National Overview
Election Day Endorsement
Here we go, the moment you've all been waiting for (yeah, right). Who will I actually endorse?
Okay, let's start with Obama. No way. No F'in way. Most socialistic guy to ever get near the white house? No way, no how.
The man who thinks we are at war with al qaeda and not with something bigger? The man who thinks the war is in Afghanistan and not in Iraq, not in the Philippines, not in Africa, not in Europe, not in Kazakhstan, Not in the rest of the world? Obama is a non starter.
The man who will let the democratic congress give us the fairness doctrine? No way.
The man who would certainly appoint legislators from the bench supreme court justices? No way.
Now, McCain. Better than Obama at all levels, but still a big government republican, still a man who will destroy the economy for some bad environmental science.
He is marginally better than Obama on the economy, but only marginally. he, like Obama, are good on immigration. They want more legal immigration, and we need that.
On the war, McCain is right on, and if that were the only issue, I'd vote for him. But there's more, much more.
He's still no better than Obama on civil liberties, although he would probably veto a fairness doctrine. He certainly won't repeal the Patriot Act, which has been a nightmare.
Nader? Nope. See Obama. Although better on civil liberties, a nightmare on economics.
McKinney. See Nader and Obama.
Ron Paul. Right on everything but the war and immigration. My second choice.
Bob Barr: a clear winner. I don't agree with him on the war, but he seems more reasonable than Ron Paul. same thing with immigration. Like Ron, 100% on the economy and civil liberties. I've been voting Libertarian most of my life, because I agree with them on the basic issues.
This year, my hawkish disposition isn't gonna change me. If I lived in a battleground state, I'd probably be voting for Mccain, and if YOU do, I hope you vote for McCain, because I'd rather have him in the White House than Obama. But if you live in Obamaland like me, time to send a message again that you really want CHANGE, and not more of the same. I want FREEDOM.
Bob Barr for President 2008.
And now let me close with the best campaign video I have ever seen:
Okay, let's start with Obama. No way. No F'in way. Most socialistic guy to ever get near the white house? No way, no how.
The man who thinks we are at war with al qaeda and not with something bigger? The man who thinks the war is in Afghanistan and not in Iraq, not in the Philippines, not in Africa, not in Europe, not in Kazakhstan, Not in the rest of the world? Obama is a non starter.
The man who will let the democratic congress give us the fairness doctrine? No way.
The man who would certainly appoint legislators from the bench supreme court justices? No way.
Now, McCain. Better than Obama at all levels, but still a big government republican, still a man who will destroy the economy for some bad environmental science.
He is marginally better than Obama on the economy, but only marginally. he, like Obama, are good on immigration. They want more legal immigration, and we need that.
On the war, McCain is right on, and if that were the only issue, I'd vote for him. But there's more, much more.
He's still no better than Obama on civil liberties, although he would probably veto a fairness doctrine. He certainly won't repeal the Patriot Act, which has been a nightmare.
Nader? Nope. See Obama. Although better on civil liberties, a nightmare on economics.
McKinney. See Nader and Obama.
Ron Paul. Right on everything but the war and immigration. My second choice.
Bob Barr: a clear winner. I don't agree with him on the war, but he seems more reasonable than Ron Paul. same thing with immigration. Like Ron, 100% on the economy and civil liberties. I've been voting Libertarian most of my life, because I agree with them on the basic issues.
This year, my hawkish disposition isn't gonna change me. If I lived in a battleground state, I'd probably be voting for Mccain, and if YOU do, I hope you vote for McCain, because I'd rather have him in the White House than Obama. But if you live in Obamaland like me, time to send a message again that you really want CHANGE, and not more of the same. I want FREEDOM.
Bob Barr for President 2008.
And now let me close with the best campaign video I have ever seen:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)