Pro Rege Papers

I found this recently on a site I was browsing. It’s a satire on Post-Modernism written by a Christian on the basis of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. While some of it is of course not reflective of the beliefs of Post-Modernists; it is pretty funny if you know the Shorter Catechism and the way many Post-Modernists talk.

Here’s a little sampling of the Post Modern Medium-Length Catechism:

Q1: What is the chief end of humankind?
A: Humankind’s chief end is to promote world peace and enjoy it forever.

Q9: What is the first commandment?
A: The first commandment is, Thou shalt make no Absolute Judgments.

Q10: What is the second commandment?
A: The second is like unto it: Thou shalt accept all views as thine own, and be not Bigoted.

Q11: Are we ourselves Bigoted in our thinking?
A: Not at all.

Q12: Not at all?
A: No.

Q13: Not even a little bit?
A: No.

Q14: No?
A: Absolutely not.

Q15: What is the only redeemer of postmoderns?
A: The only redeemer of postmoderns is the Lord High State, which though the coercer of men, condescended to feel our pain, and so was, and continueth to be, coercer and pain-feeler, in two distinct natures, and one administration, forever.

Q23: What is the duty of civil government?
A: The duty of civil government is, in matters important, clemency; in matters unimportant, severity; in all things, neutrality.

Q24: What is the principal threat to neutrality in the civil realm?
A: The principal threat to neutrality is Religious Extremism.

Q25: What is Religious Extremism?
A: Religious Extremism is, the view that certain absolute truths exist independent of the minds of men and women, that if something is true, it is true, and that A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Q26: Who are the two most dangerous proponents of Religious Extremism?
A: The two most dangerous proponents of Religious Extremism are Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh.

Q27: By what means may we defeat Religious Extremism?
A: We may defeat it by allowing it to make no Judgments in the civil realm.

Q28: Is this itself a Religious Judgment?
A: Nope.

Q29: Not at all?
A: Not at all.

Q30: Art thou sure?
A: Absolutely.

Q32: What are the Liberal Churches?
A: The Liberal Churches are those churches which, to avoid conflict with non-Christian thought, and to maintain a High Level of Relevance, have rejected certain Minor points of faith.

Q33: Wherein consisteth the worship of Liberal Churches?
A: Liberal worship consisteth in tolerance, affirmation, lighting of candles, experiencing of religious experience, and the consumption of Goodies.

Full text here:

A Post-Modern Medium Length Catechism.

Comparison with the real stuff here:

The Real Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Here is the Quote of the Month for February, by the Christian political theorist and former prime minister of the Netherlands:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!”

Abraham Kuyper

Hat tip: Sovereign Grace Ministries.

This is a response to Ironwolf’s reply to my previous article. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve been pretty busy lately. Anyway, I’d like to thank you for actually responding to me, as well as having civility in doing it.

The thesis of your argument is that the Golden Rule is the moral standard that you follow, and the best one for me and other people at that. However, I do have a few questions for you. Where did the principle of the Golden Rule come from? Who laid down the Golden Rule? You just said in your post that it predates Christianity, and possibly humanity itself. However, I propose that you need to have some type of source for your moral standard; otherwise it’s just something that some little insignificant creature made up. If someone just made it up, it is not binding on anyone else; it is just one man’s opinion on how others are behaving. You can’t impose your standard on anyone because neither you nor it has supremacy over humanity. However, if it came from God than it is binding on everyone, since then it is a rule that was laid down by our Maker. Therefore, it would predate time itself. But you won’t admit that it was God, so I’m anxious to know your answer.

But back to what I am saying, you might be able to be governed by the Golden Rule, but you can’t impose it on anyone. Why is the Golden Rule the only rule that man should be ruled by? Why is the Golden Rule right? Is it just because it’s evolutionarily beneficial? Or is it just because it’s good for a society? Killing everyone who is a weakling is evolutionarily beneficial. Going on a world conquest is good for your society. Those are not moral standards; they are just ideal actions that might progress something further.

The Golden Rule is based on how you would like someone to treat you. However, many different people have many different likes on how they like to be treated. Therefore, as Slingpaw said, you can’t apply it to other people based on what you do and do not like. The Golden Rule is not capable of making absolute judgments of other people. It can only supply a general principle of behavior that we should follow as creatures of God, who laid down the Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and many other religions besides) corrupt the Golden Rule by adding layer upon layer of superstition, dogma, sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry to an otherwise simple and beautiful idea: treat others with the level of respect that you would like to receive.

Who are you to say that all those things are wrong (I’m not disagreeing that they are; it’s just a rhetorical question)? Who are you to define those things? It’s just your opinion that keeping a woman from being a pastor is sexism. Many other people don’t see it that way. It’s just your opinion that you don’t want to be stoned for “mere” disrespect. It’s just your opinion that it is only “mere” disrespect. Other people, knowing what an offense it was to the covenant of God, would have admitted that they deserved stoning. You can’t judge the judgment of God, and say that it isn’t fair.

The wisdom of the Golden Rule only requires a little thought to understand

Where did that “wisdom” come from?

If I do not live by the Golden Rule then the suffering of others increases, and inevitably the increasing suffering of others increases my own suffering. In extreme cases society itself breaks down and suffering increases exponentially.

So what? If you get gratified with what you want, who cares about what happens later? Aren’t we supposed to live life in the here and now? Who cares if others suffer, it usually doesn’t affect me. (Yes, this is rhetorical, I am not advocating end-justifies-the-means ethics)

Based on your answers to my questions, I judge you, Althusius, to be morally corrupt, i.e., depraved.

This is my favorite sentence in your reply. Yes, Ironwolf, I am depraved, I am morally corrupt. But I have hope. I have a Savior who has taken my moral depravity upon himself and died because of it for me. He has taken my corruption upon Himself, and put His righteousness on me, so that I am no longer depraved before God. Yes, I still sin in this life (not by your standards, but by God’s), but the Holy Spirit is working in me to make me more like Christ. I still sin, but I have been forgiven. I have hope.

How about you? I’m sure you don’t keep the Golden Rule perfectly, and I can guarantee you that you haven’t kept God’s Rule perfectly. You need forgiveness from God.

I judge you, Althusius…your morality [is] just as questionable, when judged by the standard of the Golden Rule.

You can’t judge me; you can’t judge God, or anyone else by the Golden Rule. You can voice your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. People can still steal, cheat, murder, rape, show disrespect, lie, cuss, profane God’s name, worship demons, and work themselves into the ground, regardless of your thinking it’s wrong.

It is by the Golden Rule that I know what is good.

Good according to your standards that you can’t judge anyone else by. If anyone can make up his or her own moral standard, than Hitler’s actions were good, because they were good according to his standard, whatever it was. You are trying to make a moral standard for everyone based on what you think is right and wrong. You don’t have that authority, only God does.

I saw a post by an atheist recently that said you could be “Good without God.” This is a common myth perpetrated by atheists and others who want to build their own society without any absolute morals. It is impossible to be good without God. However, it provokes good questions that poke a hole right through the moral relativism of this day. By what standard do we measure right and wrong, good and bad? What is the basis of law and society? What is the foundation of truth? These are questions that are impossible for moral relativists to answer.

The Bible is the standard of truth and morals that Western society was built upon. It is the standard that holds up to scrutiny and criticism. It is the standard that works best with society (look at what Western culture has produced), and the one that lays out the plan of salvation. The Bible defines what is right and what is wrong. The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word is truth. God defines “good” in every possible sense. One cannot be good unless he follows God’s commands, and he cannot be truly good unless he keeps all of God’s commands perfectly (Mark 10:18). This is impossible for us to do, so we need to look to One who can fulfill all of God’s commands perfectly, and have Him put His righteous works on us. This One is Jesus Christ.

Our law in the United States is based on the fundamental principles outlined in the Ten Commandments; just look at the Ten Commandments that are engraved and painted everywhere in the Supreme Court (no, those are not the Ten Amendments). Without this standard, society breaks down. If nothing can be absolutely right or wrong, why should we obey laws? Why should we keep vows? Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it right to give to charitably to other people?

Some would say that if the people involved agree, then it’s okay. But who is to say that those people who agree are right, or that their actions are right? This supposed standard is pretty flimsy. According to this standard, adultery is okay, since the two people agree. Cheating is permissible, since it is just you who are involved, looking out for your own personal good. Corporate corruption is fine as long as it doesn’t get discovered and affect the lives of others.

Some say that as long as it does not negatively affect someone else’s personal life, it is fine. But who is to say that even violating someone else’s personal space is wrong? That idea is just the philosophical conclusion of some other guy whom you don’t have to pay attention to since there is no absolute truth, and everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Another standard that some people set up is whatever makes you feel happy is good. This is also wrong. Just think of sado-masochists, who get pleasure from hurting other people. All sorts of disorder break loose in a society without a fixed standard.

Islam also has this inconsistency in a way. Their god, Allah, is an ever-changing, erratic god who can do and does do everything in a disorderly, chaotic fashion. The outflow of this is that one day something might be right, and then the next day it might not be. So blowing yourself up in a suicide bombing might fine with Allah one day, but the next it might send you to Hell. Cheating and corruption by police is okay, since you can make it up by obeying the pillars of Islam. It makes for unstable societies where democracy doesn’t work.

Without an absolute standard, it is impossible to know truth, to do good, to punish evil. Since our society is losing this sense of moral constancy, dreadful things are taking place which are an abomination to God and lead to the death of a culture. We are calling good evil, and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Homosexuality is called normal; babies in the womb are called non-human; murder is permissible; capital punishment is called a crime against humanity; abortion is declared legal and right. We are losing all standards in our society, and if we stay on this course, it will lead to our downfall.

By what standard do you measure your actions?

Many people think that Christmas is a holiday that Christians stole from the pagans. They think that Christians copied the already present pagan holiday of the winter solstice and arbitrarily modified it to celebrate Christ’s birth. Though this type of adaptation is the case with many holidays that the Roman Catholic Church made up, (e.g. Halloween) it is not what happened with Christmas.

The origin of Christmas is related to the controversy in the 2nd Century Church over what day to celebrate Easter on. They knew in general that Jesus died during Passover, but they weren’t sure which week it was and whether to celebrate it always on a Sunday or not. It was also confusing because of the difference between the Jewish, Greek, and Roman calendars. They eventually decided in A.D. 325 on what we have today with the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the first day of spring. But before that, Christians were celebrating Jesus’ death and resurrection in late March and early April anyway.

To determine a date for celebrating the birth of Christ, early Christians borrowed from the Jewish idea that great people die on the same day that they are either born or conceived. As early as the 2nd century, some Christians were celebrating the birth of Jesus around the time of his death in March or April. This date got narrowed down to March 25 and switched to celebrating Jesus’ conception, which became the Feast of the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel first appeared to Mary. Going a full term of nine months later from March 25, and we get December 25. (Note that early Christians and ancient Jews believed that life begins at conception.)

In ancient Rome, there were no pagan winter solstice celebrations that the Christians could be accused of copying until the year 274, when Emperor Aurelius started “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to celebrate the lengthening of days. Aurelius had been trying throughout his short reign to revive paganism, and this looks from the ancient documents like an attempt to overshadow a date that Christians were already celebrating something on. Thus we see that the pagans were copying the Christians, not the other way round.

There were Yule festivals in the Northern European tribes during the winter solstice, but they were not an influence on the Christians who were mostly in the Roman Empire at this time. When the Roman Empire did fall and Christians went out evangelizing in Northern Europe, they found the barbaric tribes burning Yule logs in the midst of the coldest, darkest time of year. Then the missionaries replaced the pagan Yule festivals with the Christian Christmas, and shared the light of Christ in the darkest time of the year.

We need to remember the true origin of Christmas in Christ’s birth and what it did for us. God the Son came to earth, took on a human nature, lived in a low condition, was put under the law, underwent the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death on the cross (Shorter Catechism Q. 27). Let us be thankful to Him in this season of rejoicing.

Hat tip: WORLD magazine, AiG.

On October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln sent out a proclamation that a day in November should be set aside for thanks to God for the blessings that He had given to this country. It is hard to believe that Pres. Lincoln could be thankful in a time of gruesome civil war, but he pointed out that the country was bestowed with many blessings. They had abundant crops and plentiful industrial production that had kept the country afloat during battle. No enemies had attacked them at this time of weakness, either. This example of thankfulness shows us that we always have something to be grateful to God for, no matter what our situation.

Anyone who watches TV at all during Thanksgiving will hear the commentators remarking that we should be thankful. But the pressing question presents itself, “To whom are we thankful?” Many people today are thankful to themselves for their blessings, and attribute their prosperity to their own flesh. But are we really responsible for good weather? Are we really the cause of our good friends and family? Are we really the source of our good position or pay at work? No. All of those things are beyond man’s control, and in the hands of God. God upholds all things by his providence in his “holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.” (Shorter Catechism, Q. 11) Everything that comes about, good or bad, is the result of God’s work in creation. He is the One we are to be thankful to.

Abraham Lincoln and many other leaders in our nation’s history recognized this. Mr. Lincoln said in his proclamation, “no mortal hand hath worked out these great things.” We have a country with some of the greatest natural resources in the world, we have the highest per capita GDP of any nation, we don’t have foreign invaders at our borders or in our towns, we have a system of government that keeps us free from tyranny, we have many, many gifts that only the hand of God can give a country. We need to bend on our knees before the all-powerful God and thank Him for the blessings that he has given us.

(Psalm 100:4-5)

Some of the material for this article was taken from an editorial in World Magazine.

I’ve been reading over a few of the things that were said during the whole debate with Percival about bigotry with Islam. If you haven’t read the posts containing that debate, I recommend them for insight into the theological liberal and agnostic mind. I’m going to give some of the highlights of the ignorance of what they said. With some of it you laugh, some of them you feel pity for the people.

WARNING: EXTREME IGNORANCE THAT WILL SHOCK YOU AHEAD!

Well, here goes:

Homo Escapeons:

it is absurd to divide people into good or bad…
people are either charming or tedious.

Sirbarret:

The religious origins of Muslim, Christian and Judaism all stem from a philosophy of love, charity, and peace.

Boneman: (this non-Christian is pretty preachy)

Am I t’understand that Altusius is now judging who is and isn’t a christian by what he does or does not believe in?…

christians killed Christ, so, how can you say that about killing?…[[shaking my head from this point on]]
GOD LOVES FAGS! The fact that yer misunderstanding the bible doesn’t diminish that one bit…

you’re a christian, which right now, I definately doubt…

Paul didn’t even know he was going t’be put in the bible. His aim and method he plainly stated, t’be a chameleon (paraphrased) fer GOD and who he called Christ, though, his tongue may have gotten away from him a bit…

GOD has the say as t’who comes and goes. And, according t’a few phrases, all enter. ALL enter. Even you, altusius.Even you who stand there at the gates of heaven and can’t get in are now trying yer best t’keep others out.
Pretty good going,….

I count myself a christian [with an un-capitalized “c”]

Paul and I will have long, fine conversations on what has been called what it is called, but, then we will laugh and live in the LIGHT.
I hope you will be there with us.

Lady Wordsmith:

It is my quest for spaces of Zen between the paryers of my Rosary Beads

Percival:

…the Christian Nazis…

He [Althusius] wants to defend his preexisting views - period. [[step back in horror]]

I asked you above in this thread to take one point from your last post to discuss and gave my reasons for wanting to take this approach.[I explicitly gave him one] Instead, I find another personalized and desultory comment.[I was critiquing another personalized and desultory comment]

Bird:

…christian conviction may not be accompanied by a sword, but it is destructive and hurtful of its own accord, and is a one of the underlying causesof discord in the US…

i believe in many absolutes - i believe i will always love my children regardless of their actions. i believe there is no one, right way to worship god. i believe that religious philosophy is merely a construct to help us guide our lives.

the god i know and love, the god i pray to, the god that guides me, would not send anyone to hell for rejecting your brand of christianity. so am not in fear of going to hell. and really, if that is how god truly is (an aboslute) then to hell with god. i defy god. but i don’t think god is like that at all. [no capital “g”]

i do not know if there is a universal truth and i really don’t care.

ah, you think i reject the bible? not at all. i find it quite enlightening and useful. but i do reject the notion that it is divinely inspired…

There are many more, but I’ll leave you at that. It’s sad, really.