Ideological And Philosophical Terms Christians Should Know

Ideological And Philosophical Terms Christians Should Know

        The following terms are words that Christians need to know and understand. Almost all of them speak to the belief there is no God or a human centered worldview. A few do not and are compatible with Christianity. Many Christians do not understand what communism is or its verifying factors. So learn the definitions of the words and try to understand. Not all atheists are communists, but all communists should be atheists even though there is a contradictory trend of “christians” claiming it. Not all humanists are atheists, but all atheists are humanists, but both atheists and humanists hate religion (even though early humanists claimed they were a religion). All the definitions are a mix and match of concepts that may or may not consist of the entire definition of current people following such beliefs. There may be 2 separate definitions for the same term, yet it is not hard to understand which is which. They are all from dictionary.com. I list them in no particular order. Just skim over it and read the definitions.

        There are a lot of “isms” thrown around in social, political, and worldview discussions. The only 4 I believe could be considered biblical and give freedom to men are capitalism, nationalism, republicanism, and individualism when practiced with Christian morality of course. Even though many cultures exist, it is impossible to have a nation with a set of values that identify it if there is an emphasis on forcing multiculturalism. It is a way to mask absolute truth and promote a liberal view of morality and religion. Cultures and customs are one thing, but when it comes to a cultures morality and theology it gets difficult. The influx of Islam in many western nations is an obvious sign that multiculturalism is not a good thing. The national identity will be lost and its values and culture covered up. The United States is suffering from multiculturalism as well and our nation is failing because we gave up our Christian heritage. Globalism is also bad. Yes caring about other nations is good, and having an eye out for the earth to preserve resources and nature; but allowing the world to dictate your nations values, rules, regulations, culture, and religion is not, and that is the goal is globalism. It rejects a nations sovereignty and make everyone a citizen of the world. It has the goal is creating a one world government and one world culture and it will be a humanistic philosophy. The Bible teaches that individual nations should exist. Even in Ezekiel when it talks about the reign of Christ on earth it mentions other nations still existing who will come and honor Christ in Israel.

        The rest are pretty much godless views that are anti-christian in nature and vehemently opposed to the Bible’s teachings. They are man’s idolization and promotion of human transcendence over any God and their own take on how a “perfect” society should be in thought and practice. The results of such thinking are pretty much worldwide misery and destruction and bondage to the elite few who will dictate to the world every aspect of their lives. It will be a dystopian future ready for the Antichrist. Even anarchy in its philosophical form makes no sense since humans will not freely cooperate with one another unless someone makes them. So anarchy is self refuting. It would be short lived.

Terms to know:

HUMANISM: The denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favor of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts. A variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

SECULARISM: A doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter. A secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. The view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

*Put them together and it is SECULAR HUMANISM*

MATERIALISM: The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. Preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. The monist doctrine that matter is the only reality and that the mind, the emotions,etc, are merely functions of it. The rejection of any religious or supernatural account of things. Philosophy that nothing exists except matter. 

NATURALISM: The view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. The belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological (of or relating to teleology, the philosophical doctrine that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature) explanations are therefore without value. The belief that all religious truth is based not on revelation but rather on the study of natural causes and processes. 

MORALISM: The practice of morality, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral principles without reference to religion. 

IDEALISM: The cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc. Any system or theory that maintains that “the real” is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas. The tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values. Philosophical doctrines that share the monistic view that material objects and the external world do not exist in reality independently of the human mind but are variously creations of the mind or constructs of ideas. 

REALISM: The tendency to view or represent things as they really are. The doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. The doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. That things exist despite not perceiving them or knowing about them. They exist outside of the mind. 

MONISM: The doctrine that the person consists of only a single substance, or that there is no crucial difference between mental and physical events or properties. 

DUALISM: The doctrine, as opposed to idealism and materialism, that reality consists of two basic types of substance usually taken to be mind and matter or two basic types of entity, mental and physical. The theory that the universe has been ruled from its origins by two conflicting powers, one good and one evil, both existing as equally ultimate first cause. The theory that there are two personalities, one human and one divine, in Christ.

RELATIVISM: Any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. any theory holding that truth or moral or aesthetic value, etc, is not universal or absolute but may differ between individuals or cultures. The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative”that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.

GLOBALISM: The attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.

NATIONALISM: Devotion and loyalty to one’s own country;patriotism. The desire for national advancement or political independence. The policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

STATISM: The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.

ANARCHISM: doctrine advocating the abolition of government. doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals. 

UNIVERSALISM: (Social Welfare) The principle that welfare services should be available to all by right, according to need, and not restricted by individual ability to pay, but funded by general contributions through taxes, rates, or national insurance payments. A system of religious beliefs maintaining that all men are predestined for salvation. 

MULTICULTURALISM: The preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation. 

MARXISM: The system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the class of workers, especially industrial wage earners, who do not possess capital or property and must sell their labor to survive), be superseded by socialist order and a classless society. Actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change, and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism.

COMMUNISM: political movement based upon the writings of Marx that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production. theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as whole or to the state. A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. Advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. 

LENINISM: The form of Communism as taught by Lenin, with emphasis on the dictatorship of the proletariat. A dedicated group of intellectuals had to spearhead the revolution into communism and serve as leaders of the state. 

STALINISM: The principles of communism associated with Joseph Stalin, characterized especially by the extreme suppression of dissident political or ideological views, the concentration of power in one person, and an aggressive international policy. The theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state. Emphasizes the repression of all dissent, often by brutal means; a rigid adherence to government management of economic life; and the domination of all communist movements worldwide by the Soviet Union.

SOCIALISM: theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.

MAOISM: Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by Mao Tse-tung: distinguished by its theory of guerrilla warfare and its emphasis on the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. The doctrines of Mao Zedong, most notably the doctrine that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to be kept in touch with the people. Chinese communism of the People’s Republic of China. 

TOTALITARIANISM: Absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution. The character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government. Domination by a government of all political, social, and economic activities in a nation.

AUTHORITARIANISM: Of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people. Exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others. 

CAPITALISM: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

REPUBLICANISM: Republican form of government. A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 

COLLECTIVISM: The political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.

INDIVIDUALISM: A social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual. The principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action. 

UTOPIANISM: The views or habit of mind of utopian; impracticable schemes of political or social reform. Of or relating to a perfect or ideal existence founded upon or involving idealized perfection. Given to impractical or unrealistic schemes of such perfection.        
NIHILISM: Total rejection of established laws and institutions. Anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity. An extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. Nothingness or nonexistence. Annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, especially as an aspect of mystical experience.        
SKEPTICISM: Doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially Christianity. The doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt. The position that what cannot be proved by reason should not be believed. In its extreme form, that no knowledge is possible.       
ATHEISM: The doctrine or belief that there is no God. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Rejection of belief in God or gods. 
AGNOSTICISM: An intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not God. The  impossibility to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one. 

Why Most Muslims Are Silent Against Terrorism

Why Most Muslims Are Silent Against Terrorism

        Why is it that Muslims are outraged when people criticize their religion or make satirical pictures of their prophet, but they are silent when it comes to condemning terrorism and outright murder and genocide that Muslim extremists are committing, it seems like, every day? Many move to democratic countries or free societies to have a better life. They want to escape the violence and craziness in their former Islamic countries, yet when they move to a Western country with freedom and democracy they want to change it into the countries they left? They move because they are not happy, then end up in a better country but willfully seem to become unhappy again and want to change these countries into duplicates of the former Muslim nations? They demand Shuriah law and want to vote on it. They will use the idea of free speech to destroy freedom of speech. Some even want police to stay away and not get involved in Muslim communities in cities. They want to use Shuriah law instead. People like this should be held suspect to their true intentions. The so called moderates will keep claiming Islam is a religion of peace and when you criticize terrorist acts, they are sure to come out and protest and claim you are intolerant.

        I believe there are 3 reasons why Muslims are silent about Islamic-Terrorism (it seems that in this age the words “Islamic” and “Terrorism” go hand in hand and are inseparable). The three reasons are:

1. They are themselves terrorists and/or support Islamic terrorism and Jihad and want Shuriah law world dominance and to force everyone to bow down to Allah or live within their laws or be killed. In fact everyone else is an infidel and deserves to die if they do not convert. They also hate other types of Muslims and want their Islam to take over and wipe out the other sects.

2. Even though they don’t agree with it, they understand true Islam actually supports terrorist Jihad and the Quaran really teaches it. They are moderates, or liberal, and simply use Islam as a cultural religion they do not take serious and ignore the violence commands from the prophet Muhammad in the Quaran and Hadith.

3. They are afraid of being killed for speaking out against the murder and mayhem Muslims are committing worldwide. They may or may not believe the Quaran supports it. If they believe it supports it they fall into category 2 and 3 at the same time. Believing the Quaran teaches it and fearing death for speaking out against what their religion teaches. If they do not believe Islam teaches violence then they are simply afraid of the vast amounts of crazy lunatic Muslims worldwide who will hunt them down and assassinate them and their entire families.

This is the typical Muslim moderate girl I see almost every day in big cities:

Yes hide your hair, it is too sexy and hot and will cause me to lust. But it is okay to wear a form fitting shirt and tight jeans because that is acceptable to the moderate Allah. Yes, because hair is so sexy compared to your shapely body parts to men…

        Is it true that the majority of Muslims worldwide want peace and tolerance for all religions and people? Or is it true that the vast majority actually support Jihad and Shuriah Law? Their overwhelming silence speaks volumes to the rest of the world. When will liberals wake up? When will our president admit the truth of the problem? The problem is not necessarily Islamic extremists, but Islam itself. The more Muslims who move into a country and populate through reproduction the easier time they will have taking everything over. That seems to be their goal. I took a class on Islam during my university studies and one thing I learned is that the Hadith teaches that once a Mosque is built in a country than that country is owned by Allah and it is the Muslim’s right to dominate. How many Mosques have been built in the USA? A lot.

        Moderate Muslims who claim not all Muslims are bad need to do their jobs and speak out against this evil and be loud when they do it! But they are not! Come on moderates! Prove to us Islam is about peace! Maybe they cannot be angry over the terror attacks because they happen so much that moderate Muslims would have to be upset and angry 24/7, but then they take time to be angry and protest when people criticize their religion and cry racism and tolerance. They seem to really emphasize their hatred towards Christians, Jews, Israel, and Westerners.

        Maybe Islam is not a religion of “peace” and is actually a religion of….blowing people to “pieces.” The religion of peace…

Friends Flee But Christ Remains

Friends Flee But Christ Remains

        For various reasons many Christians lose friends whether they be secular friends or typical church-people friends. Because of sin in the world true brotherhood is very rarely played out. Deep in the soul of individuals we long for it but often times never get it. We are left alone. Friends don’t act like friends and don’t care about personal struggles and they really are not genuinely truthfully friends, but just tolerate you or are simply acquaintances. I was reading more of the book Strengthen My Spirit by Charles Spurgeon today, the sermon titled “Never Forsaken” speaks to me (p. 10).

“And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.”   Psalm 9:10 (KJV)

A lot of times it is so hard to put my faith and trust in God because I am a weak sinner and I give into depression and evil thoughts. So much pain and anguish from the past comes back and there is no one to help. I often feel like I want to cease to exist, life is hard, I would rather die and go to heaven. Bad thoughts creep in and doubting because of Satan’s worldly lies. But Spurgeon exclaims,

How sweet it is to learn the Savior’s love when nobody else loves us! When friends flee, what a blessed thing it is to see that the Savior does not forsake us but still keeps us and holds us fast and clings to us and will not let us go! Oh, beloved brother and sister, believe that your remaining here on earth is for your eternal benefit.”  (p. 10)

It is very tough sometimes to let go of the feelings and fully trust and put faith in God during certain times. But the dark times usually pass and then I am back on track. I am always a continual work in progress. Friends in this world whether they be Christians or not are not the point of life. Though Christian friends who are helpful and love you are beneficial and used by God for your spiritual health. But the dark times in the world make genuine Christian friends more scarce and even the Christian ones fail miserably. Everyone fails including me. A person needs to hold on and live life through the pain and endure until God’s timing to call you home. Suicide or hoping to die will not benefit Christ as much as suffering and embracing it.

Unimportant, Unknown Christian More Glorious To God Than Famous Academic Or Person In Power

Unimportant, Unknown Christian More Glorious To God Than Famous Academic Or Person In Power

        So many people in Christian culture today seek approval of men and affirmation. They want to be considered an important person in Christian thought or academics or current theological trends. This is my opinion, and I believe it to be true that this issue has caused many false teachers and/or weak teachers who are regressing the faith of the Church. Whoever comes up with a new idea or a new concept is boosted to the highest seat of authority within popular church by the evangelical consensus. I have met people who’s entire sole purpose seems to be the approval of other Christians, to have them think of them as very intelligent and academic people. To be considered men of a wealth of knowledge we should listen to. They seek and find those who are impressed and will bow to their “wisdom” and seek more. If one thinks of them as not very knowledgeable or somewhat immature or new, or that they are trying too hard to impress and gain accolades they will ditch them and seek those weaker minded people out who will gently brush their egos. They may or may not understand they have a smug arrogance, or selfish desire to receive praise. Some are simply immature and delusional people, and some simply know what they want and seek it out. Either way both of these types end up with the same result. Often times they become liberal and speak whatever gives them praises and bow to heresies, or they turn off genuine humble Christians and relationships are destroyed. I believe a high degree of seminary students fit this label. I find them pretentious and annoying.

        I was reading “Strengthen My Spirit” which is a book that compiles lightly edited portions of sermons by C.H. Spurgeon. Page 12 is titles “Enduring Trials for God’s Glory” and mentions 1 Peter 1:6-7,

“Now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that our faith of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire-may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (NIV)

Many Christians who are lowly, unknown, and humble or suffering people going through very trials whether it be physical, mental, or spiritual give God glory more so than the typical popular Christian leader. Or those considered important academics by the evangelical consensus. Often these new seminary students are seeking accolades to become the next John Piper or Al Mohler, or whatever name you want to throw out there. Or at least be on equal terms with these “men of distinction.”

        This behavior can make individual Christians feel inferior or less spiritual. Being around such young Christian guys who are talking theology and talking about whatever books they just read or who will explain a theological point at the drop of a hat can often reek of arrogance or a prideful attitude. As long as you listen to them and think they are future important evangelical superstars they will be your friend. But once you start showing you are unconcerned with their opinion or even feel the need to correct a false biblical idea, or some bad life choices they will slowly become less fond of you until they move on in life and reject you. Do not let such immature boys who want to be big strong theological giants because they seek approval harm your faith. These people are seriously immature and have low self esteem and try to build themselves up by doing what they can to show off, pretend to be independent thinkers who don’t need your input, seek accolades and affirmation up until they feel they surpass the need for your individual praise (because you stopped praising them). If they do this to you just move on and just keep being humble and try to grow your faith. The point of life is God’s grace and approval by Him because of His work to give God the glory. A humble and unknown Christian life is better than one full of nice treatment and a comfy professor job at whatever Christian university or seminary.

        Spurgeon expresses,

“I think that in my own soul that a believer in a prison reflects more glory on his Master than a believer in paradise, that a child of God in the burning, fiery furnace, whose hair is yet unscorched and upon whom the smell of the fire has not passed, displays more the glory of the Godhead than even he who stands with a crown upon his head, perpetually singing praises before the Father’s throne.”

It brings more glory to God to be suffering on earth in trials and be lowly than it does if you were in heaven singing before God praises. Part of why you are here on earth according to Spurgeon seems to express we must suffer and be lowly and give God glory on earth until the full measure of glory is received by God before you need to go to Heaven. I believe it also to be true that a lowly, unknown, unimpressive person who is a Christian gives God more glory than those seeking approval of academics who want to be popular authors, speakers, pastors, professors, and more. If one becomes such a popular teacher hopefully they are true to God’s Word and have come there because of God’s direction and calling out of “nothing” and not simply a selfish desire who works hard in order to get what they want, which is to say they want certifications, ranks, accolades, accommodations, affirmation, and other things that puff up pride and self righteousness. Some cases these types become the new pharisees of our day within the bounds of accepted theology. They can work theology or the bible to approve them.

* Note, I am not saying there should not be any popular Christian leaders. There are, and there should be, as long as they are true to God’s word and received their positions because they are full of Christ’s humility and honestly called from nothing to be int hat position, and do not give in to be approved by popular ideas not found in the Bible. Many leaders and historic preachers are only known or popular because of this. Whereas many also are self promoted and popularized by the world. 

History Channel’s Revelation: End Of Days Blasphemy

History Channel’s Revelation: End Of Days Blasphemy

        Last night I watched the History Channel’s “Revelation: End of Days” event. It was absolutely stupid. Not only was it stupidly filmed in the style of “footage found” (a la Blair Witch Project, and even mentions “This is like the Blair Witch Project!” on the second part), but ever event mentioned in Revelation had every ounce of supernaturalism taken out of it, except for the prophecy idea telling of the future itself. Everything was spiritualized and given a natural explanation. Asteroids being scientifically explained, tornadoes and sand storms instead of the sun turning off its light, chemicals from the asteroid instead of literal water turned to blood, locusts literally and not demonic beings with stingers. It was a joke. Everything I watch on the History Channel about the Bible is always taken away from any ounce of supernaturalism. It is always how it could not have been what the Bible says, but was really a natural and scientifically explained occurrence. Anyone who gets their Bible understanding from a TV show like the trash the History Channel keeps putting out is going to remain biblically ignorant.

Rusty water from the faucet caused by an asteroid instead of literal blood

        The show had nothing to do with God’s salvation from sin for individuals or anything about repenting and putting faith in God. It was basically put in the context of God giving humans a second chance after allowing some natural occurrences to go big and extreme. The Antichrist was also the USA president and Babylon was literally New Orleans. The final battle was basically protesters fighting cops or rioting, and Christ’s return was simply shiny clouds and clear weather and all of the chaos stopped as well as the Antichrist dying with his body found. No angels, no demonic beings, no fire and hail storms, no eagle flying, no Jews being preserved, and it was given an American focus and the major earthquake was set in New Orleans. It made no sense! The camerawork was also shaky to where it bothered my eyes because they were trying to do the stupid “footage found” genre of movie on their show. Christians were also made to be extremist freedom fighters much like the Muslims are but in this case actually good guys and not so bad. But yet, kind of bad because they killed people for no reason.

        It was basically a blasphemous show and typical of the liberal bias History Channel has against Christianity. I suppose some claiming to be evangelicals would like the show or think it is great and somehow “God can use it” but I don’t see that happening. It seems to only serve the purpose of taking the supernatural elements out of the Bible and making everything explainable which will take away from faith in God and the truth of God’s supernatural powers. There are angels, demons, and miracles God performed and more. People want to scientifically explain things and talk about how it could not be this, but instead some sciencey explanation. This is not to say science foes not work with the bible or vice versa, but some things in the Bible literally are supernatural miracles and unexplainable. I suppose many Presbyterian, Covenant theologians might enjoy the fact that “Revelation: End of Days” spiritualized everything and did not at all once instance take the Bible literally. It also made no reference to the rapture that I can remember so that would also make them happy.

        Whenever Scripture was quoted it stopped just short of something supernatural and did not explain the full context of a verse or sometimes left the rest of the passage out. It was absolutely lame. The show was blasphemous by promoting a false gospel and portraying Christians in the same way as Islamic Extremists. What a joke!