Monthly Archives: May 2022

The Space Race: A New Frontier

Leave a reply

Matthew Nalls

Coming upon the heels of World War 2, a new, almost entirely hushed war “roared” to life by 1946.  A fierce duel between the United States and Soviet Russia ensued for nearly five decades, which English author George Orwell deemed a “cold war” in his book You and the Atomic Bomb.  This term stuck, and the war descended into infamy known precisely as the Cold War.  Despite the ominous state of the Cold War at the time, one invaluable benefit emerged from the silent struggle: The Space Race.  Beginning in the 1950s, the Space Race became a heated contest between the two superpowers.  The goal was to achieve undeniable scientific and technological superiority in space, the new arena of competition.  What made this contest a benefit to society was the rapid necessary technological advances made at the time.  These breakthroughs scientifically pushed society along faster than at any recorded time in history, all while making its own history in the process.

In 1957, Soviet Russia took the lead in the first leg of the race.  On October 4th, carried into space by a Soviet R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile from Kazakhstan, the first satellite-probe achieved orbit around the Earth.  Known as Sputnik, the rough Russian translation for “traveler,” the satellite shocked, frightened, and even terrified Americans.  Although its purpose was to study the upper atmosphere of the Earth, as the first man-made object put into orbit, coincidentally by a rival and hostile country on the back of a powerful ballistic missile, it is not difficult to understand the fear Americans across the country faced.  To their benefit, the United States was not far behind in the launching of its own satellite, known as Explorer-1.  Explorer-1 achieved its own orbit in 1958, serving as an equalizer in the tense match between the two countries.

Despite this step in leveling-out with the Russians, the United States again found itself in second.  In April of 1961, Soviet Russia put the first human into space.  Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin spent a total of one hour and forty-eight minutes in space in his spacecraft, Vostok 1.  After completing his set orbit and surviving an intense re-entry into the atmosphere, Gagarin became a sacred Soviet icon.  One month later, Alan Shepard became the first American to achieve orbit in space.  The United States’ supposed preeminence in science and technology came under doubtful questioning.  To not only combat this scrutiny, but also to restore and inspire American morale, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy boldly proclaimed the United States would be the first to successfully transport the first humans to the Moon and safely return them.  In an inspirational speech at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas on the notably hot day of September 12, 1962, President Kennedy confidently exclaimed: “We choose to go to the Moon! … We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win….”

Through increasing NASA’s budget by nearly 500 percent, significant progress was made regarding achieving President Kennedy’s vow to the world.  On July 16, 1969, Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins set off on the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon.  On July 20th, the three intrepid voyagers successfully landed on the cold surface of the Moon, becoming the first men to set foot upon another world.

By the return of Apollo 11, and the collapse of Soviet Russia’s space program afterward, new technologies were discovered and utilized, and the Space Race essentially ended.  Subsequently, the breakthroughs made during the Space Race paved the way for future technology to be forged.  For every major feat made by the two countries, new technology needed to be created to achieve each feat.  This technology, which would generally become exploited worldwide, included satellite TV, satellite navigation, the laptop, power tools, smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, telemedicine (and other health applications), non-reflective displays, ear thermometers, and many more applications.  The technology seen and produced worldwide sprouted from products created to overcome obstacles faced by both countries’ space programs (i.e., power tools to collect moon samples, laptops as small, yet powerful onboard computers, satellite communications to stay in contact with astronauts).

With this evidence, it is safe to agree through every milestone made during the Space Race, certain benefits in the realm of science and technology came from it through the discovery and creation of modern technologies, among certain other ways.  These technologies further advanced society along, serving as the catalyst to forge the technologically advanced society many live in today, all while making it plausible to argue the same could be achieved today if space exploration were as competitive and “interesting” as it was during the Cold War era.

Bibliography

Mead, Rob. “10 Tech Breakthroughs to Thank the Space Race for.” Techradar. Future PLC, 20 July 2009. Web. 19 September 2015.

Podelco, Grant. “Kennedy’s Famous ‘Moon’ Speech Still Stirs.” Radio Free Europe. Radio Liberty, 12 October 2012. Web. 19 September 2015.

“Space Race.” National Cold War Exhibition. Royal Air Force Museum. N.d. Web. 9 September 2015.

“The Space Race.” The History Channel. A+E Networks Digital, N.d. Web. 9 September 2015.

Diagnostics of Movie Effectualness: Horror Genre

Leave a reply

Elissa Newton

The strange thrill of the unknown has always caused many to be lured in to the search of things out of the ordinary, such as the supernatural or the mysterious. This is no exception when it comes to the popular movie genre of horror, where the frightening portrayals and other contributing elements of the films give a satisfying adrenaline rush to thrill seekers.  As the movie progresses, common factors typical of horror can create this adrenaline and the general feeling of being unsafe during the showing of this genre.  From the soundtrack, to the imagery, and all the way even to the framework and focus of each of the scenes, each portion of the movie is carefully laid out to give the sense of the monsters shown to the audience breathing down one’s neck, or perhaps hiding in the shadows of the darkened room surrounding the unsuspecting persons.

It is no shock and most certainly a standard of horror movies the sounds given in the course of the run time are intended to give a scare to the audience.  The subtleties of the sounds, or perhaps in some cases, their intensity, create a feeling of tension, insecurity, and the sensation of being watched or followed, making viewers jumpy and more prone to being scared.  These sounds can range from the creak of a rusty door hinge, the heavy patter of approaching footsteps amidst a tense scene, a sudden shriek of pain or fear, a violin playing in a minor key whilst building in volume, and even the sounds of heavy or strained breathing.  Each of these sounds, both individually and combined, create an atmosphere of tension around the characters in the scene, and begins to warn the viewer of the movie something is about to happen.  This, in turn, conjures up the feeling of wariness within the watchers, getting the heart rate to increase and the adrenaline to flow within their blood in anticipation of what is to come.  Another unheard contributor of the terror is something called infrasound.  It is below the human hearing range, but even though unheard, can cause several factors of ideal horror sensations in someone who hears it for a long enough time.  These feelings include chills down the spine or nervous feelings of revulsion or fear, according to a study done on infrasound in Manchester, England on September 8, 2003.  When these feelings are generated, the horror movie has done its job in creating the creepy factor intended to scare its audiences.

Along with the sounds placed within the movie, the imagery in the scenes of a movie are also extremely well placed and orchestrated to generate further feelings of unease and terror.  Without the images, and the placement of said images, there would be little that would truly scare the watcher, even if the aim is to be more psychologically directed than the average horror film.  The imagery of a horror movie can include a wide range of products to achieve the sensations of fear highly sought after.  Gore, which is not uncommonly used in several of the films of this genre, is always something that can get the audience’s blood pumping, especially if the appearance is sudden or unexpected.  It triggers the natural sense of danger nearby and a need for staying away from said danger, whatever it may be portrayed as in the film.  Another aspect of the visual uses is the suddenness of certain portions of each scene.  A murderer very suddenly grabbing his chosen victim from behind while in the shadows would beget a shock from the audience, as well as the accompaniment of the aforementioned sounds already present in the scene.  Yet another contributing factor to the visuals of the movies is the way the actors are shown for the movie.  Desperation, fear, and or many other select emotions on the protagonist’s, or the victim’s, face will also portray the desired effect for the chosen scene.

A crucial part of the horror movies is the framework, which fits hand in hand with the visual aspects of the horror movies, yet is its own category in a way.  With each scene within a film, there are things one sees, typically to the forefront of the focus, and things one will not see on the screen.  It is the things one does not see that cause the most fear in the horror genre.  The frames of the scene are set precisely at certain widths and on certain characters or objects that will produce the greatest feelings of fear within the audience.  Oftentimes, there will be a danger that will not be present on the screen, and yet there is the knowledge something is there, and that stirs up the adrenaline and wariness the filmmakers seek to create in their audiences.  The focus of a scene will also bring these sensations within the frame of each scene of the movie.  For example, the focus of the scene could be on the character speaking, but something in the shadows could move behind him, out of the focus and in the unknown.  Even though it was not within the focus of the scene, it has created more tension and given the question of whether or not the characters are truly secure in the scene to the audience.  It is this factor of the unknown that builds more fright and makes the audience question their own safety.

As shown in the points of interest and structures above, the sounds, imagery, frames, and focus of each scene all pull together during each movie to stimulate the need of security and the fear of that which is not known in an audience.  Even that which is not seen and that which is not heard can create the effects of being afraid in an individual.  All of the components must work together to frighten and thrill the audience and give the desired effect of a horror movie.

Bibliography

The Exorcist. Dir. William Friedkin. Warner Bros. 1973. Film.

“Infrasound Linked to Spooky Effects.” NBC News. NBC News, 4 October, 2015. Web. 7 September, 2003.

A Nightmare On Elm Street. Dir. Wes Craven. New Line Cinema. 1984. Film.

You’re Next. Dir. Adam Wingard. Hanway Films. 2013. Film.

The Influence of Witchcraft on American Literature

Leave a reply

Shannon Glock

In the early days of America, religion heavily influenced every aspect of life, especially literature, because America was founded upon freedom of religion; so, many different places had many different religions and beliefs.  Many of these religions were based off Protestantism or Catholicism.  These religions believed in the powers of not only God but also of Satan.  This was especially prominent in places where the main religion was Puritanism.  Because of a strong belief in the Devil’s power, many people believed witches were present in their communities.  This belief and fear of witchcraft affected the lives of many Americans and influenced the literature of the time period.  The influence of witchcraft in society at the time was obvious.  It can be seen in the infamous witch trials and the harsh punishment of those accused and in the hysteria caused by fear of this.

The Crucible is one of the most well-known pieces of literature about the witch trials.  It is a play written by Arthur Miller based on real events.  He uses the names of real people and bases it on the Salem witch trials.  In The Crucible, a group of young girls are discovered dancing in the forest by a reverend.  One of the girls passes out and the small, Puritan town is filled with rumors of witchcraft.  Confession after confession and accusation after accusation cause confusion and hysteria in the town.  Those close to the accused witches try to convince them to confess falsely to save their lives, for in the witch trials, those who confessed and repented of their sins were spared and those who became hostile and denied the accusations were put to death.  In the end, none of the accused confess for they do not want to accept the shame and reputation that comes with it, and they are all sent to the gallows to be executed.  This play is not completely fact, but it does show what the witch trials were like and how much hysteria and unrest it caused in communities.

Abigail Williams is one of the major female characters in The Crucible.  She is the one leading the group of girls dancing in the woods.  She is one of the biggest troublemakers out of all the girls because she is not afraid to accuse even her dearest friends.  This can be seen when she said, “Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you.  And you know I can do it; I saw Indians smash my dear parents’ heads on the pillow next to mine and I have seen some reddish work done at night, and I can make you wish you had never seen the sun go down!” (Act 1)

She fully understands the consequences of being found guilty of witchcraft and knows confessing falsely and declaring she repented and is with Jesus again will save her from execution.  She also decides to accuse multiple other women when she confesses. “I want the light of God, I want the sweet love of Jesus!  I danced for the Devil; I saw him, I wrote in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand.  I saw Sarah Good with the Devil!  I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil!  I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!” she proclaimed.  This shows how in the witch trials, those who were deceitful and dishonest were spared and those who were innocent but did not want to accept shame or bring others into it were not.

Being accused as a witch could potentially ruin someone’s career, reputation, or life.  Those who confessed and were not put to death were feared and shunned by others, for they were believed to at one time had made a pact with the Devil and no other citizens would want to associate themselves with someone who could do such evil.  This can clearly be seen when John Proctor goes to confess and repent but refuses to once he is told the confession must be made public.  Not only did John Proctor fear for his reputation because he was an accused witch, but also because he feared an affair he had earlier in the play would be made public as well.  He declared, “Because it is my name!  Because I cannot have another in my life!  Because I lie and sign myself to lies!  Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang!  How may I live without my name?  I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”

The influence of witchcraft can also be seen in the teachings and sermons of the time.  Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is all about the wrath of God and the eternal fire of Hell for those who turn away from God.  It is not directly about witchcraft, but the influence can still be seen through the tone and harshness of the sermon.  The tone is very dark and disturbing.  Edwards tells of the “great furnace of wrath” and “a wide bottomless pit full of the fire of wrath” (Edwards 98).  This is very similar to the preacher, Mr. Parris, from The Crucible.  John Proctor speaks of Mr. Parris this way: “I have trouble enough without I come five miles to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation.  Take it to heart Mr. Parris.  There are many others who stay away from church these days because you hardly ever mention God anymore” (Miller 28-29).

Witchcraft strongly influenced American literature and still does today.  For example, the Harry Potter series (though British in origin, clearly extremely popular in America) is based on witchcraft.  The tone of literature of and at the time of the witch trials is very gloomy and disturbing.  In some cases, like The Crucible, the influence is very obvious, but in some, such as Edwards’s sermon, it is more indirect.  Whether it is the direct plot or just sways the tone, witchcraft and the witch trials have had a heavy impact on American Literature.

Bibliography

Burns, Margo. “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Fact & Fiction.” 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The American Experience. Eds. Linda Ellis, et al. Upper Saddle Ridge: Pearson, 2000. 98-101.

Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Viking, 1953. Print.

“Puritans Beliefs on Satan and Witchcraft.” N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Tess. “Similarities between Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ and Miller’s The Crucible.” Tess Junior Honors English Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

“Witches in Western Literature.” Goodmantheatre.org. Goodman Theatre, 2015. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Witkowski, Monica C. “Witchcraft in Colonial Virginia.” Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 30 May. 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

The Power of Prayer

Leave a reply

Jocelyn Gunter

In the book, Essence of Christianity, Ludwig Feuerbach attempts to present the arguments or essence of Christianity and then refute them with his own beliefs.  This book is considered dangerous to Christians because if not taken carefully, one can fall into the trap of agreeing with some of his more eloquent points.  It is especially hazardous to those who are new Christians or weak in their faith because the arguments can be so compelling.  One of these arguments is prayer.  Feuerbach believes prayer is man talking to himself, revealing his deepest desires.  To Feuerbach, prayer can be likened to the saying in the Disney movie Cinderella, “A dream is a wish your heart makes.”

Feuerbach writes in chapter 12, the chapter dedicated to the “Mystery of Prayer,” “what is prayer but the wish of the heart expressed with confidence in its fulfilment?”  Prayer is the simplest act of religion according to Feuerbach.  Prayer isn’t outwardly to God far away but in the heart.  “God is the affirmation of human feeling; prayer is the unconditional confidence of human feeling in the absolute identity of the subjective and objective, the certainty that the power of the heart is greater than the power of Nature.”

Feuerbach, when talking about prayer, means man talks to a muscle, to express his greatest wishes, and know there is no limit to what he may ask of God.  It is very interesting Feuerbach believes prayer is with the heart.  Throughout the book, it seems to the reader he is analyzing Christianity without the spiritual aspect drawn into his judgements on Christianity.  Feuerbach is analyzing Christianity only physically, completely forgetting the spiritual.  The problem with this is Christianity cannot be taken just as physical.  Not only Christianity cannot be taken that way, but the whole world cannot be taken as completely physical.  Yet, many people, including Feuerbach, don’t seem to notice the whole world cannot be explained with science.  The beginning of the world cannot be duplicated through science, as much as they try, to explain the world began through a big bang or evolution.  Scientists cannot explain things like miracles with science.  As much as doctors would like to take credit for it, they cannot explain the miracle of someone having 100+ tumors in her body one day and the next day is cancer free.  Medicine is not that good.  So it’s very curious Feuerbach believes prayer is with the heart.  If Feuerbach does not believe in spiritual things, then he must think the heart is only a muscle.  Yet how can a muscle be talked to, how can it be told your innermost wishes and desires?  Feuerbach writes, “Prayer is the self-division of man into two beings — a dialogue of man with himself, with his heart.”  One cannot have a conversation with the heart if it is a muscle.  Feuerbach contradicts himself with this point, because throughout the book he takes things as physical only, trying to explain everything with logic and science.  Yet, everything cannot be taken like that; one must take things with some faith.

With his argument on prayer, he believes man is his own god.  Man takes all of the perfect virtues he strives for and makes them into a perfect god, a perfect being, a being that lives for man.  He states this again in his definition of prayer, through the fact he believes since man is his own god, or this god lives in man, man would talk inwardly.  Yet, if man is his own god, then why does he need to confess his deepest desires to his heart?  His heart would already know his deepest desires, if it were not only a muscle like Feuerbach believes.  That point seems contradictory, too.

Feuerbach’s argument on prayer is the opposite of what Christians believe.  Christians believe prayer is not something our heart can give to us.  Only God can.  God is not something we created for our own purposes.  We are created for God.  We are made in His image, and since God desires relationships with His people, we desire earthly relationships and a spiritual relationship with the Father.  Part of this relationship is prayer, or talking to God.  Yes, it is telling God the deepest desires, whether through pleading for a miracle in our lives, or confessing our sinful desires to Him.  Yes, prayer is in a way inward, because the Holy Spirit lives within Christians, and Jesus resides in the heart and soul.  The heart Christians believe God resides in, though, is spiritual.  They do not believe God lives in the muscle.  1 Corinthians 6:19 states, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.”  This verse is an example of what Christianity really is, not what Feuerbach believes it is.  Prayer is a powerful tool in the Christian walk.  It is how we ask for forgiveness, for help, for strength, for patience, for wisdom, etc.  It may be “the simplest act of religion,” but sometimes the simplest things are the most important, the most powerful.  Prayer is what makes a Christian’s relationship with Christ more personal, and it is not only the human who prays, but also the Holy Spirit intercedes when Christians do not know what to say to God.  Feuerbach leaves out this special part, the spiritual part. Prayer is not prayer if it is missing the spiritual aspect.

Another point Feuerbach makes on prayer is “In prayer man turns to the Omnipotence of Goodness; which simply means, that in prayer man adores his own heart, regards his own feelings as absolute.”  First, goodness is a virtue, a characteristic.  Goodness is not omnipotent.  It does not have the power to grant miracles or save people.  It is offensive to a Christian, which is what Feuerbach is trying to do, to say good can save.  Only a perfect being could save this messed up world.  It is amazing to think Feuerbach can believe man is not sinful, which he seems to hint at earlier in the book.  If the world is not sinful, then why is there murder, death, evil, etc.?  Murder is not “good.”  The world needed a perfect Savior and still needs something like prayer to help with confession and forgiveness.  Second, prayer does not adore man’s heart or regard his feelings as absolute.  Yes, God hears his people cry out, just like He heard the Israelites cry out to Him in Egypt.  Yet, God can choose to ignore our prayer, so therefore man’s feelings are not made absolute, because God can ignore man’s feelings if he chooses.  Again, God is not for man; man is for God.  Third, prayer is through the heart, through soul.  The heart and soul are not adored, though, through prayer.  They are the Christian’s way of communication.  Jesus intercedes for Christians between them and God.  Christ is the middle man, the bridge between the two.  The heart and soul are from which prayer comes from, revealing our sins, desires, wishes, etc.  Prayer is an inward process, sometimes spoken out loud, to an outwardly God.  His Spirit resides within the heart, but He is in Heaven, and everywhere else because He is omnipresent.

Prayer is more than what Feuerbach makes it out to be.  It is powerful and a necessary part to Christianity.  Without prayer, Christians could not truly know God or His plan for their lives.  Prayer is special and important.  It is spiritual and not a dialogue between man and a muscle.  It is a conversation between the Maker and His creation.  It is a simple sentence or cry for help.  It is a silent prayer when one does not know what to say or a fervent prayer.  Prayer is during the good times and the bad times.  Prayer is constant, like text messages between teenagers.  Prayer should be a priority and not a last resort.  Prayer is not man depending on his own heart, his own feeling, like Feuerbach states.  The heart is evil, and in prayer man is dependent on God, not himself or others, because everyone will fail, but God will not.  Prayer is conversation between God and man, not man and himself.  It is not a conscience; it is words, reasoning, and thought, addressed to God.  Finally, Romans 12:12 states, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”

The Mystery of Prayer

Leave a reply

Destiny Phillips Coats

“Out of the pen of Feuerbach, the truth flows.”  This is a false statement.  Throughout the entirety (that we have read) of The Essence of Christianity, Ludwig Feuerbach has made many false statements.  The multitude that has pained me the most are in chapter 12, “The Omnipotence of Feeling, or the Mystery of Prayer.”  As Christians, we believe the complete truth is presented to us in God’s Word.  Anything we hear outside of God’s Word should be judged accordingly with the Word to see if it holds true.  Nine times out of ten, Feuerbach’s “truth” does not.

Feuerbach thinks he has an understanding of Christianity.  A non-believer reading this book would probably be fooled by his big words and long points that fly over the head of the average person.  We (believers) must guard our hearts (Proverbs 4:23) from false truths presented to us.  Not only should we divert from them, but also we must understand how to disprove them with truth: Scripture.

Throughout chapter 12, Feuerbach gives many absolute statements for what prayer is; each time however, he is wrong.  “Prayer is the unconditional confidence of human feeling in the absolute identity of the subjective and objective, the certainty that the power of the heart is greater than the power of Nature, that the heart’s need is absolute necessity, the fate of the world” (123).  This is his first “definition” of prayer.  What does God say prayer is?  Psalm 145:18, “The LORD is near to all them that call on him, to all that call on him in truth.”  Prayer is seeking after God’s heart.  It is revealing to God our heart so He might hear us and commune with us.  In simpler terms, it’s how we communicate with God.  Feuerbach’s idea of prayer is a selfish outpouring of one’s heart to combat the laws of nature; the power of the heart is strong enough to give it all its desires.  God’s Word tells us He will give us the desires of our heart.

Feuerbach says “the power of the heart is greater than the power of Nature … heart’s need is absolute necessity.”  At first glance these could appear to mean the same thing, but just a few words change the meanings of each.  God says He will give us the desires of our heart. He did not say our hearts are strong enough to overcome nature.  That is the root of this first falsehood by Feuerbach.  He did not come to the knowledge God is the creator and He alone has power to give us the desires of our heart.  He instead decided because there is no God, the only explanation for prayer is a selfish outpouring of one’s heart and strong belief the human heart separate from God can make our desires happen.

“Prayer alters the course of Nature; it determines God to bring forth an effect in contradiction with the laws of Nature” (123).  Feuerbach was actually pretty close with this one, but yet so far.  Psalm 107:28-30 says, “Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress.  He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.  Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”  Prayer does change the circumstances around us — nature.  Feuerbach went wrong when he said prayer “determines God to bring … contradiction with the laws of Nature.”  God created the world; therefore, He wrote the laws of nature.  He can choose whether He wants to operate within them or not.  Because He is God, we cannot put earthly limitations on a spiritual being.  He does not have to operate within the limits nature has put upon us.

“Prayer is the self-division of man into two beings, a dialogue of man with himself, with his heart” (123).  Feuerbach got this all wrong.  Prayer is a conversation between believers and the great intercessor, Jesus, who then communicates our desires to God the Father.  Because of sin, mankind has separated himself from God.  God is perfect and cannot commune with imperfect beings.  This is why God sent His son Jesus to redeem us.  God desires relationship with us.  Relationships are built around communication.  Jesus is the redeemer who washed away our sin, so we might be made perfect in Him to once again communicate with God.  This goes to show without a true knowledge of Christianity as a relationship between God and man, head knowledge will cause a person to interpret the things of God (spiritual) with his own (earthly) knowledge.

“It is an extremely superficial view of prayer to regard it as an expression of the sense of dependence.  It certainly expresses such a sense, but the dependence is that of man on his own heart, on his own feeling” (124).  This is the complete opposite of what Christians believe. Christianity in its core is coming to the knowledge and understanding on one’s own, one is nothing.  One must turn from his old ways and become completely dependent on God to fill the void in his heart and to supply all his needs.  We are not co-dependent in our relationship with Christ.  God does not need us.  He wants us.  There’s a difference.  She wants the cookie.  She needs the water or she will die.  God does not need us.  We need God.  Without God, humanity would not exist.  Without a relationship with God and coming to the knowledge of Jesus as our Savior, man is damned for eternity in Hell.  This is an example of how Feuerbach has wrongfully accused Christians of thinking highly of themselves to believe their own hearts can supply their needs.  Even without knowing it, non-believers are solely dependent upon God the Father.  They just choose not to believe it.

“The omnipotence to which man turns in prayer is nothing but the Omnipotence of Goodness, which, for the sake of the salvation of man, makes the impossible possible; is, in truth, nothing else than the omnipotence of the heart, of feeling, which breaks through all the limits of the understanding, which soars above all the boundaries of Nature, which wills that there be nothing else than feeling, nothing that contradicts the heart” (125).  Feuerbach is saying the heart is so powerful it can cause Christians to see/believe the reality they picture within their hearts.  This in a way is true, but not true regarding prayer.  The mind is strong enough to cause people to stumble upon a false reality.  The mind is not powerful enough to make that reality true outside the mind, nor is your heart.  God is the only power that can overcome the constraints of our natural realm.  Only through God can believers have a glimpse of God’s reality.  Hearts alone cannot bring things into fruition, only God can.

Feuerbach’s final false statement in this chapter alone is, “in prayer man turns to the Omnipotence of Goodness; which simply means, that in prayer man adores his own heart, regards his own feelings as absolute” (125).  This can be disproved with intercession.  If prayer was just this shallow definition implying a huge amount of selfishness, why would we believe that by praying for others unselfishly, Christians can bring about change in the lives of others?  It cannot!  Prayer can be used selfishly, but prayer in and of itself is not a selfish thing.

Ludwig Feuerbach constantly makes absolute statements about Christianity when he does not really understand it.  If he did understand it, he probably would have been a believer.  With arguments like these against Christianity, he as a believer could have done exploits for Christ’s kingdom.  Feuerbach is a prime example of wrong interpretation of the Word of God.  It can bring people to the wrong conclusions about the truth.  The only way we can rightly interpret Scripture is with the Holy Spirit.  We must ask for salvation to come to the correct knowledge of who God is.

Prayer

Leave a reply

Sydney Harris

We’ve been reading The Essence of Christianity in class, and the author Feuerbach has stated some intriguing facts.  He believes as he states, “As in Jehovah the Israelite personified his national existence, so in God the Christian personified his subjective human nature, freed from the limits of nationality.”  He seems to be insinuating we as Christians have made God to be a simply pure and perfect version of us as humans.  He also says “But nature listens not to the plaints of man, it is callous to his sorrows.  Hence man turns away from Nature,” explaining we defy nature and the way the world is supposed to work by creating God.  He appears to say we only imagine Him in our minds to satisfy our own needs and insecurities.

He goes on to talk about prayer and how when we pray we are praying to a nature-like being.  He goes back to how nature doesn’t shift to accommodate the needs of us as mere humans.  Therefore, he concludes God doesn’t listen to us so our prayers are simply a way to make ourselves feel better, which is wrong to me.  As Christians we pray to God because He is alive and working in our lives.  He loves us and is a relational God who answers our prayers.  He doesn’t always answer in our time, but He is always on time.

Feuerbach states our religion is a selfish one and we think we are bigger and better than everyone else.  He says “what is prayer but the wish of the heart expressed with confidence in its fulfillment.  What else is the being that fulfills these wishes but human affection, the human soul, giving ear to itself, approving itself, unhesitatingly affirming itself?”  This point really bugs me because our religion in whole is shown through love, service, and sacrificing our time and ourselves for the betterment of the kingdom.  When we pray it’s a demonstration of us being humble and thanking and asking God to help us through situations we know we can’t accomplish by ourselves.

To say we live our lives separate and thinking we only care about ourselves and our salvation is incompatible with all we stand on.  We as Christians are as the Bible says “in the world but not of the world.”  We don’t (or shouldn’t) exclude others apart from the religion because our mission is to win those souls to Christ.  We simply don’t get intertwined with the sinful ways of this world because of our morals and because we always want to continue to grow in Christ.

“God is the affirmation of human feeling,” he states later.  He goes on to say prayer alters the course of nature due to the fact we are praying for God to change the course of how things are going.  This is false because we know whatever God does in our life is for the good.  He says all good things go to the ones that love Him. We ask God simply have his will in whatever situation that happens.  Whether it be the continuation of whatever is going on at the moment or if God would intervene and, yes, defy nature, in that He performs miracles to show His power.

Feuerbach also says, “But audible prayer is only prayer revealing its nature; prayer is virtually, if not actually, speech.”  This personally made me really upset because our religion is not a practice; it’s a relationship with our creator.  To say us talking to our Lord and very real Savior is only speech to ourselves is very rude.  Nothing we say at any time in our life is simply meaningless.  The Bible says out of the heart the mouth speaks.  Whether our words have power or not they display what we are thinking, and when we pray we’re displaying our issues and our gratitude to God.  It is really ignorant to say just because you don’t believe in something it’s completely wrong and the people who practice it are just selfish people trying to make it all up for themselves.

As Christians we are not to condemn anyone like most other religions do.  We are to love and spread God’s Word.  You can’t be mad at people because of how they were raised.  Some people are born into Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist families; it’s not their fault.  They obviously are going to believe the religion they are taught from birth.  But, the other religions don’t have relationship with their God.  They are left in question of how this all came to be and if their religion is true because they have zero contact with the deity; it is all mere faith.

The Christian religion is based a whole lot on faith, but we have the amazing opportunity to talk and be spoken to, to experience His presence.  This is how we know He is alive and in us because He is with us at all times, the one thing no other religion can say.

The few things Feuerbach stated I do agree with are prayer is a concentration and dismisses all other distractions and ideas floating in our mind.  When we pray we are focused on one thing and one thing only, connecting with our Heavenly Father and spending quality time with Him.  I also agreed partially with the statement, “He who feels himself only dependent, does not open his mouth in prayer; the sense of dependence robs him of the desire, the courage for it….  But the child does not feel itself dependent on the father as a father; rather, he has in the father the feeling of his own strength.”  To me this said those who typically need the help are always or more often too scared to pray and ask for help because of the fear prayer might not get answered or for other reasons.  But, the one who is confident in their situation is more likely the one praying because there is nothing to be afraid of.  I know, at least for myself, I tend to do this a lot.  When everything is going okay I simply pray thanking God and I sometimes don’t have the right heart while I’m praying; I’m not sincere.  But when things get tough, I sometimes pray for help but it can be hard when you hear time and time again if you simply ask it will be given to you and it doesn’t happen.  So it’s not that I take God off the shelf when I need Him but more of the opposite sometimes.  The last part of his quotation goes along with what I just said in that when we are solid we pray sometimes just to look good and thank God for what we think we have done, and we’re simply giving Him credit because that’s what we think we’re supposed to do.  This is wrong and his generalization is actually a real problem in the church.  We often have too many Christians and not enough believers.

He ends saying this sweeping generalization based on his tiny bit of knowledge on prayer: “Omnipotence does nothing more than accomplish the will of the feelings.  In prayer man turns to the Omnipotence of Goodness; which says simply, that in prayer man adores his own heart, regards his own feelings as absolute.”  This statement isn’t true, because the whole point of us putting aside our pride and praying to God isn’t because we love ourselves.  It’s because we are trying to get closer to the God we know and serve.

Ludwig Feuerbach tries to discredit our religion in so many ways, but none of them are valid when you think about our doctrine and what our practice actually entails.  It makes sense he wouldn’t understand because he doesn’t know the relationship we have.  We know and are sure in our religion so we don’t have to spend all of our time trying to defend ourselves and disproving other religions with no real support.  So far I have accepted his arguments because, sadly, that was his view, but I will never understand how he could have thought that and believed it his whole life.

Feuerbach’s Misconceptions

Leave a reply

Matthew Nalls

In 1841, Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach published the work The Essence of Christianity.  This treatise aggressively and seemingly mercilessly critiqued and assaulted the essence of what Christianity stood for.  Although not the only religion targeted, Christianity fell under significant doubt and pressure as Feuerbach struck critically and systematically with experience as a philosopher.  Admittedly, Ludwig Feuerbach forges some strong arguments and states valid points.  Despite this, Feuerbach makes significant misconceptions and upholds incorrect contentions during his attack as well.  One of these incorrect contentions made specifically deals with faith and miracles.  Feuerbach states:

The miraculous act — and miracle is only a transient act — is therefore not an object of thought, for it nullifies the very principle of thought; but it is just as little an object of sense, an object of real or even possible experience.  Miracle is a thing of the imagination; and on that very account is it so agreeable for the imagination is the faculty which alone corresponds to personal feeling, because it sets aside all limits, all laws which are painful to the feelings, and thus makes objective to man the immediate, absolutely unlimited satisfaction of his subjective wishes (131, emphasis added).

Essentially, Feuerbach argues miracles are something of a “sugar pill effect on steroids.”  Also known as the “Placebo Effect,” the sugar pill effect occurs when an individual believes in an item or occurrence enough to the point he begins to experience or regard the item or occurrence as real or true.  This is the first misconception made by Feuerbach.

In stout opposition to Christian belief, Feuerbach holds miracles occur basically because man wishes them to occur (or believes they will occur like the Placebo Effect) so much to the point, in their minds or “imagination,” the miracle occurs. He states, “Miracle is an essential object of Christianity, an essential article of faith. But what is miracle?  A supra-naturalistic wish realised — nothing more….  Accordance with subjective inclination is the essential characteristic of miracle.  It is true that miracle produces also an awful, agitating impression, so far as it expresses a power which nothing can resist, — the power of the imagination” (128).

Unfortunately for Feuerbach, there is an essential flaw in his reasoning.  Miracles are performed through the grace and unquestionable power of the Holy Spirit, and only through the Holy Spirit.

According to Feuerbach’s reasoning, it is plausible to conceive the notion if one believes in an unreal thing enough, the thing is then real.  A “miracle,” defined by Feuerbach as “a thing of the imagination,” is the transportation from the “unreal” thing into a “real” thing.  Hence, Feuerbach argues since man felt and longed for Lazarus to rise from the dead, and Lazarus rose from the dead, man’s feelings are enough to serve as the catalyst for the occurrence of a miracle in their minds.  In contradiction to this notion, man simply does not hold the same almighty power as God does.  It is common knowledge a miracle is a supernatural act, an act that works around the laws of nature.  Man undoubtedly cannot work around the laws of nature, as all humankind is bound by them.  God, however, can work around the laws of nature and has worked around these laws before.  The laws of nature do not bind the Holy Spirit.  Hence, He is the one who performs miracles.  If man truly could work around the laws of nature and perform miracles if man literally felt like it enough, then innumerable miracles would occur.  The world would be a strikingly different place.

For example, if one living in a financially depressed or poor state whole-heartily wished for currency, and he wished enough, he would gain currency by which to improve his financial state. Every person in this state would easily uplift themselves into a better state. Likewise, the same would occur for a selfish person who, although living in a rich financial state, still desired more wealth, as long as he wished and felt for this hard enough.  Every person in this respective state would also easily uplift themselves into a better state. This applies to all wants of man.  Husbands, wives, and children would never die, like how Lazarus did not die.  The blind and deaf would always be healed through their own wishes.  The world would be a perfect place, for man could wish for nearly anything if he yearned for it enough.

Unfortunately, because man is in a broken, sinful state in which man experiences selfishness, hostility, and other qualities and furthermore is bound by the laws of nature, miracles cannot be carried out by mankind.  Mankind does not share the same supernatural power as the Holy Spirit.  This is why miracles are not a common occurrence, and in accordance why Feuerbach is mistaken when he declares miracles occur through man’s desires.  Patently, humankind cannot perform miracles unless miracles are performed through them only by the Holy Spirit, as seen in Acts 3:1-10 when Peter and John heal a lame man at the Beautiful Gate outside the temple.

With this, Feuerbach concludes two other interrelated points.  First, Feuerbach declares both faith and miracles to be inseparable.  Second, because both faith and miracles are inseparable, both are subjective as well.  This is where Feuerbach goes wrong.  For this example, it is essential to focus on the faith aspect of Feuerbach’s argument.  “Subjective” has come to mean emotional, non-reliable, or arbitrary knowledge or opinion.  While there is a subjective aspect to faith and desire, this “subjective” is not the kind of “subjective” Feuerbach attempts to portray it as.  He refers to subjective as meaning “imaginative” or “limitless.”  Here is also an objective part of faith Feuerbach avoids mentioning.

To differentiate the two, it is important to define both objective and subjective.  “Objective” refers to a statement or fact completely unbiased and unchangeable.  For example, the statement, “The wall is blue” is an objective statement, as the wall is genuinely blue.  “Subjective” refers to a statement dependent upon the personality or character of the speaker, as a subjective statement generally reflects his perspective or worldview.  A subjective statement cannot be verified through evidence.  An example of this is the statement, “The color blue is the best color.”  There is no way to prove with evidence why the color blue is the best color, as others may not even like the color blue.

In the New Testament, specifically in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the word “faith” is used in two different ways.  These two different ways are objectively and subjectively.  This is where the difference exists, which Feuerbach avoids.  Objective faith requires an object.  Hence, objective faith is the faith in what one believes.  For Christianity, objective faith is the faith that is the content of God’s Word, His teachings, and His work.  Christianity is an objective faith as the value of belief is not how much one believes in something, but in what one puts that belief: the object of that belief.

Likewise, Christianity is also a subjective faith.  Subjective faith is the personal act of believing and is the faith that arises in one’s self when enjoyed in spirit.  Hebrews 11:1 states, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  In this case, subjective faith is accurately illustrated as the writer of Hebrews describes faith precisely as the assurance and conviction (belief) in what one’s objective belief is, or in what one believes.  Thus, when Feuerbach states, “Faith is nothing else than belief in the absolute reality of subjectivity,” (126) he completely forgoes the objective part of faith.

Finally, Feuerbach makes one other essential misconception regarding faith and miracles.  Feuerbach states, “The essence of faith, as may be confirmed by an examination of its objects down to the minutest speciality, is the idea that that which man wishes actually is … he wishes for a world which corresponds to the desires of the heart, a world of unlimited subjectivity, i.e., of unperturbed feeling of uninterrupted bliss” (127).

Faith is not the notion that which man desires will actually come to pass.  The error made is a fundamental one.  Man is sinful.  Man tends to be greedy, prideful, or immoral.  Hence, man can desire worldly pleasures (i.e., money, drugs, power, sexual pleasure, alcohol, etc.) in the darker corners of his heart.  Despite this, many of these worldly pleasures will no longer be seen upon the second coming of Christ, yet many still believe.  If faith is the idea man’s desires will be made real, the question arises, “Why do many who still hold worldly desires have faith?”  The answer is, simply, faith is not the notion all of man’s desires will come to pass.  Therefore, Feuerbach’s idea of faith is flawed.

Along with strong arguments, Feuerbach makes strong misconceptions, as seen.  Unfortunately, unless searched through deeper, many of these misconceptions prove to be vital support to some of Feuerbach’s critical contentions and contentions made by others pitted against Christianity, as these misconceptions are not studied deeper but merely mistaken for truth.  Hence, it reminds one to be wary against such arguments made against Christianity and to search with focus into the reasoning behind such arguments.  A greater amount of validity combined with even an insignificant amount of invalidity will never forge a valid argument.

And With Religion Comes a God

Leave a reply

Matthew Coats

In The Essence of Christianity, Ludwig Feuerbach’s objective is to find weaknesses in the religion of Christianity and to disprove it.  In the first few chapters of the book, he presents a few arguments attacking the very foundation of Christianity.  To begin, Feuerbach defines what religion really is.

There is some wisdom in what Feuerbach says about religion.  He says everyone has a religion and everyone has a god.  Whether you are Christian, Muslim, or atheist, you have a religion and a god.  What most people are thinking when they hear the word “religion,” are acts of worship and a commitment to a belief that guides your life.  And with religion comes a god.  This “god” is the idol of your life.  You praise and worship it, obey it, and it is the center of your life.  But what Feuerbach says about everyone having a religion and god is not the type of religion or god most people would think of.  He says religion is within us.  Religion is the morals and basis with which we guide our lives.  Even if you are an atheist, you don’t need a Bible to understand basic morals and principles of humanity.  Everyone has this within them, the ability to decipher between good and bad.  Similarly, everyone has a god.  This doesn’t mean all people have a divine being they pray to, however; it does mean they have something in their lives they worship and spend most of their time thinking about.  For example, money can be people’s god.  It consumes their thoughts daily and is something they cannot live without.  Even Christians can have a god besides the one true God.  Christians can struggle with putting distractions like entertainment, money, and worldly things in front of the true God.  Whatever is distracting them becomes their own god.

In addition to what Feuerbach says about religion, he narrows his terms and starts to define the Christian religion.  He says, “Religion, at least the Christian, is the relation of man to himself, or more correctly to his own nature (i.e., his subjective nature); but a relation to it, viewed as a nature apart from his own.”  Feuerbach is saying there is no real divine being Christians worship.  Rather, the “divine being” Christians worship is just the human nature purified.  Man frees himself from the limits of being human.  All the attributes of the Divine being are attributes of the human nature.  Feuerbach is claiming the Christian religion and its “god” are nothing more than man making a divine being the perfect version of man.  The divine being, or God, is all the perfect attributes of man put together into a perfect divine being.  He goes on to say man can only believe in an object if it has qualities like his own.  Therefore, man created God in a perfect image of himself with attributes that make God an object to man.  Feuerbach says, “An existence in general, an existence without qualities, is an insipidity, and absurdity.  But there can be no more in God than is supplied by religion.  Only where man loses his taste for religion, and thus religion itself becomes insipid, does the existence of God become an insipid existence — an existence without qualities.”

Feuerbach’s claims about religion and the Christian God are completely inaccurate with the teachings of the Bible.  Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”  God created man in His image; man did not create God in his image.  God is not some figment of our imagination; He is not the perfect version of our attributes.  Man is the fallen nature of God’s attributes.  We are God’s creation.

Feuerbach builds off his previous argument by saying, “It is necessary to man to have a definite conception of God and since he is man, he can form no other than a human conception of him.”  Feuerbach is somewhat making fun of the Christian God.  He is saying it is such a coincidence God is a man as well.  One example he uses for this is how birds would view their god.  If the birds had a God, wouldn’t that God also be a bird?  This argument Feuerbach makes is a very weak one.  Ancient Egyptians worshiped gods that were not man.  They worshipped cats, dogs, and all types of creatures.  Feuerbach cannot make such a weak claim to say God being man is such a coincidence.  Going back to the verses previously mentioned, God created man in His image. Man is an image of God, not God an image of man.

Feuerbach takes different approaches to the argument claiming God is just the perfect qualities of man.  Man made a perfect manifestation of himself.  However, Feuerbach contradicts himself on this point.  He claims the qualities of God are nothing else than the essential qualities of man and a particular man has his existence, his reality, only in his particular conditions.  God is the highest standard of existence to man.  Man can only comprehend the qualities that are in him.  Therefore, God is not a divine being but a particular, finite being.  His previous arguments were saying the Christian God is a perfect manifestation of human qualities, but now he is saying God is finite because man can’t comprehend what is not known to him.  Man can’t be perfect, and, therefore, cannot comprehend a being that is perfect.  Feuerbach fails to understand his whole argument is based around the fact God is created by the perfect attributes of man, what the perfect man would be.  But God wasn’t created; He is the creator.  He created those attributes and man is an image of Him.

The last part of Feuerbach’s argument about God being made by the attributes of man is the nature of man demanding goodness as an essential tendency of man.  Feuerbach says religion is an attack on goodness.  Religion and the idea of God attack man; man is wicked, corrupt, and incapable of good.  Feuerbach almost seems offended by the fact man needs a God because man is wicked.  Feuerbach is missing one monumental piece to the picture.  Man is wicked and man is corrupt. Man does need a God.  Man’s nature demands goodness because that is the nature of God, and we are made in God’s image.  Feuerbach asks, “If man is wicked, how can he perceive or create anything good?”  He can’t make anything good — only God can.  Good only comes from God.  Man is wicked and will always be.  Man is a fallen creature who needs something to follow and use as guidelines.  Man needs something to give him hope.

God is not just perfect attributes of man that man can follow.  God created man in His own image, and, because man is wicked, the only hope is through God himself.  God is not here as a book to follow or guidelines to read.  God is here to save us from our own wicked nature.

Modern Christianity: Alive or a Lie?

Leave a reply

Emma Kenney

The modern Church and Christianity in both America and the world are skewed.  Corruption and misunderstanding are prominent, bleeding not only into Christian values but into fundamental Christian practices as well.  Christianity has strayed from what is was originally intended to be, and if Christians of years past looked upon the Christians of today, they would have trouble associating themselves with each other.  In the words of Ludwig Feuerbach: “The Christians — we mean of course the Christians of former days, who would with difficulty recognize the worldly, frivolous, pagan Christians of the modern world as their brethren in Christ….”  That proposes an important question: Is the form of Christianity originally intended by Jesus alive in today’s world, or is modern Christianity simply a pretty lie?

Whether modern Christians admit it or not, Christianity is and always has been, a religion of suffering.  According to Feuerbach: “While Socrates empties the cup of poison with unshakeable soul, Christ exclaims, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’ Christ is in this respect the self-confession of human sensibility.”

As previously stated, Christianity has always been a religion of suffering.  The suffering began with a form of the Christian deity begin ridiculed, beaten, and crucified.  This same deity then took on the punishment of the entire history of mankind in Hell and conquered it in three days.  In Luke 22:42, Jesus proclaims, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.  Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”  His suffering was so great He asked it to not fall upon Him, but yet He committed to obeying God’s plan even if it meant experiencing that great suffering.

However, modern day Christians flock to Christianity in order to find a way to escape all suffering.  While there has always been knowledge in Heaven there will be no suffering, today’s Christians expect to experience that same benefit on earth instead of experiencing the pain promised to Christians.  2 Timothy 3:12 states, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,” and Matthew 10:22 says, “And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”  Modern Christians ignore these verses when assuming Christianity will give them no worldly pain.

Not only do modern day Christians flock to Christianity for a life of earthly perfection, they misuse prayer as well.  Matthew 6:9-13 says as follows: “Pray then like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.  Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.’”

There are three main components to this prayer: 1) Glorification of the Lord, 2) A request for help and forgiveness, and 3) Thanksgiving.  However, most modern Christians focus only on the second component and omit any glorification of God or expression of gratitude toward Him.  They attempt to use prayer in order to achieve their desired perfect life upon the earth.  Feuerbach says the following: “Pain must give itself utterance; involuntarily the artist seizes the lite that he may breathe out his sufferings in its tones.  He soothes his sorrow by making it audible to himself, by making it objective.  He lightens the burden which weighs upon his heart by communicating it to the air, by making his sorrow a general existence.”

This is, of course, how the Christians of today use prayer.  They utter the sorrow and suffering they are experiencing and beg the two be taken away from them, but unlike in the prayer prayed by Jesus, they don’t commit to following the will of God even if it still involved said sorrow and suffering.  Instead, their prayer is on the verge of being conditional.  Essentially they are saying, “If You take away my suffering, then I will continue to follow You, but if You do not abolish my pain, I will leave.”

Most modern Christians are quick to ask, but not so quick to give.  In the words of Feuerbach, “Prayer is the absolute relation of the human heart to itself, to its own nature; in prayer, man forgets that there exists a limit to his wishes, and is happy in this forgetfulness.”  Christians ignore the fact God is not their personal genie in a bottle, formed to grant their every wish and see to their every command.  They then become angry when God does not fit into the box of their idea and assume this means He does not care for them at all.

This has caused modern Christians to become selfish.  Each prayer answered in the way they desired makes them want another and another, even though their sole purpose of prayer is to make their lives as comfortable as possible instead of praying for the needs of the world and the people around them.  Ludwig Feuerbach declares:

“In Christianity, man was concentrated only on himself, he unlinked himself from the chain of sequences in the system of the universe, he made himself a self-sufficing whole, an absolute, extra- and supra-mundane being.  Because he no longer regarded himself as a being immanent in the world, because he severed himself from his connection with it, he felt himself an unlimited being — (for the sole limit of subjectivity it the world, is objectivity), — he had no longer any reason to doubt the truth and validity of his subjective wishes and feelings.”

Since Christians have become focused on themselves instead of the world and the people around them, it is easy for them to take on a subjective view.  Modern Christians get so caught up in their own desires they severe the bonds that connect them to this world and begin to assume they are on an entirely different level to the one on which pagans find themselves.  Essentially, this attitude of Christians has become known as the “holier-than-thou” attitude.  It compels select Christians to believe no matter how messed up they are, they are still far better than both other Christians and pagans.  They ignore the problems of anyone except for themselves and see absolutely no problem in doing so.  Hence, the subjective nature is created.

However, this is discussed in Mark 10:45.  The verse states, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  If Jesus came to serve others, then how can Christians possibly justify their unwillingness to serve or even simply pray for others?  The answer is, of course, they can’t.  Philippians 2:5-7 refutes the idea it is okay to be a “holier-than-thou” Christian.  The verse says as follows: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

This makes it clear Christians are equals and have been called to serve.  Why then is it modern Christians of today are so hesitant to serve?  Their subjective view hides the illogical nature of their choices from them.  Christians so often follow the ideology because they have prayed a prayer and received forgiveness for their sins, they are somehow better and more valuable than the rest of the world.  However, this is simply not the case.  Even the most outstanding Christian is, contrary to the belief of some, not any more valuable than the rest of the world.  He has simply been forgive for the sins he has committed.  Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  This shows all are equal before God.

This truth of equality is essential.  If it was to be universally accepted, the world, let alone Christianity, would be entirely different.  Praying selfless prayers wouldn’t be something people hesitated about, and servitude would run rampant, overpowering the sense of selfishness that has gained control over the world.  If this idea of equality on the Biblical level was truly and honestly accepted, Christianity would become a force strong enough to conquer and change the entire world.

How then, can we answer the question, “Is the form of Christianity originally intended by Jesus alive in today’s world, or is modern Christianity simply a pretty lie?”  Modern Christianity is painfully different from the Christianity originally intended within the New Testament.  Christians now try to escape the will of God instead of accepting it.  Servitude has been replaced by an extreme and extensive form of selfishness, and prayer has been corrupted to the point it is nearly unrecognizable.  Until these issues have been resolved, Christianity is nothing and cannot be anything more than a beautiful lie.

Summertime Blues and Grays

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

You saw what I did there, didn’t you: the ol’ switcheroo.  It started out like a reference to that song, fitting enough since we are about to embark on summer vacation 2015 (as of this writing), but then it became an American Civil War reference.  Pretty clever, if I may say so myself.

As you may recall from earlier issues this season, we (my family) had a very enjoyable Summer 2014.  We say that with some hesitancy, of course, since so many terrible things went on in the world, thanks to real-life Armies of Darkness marching around doing horrible, horrible things.  Perhaps some day the Forces of Light will get around to doing something about them — but we don’t want to be cynical.  Our Death to Cynicism 2015 Campaign is rolling along — how’s it going for you?  Perhaps this summer will allow you time to reflect and focus on purposefully extirpating cynicism from your, though we know wholeheartedly it can only be done by the power of God — it’s certainly not something we can just work out of ourselves, no offense to the Benjamin Franklin fans out there.

But as we were saying, we are going to do our best to make Summer 2015 at least as good as Summer 2014.  We may even fix our central air conditioning this year.  It was our fault for buying a system with broken coils and no Freon in the first place, so it makes since we should pay for something under warranty.  Life is strange some times, but you just have to press on and put cynicism behind you.  We have some plans to make 2015 different from 2014 (you can’t just hope it happens, you have to plan for them).  We’ll probably get back to the library, work on our math and reading skills (mine, too), maybe even head on up to the Gardens a few times, especially before those other kids get out of school (no offense to them).  We’ll probably schedule our summer a bit more this year, but since form and structure never hinder creativity only enhance it, no doubt that will only enhance the experience of the summer as well.  If all goes according to general plans, I’ll even be back home for my birthday for the first time in quite a while (I’m rarely back there for my birthdays, as you may recall).

In the meantime, we are bringing back Historical Gaming for the coming school year, which always seems like a good idea three months before it starts happening.  We have set aside most of our summer Wednesdays to have the kids come over and learn how to play these sorts of wargames (or conflict simulations, if you prefer).  We’ll see how that works out, won’t we.  It’s all part of another of my finely-tuned cosmic plans of helping other individuals who have no desire to be helped.  Perhaps the guise of gaming will be an avenue in which the assistance will be successfully transferred, desired or not.  Sometimes you have to be sneaky.

The original Francis Tresham version, not the one Sid Meier “borrowed” years later

We’ll also play other sorts of fun games, too: my brother got me Marvel Legendary for an early birthday present this year, and despite my initial reservations about it I am really enjoying it.  I’m hoping to get some expansions for my real birthday coming up.  I’m still not sold on Marvel Dicemasters, yet, but that’s okay — I don’t need all the games in the world.  We’ll try to get some good ol’ Civilization and Battlestar Galactica in as well, perhaps even some Arkham Horror if things really go swimmingly.  On our visit back home, my brother has some plans to play some other things I’ve never played yet, which will be nice.  Ideally we’ll get some Adventures of Robinson Crusoe and perhaps some Mage Wars in.  Maybe we’ll all have another go at Here I Stand, if I can remember to pack it.

I did put some other classics on my birthday list: Cosmic Encounter (probably the only genuine “classic” on the list), Twilight Struggle, Summoner Wars, and Jamaica.  I put more wargames on the list, of course, though I disguised them under “Things I Need for School.”  We’ll see how that goes.  Some people I know are not as susceptible to sneakiness as others.  I already got Forbidden Desert, but since it was for my birthday and was accidentally shipped to my house, my mom says I can’t play it until my actual birthday.  That’s fine.  I can wait.  It’s nice to have that, though, since that will be one I can play with the kids sooner than a lot of the other games on the list or already in the collection (though Julia usually wins when we play Carcassonne).

It’s been interesting to get back into more family-style board games.  We are indeed in a 2nd Golden Age of Boardgaming.  Of course, the resurgence in popularity of boardgames has its downside, as with all avenues of popular culture (people still write bad books that somehow get published, people still make bad music that also somehow still gets produced).  This is neither the time nor place to weigh in on Kickstarter, though it does at times seem like the American Idol version of game design: a modern-day get-rich-quick sort of scheme without going through the tried-and-true avenues of design and distribution — but I could be totally wrong.  It’s a new day, after all.  Tough times demand tough hearts, as we know.  Things aren’t the way they used to be, and that’s not all bad.  As with everything else, we can delight in the positives, overlook or excoriate (or improve) the negatives, and move on with life, always further up and further in.

I have written elsewhere of my general plans for what I want to read this summer, though if I am going to be spending so much time on the road, brushing on reading and writing skills, “going to Busch” (as the kids say), reading and preparing for and playing games, playing in the yard and going to parks, who knows if I’ll have a lot of time for reading books.  People expect you to read books, though, as an English teacher, and for no sensible reason they get deeply offended and antagonistic when you admit (freely and without shame, unlike their reactions) you haven’t read a book they have read.  This happened the other day in class.  I calmly reminded them their mathematic teacher hasn’t counted all the numbers in the universe, so why should I be expected to read all the books in the universe?  That quieted them.

Even so, I certainly do want to get some good books read.  I definitely need to re-cleanse my reading palate after having read yet another book by Mark Noll and another by John Eldredge (I know, I know), things I vowed I would never do again.  But they happened, and here we are.  It made me tougher, as they say.

I still have those long-term books hanging around, gathering too much dust:

  • Mason & Dixon, Thomas Pynchon
  • The Mirror and the Lamp, M.H. Abrams
  • Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, Browne and Keeley
  • The Demon Princes, Jack Vance
  • The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Richard Dawkins
  • Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Ludwig von Mises

And here you thought I just read Star Wars books.  Though, since I haven’t finished those books yet, you could accurately so I have been mostly reading just Star Wars books.  Ever ambitious, completely unsatisfied with already having too much planned and too much to do, I have also loosely committed to reading other things as well:

  • The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman (you know me and Tuchman)
  • The Courtship of Princess Leia, Dave Wolverton (I’m not going to stop reading Star Wars or Star Trek novels just because)
  • Centennial, James A. Michener
  • Guards! Guards!, Sir Terry Pratchett (much missed)
  • The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
  • The usual generic commitment to keep going with Chris Claremont’s run on X-Men and New Mutants (this will be the year, I promise)
  • The Manuscript Found in Saragossa, Jan Potocki
  • The Dragon Reborn, Robert Jordan (might as well get going on that)
  • Prisoner’s Base, Rex Stout (I say this like it will be the only one I’ll do — you know Nero Wolfe stories are like Pringles™)
  • Histories of Thucydides and Herodotus (got to keep going with the Great Books of the Western World — one volume a year will not be a fast enough pace if I want to finish them before my 80th birthday)

Not bad for a general plan.  Could be worse.  I could have to get a job over the summer.  Next year.  As Ivanova says, “no boom today.  Boom tomorrow.”

Well, friends, we made it through another season.  Our comeback year is at an end.  Thanks to the alumni for making this issue so diverse and exciting.  Thanks, too, to the current students and recent graduates who have contributed throughout the year in this year of More Better Different.  Next year, as F. Scott says, “we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.…  And one fine morning —”

Have a great Summer 2015, Friends!