7 Deadly Worldviews That Threaten Christianity

Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit.
― Elbert Hubbard

Dear friends, I know you  have been wondering what these worldviews are, wonder no more, because Don McCullen has the answers.

If you are Gnostic, which, wait for it is

he rejection of God’s Word as not sufficient for us to know our true purpose or for life to have its ultimate meaning

it is important to remember though, that Gnosticism is

a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

The second worldview is rather confusing. Don calls it legalism but in all of it he is blaming Eve. He writes

This too comes from the Garden. While Gnosticism comes from the Devil, you can blame Eve for laying the ground work for legalism

You would think Don would have no problems with Dualism since it allows him to have a soul separate from body, but no. He tells us

 Overall Dualism views good and evil as part of the same framework, and not as separate concepts.

We need not say anything on his 4th worldview. Darwinism is well covered by The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

If you are a pragmatist, your worldview is a threat to Christianity. You wanna know why?

Pragmatism is “the first-born child of child of Darwinism.” It conflates situational ethics with situational shrewdness.

And how does pragmatism do this?

It allows people to change from what is truth and absolute to a truth they feel is right for themselves.

If ever you have the idea to combine two systems to come up with a better one or a different one, you are a threat to Christianity. Don tells us

However, Christians should never embrace syncretism as a way to get along. Syncretism is basically your “Co-exist” motto (with all of the religious symbols). Truth of the matter is that syncretism is at the heart of the matter, the very essence of intolerance while claiming to be otherwise.

And finally, all you secular humanists, we knew you wouldn’t be spared. So what does he say SH is,

A belief system that rejects virtually every single principle of God’s Word.

He tells us

 Secular humanism truly does bring the worst out of human beings, but yet they claim to be good

and why should this worry us? Well secular humanism will lead to collapse of society and when that happens, wait for it,

Right now, that big threat that will take over a society once Secular Humanism does it damage is Islam.

I don’t know about you, but I find this

That being large and centralized government. It has to be for them, but the problem with big government, it loves to impose itself on the infidels that oppose it, especially Christians.

quite confusing. In the US of A, the evangelicals are trying to take over government. I mean, Pence and his supporters believe he is there because that is what god wants. Methinks Don should choose a struggle.

But there is a solution to all these worldviews. Don suggests

If your able to take out a subscription to CRTV.com, please do it so that you can watch these seven programs. The audio podcasts are free but it is very important to watch and listen to both versions for they complement each other. It is not impossible go with one form without the other however.

And if you are a christian

Now more than ever, we need to move forward with our faith and be bold about it.

How will we you do this?

we really need to understand the Christian faith and show our neighbor that Christianity just does not work for certain people nor should it. It is a way of life, a way that promotes life and gives life not only in this world but the world to come.

Well, as for me and myself, we tell Don, get a life.

an open letter to a

Dear theist,

thank you for your letter that you wrote to us. It was well received. From it you said you were a secular humanist but you left. If you don’t mind my asking, what was your understanding of secular humanism and why did you leave?

What in the philosophy of secular humanism did you find most untenable? Is it embrace of human reason, ethics and philosophical naturalism or is it the rejection of religious dogma, pseudoscience and superstition that you didn’t like?

Or is it the claim that  human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god that you most disagree with? I hope you will be kind enough to indulge me.

As to your question, you ask what is the meaning of life? You say this question is fundamental and being that it has been asked by several generations of humans, I will take it to be so. Do you ask about all life or just human life? In my time I have seen men, mostly men, kill other life forms for pleasure. I am sure you heard of Cecil. Do these lives matter or do they exist for the pleasure of men? I digress. Life is to be lived. Trees have life, they grow and then die. Animals live and then die. We are unfortunate. We find ourselves in an absurd universe with the faculty for reflection. And we often think every question that occurs to us is answerable.

This is not to evade your question but to point out the futility of asking it. Maybe we should start by answering what is life before we get to what is the meaning of life. I hope you can shed some light on what is life?

In your letter you mention Belgium and it’s suicide rates and laid the blame on secular humanism. Assuming for a moment you are right and secular humanism is to blame, what is your argument against suicide? Who’s to decide when a person should quit this life? Does the alarm you raise about the low birth rate have anything to do with your Catholicism that sees women as breeders or something close? Or is it intellectual? I would love to know why you decry low birth rates.

You say the fatal flaw in secular humanism is its attempt to give meaning where there is none and me wonders really whether you thought about this statement fully. How it would be a flaw?

Your final question is unclear.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours naturalist and secular humanist.