All posts by drmurphy42

Quid Est Veritas?

Ever since Pilate asked that question of Jesus, secular scholars and petit academicians have struggled to formulate an answer.  Jerome, pondering that question in the Latin version of the Scriptures stumbled upon the only answer.  By simply rearranging the letters, and neither adding nor subtracting from them, he discovered that “the answer to the question is in the asking”, thus “Quid est Veritas?” is answered “Est vir, Qui Adest!”  The Scriptures also state very emphatically, “the truth is in Jesus Christ”—since the “in” is in italics we know it was supplied by the translators and is not in the Greek text and thus it should read, “the truth is Jesus Christ,” (Eph. 4:21) and Jesus Christ stated, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father except through Me,” (John 14:6)

Based on those texts, underscored by Jerome’s discovery, when asked to write my philosophy of education out in three sentences or less, I formulated it this way:

“On the rocky and sometimes fearsome path one travels between being a ‘pupil’ and being a ‘student’ it is essential to grasp the awesome fact that ‘truth never fears a challenge,’ and to realize that as Christians we possess the liberty to challenge the existing order of things through critical analysis, and are charged with the responsibility to become the creative, thinking opinion leaders that this world so desperately needs.”  If a student will accept that challenge we can then begin to educate and train him (I refuse to bow to the PC crowd) in becoming a virtuous and disinterested servant- leader which, in turn, is a step toward becoming a Christian Statesman.

The first step in that process is for the student to understand what Truth Is—truth is objective and knowable.   Truth is not relative; there are not multiple “truths” with each person selecting his or her own set.  Truth also is absolute: if something is true it also is absolute—conversely, if something is absolute, it also is true.  To state that something is absolutely true or that one believes in absolute truth is merely to dabble in “repetitious redundancies.”  It stands, therefore, that there cannot be conflicting “truths”—your “truth” cannot be true if it conflicts with or stands in contradiction to my “truth,” and vice versa, assuming that one of our “truths” aligns with Truth and the other’s does not.

A glaring example of the foregoing is the recent publication of a Constitutional Law supplemental text entitled The Godless Constitution in which authors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, state that they have dispensed with the usual footnotes and references in the interests of brevity.  The truth behind that lie is that there are no references from the Constitution, its authors, its early commentators, or its documentation that would support such an absurd concept as the authors purport to “prove” through their abjectly non-scholarly, opinion-only work.  The authors simply state that the Constitution is Godless because they state that it is (some 200 years after the fact and ignoring all of the documentation, freely available, that totally and flatly disproves their thesis).   The Christian principles of our founders are, in Al Gore’s words, “an inconvenient truth” to those who refuse to be honest in their research in order to promote a society free from the restraints that truth necessarily imposes upon them.

The false teaching that truth is “relative” has but one goal and that is to destroy the whole concept of Truth (to which one must be finally accountable) and thereby allow the development of a society for whom there is no final accountability.  Our Founding Fathers understood that concept quite well and insisted that no one was fit for public office who would not affirm a belief in God and in judgment after death.  They had seen the corrupting influence of power, and without doubt would be in agreement with Lord Acton, who later wrote in the Confederate War era, that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  If one were to be entrusted with public (governmental) power, one must recognize that he must give a final accounting of his use or misuse of that power to the One from whom that power derives, the One who is All Power.

It is but a small step backward from teaching that there is no final accountability to teaching that there are no consequences for one’s behavior.  If there is no accountability to a final ultimate Authority, then man is the only arbiter—and society must then attempt to bring behavior under control by appealing to its citizens to, as Nietzsche says, “be true to the earth.”  But if my truth allows me to participate in whatever I choose, then your truth needs to be tolerant and allow my behavioral manifestations of my truth for, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?  If it’s right for you who can say it’s wrong?” Without a proper concept of truth, there is no standard but man for man’s actions.

Even thinking proponents of the false religion of evolution know, as was stated by one such scientist in a television interview, “of course there is no scientific evidence for evolution, but the kids have to be taught something so that they can enjoy their sexual freedoms” (the statement was so fascinating that I forgot to write down the reference—very un-scholarly, I know).  Recognizing that truth is objective and knowable frees one from the shackles of secular philosophy and enables one to genuinely use the scientific method of investigation—observing what is there unfettered by philosophy of science falsely-so-called (which dictates that observation must be bent to fit itself–and woe be to the thinking scientist who fails to bend his observations to fit the philosophy).  In Isaiah, God says to man, “come now and let us reason together,” and the Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork.”  D. James Kennedy, recently deceased pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, quoted an astronomer who said, “…the more you study (observation unfettered by philosophy) this thing (the Universe) going infinitely outward (telescopically) and infinitely inward (microscopically), the more you become convinced that is the result of one, single, gigantic mathematical thought—it had to be done all at once, or it could not have been done at all.”

Of course evolution is going to fall by the wayside, discarded on the trash heap of other failed philosophies that have tried to pervert truth for self-serving, anti-Bible, God, and Christ (or humanist) interests and it will be replaced by another of the same failed genre, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  That is of no particular concern to me because

“Truth Never Fears a challenge.”

 

Quid est Veritas? Est vir, Qui Adest!

Advertisements

Where Did American Education Go?

Asked Dr. Smith with a mischievous twinkle in his eye, “Say, Chuck, why, with all your credentials and intellect, are you still teaching at that Christian college with its low salaries?”

The setting was an impromptu coffee-with-conversation meeting with my former professors in
my Ph.D. program at the University of Tennessee; Dr. Smith was the one remaining true conservative in that august group of scholars.  The obviously loaded question came near the end of a quite refreshing dialogue among a group of well-read, highly educated gentlemen who respected each other and who valued—yea, treasured—honest intellectual exchange, an admitted rarity in American colleges today.  Due to the small size of most offices, we had retired to an unoccupied classroom for our gathering.

“The primary reason, Dr. Smith, is that I do not like to be censored in what I teach—I value the reality of the concept called ‘academic freedom.’”

One of our colleagues took the bait and replied, “you’re not really serious, are you?”  He, like the others, made the false assumption that being on the faculty of a Christian institution meant that one is obviously censored in what can be taught and by implication, what can be thought.

“Oh yes, I am very serious.  I refuse to be censored in what I can teach because I firmly believe that ‘truth never fears a challenge.’ Now, you guys obviously think that you are the ones with academic freedom, but let me ask you, when was the last time you had the freedom to take Jesus Christ or the Bible into the classroom with you?  I, on the other hand, can take Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mao Tse-Tung, or anybody else or any other philosophy with me for an honest dialogue to compare and contrast any and all such ideas with truth.”

That was followed by a pause, and receiving no rejoinder, I continued to my concluding statement.

“Furthermore, a few moments ago when we were discussing various things and the topic of conversation came to Affirmative Action, why did you guys drop your voices and look down the hall to see if anyone was perchance listening to your true feelings about that policy?”  Now, with a twinkle in my eye, I concluded, “If you guys want to prostitute your credentials and your intellects for a higher salary that’s your business…but as for me, I refuse to do so.  That’s why I am still teaching at a Christian university.”  And, with a gentlemanly good-naturedness, we adjourned the meeting so they could get back to their classes, promising to continue our dialogue in the near future.

That last paragraph illustrates a point made by Maj. Gen. Josiah Bunting III, USA (Ret’d) in his book, An Education for Our Time, to wit: “America’s colleges are incapable of delivering what America needs today.”  Part of the reason they are so incapable is that they have violated their very reason for existing—honest intellectual inquiry of all sides of an issue in an open forum where ideas can be discussed, compared, contrasted against truth—objective and knowable truth.  Example, the pathetic performance of the uneducated automatons at Columbia University when someone with an opposing viewpoint is invited to speak to them—such speakers are shamefully shouted down by the puppets of a non-education system. The same happens at other major “universities” as well.

I enclosed that word in quotes to draw attention to the fact that such institutions cannot be called Universities and should be referred to as arrogant, robot-producing propaganda agencies.  The word University derives from the root Universe, which means: “Single sentence.”  That single sentence is: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  A University is an institution for the study of that Universe, a study made possible because that God has deemed to reveal Himself and His creation to man, whom He created with the necessary intellectual capability to receive that revelation and to engage in scientific inquiry (“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord…”)  The scientific method of investigation is a marvelous tool for just such a study, a tool properly used demonstrates the marvelous, ordered complexity of His creation.  Misused, that tool is used to propagandize the automatons of the propaganda agencies into the false religion of evolution.  True Universities have the freedom to acknowledge that evolution is both a philosophical lie and a scientific impossibility, which has been absolutely proven by the scientific study known as microbiology: Charles Darwin said that if irreducible complexity can be found, evolution will be proven false—microbiology proves just that by showing that the “simple” single-cell animal is a highly complex arrangement of equally complex machines…irreducible complexity.  Evolution is not just dead, it was stillborn at its inception, but that conversation cannot even be conducted in the classrooms and auditoriums (which means a “room for hearing”—not “jeering”) of their universities, so-called.  Darwin’s statement, found in Origin of Species, reads: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

It is obvious to the most casual observer why that last thought is being denied through some pretty complex sophistry on the part of philosophers (otherwise known as scientists) today—just look at the magnitude of the superstructure they have constructed upon the lie of evolution.  Even the U.S. Government has become involved in violating the First Amendment by requiring that the religion of evolution be taught in the public schools while denying the teaching of anything Christian on the falsely interpreted and un-Constitutional doctrine of “separation of church and state.”  Look also at the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum of Natural History—from the front door to the exit, all one has is model after model preaching the religion of evolution.  The entire superstructure of American education, from elementary to post-graduate studies is now resting firmly on the foundation of that religion, and it is supported by an atmosphere of violent opposition to any voice that deviates from the prescribed religious dogma.

Where did American education go?  It got swallowed up by the religious dogma of the lie of evolution and its supporting political philosophy of Marxism—Darwinism/Marxism.

Truth Never Fears a Challenge

Dr. Murphy

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.  Shun him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple.  Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows is asleep.  Waken him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise.  Follow him.

                                                                                      Arabic Apothegm

Why Do We Have Bureaucracies

Why Do We Have Bureaucracies?

That question opened a new semester in a graduate seminar on public administration.  In answering the question, the twelve of us were to introduce ourselves, tell what we were doing, why we were taking that particular seminar, and so forth.  The instructor was the son of a Baptist preacher and the grandson of a Baptist missionary, and the class was required for my MA at Oklahoma State University.

“Well, of course there are no absolutes…” opined a young lady trying to sound erudite but not quite reaching to that level.  I wanted to insert, “are you absolutely certain that there are no absolutes?  After all, your statement is an absolute,” but I held my peace until my turn came.

“My name is Charles Murphy, I am pastor of a fundamental Baptist church, registrar of a fundamental Baptist college, and assistant professor at that college,” which introduction got their attention and curiosity.  “The reason we have bureaucracies,” I continued, “is because we have a characterless people, and a characterless people have to have someone to tell them what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare.  However, the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that we have only other characterless people to put into those places of authority, so now we are in the untenable position of having characterless people telling other characterless people what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare.”

Stated the professor: “I can accept that if you can define character.”

“Character is doing right because it’s right to do right, regardless of the circumstances,” I replied.

Asked the professor, “By whose standard?”  I thought he’d never ask!

I pulled my Bible from my briefcase, they went into cardiac, and I stated, “I have a Standard—a Standard of absolute (for her benefit) right and wrong. Now, admittedly, there are some things in here that are in grey areas that are somewhat debatable, and I love to debate them, but it is a Standard of absolutes nonetheless.”

Seeing there was no comment coming from either the students or the professor, and since I still had the floor, I continued: “I think I am safe in assuming that most of you, if not all, claim to be liberals in your philosophy, am I right?”  They nodded ascent.  “Well then, according to your reasoning, there is no Creator, no afterlife, no judgment after death and therefore in your system it is not that you have not ‘found the answers,’ it is rather that there are no answers to be found because all that is at the end is a cold, dark, silent universe.”  The silence was deafening until the professor called for a coffee break.

Is it not passing strange that our Founders with all their wisdom did not mention, conceive, write about, or make provision for bureaucracies when they wrote and adopted the Constitution?  Were they really unaware of how much we need government agencies to tell us what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare?  Could they have been so ignorant of our inherent mental retardation that requires us to have government agencies to tell us that toys with small breakable parts are dangerous for our infants?  Surely they must have been aware that we are so incompetent that we have to have government agencies involved in the design and function of our toilettes?  And, how could they not have been acutely aware of our need for government Entitlement Programs to ensure that those of us who do not want to work are entitled to the paychecks of those of us who do work?  I find it hard to believe that they did not know, when writing the First Amendment, that we do not even need God because we have government and Visa/Master Card.  How could they have been so short-sighted as not to know that it takes a government to raise a child because parents are so obviously incompetent?  Did they not know, with all their experience and wisdom, that we absolutely must have government agencies watching over our every breath, every bite, and every drink we take from morning to night, yea rather, from the cradle to the grave?  And what sort of communal stupidity caused them to come up with such insane, meaningless dribble for their mottos such as “Live Free or Die!”?

Eureka!  Now I know why we have bureaucracies–we have bureaucracies because we are too lazy or too stupid to make our own decisions in life!

Truth Never Fears a Challenge!

Dr. Murphy

Where Did All the Statesmen Go?

Part of our vision at SAIS (Strategic & Intelligence Studies Program) is the development of “virtuous and disinterested servant leaders”—otherwise known as Christian Statesmen (again, I absolutely refuse to bow to the socialist politically correct crowd’s meaningless dribble that passes for English today…an educated person knows when “man” or “men” is used in a generic sense).  What do the terms virtuous, disinterested, and Statesmen mean?

Virtuous means: “doing right because it’s right to do right regardless of the circumstances.”
Disinterested
means: “making the right decision regardless of cost or benefit to the decision-maker.”
Statesman
means: “one who serves his country with unselfish motives.”

The eighteenth-century gentlemen, our “Founding Fathers,” as we are wont to call them, were men of such character and integrity as indicated in the above definitions, despite the common historical revisionists recasting them as self-serving enviroterrorists and other such derogatory depictions which only prove that such non-educated and non-scholarly authors are totally and willfully ignorant of readily available historical facts, because such facts do not fit their philosophy and agenda of revisionism.  Of the fifty-five who gathered in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, twenty-one had fought in the War for Independence (which was not a revolution), forty-six had served in colonial assemblies or State legislatures, twenty-four had been members of the Continental Congress, thirty-nine had served in the Congress under the Articles, ten had taken part in drafting State constitutions, six had signed the Declaration of Independence, four had signed the Articles of Confederation, twenty had been, were then, or would later be, governors of States and twenty were at one time or another United States Senators.

They were gentlemen in their upbringing, education, and personal deportment. They were Christian gentlemen in their religious profession and in their conduct in social and civil encounters with each other and with all men in general.  Fifty of them would have subscribed to the Apostles’ Creed: twenty-three were Episcopalians, ten were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Catholics, two were Lutherans, two were Quakers, one was Methodist and two professed belief in God but did not at that time belong to any particular church or sect.  In short, they were orthodox Christians who took their religious lives very seriously as indicated in their writings and personal letters to friends, colleagues, and families (again, all such documents are readily available for the true scholar to peruse at will).

They were gentlemen in their manners and debate with each other.  Some of the debates got rather heated, but their deportment to each other remained gentlemanly—believing that ideas are to be challenged, debated, argued with passion and fervor, but personalities are to be held in sacred honor.  They were well educated gentlemen, many of them studied at American colleges, at Oxford or Cambridge, or at the Scottish and Irish universities.  What sort of education did they receive?  Look at the first four requirements which had to be met before one could even apply to Harvard in 1646:

  1. “When any Scholar is able to read Tully or such like classical author ex tempore, and decline perfectly the paradigms of nouns and verbs in the Greek tongue, then may he be admitted into the College, nor shall any claim admission before such qualifications.”
  2. “Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.”
  3. “Seeing the Lord giveth wisdom, every one shall seriously by prayer in secret seek wisdom of him.”
  4. “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that they may be ready to give an account of their proficiency therein both in theoretical observations of language and logic, and in practical and spiritual truths…”

[NOTE BENE: do not try to impress me with your degree(s) from Harvard until you can pass this entrance requirement from 1646 or for Yale from 1745]

The entrance requirements for Yale in 1745 reflect the same principles: “That none may Expect to be admitted into this College unless upon Examination of the President and Tutors, They shall be found able Extempore to Read, Construe, and Parce Tully, Virgil and the Greek Testament: and to write True Latin Prose and to Understand the Rules of Prosodia, and Common Arithmetic, and shall bring Sufficient Testamony of his Blameless and inoffensive life….All Scholars Shall Live Religious, Godly and Blameless Lives according to the Rules of God[‘]s Word, diligently Reading the holy Scriptures the Fountain of Light and Truth; and constan[t]ly attend upon all the Duties of Religion both in Publick and Secret.”  The rules go on to require such holiness of life and speech that one cannot doubt the moral quality expected from the president of the college down to the lowest scholar.

In addition to the moral quality required at all American colleges, Yale also required the “knowledge of the Three Learned Languages…In the first Year They Shall principally Study the Tongues & Logic, and…in the Second Year They Shall Recite Rhetoric, Geometry and Geography, In the Third Year natural Philosophy, Astronomy and Other Parts of Mathematicks.  In the Fourth Year Metaphysics and Ethics.  And the respective Classes Shall Recite Such Books, and in Such a manner as has been accustomed…”

In other words, they received a classical education in which they studied formal logic, rhetoric, and literature–learning to speak with care and with eloquence both of which are marks of the true gentleman.

If one desires to know the extent of their gentlemanliness all one has to do is refer to Thomas Fuller’s The Holy State and the Profane State, in which one finds such requirements as being a man of honor, valor, respect, charity, and duty.  I grew up in southwestern Oklahoma by etiquette rules known amusingly as “the Code of the West,” which embodied many of those admonitions, and I am saddened by the complete lack of proper etiquette among Christians today—especially in Christian institutions of higher education—a condition we will correct among the select few who will put out the effort to be accepted into the Strategic & Intelligence Studies Program at Liberty University’s Helms School of Government.  If you are interested on knowing how embarrassingly poor your college experience has been, I invite you to read Maj. Gen. Josiah Bunting’s book, An Education for our Time.

Truth Never Fears a Challenge

The True Racists in Politics

It is passing strange how supposedly “educated” students have been shouting and carrying signs in a manufactured “outrage” and who charge all those who disagree with them (Trump, primarily) as being the KKK., Fascists, racists, when absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Those three labels bantered about by the truly ignorant or the willfully ignorant propagandists such as “#All of Us 2016,” Democrats in general, and all who have been propagandized instead of being truly educated in the well-documented facts in U.S. history—which are open to any who desires to shed his/her ignorance as demonstrated in the actions and voices in the protests. “Nazi” stands for The National Socialist German Workers Party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which has much more in common with the Democrat Party (Left wing) than the Republican Party (Right wing). So instead of “protesting” with the Nazi symbols and false accusations of Fascism (Fascism is also left-wing socialism), which you claim to hate, you should be celebrating now that the real Nazis and real Fascists and real left-wing KKK (Democrats) are finally out of power and the Constitutional Republicans are once again in power. Selah

Today’s Democrat “uncle Tom’s” who have prostituted their integrity and who have much to lose if the truth gets out into the public arena, including Jessie Jackson, the racist NAACP, Al Sharpton and so forth—all of whom are ignorant of the rich, powerful, and productive political history of Republican Black Americans beginning immediately after Emancipation.

Fact: The Slave Holding Confederate States of America have violently and murderously held on to their racist, Nazi, and Fascist agenda since the Party was founded.

Fact: The 3/5 Clause has nothing to do with “worth”—it was a measure to limit the slave-holding Democrats from gaining more seats in Congress by counting their “property” (slaves) as citizens.

Fact: 13th Amendment—all 118 Republicans voted to end slavery while only 19 of 82 (23%) Democrats voted for the amendment.

Fact: 14th Amendment—94% of Republicans voted to give former slaves full citizenship while no Democrat voted for the amendment.

Fact: 15th Amendment—All Republicans voted to grant full voting rights to the former slaves while not a single Democrat voted to do so.

Fact: Democrats coerced the newly enfranchised Black Americans by threat, violence, and death to get them to vote Democrat.

Fact: All lynchings of Black Americans were done by Democrats in the south.

Fact: The infamous, vile, Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat Party, supported by the Democrat Party, funded by the Democrat Party, proudly owned by the Democrat Party*, recruited for by the Democrat Party and the first film ever shown at the White House was the equally vile “The Birth of a Nation” (based on the book History of the American People by the racist and then-Democrat President Woodrow Wilson)—a film produced to recruit for the KKK.

Fact: The Democrat Party fought every legislative effort to maintain the newly gained civil rights of Black Americans throughout the late 1800’s and through the 1900s until the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was passed by the Republicans over fierce opposition and filibuster by the Democrat Party leaders—Senator Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former Klan member, and Richard Russell of Georgia.

If, and it is a big IF, one wishes to contradict this piece he/she should first challenge themselves
to purchase and read: “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White” which contains 29 pages in micro-elite type of documentations and a 11 page bibliography covering the above comments.

The book is companion to a DVD by the same name and both are available at: www.wallbuilders.com.

* Testimony…to Inquire…in the late Insurrectionary States, Vol. III, p. 97, testimony of E.W. Sweibels on June 22, 1871.

Truth Never Fears a Challenge