Jesus Christ loves you with an everlasting love, but you need to accept Him as Lord and Savior

Jesus Christ loves you with an everlasting love, but you need to accept Him as Lord and Savior
Preacher/Teacher Jeff pictured above.

Worship Services and Bible Study Resume in Brooklyn, NY

Greetings to all: Have you ever wondered what is the purpose of your life? Do you ever feel that even your closest friends do not understand you in your deepest depths?

Almighty God wants you to be restored to hope. Hope comes from worship of a merciful, faithful, righteous, holy, forgiving, just, and loving God. Or maybe you say, "I'm a positive person. I'm already hopeful. I don't need to be 'restored to hope'." This teacher/writer is replying to you that there is hope and there is also Hope with a capital "H." Hope with a capital "H" is more than enjoying life. It's more than a positive attitude. It is rooted in salvation.

As a psychology intern in Canada years ago, my supervisor, a psychotherapist specializing in short-term psychoanalysis, asserted to me that "there is no such thing as salvation." He insisted that humanity's cycle of life was rooted and based entirely in natural process. Though I was myself an atheist, I found myself asserting at the time that there was salvation. Why was I indignant at his naturalism? I couldn't understand myself. Yet, without any impulse to study the Bible, to pray, or to inquire of any clergy, I emphatically stated and was certain that indeed there was something in this universe worthy of being called "salvation." Since then, I was invited into His kingdom. I received the call on my life. I have experienced His saving love, and desire to communicate it to others.

We shall reach out to you in friendship and caring. Jesus, second person of the Trinity, came as the Incarnate God to offer a true path of SALVATION to whomever will receive Him as their Savior and Lord. In Hebrew, He is "Yeshua."

We teach and preach our wonderful and beautiful Savior and Lord under the rubric of "By grace alone, by faith alone, by Christ alone, by Scripture alone, and for the glory of God alone."

We are not holding services at the present time, but please stay in touch with this blog. We are re-posting again after a seven year break. God bless you one and all.



Email: philprof2@gmail.com


Monday, February 14, 2022

 

America's Declining Sexual Morality (appeared in americanthinker.com March, 2020)

The decline in sexual morality we see in our era did not begin in the year 2000.  Today's "sexual revolution" is expressed by our being told by the highest court in the land that homosexual marriage can and must be married and by women being encouraged to abort children as a "right."  In today's society, drag queens reading to little children in libraries is considered delightful by many.  Further, vast numbers of people consider one's sex designation psychological and not biological, and, increasingly, parents encourage their little children to "choose" which sex/gender they want to be.  As additional evidence of the "sexual revolution," the overall percentage of children born out of wedlock has risen from 5% in 1960 to about 40% the last three or four years (albeit much higher among black and Hispanic persons).

Tthese trends are the result of a series of developments that have been ongoing for more than 100 years.  Sexual fantasies and desires were depicted by Sigmund Freud as repressed, and in their repressed unconscious influence on the personality, these desires and fantasies were leading to neurotic and psychotic behaviors in society.  Deep sexual needs were being sublimated in creative activities, but many aspects of sexuality, being afforded no legitimate outlets or channels for expression, were wreaking havoc on personalities.

One of Freud's patients, referred to as "the Wolf Man," had a recurrent dream of six or seven wolves sitting on bare branches outside his window.  Although they were wolves, they had foxes' tails.  Applying the method of psychoanalysis, Freud concluded that the Wolf Man had castration anxiety.  Freud claimed to reveal the deep, unconscious significance of the Pleasure Principle in our psyches, thereby freeing us from the excessive rigidity of late 19th-century Western Civilization.

For Freud, the individual decision-making agent exercised his so-called freedom with decisions made by the "I" or ego.  But the identity of the "I" was within the context of the rules of social living.  In Freud's Vienna, those rules expressed Christian values (which included Old Testament prohibitions as well as virtues) integrated in the psyche by the superego.  However, both the ego and the operant rules of the superego were unaware of the unconscious dynamics that were significantly impacting the ego's adjustments to society and to its consciousness of itself.  These challenges emanated from that vast unconscious tier of existence referred to as the id.  In the id lay the repressed memories, dreams, aspirations, needs, lusts, and even attraction to death.  Greater acceptance of one's sexuality (i.e., the Pleasure Principle) was needed.  Further, the psycho-sexual implications of breastfeeding or toilet training also had to be factored into one's makeup.  These influences were wholly unconscious, yet they are the most powerful influences in shaping our understanding of ourselves and our "adjustment" to society.  For Freud, religion conceals rather than reveals the true foundations of morality and our interactions with others.

Influenced by Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the post-WWI world of artists and writers unlocked the door to expression of the unconscious and to sexual license as the path of freedom and creativity.  Many notable literary figures did not maintain a married, monogamous, heterosexual relationship "'til death do us part."   These included such notables as Henry Miller, a non-political iconoclast (married five times plus numerous lovers); Gertrude Stein (had a lifelong lesbian partner); Ernest Hemingway (married four times); Ezra Pound (he, his wife, and another woman had threesomes); T.S. Eliot (multiple affairs while his wife was in a mental asylum); James Joyce (had two children with Nora before marrying her); and Sherwood Anderson (married four times).  These great writers constituting the "Lost Generation" felt alienated from Western, Christian socio-political culture as being too bourgeois or too puritanical.  They were more comfortable in a European artistic climate marked by artistic freedom and burgeoning communism in the USSR with its anti-bourgeois rhetoric and policies.

Lara Feigel notes that in post-WWI Russia, "these ideals [anti-bourgeois and anti-family based sexuality] were enshrined in law in 1918 when the new Soviet government ratified its Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship abolishing the inferior legal status of women, eliminating religious marriage, giving children born outside marriage equal rights to those born within it, and making divorce an easy formality.  The author of the Code, Alexander Goikhbarg, looked forward to the time "when 'the fetters of husband and wife' were obsolete and love could be enjoyed freely."  Fourteen years later, in 1932, Alexandra Kollontai, founder of the Soviet Women's Department, wrote a book in which she insisted there was "neither morality nor immorality" in nature, and a sexual act should be recognized as "a manifestation of a healthy organism [much the same] as the quenching of hunger or thirst."  Although the USSR formally reversed its anti-family and pro-abortion position in the mid-1930s, the distaste for the family conceived as a bourgeois institution first stated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 remained as a steadfast pillar of extreme left-wing thought.  The USSR backing off from its anti-family agenda in the mid-nineteen-thirties was more of a practical decision than a change in ideological commitment.

Situation ethics came into being during the 1960s regarding Christian sexual morality with the writings of Joseph F. Fletcher, an Anglican theologian.  Non-marital sexual intercourse could be accepted if the parties believed in Jesus Christ and really loved each other, even if not married.  This view is generally held by liberal churches today, even if it does not appear on their websites under "Our Beliefs."  When this writer attended a liberal United Church of Christ and Congregationalist seminary in the early 1970s, some of the ministerial candidates were shacking up with their girlfriends in the dorms, and no action was taken by the seminary's administration.  Another friend, in the 1960s, pursued his lifelong dream to become an Episcopal priest only to find homosexuality rife in the seminary as the students goosed each other as they went down the stairs to meals.  He then dropped out of the seminary to protect his body, his morals, and his sanity.

The hippie movement with its counter-culture drug and sexually "liberated" mores presented yet another challenge to 2,000-year-old Christian morality.  However, while it attracted a lot of press coverage, this writer does not believe it had the destructive effect on the unity of sex, love, and marriage as did Freudianism, the left-wing assault on bourgeois capitalist culture, and the selfish examples set by some of the greatest creative minds of the post-WWI generation.

To say these developments are a cause for concern would be an understatement.  This breakdown in the moral order regarding human sexuality is not just a difference in values between some sectors of the population and others.  Rather, it is a difference in values between fallen mankind and the Author of the moral law Himself.  If it exists in what formerly was called Christian America, then judgment is likely to follow.  It's as inevitable as the bite of a mosquito buzzing around one's body on a humid day, yet the consequences are far more serious.


Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Jan. 6 Defendants Must Be Given Speedy and Fair Trials

right to speedy trial

The U.S. is facing a serious constitutional crisis over the handling of the cases of defendants in the Jan. 6 so-called “insurrection” in Washington DC to protest the Presidential election modus operandi and the results. Those being held for many months without a trial are being denied their habeas corpus rights under the U.S. Constitution and even dating back to English law hundreds of years before our Constitution was implemented.  They are not only being incarcerated without having had a trial, but there is some evidence that they are being mistreated or are being held 23 hours a day in solitary confinement which is a punishment accorded only the most dangerous criminals.

What are habeas corpus rights?  According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Habeas corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. Translated from Latin it means ‘show me the body.’ Habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.”  A citizen must be charged and cannot be held indefinitely.  A charge requires a trial, and if found guilty in a trial, there is a sentence for a specific amount of time.

Even Politifact – hardly an unbiased fact checker — relates, “The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some [my italics] held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement.”  The fact that exact numbers of those held in solitary confinement or for how long is not a matter of public record itself suggests to this writer evasion by the Washington DC jail authorities. However despite the attempt by outlets like Politifact to minimize the problem of solitary confinement, a number of GOP Senators have voiced their concern about this problem, and even the ACLU – certainly not an outreach of the Republican Party – has become involved. However, the Republican Senators who are concerned do not have a specific number. The lack of definitiveness in this area is alarming.

Even saying that “it’s only a few bad dudes” being held without habeas corpus does not dilute the evil that suspension of habeas corpus is.  Only a couple of weeks after seven Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861, Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested an individual in Maryland – a state that had not seceded – for advocating secession. The U.S. Circuit Court ruled that Lincoln’s action violated the U.S. Constitution.  Although Lincoln did not rescind his setting aside of habeas corpus, John Merryman, the object of this action was allowed to post bail three monthslater, and was never brought to trial.  Charges of treason against him were eventually dropped.  This was only one case in the context of social turmoil much greater than that of Jan. 6 in Washington DC; yet the Circuit Court and many citizens who supported our fight against the secessionist states still deemed Lincoln’s action to be an overreach.

A crucial law in respect of this right not to be imprisoned without being charged was the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 110 years before our U.S. Constitution was written.  That law said that no one could be held in prison except for treason indefinitely, and that failure to present the person to be charged to a court would result in officials being fined.  This law was followed by the Declaration of Right in 1689.  Among the many provisions of this 1689 foundational document which became a formative model for our own Constitution and Bill of Rights was the provision “promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void.”  So, the earlier law was updated to include injury to the prisoner that is financial as well as removal of his freedom.

In today’s context, that 1689 extension of the earlier 1679 law extends to the health of the incarcerated person. This applies to the present Washington DC prisoners from Jan. 6 like Christopher Worrell who has non-Hodgkins lymphoma and who has not had necessary surgery on his right hand.  He is being made to suffer over and above the denial of his habeas corpus rights which additional neglect and suffering has, since 1689, also been considered illegal in English law.  Thus, we can see that the Nov. 3, 2021 ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth against Warden Wanda Patten and Director of the D.C. Dept. of Corrections, Quincy Booth that both are in civil contempt for “potential civil rights violations” is a ruling based in English common law going back 332 years! If that is not egregious conduct, what is?

On many MSM outlets, commentators are referring to the Jan. 6 protestors and/or rioters as “insurrectionists,” but so far no one has been charged with insurrection.  Insurrectionist is possibly another word for “traitor” so – going back to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 — it would seem to justify holding someone without charging them.  However, this mindset is gripped by hyperbole. Even if the protestors are guilty of violent actions during their protest, it would be an exaggeration to say they were traitors.  Benedict Arnold a notable traitor during the American Revolution sold us out to the British for 10,000 pounds but was not imprisoned. Jefferson Davis who was President of the Confederacy during the Civil War was imprisoned for only two years and then lived as a free man. Jane Fonda denounced the U.S. role in Vietnam to American soldiers serving in Vietnam, but was never prosecuted, and John Kerry, another anti-American who lied repeatedly about the Vietnam War and about U.S. activities while prosecuting that war, became a candidate for President and is now our climate czar.

Denouncing those in jail as insurrectionists and traitors completely lacks perspective and is an attempt to generate a climate of fear and hatred for those who repudiate the administration of President Joe Biden as unworthy of this great country.

Readers should contact their Senators and Representatives a.s.a.p. to promote the cause of justice, and can link this article to provide the historical and legal context for holding the view that action must be taken to resolve the abuse of power we now see regarding defendants who have been arrested for their actions on Jan. 6.