Here is a quote, and really, a definition of the general theory of evolution (GTE) that G.A. Kerkut defines in his older text, Implication of Evolution (second quote). Here Spetner calls it the neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), it more common name today. Here is Spetner’s relevant quote:
- Members swear total allegiance to an all-powerful leader who they believe to be the Messiah.
- Rational thought is discouraged or forbidden.
- The cult’s recruitment techniques are often deceptive.
- The cult weakens the follower psychologically by making him or her depend upon the group to solve his or her problems.
- The cults manipulate guilt to their advantage.
- The cult leader makes all the career and life decision of the members.
- Cults exist only for their own material survival and make false promises to work to improve society.
- Cult members often work fulltime for the group for little or no pay.
- Cult members are isolated from the outside world and any reality testing it could provide.
- Cults are antiwoman, antichild, and antifamily.
- Cults are apocalyptic and believe themselves to be the remnant who will survive the soon-approaching end of the world.
- Many cults follow an “ends justify the means” philosophy.
- Cults, particularly in regard to their finances, are shrouded in secrecy.
- There is frequently an aura of or potential for violence around cults.
They Deify Man
Teaching that man may become god, or is a part of god. Man needs to be a part of a certain group or church to learn new revelation or knowledge to progress to godhood. Someone, usually the leader will say they are god or have the Christ spirit in a greater way. That they are commissioned or appointed to be the leader by god.
The Humanize God
some groups deny that god is eternal. some believe in many gods, or that all is god (pantheism). other groups such as jehovah’s witnesses teach that god’s nature or state of being must be understood and reasonable to be true. in other words, if finite man cannot understand something about god then it is not true. this technique subtly elevates man’s mental ability to that of god.
They Minimize or Eliminate Sin
the biblical concept of sin is not taught, or is completely eliminated by some groups. this is seen in Christian science, mind science, religious science, and new age groups. meanings that are biblical are changed to their own personal interpretations that are not related to the context or original intent of the author..
The Minimize the Importance of the Bible
Most organized heresies (cults) use “anointed” information, books, magazines or scriptures. these are believed to be just as or more important than the bible. they are indispensable in understanding the bible. Some groups strongly discourage their members from reading the bible alone, and some do not believe the bible is the word of god alone. Others use the bible with their own unique interpretation unknown ever in the church history or align themselves with what was considered heresy.
They Have a Different Way of Salvation
Many organized heresies teach a “grace plus works” salvation. Many teach that ma
They Have a Different Jesus
Virtually all organized heresies deny the deity of Jesus Christ, they teach that Jesus is not the true god manifest in human form but something less, such as a created being, an angel, a prophet, an ascended master or just “a god” (secondary). Some teach we too can be the very same as Jesus. In this way they change the clear teaching of the bible of him being the unique (only begotten) son of god.
They Have a Different Spirit
Most organized heresies teach that the Holy Spirit is not God but an impersonal force or energy that emanates from god to perform certain functions, much like the energy flowing from a battery to start a car. Some teach that it permeates everything and we can breathe it in. Practices of spiritism including visits by spirit beings are common in the new age and they have counterfeit miracles to validate themselves.
They Believe They Are the Only True Church
The one mark of an organized heresy that is the most common is their claim to be the only group or church ordained by god. They alone speak for god on earth today. God directs only their organization, or church. This is done either through a leader who has all the say or a group. If anyone comes to you claiming they represent the only true church of Christ or god, and deny that anyone else outside themselves can be part, you can be sure that they are not from god. All Christian churches will recognize others that hold the same core teachings that they do, that were always part of the historic Christian faith.
This comes by way of Moonbattery:
- The FIRST QUOTE is Carl Henry (a Christian) quoting Dr. Kerkut’s book (an evolutionist). The SECOND QUOTE [jump to] is the raw, long excerpted quote from G.A. Kerkut.
What I am going to do is post a quote from one of Carl F. H. Henry’s books, then follow that quote up a larger quote from his source he uses. Context is king and I love Dr. Henry’s source A LOT!
The numbers from Dr. Henry’s quote correspond to the same numbers in Kerkut’s concluding chapter (to follow… jump to now instead by clicking here).
Here is the extended quote from Dr. Henry’s source used,
G.A. Kerkut’s Implications of Evolution (pp. 150-157):
This is a good working definition for Intelligent Design via New World Encyclopedia:
Take note of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…”
I tell my kids that we do not have a democracy, but a Democratic REPUBLIC; and I am basing these on the Constitution and the authors (and signers) understanding of it (commonly referred to as “original intent”). Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America but chose not to. In fact, they made very clear that we were not – and never to become – a democracy:
- James Madison (fourth President, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the “father” of the Constitution) – “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general; been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
- John Adams (American political philosopher, first vice President and second President) – “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
- Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration) – “A simple democracy… is one of the greatest of evils.”
- Fisher Ames (American political thinker and leader of the federalists [he entered Harvard at twelve and graduated by sixteen], author of the House language for the First Amendment) – “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will provide an eruption and carry desolation in their way.´ / “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”
- Governor Morris (signer and penman of the Constitution) – “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate… as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism…. Democracy! Savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
- John Quincy Adams (sixth President, son of John Adams [see above]) – “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
- Noah Webster (American educator and journalist as well as publishing the first dictionary) – “In democracy… there are commonly tumults and disorders….. therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
- John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence) – “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
- Zephaniah Swift (author of America’s first legal text) – “It may generally be remarked that the more a government [or state] resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”
neoconservativism A political philosophy that rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism espoused in liberalism, but departs from conservatism by embracing collective insurance and cash payments to the needy; a philosophy that takes modern democratic capitalism to be exemplary and exportable, with the active furtherance of freedom abroad to be the best course in most cases.
Neoconservatism (the word triumphed over “the new conservatism”) was spawned in the pages of a quarterly, The Public Interest, edited by Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell, published by Warren Manshel, and frequently contributed to by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Seymour Martin Lipset. These former liberals were troubled by the failures of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and dismayed at the way political orders throughout the world—especially the social democracies—were becoming statist and simultaneously less stable. When Keynesian economics began to fail to contain inflation, neoconservatives felt the economic basis for social democracy as it has been practiced began to erode. The last straw for many of the lifelong Democrats was the strident discontent of the youthful counterculture of the sixties, which made liberal elders uncomfortable with the culture that produced it.
As it became fashionable all along the political spectrum to be alienated by “big government,” that cultural chasm between NEW LEFT and “old” left widened: many of the former liberals could not stomach what they saw as the social permissiveness, national self-flagellation and rejection of individual responsibility so often espoused by the inheritors of liberalism.
What distinguished neo-conservatism from the “old” conservatism? The novel feature of the new conservatism is a relaxed attitude toward collective responsibility: “A welfare state, properly conceived,” wrote Irving Kristol in The American Spectator in 1977, “can be an integral part of a conservative society.” Such a statement is heresy to traditional conservatives; they hold that conservatism teaches that statism leads to a repression of individuality. But Kristol plunged ahead: “It is antisocialist, of course … but it is not upset by the fact that in a populous, complex, and affluent society, people may prefer to purchase certain goods and services collectively rather than individually … People will always want security as much as they want liberty, and the nineteenth-century liberal-individualist notion that life for all of us should be an enterprise at continual risk is doctrinaire fantasy.”
Kristol, his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb, and their son William (founder and editor of The Weekly Standard, more politically partisan than the forerunning Public Interest) saw liberal institutions such as Social Security to be bulwarks against further socialization. Many of their intellectual followers hope the effect of their movement will be to remove utopian dreams from practical government. To the socialists (who want to center more power in the state), as well as to the “old” conservatives (who want to place more reliance on the individual), neoconservatives say that the system the U.S. has now evolved—while not, in Voltaire’s phrase, “the best of all possible worlds”—is the best of all available worlds, and well worth not only defending but extending.
An early use of the term was by James Schall in Time magazine on August 23,1971: “Judaism and Christianity have always placed primacy in man. Now this primacy is attacked by what I call the neoconservative ecological approach to life.” Senator Moynihan recalled to the author that it was Michael Harrington, writer on poverty, who popularized the term at about that time in its present context.
In foreign policy, most neoconservatives from liberal cultural backgrounds parted company with their longtime colleagues on dealing with the threat of world Communism. They drew ideological fire from accomodationist friends as they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan HARD-LINERS. After the Soviet Union collapsed after being, in the neocon view, economically stressed by the U.S. arms buildup and encouragement of dissidents, the neocons were in the policy ascendancy.
After Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, threatening pan-Arab conquest and endangering world oil supplies, neocons applauded George H.W. Bush’s “line in the sand” and the end of the VIETNAM SYNDROME; the fact that many neocon leaders were Jews led to angry accusations from some on the far right as well as the far left that they put Israel’s interests first (see AMEN CORNER). In 2002, when most intelligence reports indicated that Saddam was preparing a comeback with associations with Al Qaeda, suspected development of weapons of mass destruction, and mounting human rights abuses within Iraq, neoconservatives in think tanks and the media were in the forefront of those supporting President George W. Bush’s argument for REGIME CHANGE. However, as the expected similarly short conflict became “the long war,” public anger at the conduct of the war tarnished the neoconservative, idealistic “freedom agenda”; REALISM was soon in the public-policy saddle, and in 2006 war-weariness was a primary cause of the change in the majorities in House and Senate. The national debate then centered on the Administration’s plan to STAY THE COURSE, a phrase reviled by the anti-war majority, versus CUT AND RUN, a counterattack phrase by neocons and other HAWKS opposing withdrawal as a form of surrender.
Among political journalists, the word is now almost always clipped to neo-cons, often without the hyphen—more a description of the articulators of the embattled foreign policy than of the policy itself. The clipped version, neocon, is often taken to be synonymous with “rightwing hawk.” In the opening stages in 2007 of the Democratic presidential primary season, Senator Barack Obama, who made a point of having opposed the Iraq war from the start, was widely seen as a liberal dove; when criticized for this as being “naive” by Hillary Clinton, he sternly took aim at Pakistan’s president: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.” The gleeful Wall Street Journal editorial headline: “Barack Obama, Neocon.”
William Safire, Safire’s Political Dictionary (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), 455-457, cf. neoconservative.
Definition: “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.”
Synonyms: adulator, backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, brownnoser, doormat, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groupie, groveler, handshaker, hanger-on, lackey, minion, parasite, politician, puppet, slave.