Sunday, June 26, 2022
The Lifting of a Great Black Cloud of Doom From Over the Nation
While I'd be happiest if more people realized that abortion is wrong based on understanding that it's a human being from conception, my main reaction to the Supreme Court decision is a huge relief that the nation is no longer under God's judgment for this sin of murdering babies to the tune of sixty million. It is clear from the Bible that a nation is judged on the righteous or unrighteous acts of its leaderrs and removing the federal government from that responsibility which threatens all of us with all kinds of calamities, is a relief I can hardly ddescribe. It's huge. The sun camed out. God may smile on thenation again. Oh there are still plenty of sins on the hands of the government but with this one lifted there's some breathing space and others may follow. Maybe we could even have a revival.
I Really Don't think There's Any Rational Argument on the Side of Abortion
Sigh. I wanted to leave Bret and heather alone for a while. they say good things about the curretn political insanities so although they are liberals who have some opinions I'm not going to like I'd rather not make an issue of them if I can avoid it.
But in their latest they get into this discussion about the Superme Court dicision that just came down taking the federal government out of Roe v Wade and sending it back to the states, and the thing is, even though they are moderates who object to some of the left's fanaticism on the subject they make arguments that are not logical.
It just makes no difference whatever that we celebrate the lives that were allowed to be born as long as we tacitly agree that it's ok to do away with others, meaning kill them. It also makes no sense to aregue that we shouldn't get all emotional about lost lives considering that there are so many ways for them to be slost and so many bazillions of sperm and egg combinations that never see the light of day etc, because golly gosh, there's a difference between nature's doing away with them, or the opperation of chance in preventing th4eir existence, and you know, like intentionalloy killing them. ,br> Tthey got into this by responding to an equially silly argument on the other side, about how aborion may be doing away with great people who could have been of benefit to humanity. Quite true but irrelevant. But the answer isn't that because that is silly reasoninjg it allows for abortion since we can't be required to make all those caluculations aboutg possibilities that are never going to happen.
br> Sigh.
But in their latest they get into this discussion about the Superme Court dicision that just came down taking the federal government out of Roe v Wade and sending it back to the states, and the thing is, even though they are moderates who object to some of the left's fanaticism on the subject they make arguments that are not logical.
It just makes no difference whatever that we celebrate the lives that were allowed to be born as long as we tacitly agree that it's ok to do away with others, meaning kill them. It also makes no sense to aregue that we shouldn't get all emotional about lost lives considering that there are so many ways for them to be slost and so many bazillions of sperm and egg combinations that never see the light of day etc, because golly gosh, there's a difference between nature's doing away with them, or the opperation of chance in preventing th4eir existence, and you know, like intentionalloy killing them. ,br> Tthey got into this by responding to an equially silly argument on the other side, about how aborion may be doing away with great people who could have been of benefit to humanity. Quite true but irrelevant. But the answer isn't that because that is silly reasoninjg it allows for abortion since we can't be required to make all those caluculations aboutg possibilities that are never going to happen.
br> Sigh.
The Dawkins Delusion
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist , is a very likeale man, genial, with a pleasant Brtitich accent. And he's very sincere about what he sees as the dreadful danger to humanity and especially science from "religion." That's what this movie "The God Delusion" is about, which is based on his booki of that title. It's pretty depressing for a believer of course. As usual it would take a book to answer it properly and I'm limited to a blog post or two. Oh well.
As usual with these atheitst , he lumps all "religions" teoghether as if it's all the same thing, which is THE most frustratiing thing about such presentations. He also has a scarily limited idea of the history of religion, how it made western civilization, how it made England for that matter. He laments the tradition of requiring respect for religion, which can only be because he has such an appalling lack of knowledge of how the civilized world deppends on Christianity. No, not on "religion," but on Christianity.
He targets his idea of "faith" as common to them all, and of course undderstands it as believing something without evidence, or too little evidence, which pits it against science, by which of course he means evolution in particular, which gets my eyeballs rolling madly in their sockets. Christian faith is based on enormous quantities of evidence, allt he witness accounts reported in the bible. As John says in his gospel he wrote his own accounts so that we might believe. ut of course if you approach the Bible with the modern sophisticated prejudice that wthe supernatural is just plain false, because, well, it's just plain false because we say so, or because science says so, which it doesn't, then you'll just erase the supernatural from the bible even if you like some of the other things it has to say. That's how Thomas Jefferson came up with his own denatured Bible. Just delete all the supernatural stuff. Leaves a pretty think bible. And these days there's Jordan Peterson who seems to appreicate the nbible enormously, but has to remake it in his own image. He'll quote part of it such as "Man does not live by bread alone," which enthralls him, but leave out the rest of the sentence which says "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Dawkins doesn't seem to like it at all though.
Some time I should write a little essay about faith because it is wrongly ascribed to any relig8ion other than Christianity, where it is cewntral and original. But all I'll say here is that Christian faith is about the tenets of Christianity, otherwise we are as rational, and I suspect more rational than he about everything else. I won't comment on Islam or catholicism which he lumps in with Christianity as offenders according to his standard. They are falsae religions, about which he knows nothing.
Oh well, it's the usual reversal of truth, attcking the true God while supporting his false science. I think I'll just leave it at that for now.
As usual with these atheitst , he lumps all "religions" teoghether as if it's all the same thing, which is THE most frustratiing thing about such presentations. He also has a scarily limited idea of the history of religion, how it made western civilization, how it made England for that matter. He laments the tradition of requiring respect for religion, which can only be because he has such an appalling lack of knowledge of how the civilized world deppends on Christianity. No, not on "religion," but on Christianity.
He targets his idea of "faith" as common to them all, and of course undderstands it as believing something without evidence, or too little evidence, which pits it against science, by which of course he means evolution in particular, which gets my eyeballs rolling madly in their sockets. Christian faith is based on enormous quantities of evidence, allt he witness accounts reported in the bible. As John says in his gospel he wrote his own accounts so that we might believe. ut of course if you approach the Bible with the modern sophisticated prejudice that wthe supernatural is just plain false, because, well, it's just plain false because we say so, or because science says so, which it doesn't, then you'll just erase the supernatural from the bible even if you like some of the other things it has to say. That's how Thomas Jefferson came up with his own denatured Bible. Just delete all the supernatural stuff. Leaves a pretty think bible. And these days there's Jordan Peterson who seems to appreicate the nbible enormously, but has to remake it in his own image. He'll quote part of it such as "Man does not live by bread alone," which enthralls him, but leave out the rest of the sentence which says "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Dawkins doesn't seem to like it at all though.
Some time I should write a little essay about faith because it is wrongly ascribed to any relig8ion other than Christianity, where it is cewntral and original. But all I'll say here is that Christian faith is about the tenets of Christianity, otherwise we are as rational, and I suspect more rational than he about everything else. I won't comment on Islam or catholicism which he lumps in with Christianity as offenders according to his standard. They are falsae religions, about which he knows nothing.
Oh well, it's the usual reversal of truth, attcking the true God while supporting his false science. I think I'll just leave it at that for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
