WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless -- Ecclesiastes 5:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 4, 2015


Feb 6

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing American Sniper The comment has been stuck in the limbo of awaiting moderation. This post appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

I would also add that the model of thought Chris Kyle’s father taught him is not Christian. This strict division of people into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs denies the sinfulness of everybody and the complexity of people and situations. Finally, this model taught Chris to only see who America was affected by the actions of others and not the other way around.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 23

To the comment section debate on the Wee Flea's blogpost about the number of Christians being martyred each year. The debate was between Brent and David Robertson. The later is the writer of the blog. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Brent seemed to be intent on setting a trap and David Robertson kind of fell into it. But Robertson has some valid concerns about Brent and that he doesn't like the number of those killed in the first place. What can be gained here is that Muslim persecution of Christians isn't devastating as how some who use the numbers wish to imply. In addition, we need to be fair, we need to see where Christian supported gov't policies, regardless of the gov't, had persecuted Muslims whether because of the religion itself or because they were caught up in something political.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost about consent and 50 shades of grey. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Mutual consent by participating adults is also a legal issue, not just a moral issue. And if we left it at that, we could better share how God's Word applies to the sexual orientations and practices which our cultures accepts. It's when we start legislating, that we've stepped over the line.

BTW, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we ourselves are obsessed with sex when we write so much about it but neglect to pay adequate attention many of the important problems in today's world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Eric's Feb 25 comment attacking me for being like a pharisee from the parable of the two men praying because I have challenged some conservatives and their thinking. His comment appeared with Bradley Birzer's blogpost on ideology and mass murder. This blogpost appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

Eric,
First, I've been up front in my above comment about the sins of the French Revolution as well as those of Lenin et. al. Please note that not all Marxists, Socialists, Communists are the same and there is plenty of historical documentation to show that. It is a historical mistake to equate the Soviet Union's Communism with Marx. And note that the key word there is 'equate.'

In addition, I have been up front here in saying I am a sinner who talks to fellow sinners. Now you have a choice. You either can admit that you are a fellow sinner too and thus what you say against me shouldn't discredit what I say anymore than your sinfulness would discredit what you say, or you can claim to be superior to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing Obama's telling of some of Christianity's dark times in history at the National Prayer Breakfast. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The anger exhibited here by Buchanan is simply not Christian. It isn't how the apostles reacted when accusation were made against them. And it isn't how Jesus reacted when He faced accusations. And here, we should note Jesus' reaction foremost because He, not His followers, are the ones who make Christianity special. We, His followers, are sinners who must pray for forgiveness on a constant basis. 

Thus, to point our sins doesn't challenge the legitimacy of Christianity and the Gospel. After all, we aren't the ones who lived without sin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, and rose again from the dead. Our sins are the reason why God sent His Son into the world in the first place. That is why Paul said in Romans 3:27 that our boasting is 'excluded' because we are saved by faith in someone else than ourselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost description of the different kinds of patriotism and love of country one can have. This appeared in the Acton blog.


A few points need to be mentioned. First, I don't think this fully explains the differences in patriotism between people. For example, Pat Buchanan made the same claim about Obama as Guiliana did. Why did he make that claim? It was because Obama does not, according to Buchanan, recognize either our civilization or Christianity as being superior over their counterparts. Carter's projection that Giuliani's patriotism includes a belief in American Exceptionalism shows his own leaning as well as the expectations of what some have in determining the patriotism of others. 

According to Buchanan, proof of Obama's inability to see our superiority was seen in his willingness to list some of Christianity's past sins during the National Prayer Breakfast. And yet, Obama has demonstrated his belief in American Exceptionalism in both his public declarations and his policies. Thus, identifying the differences between the patriotism of people like both Giuliani and Buchanan and that of Obama becomes problematic. People like both Giuliani and Buchanan share old school, common core beliefs in American Exceptionalism, And we should note that belief in this Exceptionalism comes with baggage. That baggage includes a sense of entitlement to privileges which should be denied to others and the embracing of an active form of authoritarianism. The latter says that the exceptional one has the right, and perhaps even the duty,  to exercise control over others. And we should note that Obama has demonstrated both that sense of entitlement and that embracing of authoritarianism--though the latter is done to perhaps a lesser degree than what Giuliani and Buchanan do.

Now Carter makes two mistakes here and the first one revolves around the post-authentic label he uses. For while Obama refused to wear a flag pin after 9-11 because he didn't see it as being an authentic show of patriotism, Carter labels Obama as being post-authentic rather than Obama's perception of wearing the flag pin as being post-authentic. From that label, Carter distinguishes two kinds of patriotism. The authentic kind that relies on past traditions as guides for determining how one should make the necessary changes to the nation. The other, using Jonah Goldberg as a reference, post-authentic patriotism that is, relies on government to change the country because government is better than the people it serves.

In other words, Carter ends up with the age-old conservative view that we are in a battle between progressive big government vs its people--and we should note that, according to some conservatives, adding the word 'progressive' to big government is redundant. Such is an oversimplified view of the relationship between government and its people. And it is so because this authentic or conservative viewpoint assumes that elite rule only emanates the public sector. There is no recognition here of private sector elite rule over the nation. So Carter and Goldberg's view here understandably assumes an alien relationship between government and its people. It is understandable because government is rarely if ever seen as a possible democratic tool of its people. And though in many cases it isn't, it has the real potential to be.

But what is patriotism? Must patriotism include the belief in the superiority and exceptionalism of one's nation? If so, the real question that is begged here is that patriotism is a trait to be desired and honored. What else is left unsaid is what American traditions should be used as guides for the future. This is an important point because not all have experienced America in the same way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost suggestion on how churches can help prevent people from being victims of predatory loans. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Yes, it's a great ministry and the idea is worthy of being practiced by other churches. But one question that arises is, with all of the other demands made on Churches and with all of the people in such need, can church created credit unions help enough people? But an even larger question looms here. Why can't the Church also demand that the Government steps in to alleviate the exploitation? For though churches can help, unlike government they are not the representatives of the people. So it seems that the people's should be representatives should also be involved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a college could lose its accreditation and thus access to federal loans for student because of these college's biblical on homosexuality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The issue here isn't about our religious freedoms or our view of a particular set of sins. The issue here is whether a college that is receiving federal aid is potentially participating in the marginalization of a rightfully protected group of citizens. So perhaps the problem isn't the college's opposition to homosexuality per se. Perhaps the real problem is that the college has made an inadequate statement about homosexuality in that it doesn't distinguish how it believes homosexuality should be regarded personally from a Christian perspective from how it believes homosexuals should be viewed by society.

This is where the past context provided by many conservative Christians has produced a pendulum swing resulting in an oversensitivity about and overprotectiveness for homosexuals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a March 3 comment to a post on the Imaginative Conservative that has now been posted. So the comment that was below is now deleted here. You can see the comment at the link below:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/progressively-redefining-human-nature.html


4 comments:

That's my 2 cents! said...

Curt,

So are all these deleted comments yours? I'm reading them and I don't see anything in them which is all that inflammatory or problematic. They may not be to everyone's liking, but they are well thought out and stated.

I can't see any reason to delete any of these comments. They're not flaming, trollish, or pointless.

I haven't always liked the opinions of those who've commented on some of my posts. If you have a well stated comment which isn't trollish, I'm rather appreciative, even with an opinion which opposes my own. I value well thought out and stated comments. Am I in the minority?

Grace and peace,

Lonnie

Curt Day said...

Though I agree with your assessment, I find that sites have different different sensitivities. And part of it is due to the past in that some have tried to debate and they either couldn't answer my objections or got tired of answering them.

In the end, it shows the level of control some conservatives want to show and yet that is one of their major complaints in terms of how they are treated.

That's my 2 cents! said...

I find liberals to be just as bad as conservatives. It's kind of funny to me. I started out as a bleeding heart liberal, became a conservative, once I realized a liberal lead federal government had enslaved, mostly, people of African heritage to the welfare system, (this was back in the late 80's). And then I've mostly abandoned conservatives because they're lying as much as any of the liberals are. The Republicans are using Christians for their own gain, while betraying Christians.

I have little use for politics or politicians these days. Plus we aren't going to achieve God's ends through political means in any case.

Grace and peace,

Curt Day said...

There is more that one factor in the dependence that has been created on the welfare system. One of those factors has to do with the moving of factories. Factories were moved from large urban areas and then out of the country. Lack of opportunities have at least as much to do with dependence on the welfare system as anything else.

In addition, the welfare system only made recipients out of those who apply for it. They are not given decision making power in the system. This creates a passivity that might be confused with dependence.