My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
My Stuff
On The Web
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 30, 2015

Sept 23

Repeated attempts to submit the comment below resulted only in errors. So this comment was more prevented from being posted than blocked by those who run the blog.

To The Michael Horton and his interview with Jean Twenge, a Psychology professor, about the millennial generation and narcissism. This appeared in the White Horse Inn blog.

I think we need to be careful about how we associate the problem of narcissism with the millennial generation. After all, weren't they raised hearing about how the nation they grew up in was the greatest nation in the history of mankind? Didn't they read about our history of acting entitled to the land once owned by Native Americans? Haven't they read or seen how our nation feels entitled to invade any other nation on earth, if feasible,  because we are the leaders of the free world? And hasn't our nation produced the greatest prosperity in the history of the world and we, as parents, have freely shared that with them.? And haven't people my age raised these kids? And as far as happiness is concerned, doesn't the Declaration of Independence talk about the 'right to the pursuit of happiness.'

Narcissism can be a problem for both groups and individuals. And so if our nation suffers from a group narcissism, how can individuals, regardless of their generational identity, possibly be unaffected?

BTW, the belief that all, regardless of group belonging, have rights does not lend itself to narcissism. The belief that I or my group are the only ones who have certain sets of rights does lend itself to narcissism.

Just perhaps what was observed, such as what the millennial generation was taught or said about themselves are not a causes of narcissism, but the results of it.


Sept 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing an an article where a pedophile wanted his sexual orientation to be regarded as normal because he was born that way. Clark called this the bottom of the slippery slope. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I am trying to figure out the slippery slope being referred to. Is it the one some conservatives insisted that existed with the legalization of same-sex marriage? It is the one that says that anything goes if same-sex marriage is allowed? Because such does not sound like a slippery as much as it sounds like falling off a cliff. And the problem there is that my fellow religious conservative Christians really took no time in comparing same sex marriage with heterosexual marriage to see the continuities that exist. Such a search would frighten some of these conservative Christians.

As for the pedophile who wants his sexual orientation to be respected as normal, we should point out to him that the sexual preferences of his targets are protected by law from both heterosexual and homosexual predators and that preferences of his targets should be both respected as well. We should also point out to this person that coerced sex is more about power than sex and that perhaps he is dealing with a power orientation than a sexual one.


To Allen Brownfield and his blogpost citing The Black Book Of Communism in reporting the death toll caused by Communist leaders of the past. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

We could say that this article itself presents a myth that Lenin, and thus others that followed his example, acted as Marxist. That myth was challenged Lenin's contemporaries like Luxemburg, Kautsky, and Pannekoek. That the Black Book on Communism attributed how many deaths to those in the West who ignored the Geneva Accords regarding Vietnam? For how many deaths in Vietnam did that book attribute to our military actions? And did that Black Book acknowledge how are military actions in Cambodia destabilized the country? Or would we rather paint Marxism and Communism with a single color?

Likewise, did that book acknowledge our role in instigating the Chinese involvement in the Korean war by invading North Korea or the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan by funding terrorists like Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

In the meantime, along with how many deaths our nation caused in Vietnam, we might ask how many Native Americans and Blacks died because our ethnic cleansing of our land and our embracing of slavery respectively? And though their numbers weren't in the millions, how about those who died in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and Central America because of our policies and actions?

Perhaps it is our western sense of humility that is causing to give credit for the results of our actions to others. But we can't  deny the pharisee in us to note how we can so easily point to the sins of others while failing to acknowledge our own.


The comment below was blocked by the Imaginative Conservative blog. The same blog did publish another attempt to respond to the comment mentioned below.

Sept 27

To Eric and his Sept 27th comment to Anthony Francois' blogpost on the Pope and the environment. Eric' post does nothing more than accuse environmentalists of hypocrisy in order to discredit their concerns. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

There are a couple of problems with what you are saying. First, not all leaders in the 'Warmist' movement fly around in their own jets being chauffeured in limousines. Second, validity of global climate change theory advanced by those who are convinced by the evidence is not affected by any hypocrisy of its leaders. Those in the Roman Church should be well aware of that fact.

The real issue regarding global climate change is what changes must we make to both society and the economic system to account for both man's contribution to the changing climate and the need to lift others out of poverty. This is the real issue because our objectivity in examining the evidence and arguments depends on that willingness to change.

Those who enjoy the status quo will appeal to both authoritarianism and utilitarianism in their opposition to changes necessitated by changes in the climate . In the immediate end, those who oppose those necessary changes will seem justified because the biggest changes will come in the next few generations. The losers will be those who live here a generation or two after we have passed away.


Sept 29

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about Capitalism's superiority over the NEA. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The argument for Capitalism revolves around mass production and distribution. The arguments against Capitalism have to do with the outcomes that some of its stakeholders experience. With the growing online availability of music and films comes pirating and the predictable lost income for artists. In fact, can be used to pirate artists' works, it can be a way by which films and music can be pirated as well.

In addition, when the availability of music and films depends on advertising, then that music and those films, in order to satisfy their sponsors, will generally be confined to what serves the goals of advertising. So, in essence, the customer becomes manipulated via volume and the emphasis made by entrepreneurs.

So the question becomes regarding new technologies such as streaming, is it supporting Capitalism's case or does it show Capitalism's weaknesses?


 To Joe Carter and his short blogpost on how the Pope said that even government officials have the right to conscientiously object. This appeared in the Acton blog.

 The trouble with applying the conscientious objection label to the actions of people like Kim Davis is that she is using use her conscience and religious convictions as  a reason to discriminate against those who are taking part in a legal action.  This makes her actions similar to some of the discriminatory actions of those who practiced or following Jim Crow discrimination. Is such acts of conscientious objection good?

No comments: