WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
08/13/2026
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 08/027/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 08/13/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Climate science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate science. Show all posts

Monday, July 17, 2017

ONIM For July 17, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.


Christian News

World News


Health Care News


Donald Jr. News


Israel-Palestine News


Donald Sr. News

Pick(s) Of The Litter






Monday, July 10, 2017

ONIM For July 10, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

July 4th Articles

Israel-Palestine News

Trump News


Pick(s) Of The Litter 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 17, 2015

Please note that for around a month the posting schedule will change on this blog. There will be a post every Tuesday and a post on Wednesdays when feasible.


May 29

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost calling climate science a fad. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The biggest challenge that comes with climate change doesn't revolve around science, it revolves around materialism. Those who cannot accept the possible changes in life that acceptance of climate change demands find reasons for denying both the facts and possibilities. Facts such as the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, the increasing number of dead zones in the oceans, or the thawing of the tundra along with the release of greenhouse gasses such as methane that comes with it. Possibilities include the approach of a tipping point from which there is no return and the climate changes that comes with it.

A scientific approach would look to test the possibilities. But those addicted to materialism or for other reasons who support the status quo deny the facts around them and refuse to consider the possibilities that exist. 

The history cited in the above article above does not address the facts and possibilities associated with climate change. Rather, the above citing of history is a power play; it is an attempt to claim authority over science and thus the issue of climate change. The history cited above demands that the audience trusts the Church and Christianity over those in science. It is a variation on a theme seen when Galileo and Copernicus were condemned by the Church because what they were saying was stealing the Church's thunder.

We shouldn't be surprised about power plays such as the one exercised by this article because the history of the Church is replete with such examples of the Church. And such examples show the Church using its authority to serve wealth and power whether that wealth and power is the Church itself or some other source. And for the West, wealth and power are best served by preserving the materialism that comes with our economic system. And part of that materialism includes eliminating the chains of social responsibilities that come with the former standard definitions of the word stakeholder. 

A stakeholder is anyone impacted by a business. And with that definition comes business' responsibility to listen to and consider the interests and concerns of all the stakeholders involved. Isn't the cutting of social responsibilities what we see when jobs are switched overseas to sweatshop factories or when the environment suffers from how we extract fossil fuel resources such as in the mountain top removal of coal? Are we keeping regimes in Africa in power because of the freedoms they are bringing to their people or because of the economic gains our businesses obtain from their tyrannical rule? And isn't that what we see when our materialistic and consumeristic way of life leaves many deprived while it is possibly killing the future of our descendants?

And while we fight against homosexuality and same-sex marriage as if our lives depend on it, we say nothing about our unjust wars based on lies conducted by our own nation, the economic exploitation of Capitalism, and the destruction of the environment caused by our economic system and our way of life. In other words, this article tells us to keep the status quo by being apathetic to the welfare of others and thus obedient to those with wealth and power because there is nothing to fear about the future. Ironic that such a message should be pronounced by a theologian when those in the Old Testament who preached similar messages were called false prophets.

And what is the key apologetic here that preserves the hope that we don't have to change? That 100% of the scientists don't agree. Of course, that apologetic ignores the actual percentage of scientists who are sounding the alarm.

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

June 14

To Steve Hays' May 26 response comment to my comment saying that my analogy of Nazi suppression of rights was incoherent in defending equal rights for those in the LGBT community. This appeared in Denny Burk's post on gay marriage being against Christian teaching in denny Burk's blog'

Steve,
Incoherent? All I wrote was that the Nazis opposed recognizing some groups because they oppose their vices is hardly incoherent. And drawing an analogy to the denial of equality to those in the LGBT community for the same reason is hardly incoherent. Remember that it was the Nazis who were into suppression. 

What we need to distinguish is the moral demands we are to put on fellow believers from the moral demands to be put on society. The moment we cannot make that distinction is the moment we confuse the roles of both society and the Church. The argument that many conservative Christians have made against recognizing the equality of those in the LGBT community is that their immoral sexual orientation causes them to forfeit any claim of equality in society. Thus, you say that I am comparing unlike things.

But in a land based on religious liberty, who am I to say that those in the LGBT community are not my equals in society? And considering that Paul follows his Romans 1's comments about homosexuality with Romans 2:1, who am I to look down on those in the LGBT community. And I mention this because this is what it is all about: It is about the insistence made by some conservative Christians that they are above, and thus have the right to suppress, those in the LGBT community. Some Conservative Christians are claiming to be the morally superior people. And with that, we return to the Nazis and not only their suppressions of others, but the reasons why they felt entitled to the right of suppressing others. That is certainly not incoherent.

Finally, totalitarianism works against 2 kinds of liberty: individual liberty and group liberty (a.k.a., democracy). We find that our fellow conservative Christians oppose both kinds of liberties for those who are different than themselves. In the end, we find many fellow Conservative Christians to be suffering from xenophobia. In itself, that isn't a bad thing; but it does hurt our witness to the Gospel.

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

June 16

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Pope, global warming and Catholics. This appeared in the Acton blog.


Perhaps we should note that the real resistance to responding to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in both the atmosphere and the oceans comes from those who want to see as few to zero restrictions on businesses and their activities. In other words, the real resistance to global warming comes from hawkish supporters of Capitalism who believe that eternal growth is possible in a finite world.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost about a coming cultural implosion that will be the result of a lack of faith. This was posted in the Acton blog.


This article would be easier to take if it were not for history. HIstory has taught us that followers of Jesus Christ, if how they have treated others is a reflection, have not always been all that happy. We can think of our country's early days when 9 of the 13 colonies had state churches. The presence of state churches often included religious intolerance to varying degrees of other denominations and religions. And we could include with that intolerance the choice of many Christians to favor mammon over morals in their support and practice of slavery as well as their part in the ethnic cleansing of the land of America's indigenous population.

Fast-forward to today and we see that the Conservative Christian definition of religious freedom still includes protecting intolerance as practiced by these same Christians. Only here, the target is the LGBT community whose moral standards qualify them as having a lesser rather than equal status in society--that is according to many Conservative Christians.

Again, if happiness is measured by how we treat others, then the claims made above about the highest level of happiness coming from faith in Christ are contradicted by the actions of many Conservative Christians.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 18, 2015


Feb 5

The status of the comment below has been changed from awaiting moderation to published.

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing the movie American Sniper. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Just wanted to know if you read the book too. One of the reviews of this movie I read noticed a real difference between how the movie depicted Chris Kyle’s approach to war and killing and that which was written in the book.

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

Feb 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about the changing laws on marriage. His blogpost points to an article by Stella Morabito that reports on the coming doom for the legalization of same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Citing instances of and supporting statements for practices all of which have been in existence for much of man's sinful existence as evidence for an "I told you so" from Conservative Christians concerning the results for allowing same-sex marriage  is more an instance of venting than sound reasoning. It certainly appeals to the choir, but it is seen as not having any credibility by those outside the choir. In short,  such is simply an appeal for restoring positions of power to the Conservative Christian consensus over culture and society. And what is really discrediting to the Gospel to many outsiders is our obsession with these messages of doom regarding same-sex marriage, especially by those who pride themselves on their church not taking social stands while saying nothing about the exploitation of people and the environment by our current economic system and about how our government wants to conduct wars with impunity.

In the end, Christians who are obsessed with the changing laws regarding same-sex marriage, whether they admit it or not, are more concerned with Christian privilege in society where Christians have various levels of control over society and its laws and mores than anything else. What scares them is sharing society with unbelievers as equals. Remember if the sin from I Cor 5 was not even heard of among the Gentiles, how is it that many of the extreme sexual practices listed in Stella's article will ever gain enough popular support to become part of the norm in society?

The all-or-nothing thinking, scared-straight approach that says the definition of marriage in society must follow the Christian definition or all variations of marriage will eventually become part of the status quo can only be seen as manipulative. Also, the percentages in Stella's article about nonmonogamous same-sex marriages is disputed by other data.

Should we oppose the practice of same-sex marriage? Of course. But why not depend on evangelism alone to do that? We should note that those Christians from the past who have sought privileged positions to control society stated a pendulum swing so any restrictions we might encounter in preaching the Gospel is part of the same swinging of the pendulum.

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

The following blocked comment is the epitome of why this series appears on this blog. It points to the filtering of information performed by some Conservatives.

Feb 16

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the ISIS slaughter of 21 Egyptian Christians. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The story is too sad for words. We should also note that IS represents criminal insanity rather than any religion.

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

Feb 17

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote of a scientist complaining about group think among climate scientists. This appeared in Heidelblog

So without any details, we can say that this person's grievance is legitimate and that science stands on one side while group think warns us about climate change? That kind of reasoning reveals one's predispositions. Where's the objectivity here?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on incarceration rates and crime reduction. This appeared in the Acton Blog.


Consider then that America incarcerates more people than any other country. But also consider that the incarceration rate for Blacks is higher than that for Whites. And also consider that that disparity is due to an inequitable enforcement of drug laws. At this point, let's stop. How does Carter's Theft Island fit into our current circumstances where Theft Island was made of some who were genetically predisposed to committing one theft per year while our jails have disproportionate rate of Blacks incarcerated for drug related crimes though Whites use drugs at the same rate?

Let's also look at the fact that life for former prisoners lends itself to recidivism because of the difficulties these people have in obtaining meaningful, livable salary employment in such a tough job market and housing--in other words, the some of the same conditions that might have contributed to the initial crime, conviction, and incarceration. In addition, the same  legal system that has disproportionately incarcerated Blacks and other minorities is still in operation. Then consider people who have committed small crimes who, sometimes either inadvertently or in order to live, continue to commit small crimes and are thus locked away for the rest of their lives.

Finally consider those who have committed fraud or money laundering or some other major financial crime are counted as untouchable by criminal laws because of the economic influence these people have. Where is the insistence that to reduce those crimes, one must convict and incarcerate them?

Just once, I would like a Conservative to write extensively about our justice system by first checking out people's lives rather than just by applying their logical powers of deduction.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on unemployment and suicide. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Too many times when someone says that unemployment is a spiritual problem, they mean it is just the problem of the unemployed person. It is tragic shame that nobody considers whether the number of unemployed here is also a sign of a spiritual problem of either the economic system being used or the people running and benefiting the most from the system.




Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 26, 2014


March 20

To R. Scott Clark's blogpost on the Millennials and work. This appeared in the Heidelblog

A few comments here. First, millennials have been in the job market far longer than Obamacare has been in existence. To place any kind of blame on Obamacare seems to be opportunistic seeing that Obamacare officially started less than a year ago.

Next, it's not just the education system that has failed millennials, it their parents and themselves. Parents are as much to blame for our educational system's failures as anyone else because parents put a great deal of pressure on the schools and teachers to give their kids passing or even good marks. This happens even in college and the workplace and I witnessed the former personally before retiring from teaching. The kids themselves have been raised on electronics and entertainment and the people raising them on this are their parents, the schools, society, and our economic system.

I always cringe when I read or hear someone attribute today's problems to Marx. First, those who do so have, at best, done a mere cursory reading of Marx. Second, attributing something to Marx is usually done as a pejorative. And third, it is our capitalist society that has been telling our kids that with the right mix of work and investments, with an inordinate amount of stress on the latter, they can retire early and in complete security and luxury. 

BTW, I've been reading Marx and have found that Conservative citations of him to be usually misleading and out of context. In addition, I would recommend Martin Luther King's review of Marx. It is simply the best because he gets at the key problems in Marx's thought while being able to identify where Marx can legitimately challenge our current system.

The millennials' tolerance of same-sex marriage might be due to the fact that they live in a pluralistic society and have learned to welcome diversity. And while they have learned to welcome diversity, us religious conservatives have failed to provide many examples of how to tolerate differences in society while not compromising our own standards. We all too often associate not compromising with intolerance.

Finally, we should note that the job market is much tougher now than before. In addition, businesses have been relying of gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. Even many military families live on gov't assistance. 


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

March 22


Joe Carter's blogpost on if companies can be African American, why can't they be religious. This appeared on the Acton blog.


First, there are Christian companies. Many of them publish materials and sell books and other things while there might be a few hospitals.

But there seems to be a potential comparison of apples and oranges here. For in the example above, what is being questioned is whether a business was denied the opportunity to provide services. What is being asked for with Christian businesses is what rights can they deny others either in employee benefits or in refusing services. I have great understanding in not wanting to pay for healthcare that includes abortion. I have some understanding in Christian businesses not wanting offer services to same-sex weddings. But we have to understand that these are not the issues Black businesses are dealing with.

So if we want to compare apples to apples, we would be discussing discrimination against Christian companies that are being denied the opportunity to provide services, not the right to deny them. 

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


March 23
To R. Scott Clark's blogpost on Science and the audio broadcast linked to in the blogpost. The audio calls the current climate scientists who warn about environmental problems because of our greenhouse emissions a cult. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


Remember Luther's and Calvin's geocentricity. Machen's view of how the Scriptures talked about what appeared to be the case meant nothing to the Christians in the days of Calvin and Luther. That scientists back then had it right while our most esteemed theologians had it wrong should cause us to approach all other discrepancies between scientists and our spiritual leaders with an open mind. And calling the large body of climate scientists who can easily point to indisputable physical changes in our environment a cult because of both their agreement and that their methodology was different from other scientific studies is irresponsible.

Climate scientist are considering multiple models for the future so what this says is that that they don't know the ramifications of our path. But, again, they can easily point to current changes and denying those current changes would indicate that one is submitting to a cult more than whatever faults you can find in the climate scientists.

So with regard to the climate scientists, perhaps the lack of tolerance of has to do with the available evidence as well as what is being risked. To do nothing, in light of the observable evidence  and not the conclusions or interpretations, is to at least flirt with disaster. And why studies contains a blind or double blind models depends on the studies themselves. One cannot enforce a single model on all studies.

Finally, if you want to say that the hiding or blocking of data indicates shenanigans, then we must question this blog because of the comments challenging what has been claimed about socialism and climate science which have been blocked from appearing here. And that has occurred multiple times. 

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


March 25


To Joe Carter's Blogpost on providing a Common Grace apologetic for Disgust. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.


What people find to be disgusting varies so that just because someone is ok with what I find to be disgusting doesn't imply that they believe in a world where everything goes. The burning of the bodies of aborted babies is probably disgusting to more people than abortion is itself. And that brings up an interesting inconsistency that we should explore. And generalizing from that specific application, it is easy to find how the above post can equip us in challenging culture but that wasn't the only point of this post. 

Another point was to challenge Christians who sabotage the emotion of disgust by criticizing fellow Christians for "implying any sinful behavior can be disgusting." 

Whether what someone does is disgusting to us is related to several factors. And one of those factors is practicality while another is identification. What are the effects of being disgusted by every sin practiced by others? Can one really function in society while being that sensitive? Will such an emotion cause us to be intolerantly intolerant of others? 

Or perhaps our disgust is because we indulge in or want to practice the same sins that disgusts us and our expressed emotion distracts attention from us? And are we afraid that we will slide down the slippery slope of sin if we fail to react? And there are many other questions we can ask. 

Now if the effects of rampant individualism is another significant concern here, then we should look for accepted cultural practices and sacred cows that might be promoting such individualism. And, based on what Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, one such culturally embraced practice that affects our moral values is the free market. For in the free market, our strength and our conscience is self-interest. We are told that in the free market, self-interest is what both drives and guides us. That concern for others is not necessary and may even frowned on frowned on at times when working in or determining the rules for the free market.

We certainly cannot reduce all of the current radical individualism that is causing our society to self-destruct to the free market. But we have to admit that with the rewards to be found there, the free market possibly encourages more individualism than is healthy for a society.