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

Eric,
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?

Can Old Dogs Who Have Learned Old Tricks Learn New Tricks Too

In the light of the recent Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate on evolution vs creation and the age of the earth and universe, not the subject of this post, comes an interesting discussion filmed for Ligonier Ministries. This discussion, as you look at the screen (click here for the video) from left to right, includes a moderator, R.C. Sproul Jr., Michael Horton, Del Tackett, Stephen Meyer, and R.C. Sproul Sr. They discussed a number of topics, but our concern here is the first 4-plus minutes and the last 33 minutes when they talk about science issues . The exact times are listed as a part of the video outline on the page below the video. 

In this video, you will see a divide between those Christians who believe in a "young earth" and those who believe or accept the possibility that the earth is old. Those who believe in a young earth believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and they get their starting point for that belief from applying a literal interpretation to Genesis chapters 1-2--they will also supplement that belief with scientific support and that is fine. This blogpost is not concerned with the age of the earth. It is those who believe or accept the possibility that the earth is as old, as most scientists, think who are receiving our concern here. 

Those Conservative Christians who believe in an older earth seemed to have learned from the Copernican Revolution. Copernicus was labeled a heretic by past icons of many of today's Conservative Christians, including Luther and Calvin, for proposing that the solar system is heliocentric (sun is the center), as opposed to geocentric (earth is the center). The reason why Luther, Calvin, and many, if not all, of the churches resisted this description of the solar system is because it went against their literal reading of the Bible. Copernicus was called a heretic and it took the Church more than a while to admit the error of its ways.

So we'll note that those Conservative Christians who favor an old earth are trying to avoid a grave mistake from the past. But more important than that is the idea that Conservative Christians, even professional theologian ones, can receive help in interpreting the Scriptures from non-religious  sources. This is what Michael  Horton, Stephen Meyer, and R.C. Sproul Sr., not Jr., demonstrate when they allow for an old earth. They are allowing truth discovered by science to help them find the truth in the Scriptures. But by saying this we should note that that does not imply that discoveries from science can deny what is clearly taught in the Bible. We just have to be certain about what the Bible teaches clearly.

Now, here is the thought for this blogpost; if scientists can help us understand the Scriptures better than before, how about others? For example, can we better learn how to interpret Scriptures about taking care of those in need by reading Rachel Corrie's journal entry on the homeless (click here)? Can we get practical lessons on a national level of what the Scriptures mean when they say not to judge others lest we be judged too by reading Noam Chomsky on the principle of universality (click here)? Can we get a more Biblical view of war by reading Howard Zinn (click here) or should we be content with Augustine (click here to see description of Augustine's view of a just war)? And finally, can we learn from Marx regarding how to treat workers more Biblically despite his lack of fondness for theism? 

I ask the above questions because of what is written in the Bible. For doesn't Romans 2:14-15 challenge those who are religious by mentioning how godless Gentiles can have the law written on their hearts? And perhaps what best signifies our knowledge of God's Word is whether we can recognize it when it comes from unexpected places and unauthorized sources.

We must always remain true to the Bible, to God's Word. But somehow we have shown that loyalties and a penchant for authoritarianism has filtered out helpful sources in understanding God's Word. If what is said does not come from our favorite teachers, we too easily discard what is said or written. And this is even done by our teachers too. Too many times, we have all sacrificed Biblical truths in order to maintain a certain chain of command. And in so doing we lean toward learning from accepted authority sources  in our society and culture only. And because of the influence of society and culture, we also tend to support the status quo when we should be challenging it.

The old trick is to let science help us understand what the Scriptures say. The new trick is to let those who don't have God but whose consciences have been blessed by God instruct us, when they can, on how to better understand God's Word. If all truth comes from God, as is often said in the video we are reviewing, what is the harm of learning from unexpected sources? In saying this, however, we do want to guard against merging or even conflating nonChristian thinking with Christianity.