Posted by Anthony on April 28, 2010
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)
Some discussion.
In the conversations I found myself in objecting to health care, I heard repeatedly how selfish I was being. In the comments on blog entries I saw the same thing. “If you really loved people you would support this bill. You’re just selfish. You just don’t want to pay taxes.”
I oppose universal health care, especially when put forward on secular grounds, precisely because I do love people. I do not believe it is in the best interest of most people in either the short term or long term. The Lewis quote above alludes to some reasons why. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on
Thursday, Apr. 29th, at 12:30 p.m. CST, I will be presenting on this topic:
(Round two in progress… 2:23 p.m. CST, direct link)
Just Politics? Religion and Abortion and Apologetics: Examining the idea that supporting abortion is merely a political view but opposing it is a religious view and the role of world view in the question.
Summary: Pro-choicers often frame their argument by casting their position as a civil rights issue and the pro-life position as a religious issue- and people should not impose their religion on others. Common sense would suggest that as two sides of the exact same coin, if one position is a religious issue so too is the other. Lying beneath the issue is this question: “Is there any belief that is merely political? What separates a ‘religious’ ‘belief’ from any other?” This leads into a conversation about apologetics, and whether or not the Christian faith is grounded in reality- and the consequences whether one answers in the affirmative or the negative.
This presentation will be delivered in an online presentation. While the topic is worthy of discussion in its own right, it is being presented to test out the ‘conference hall’ for Athanatos Christian Ministry’s upcoming online apologetics conference (May 7th-8th). The goal is to work out any technical kinks, but in theory there won’t be!
No registration is required for this free presentation. However, an RSVP would be welcome. You can just leave a comment at the bottom of this thread or otherwise communicate with me that you will be there.
Link to the conference hall: here.
Posted by Anthony on April 24, 2010
This article discussing emerging church staff positions crossed my desk and caught my attention. According to the article, prevailing trends in society and in the Church (Institutional) suggest that we can see these positions being developed or created:
The Network Administrator
The Multicultural Children’s Director
The Chief of Staff
The Operations Pastor
The Creative Arts Director
The Boomer Director
The Spiritual Growth Pastor
I think this list, though not portrayed as comprehensive, is probably pretty accurate. Given my background, I noticed that one position is not mentioned: Apologetics Director. I think that is pretty accurate, too.
I find this to be pretty interesting and indicative of the state of the Church, Inc. today. Not to take away anything from the positions mentioned above or positions that may already exist, but we live in a society where Christianity is being deliberately attacked at a number of levels. At the same time, the culture itself represents challenges to Christianity less intentionally, in the form of hundreds and even thousands of new world views for Christians to encounter and have to deal with.
The average Christian receives an education from the Church that presumes that said Christian will never encounter someone with a different worldview or even one that is positively hostile. We educate our youth as though when they go to college their professors will be sympathetic to Christianity.
Now, we all know that hostility to Christianity is rampant. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on March 25, 2010
It is generally agreed that for something to be considered scientific, it must at least in principle be falsifiable.
Let me suggest that evolutionary theory in all of its most controversial aspects is, at rock bottom, unfalsifiable.
I want to go right to the bottom: the claim and insistence that life on this planet can be explained satisfactorily as being the result of unguided, natural processes.
It is plain and simple common sense that tells us that in order to falsify the notion that something is unguided, we would need to show that it is in fact guided.
There is just one problem. The prevailing New Atheist Evolutionary Rabid Apologist froths at the mouth at the very notion that there could be any scientific validity to reliably detecting guidance, that is, intelligent agency and design. Unfortunately, if there is no scientific validity to design hypotheses, we are necessarily deprived of a scientific basis to falsify an ‘undesign’ hypothesis.
- In order for something to be considered robust science, it needs to be falsifiable.
- Modern evolutionary theory is usually presented so that it entails unintelligent operations.
- To falsify the claim that something is driven by unintelligent forces one would have to show how intelligent forces were at work.
- Evolutionary apologists insist (with heapings of derision) that such a showing is outside the bounds of science.
- But if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
- Therefore, macroevolutionary theory cannot be scientifically falsified at the point that it is the result of unguided natural processes since they reject as unscientific the very things that could falsify it.
- Consequently, at one of its most controversial points- that it is unguided- macroevolutionary theory is shown to be scientifically unfalsifiable on the evolutionist’s own terms.
Unfortunately for modern evolutionary apologists, WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on March 24, 2010
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on February 5, 2010
There is just something about this Tebow Superbowl ad that seems to have really gotten under the skins of the pro-abortionist groups like Planned Parenthood and others. I think its because they perceive that their whole agenda has been called out and they were left rocking backwards on their heels. A lot of the pro-choice groups are crying foul that we have to be ‘exposed’ to something as damnable as a story about a mother who was advised to have an abortion… but chose not to… in “contravention doctors’ orders” (ala Rachel Maddow).
Apparently, such divisive matters should not be presented to us during the Superbowl… far better to focus on what unites us: clever beer commercials and scantily clad women and the occasional wardrobe malfunction.
I think I know what is really going on, why they are so hostile. I think it is because they understand that their agenda can only be furthered when it happens under the radar. The worst thing in the world, from their perspective, is that the topic be out in the open. Like the cockroach and termite, their only hope is that no one notices while they do their nasty work, for if someone did, out would come the spray. And light is the medium by which they are spotted.
I was recently invited to be a columnist on a Christian news site called the CypressTimes. One of my first articles was on this very topic. Here is a snippet: WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on January 22, 2010
I suppose many readers have heard the outcry against Planned Parenthood soliciting donations to restore ‘family planning’ services in Haiti. I’ll leave others to reflect on the weirdness of this. I’d like to focus briefly on the hypocrisy of it, for, after all, given Planned Parenthood’s real goals, their only complaint about what happened in Haiti can only be that more people didn’t die.
I have discussed the malthusian nature of abortion proponents at length on this blog so I won’t rehash it. Essentially the point is this: if you really believe that over population is the worst crisis facing the planet, then the mass destruction of tens of thousands of people must be, ultimately, something to celebrate.
For the person bobbing along in the waves of life, such an assessment will be seen as outrageous and insensitive. Still, the assessment is true. In the article I linked to begin with, there is this little quote:
“There are reports of women giving birth on the side of the road as hospitals and houses have been demolished,” said Ms. Stacey, noting also that Planned Parenthood is encouraging donations to Americans for UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, which is also bringing assistance to pregnant women in Haiti.
“The donations (Planned Parenthood is promoting) will help UNFPA provide emergency reproductive health kits,” said Ms. Stacey. “These kits could essentially function as OB wards as they contain essential drugs, equipment and supplies to provide lifesaving services to pregnant women.”
Now, an ‘emergency reproductive health kit’ is obviously a euphemism for an on-the-run abortion kit, right? Whether or not they really have the capability to ‘provide lifesaving services’ or only have that capability ‘when the life of the mother’ is at risk, I don’t know. What I’d really like to point out that PP is getting these kits from UNFPA- the United Nations Population Fund. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
