|November 17, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, eugenics, Holocaust, human rights, Love, Malthusians, morality, original sin, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism|
The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: ”But I didn’t mean this!”
|November 3, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, morality, Obama, politics, Secular Humanism|
It was only two years ago that the great mass of swing voters, so called independents and moderates, scurried over like lemmings to vote for Obama and the Democrats. That any of them might have been surprised at what Obama and the Democrat congress actually did hints at a serious problem. No doubt many of these people voted against Obama this year- but did they do it because they have more carefully deliberated on their principles and the lessons of history?
I think it is clear that many of them did. Nonetheless, I am certain that a lot didn’t, and the fact that millions and millions still happily cast their lot with Obama and his socialist-by-another-name agenda shows that many people didn’t really move at all.
|October 21, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, Global Warming, Holocaust, human rights, Knights of Contention, Malthusians, morality, Secular Humanism|
Last week I began hosting what I hope will be bi-weekly open discussions via chat/voice. Another one is coming up. Tuesday, October 26th, at 9:30 p.m. CST. The opening topic will be “Peter Singer and James J Lee are/were right about exterminating the human race!” Click on the links for more background. James Lee, if […]
|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, Love, Malthusians, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
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)
|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, human rights, morality, pro-life, Secular Humanism, speaking engagements|
Tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. CST I will be presenting on this topic:
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.