June 4th, 2010

Kierkegaard
  • essius

The intellectual insufficiency of modern Christianity

That a proper diagnosis (the opinion about the illness) is more than half the job, every physician will admit, and likewise that all other competence, all solicitude and care, do not help if the diagnosis is wrong. … That the official Christianity, what we call Christianity, is not the Christianity of the New Testament, is not a striving toward it, has not the slightest resemblance to it—nothing is easier to see …

My Christian theism is important to me. Answers to the larger metascientific questions about reality tend to color—inexorably, naturally, expectably—the way I view the self, the world, and our neighbors. But while it may not seem strange to characterize myself in terms of things I believe in, there is, to my mind, something quite absurd in contemporaneity.

You see, it is increasingly difficult to admit to being a Christian when—as Kierkegaard says—so much of modern Christendom has abolished New Testament Christianity. Instead of passion, self-reflection, and intellectual humility, we get fundamentalism on the one hand and theological liberalism on the other—a false either/or if there ever was one. In America, in particular, the vocal Christian theists—such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell—are quite often more idiotic than the outspoken atheists—yes, even taking into account dunderheads like Daniel C. Dennett, philosopher and author of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

The modern Christian reminds me far too much of Big Brother: instead of justifying his actions to the general public, he plugs his ears to criticism and says “You need what I have to offer you” and goes on creating more trouble than his existence is worth. Instead of defending the faith with intellectual rigor, so many modern Christians are too clever by half, hiding behind a craven dogmatism—whether fundamentalist or liberal, it matters not. Such a poor response to modernity is, ironically, all too modern and hardly fit to be called Christian in the first place. Might we not say that the “modern Christian” is even, properly speaking, a contradiction in terms? For Christianity was never meant to be characterized by a fear (or disillusionment) that the Bible is not the measure of all things, by an inability to understand extra-Christian religious beliefs (whether due to extreme religious exclusivism or pluralism), or by—dare I say it—ressentiment.

When will the Left apologize??

Remember earlier this year when our august Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, a grand decision thanks to Conservative Justices who actually know how to interpret the constitution.....remember how that ilicited a slew of shrill responses from the likes of Keith Olbermann,Rachel Maddow,and other other Left-Wing Propagandists??......Olbermann even went as far as to compare it to the Dred Scott decision....we were told that this decision was supposed to lead to Corporate Tyranny choosing Corporate Candidates for us.......

And then on top of that, our socalled president even decided to show how classless he is and humiliated the Court during his SOTU because he did not like the decision and agreed with the MSNBC airheads....

Well, midterm primaries are over and midterm election season is underway.....where are the Corporate Manchurian Candidates that were supposed to take over??......where are the barrage of Corporate Ads?....it looks more like the candidates that got nominated would've goten nominated regardelss of Citizens United.... could it be that Olbermann and Maddow and their kin were lying?....

Once again we are shown that the Free Market knows best and only Tyranny we have to fear is the Tyranny of Big Government...and its propagandists like the primetime anchors on MSNBC....The Free Market....aw hell yeah!!!

So when will the Left apologize.....not only for smearing and slandering our fine Supreme Court....but for making light of slavery by comparing this decision to Dred Scott?
Default

Scandal Week: Buisiness as usual?

As a general rule, scandals in US Politics fall into two broad categories. Someone fucking someone/what/when they aren't supposed to, and someone influencing someone they aren't supposed to.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the former, but the latter is often a significant factor in the way the political world moves. A couple of days ago I posted about a scandal where in the White House apparently tried "to bribe" a "young, up-start" Democrat into turning over the party nomination to an "older, establishment-backed" Democrat by offering him a senior cabinet post.

This would seem to be a violation of the US Code that prohibits a sitting politician from using thier powers/position to influence an election. However as I pointed out in my post the law "lacks teeth" and it is fairly easy to make such offers in such a manner that nothing overtly illegal has been said or done.

I would even go so far as to say that such offers are simply "Business as usual", and that the only reason this is even slightly an issue is that it "happened in public".

There’s an old military aphorism taught to all soon-to-be-officers and NCOs; "Never give an order if you know it will not be followed." The civillian flip-side to this would be; "Never pass a law that you can not, or will not, enforce." Giving an order that won’t be obeyed does nothing but undermine your authority, and having already broken one law makes it easier to ignore others.

Wich got me thinking...

Would our system be any more/less corrupt than it is now if this prohibition did not exist?

Discuss!
Britain

They just don't get it - Free Markets v. Nanny States.

One of the things I love about living in England is the way we do business.

I know that some Americans have never set foot in another country, so let me tell you waht it's like.

I read with horror what some people are saying about California and how they are banning plastic bags. Well, Uncle Gerry wants you to know that plastic bags are bad for marine life, bad for the environment, and that an alternative is needed.

Now, how did we go about doing away with the disposable plastic bag in Britain ?
Collapse )
slow

Hats vs Cattle....

So, stick around here long enough and you'll hear about VHEMT. It's a weird movement, and here's my inquiry.

What's wrong with having one kid?
Two individuals reproduce one individual. The two individuals die, the one individual meets another individual and reproduce one more individual. This way we are decreasing population without denying people the very human [and presumably enjoyable] experience of raising a child.

Is there a problem with my logic? Is the situation so drastic that we must have 0 kids? Why isn't 1 kid--and only 1--a good enough way to reduce the population? I mean, VHEMT admits that extinction is really only hyperbole. And of course it's voluntary, so nobody is trying to impose a tyrannical one-child only law. I'm just discussing the logical alternative for those who recognize the problems VHEMT is aimed at addressing and want to help, but also want to raise a child.
Sri Yantra

I know it's not this fortnight's topic, but it's topical because yahoo says so.

news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100604/sc_livescience/interracialmarriagessoar

It seems that many of the old racial divides and attitudes in the US are slowly, um, evolving: as is happening in the UK, and Australia, and in much of the developed world. Do folk look on this as an example of evil Liberal attitudes infecting the ordinary people of the US, or as a normal social progression?

I see it as a normal social progression: but should folk have the right to marry anyone they choose? Or should such rights not exist because of social incompatibilities between approved race, or alternatively gender? Or are race and gender separate issues when it comes to marriage?

Anyway, I view this interracial marriage progression as a good thing, and I can't really see any good arguments against it. And for that matter I can't see any good reasons why folk of the same gender should not be allowed to marry.

Answers on a postcard to the usual address: the winner will be judged on an arbitrary basis and will probably not be informed of the judge's decision.