Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

An irony of 'liberalism'

Laura Rosen Cohen: Can Someone Remind Me Why Australia Needs a Grand Mufti?

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Trump can't be Hitler ...

If he were, George Soros would be collaborating with him. here on (the evil) FB

Continue reading ...

Like the frogs of Egypt

Another good one from Douglas Wilson: The Ponies Are Free

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Apparently, Obamacare doesn't cover 'pneumonia'

Google: Clinton+Pneumonia

Or does it now?

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Do Aztecs and Christians worship the same God?

William Vallicella The Debate That Won't Go Away: Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?
... So the conceptions of God in the two religions are radically different. But how is it supposed to follow that Christians and [Aztecs] worship numerically different Gods? It doesn't follow! Let me explain.

Suppose Sam's conception of the author of Das Kapital includes the false belief that the author is a Russian while Dave's conception includes the true belief that he is a German. This is consistent with there being one and same philosopher whom they have beliefs about and are referring to. One and the same man, Karl Marx, is such that Sam has a false belief about him while Dave has a true belief about him.

Now suppose [Atl]'s conception of the divine being includes the false belief that said being [demands, or at least requires/needs, unending blood sacrifice, and on an industrial scale] while Peter's conception includes the true belief that God [offered himself once and for all as the only fitting blood sacrifice]. This is consistent with there being one and same being whom they have beliefs about and are referring to. One and the same god, God, is such that [Atl] has a false belief about him while Peter has a true belief about him.

What I have just shown is that from the radically different, and indeed inconsistent, God-conceptions one cannot validly infer that (normative) Christians and (normative) [Aztecs] refer to and worship numerically different Gods. For the difference in conceptions is consistent with sameness of referent. So you can see that Fr. O'Brien has made a mistake.
Or, alternately, we *could* allow ourselves to see that William Vallicella has made the same mistake he constantly insists upon making.

You know, it's one thing to say that Protestants and Catholics worship the same God, despite that Catholicism just can't seem to get that "once and for all" bit; it's quite another thing to say that Moslems and Christians worship the same God, when nearly every statement of Islam touching on Christ is *explicitly* formulated as a denial of a Christian statement.
But nota bene: Difference in conceptions is also consistent with a difference in referent. It could be that when a Christian uses 'God' he refers to something while a Muslim refers to nothing when he uses 'Allah.' Consider God and Zeus. Will you say that the Christian and the ancient Greek polytheist worship the same God except that the Greek has false beliefs about their common object of worship, believing as he does that Zeus is a superman who lives on a mountain top, literally hurls thunderbolts, etc.? Or will you say that there is no one God that they worship, that the Christian worships a being that exists while the Greek worships a nonexistent object? And if you say the latter, why not also say the same about God and Allah, namely, that there is no one being that they both worship, that the Christian worships the true God, the God that really exists, whereas Muslims worship a God that does not exist?
Well, you *could* say, as I do, that the being whom Moslems worship does indeed exist and is not God.

In sum, difference in conceptions is logically consistent both with sameness of referent and difference of referent.
You don't say! Might that be why -- contrary to Vallicella's prestntation of him -- Fr. O'Brien noted not simply differences between the Christian and Moslem conceptions of God, but also explicit Islamic repudiations of key Christian concepts?

Most of the writing on this topic is exasperatingly superficial and uninformed, even that by theologians. Fr. O'Brien is a case in point. He thinks the question easily resolved: you simply note the radical difference in the Christian and Muslim God-conceptions and your work is done. Others make the opposite mistake. They think that, of course, Christians and Muslims worship the same God either by making Tuggy's mistake above or by thinking that the considerable overlap in the two conceptions settles the issue.

My thesis is not that the one side is right or that the other side is right. My thesis is that the question is a very difficult one that entangles us in controversial inquiries in the philosophies or mind and language.
Well, Vallicella does love him some entanglements and "inquiries" -- he loves nothing more than to keep jawboning a question while never arriving at an answer.

Continue reading ...

The Street Called "Hate" Runs Both Ways

Kathy Shaidle: An open letter to those Jewish ladies on Facebook who REALLY hate Christians -- "... Anyhow, don’t worry: If you really cared about this, you would just go visit this pastor and his congregation and I’m pretty sure that after about 5 minutes, they wouldn’t like Jews as much any more!"

Yeppers. Some Jews are as irrational and as hate-filled toward Christianity and Christians -- and as irrational in their hatreds -- as the people who "((()))"

EDIT: Of course, the *other* thing about Miss Shaidle's open letter is the tribalism of Catholics in America (in this context, Canada counts as being part of America), including (or especially?) the ones, such as Miss Shaidle, who are only culturally Catholic. In a very real way, "non-observant" Catholics mirror "non-observant" Jews when it comes to waving the tribal banner.

Continue reading ...

Friday, September 2, 2016

Mother Theresa on Prayer

Bob Prokop posted this during yet another interminable thread on Victor Reppert's blog

Dan Rather once interviewed Mother Theresa. It was always a delight to watch cynical journalists interview Mother Theresa, because she would invariably make them look like fools. He asked Mother Theresa about prayer:

"What do you say to God when you pray," he inquired.
"Nothing," replied Mother Theresa. "I just listen."
"What does God say to you?" he responded, rather derisively.
"Nothing," replied Mother Theresa. "He just listens."
That's what prayer ... can become. We are still, silent, and we listen to God listening to us. And the more time we spend ... in silence, the more we will begin to hear God listen, the more aware we will become of His presence in our lives.
That is so true -- "Be still, my soul, and know that he is God." Prayer, like worship, is loving God, and participating in his Love.

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 26, 2016

Son of Bel

My email inbox delivered to me a new comment posted by 'Ray' to a recent thread on Dalrock's blog, most of which I duplicate here:
I am not a Protestant. Stop building boxes for others, there, Boxer. I will decide what I am, and what I am not. And writing the truth is not an insult, except to those who don’t like the truth. You pretend that’s a waste of time. Apparently you were invested enough to comment, though, hm?

Speaking of the truth, and of friends, my friends are those who follow the One Lord and love his Scripture. You’re against feminism but you’re not in that category? Then you aren’t my friend or ‘family’. Red Pill don’t mean shit.

Dalrock’s OP is a link to writings by somebody calling themselves ‘Supreme Dark Lord’. No real Christian would ever support or advance such a person . . . except that folks desperately want to be liked and accepted, don’t they? They want to be on the Cool Team with the popular edgy Dark Lord and his Grouplings. So they ally themselves with their sad “Supreme Dark Lord” and pretend it’s all a joke. But billing yourself as Lord in this world is no joke.

Your beloved Dark Lord is surnamed Beale, which means “Son of Bel.” I don’t think you’re a Christian, so wouldn’t expect you to understand, but any Christian or lover of Scripture knows who Bel is. It is not Jesus Christ. Therefore I’m unsurprised when Supreme Dark Lord Vox, Son of Bel, places the names of Jews in parentheses, to intimidate. He pretends his motivation is nationalism and the health of ‘Western Civilization’, which he will fix — but your Supreme Dark Lord sneaks around the Continent with some very anti-Christian elements. His tactics are overtly anti-Semitic, his political friends are zealously anti-Semitic, and yet ‘Christians’ ignore this, because they don’t have the courage to stand against the Group. They want to be Big Players like their hero, Son of Bel, and get lots of attention. Be Movers and Shakers. And I see that today, their supposed ‘opponent’ is busy giving them exactly what they desire, more publicity for ego-aggrandizement, and for the advancement of their cause, which is not the Christian cause of building the Kingdom of Christ on Earth.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Bel? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6)

You are either with Bel, or with Christ. There is no in-between, and you cannot promote the works of Bel, and of Bel’s servants, and still pretend obedience to the Lord. I mean the real Lord, not some arrogant, cowardly punk with Little Man Syndrome.
Other than 'Ray's' faulty etymology of Vox Day's surname, I agree with what he wrote (and the reasoning) -- Vox Day (that is, Theodore Beale) *is* an anti-Semite, and he is not a Christian, and he is, in fact, in direct opposition to Christianity: that is, he is indeed a "son of Bel".

Vox Day may call his politics-and-economics "alt-right", but it's just the same old leftism that has been quashing human liberty, and human lives, for the past century -- "alt-right" is just the new name for fascism (unlike the leftists, who use that term to mean "people I don't like", I am using it correctly).

Continue reading ...

'I thought Soros was a Republican'

In the commbox of a recent post by the crudé-minded individual:
the crudé-minded individual: I'm pointing out who leftists are in bed with. Social justice on display, loud and clear: it's another tool of a billionaire atheist who collaborated with the nazis.

What do you think of Soros, Bob?

Bob Prokop: Ha! Prior to your comment, I thought Soros was a Republican. So I guess whatever I think of him is wrong!

I can't ever seem to convince you - I don't think about politics much at all. Whole days go by without my worrying about them at all.
Well, I for one, am willing to believe that B.Prokop doesn't think too deeply about political matters.

How could anyone paying even a scintilla of attention to current events ever imagine that Soros is a Republican and/or a conservative? As best I can see, the "reasoning" goes something like this --
Apparently, what B.Prokop knew about Soros is this:
1) he is *very* wealthy

possibly, he also knew this:
2) he is a *very* wicked man.

So, of course -- even without 2) -- Soros must be a Republican.
One of the amusing things about this is that Soros pulls the strings (via funding) not only of the current Social Just-Us Wankerism which has B.Prokop reconsidering his commitment to leftism, but also of the (slightly) older (and slightly more rational) leftism of which B.Prokop approves and which he promotes ... when he's not pretending to be above politics.

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 19, 2016

A feminized culture breeds feminized 'men'

What is the difference between a dude who insists that he is a woman and may (or may not, as see 'Jenner, Bruce') have the amputated dick to "prove" it, on the one hand, and a dude proudly flaunting his copious tats and piercings, on the other hand?


The thing about "body modification" is that it displays that one has a feminine (in the "toxic" sense) mindset. Those pathetic guys running around with their "sleeves" and "gauges" are not showing the rest of us what tough and manly guys they are ... they're showing us what pussies they are.

Think about this. How do men generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? How do women generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? Men generally do it on the basis of their acts, of what they accomplish; women generally do it on the basis of their bodies, of what they look look like, of how thay have decorated their bodies. This is why women spend a lot of time and effort drawing attention to their bodies (*); this is why everyone looks askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body (**).

Now, one of the things about trying to draw attention to your body is that this works best if your body is beautiful. Women generally have it oven men in that regard; very few of us men look like David Beckham. So -- this being the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty -- if you can't be pretty, then be ugly (***): thus, the ever-escalating cult of "body modification".

So, pity -- and scorn -- the tatted-up dude, for he hates that God made him a man (and he refuses to be one).

(*) and get so very angry when:
1) the "wrong guy" notices the very body they have deliberately put on display;
2) the "right guy" fails to notice (or fails to approve either the body or that it is on display) the body they have so painstakingly put on display for him.

(**) and because everyone *does* look askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body, those tatted-up dudes have to pretend that they are doing it for another reason, such as "to express my individuality" ... you know, similar to how in times past women *had* to have clothes totally unique to any other woman's. The point here is that even in the publicly expressed rationale for their self-mutilation, they display their feminized non-masculine mind-sets.

(***) and, in fact, *because* this is the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty, even if you are pretty, you'd better make yourself ugly; thus, David Beckham (and his wife).

Continue reading ...