Between Heaven and Earth

Douglas Wilson: Between Heaven and Earth

Now that's commitment

... but is it credible? -- "A coroner's spokeswoman Thursday said Talley was found in his garage by a family member who called authorities. They said Talley died from seven or eight self-inflicted wounds from a nail gun fired into his torso and head."

The truth of 'X' ...

This post is initially prompted by reflection on my recent statement that of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person, two were 'dicks'. But, I don't explain that until the end.

The truth of [some concept or philosophy or world-system] doesn't stand or fall on the behavior of its adherents or promoters. Now, certainly, one can, and ought, observe and take into account to some degree the behavior of the adherents and promoters of [the concept or philosophy or world-system], but at most that behavior can arouse suspicion that [the concept or philosophy or world-system] contains some serious flaw - but, that suspicion may itself be false and based on mis-information.

Consider: in recent years, a number of Roman Catholic priests have been accused, and some convicted, of “pedophilia”, both in the US and in other countries - though, indeed, it was not ‘pedophilia’ as that term is medically and legally defined, but rather it was the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men (the facts are constantly misrepresented because the "liberals" are currently playing up the official victim-status of "gays"). Should one thereby condemn Catholicism as being false? Or, should one thereby condemn Catholicism as having materially contributed to these condemnable acts - as a hypocrite such as Richard Dawkins does … when he’s not condemning you for condemning the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men?

Of course not! (Gentle Reader surely knows that I have no use for the Roman denomination, but I do oppose unjust and false attacks upon it). Now, IF a majority of RCC priests were molesting boys and young men, then certainly that would justify the suspicion that there is something deeply wrong with Catholicism, but one would still need to examine Catholicism to see whether that were true.

And, when one does examine Catholicism, one sees that it condemns -- and offers no exceptions -- not only the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, but all homosexual acts, across the board. That is, while it is true that some RCC priests have molested young boys, it is also true that these acts are inconsistent with, and contrary to, Catholicism. So, to find the explanation for why some RCC priests have engaged in the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, and why some RCC prelates have tried to bury the facts and/or protect the molesters, one has to widen one's field of enquiry.

Does Gentle Reader know that in terms of percentages (and of sheer numbers), far more public school teachers than RCC priests molest children put under their authority? Does that information change what one thinks one knows about RCC priests and young boys?

Yet, when was the last time *anyone* ever put forth the claim that for that reason we should re-think the very idea of having public schools?

Does Gentle Reader comprehend that “comprehensive sex education” is nothing but a scheme to groom children so as to make them easier prey to sexual predators?

Yet, when was the last time anyone with a(n approved) public voice ever put forth the claim that we should do away with “sex education”?

The answer to both questions is never, it’s always that we should double-down.

Consider: throughout the past two-plus centuries, every time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder: whether it is the French Revolutionaries depopulating the Vendée for resisting the murders of their aristocrats and priests; whether it is Hitler (he as a leftist, no matter that the Stalinists have branded him a rightist) murdering millions for the crime of being non-Aryan; whether it is Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong, etc, murdering millions for being of the wrong social/economic class; whether it is American Progressivism justifying and facilitating the murders of millions of unborn children, both in the US and abroad … every damned time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder.

Now, is this fact, all by itself, proof that leftism is murderous at its core? Well, no ... but it does and should arouse one's very strong suspicion that leftism is murderous at its core: but one still has to look at the content of leftism.

And, one needn't look far to find that, in contrast to molesting priests and Catholicism, mass murder is totally consistent with leftism, and indeed is all but guaranteed to happen when leftists control the State. For, at the core of leftism is the repudiation of the individual -- leftism not only denies the importance of the individual as an individual, but denies the very existence of the individual as an individual.

Under leftism, every individual human life is the representative of some class or other -- and the leftists get to define those classes and to assign or deny personhood to them. Thus, under leftism, if The Leader/Party says that 'Enemies of the Revolution' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole districts of people may be murdered for daring to resist 'The Revolution'; if The Leader/Party says that 'non-Aryans' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole nations may be murdered for the crime of being of the "wrong" race; if The Leader/Party says that 'kulaks' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and entire strata of society may be murdered as scapegoats for the failed economic policies of The Leader/Party; if The Leader/Party says that 'fetuses' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and millions of utterly innocent human lives may be snuffed out for the crime of show-casing the falsehood of the promises by which the "Sexual Revolution" was sold to a public that *wanted* those lies to be true.

So, what does all the above have to do with Canadians being (or not being) 'dicks'?

Well, of course, it has to do with the obvious fact that it would be irrational ... and immoral ... for me to assert that "all Canadians are 'dicks'" on the basis that two of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person were.

But, there is more to it than the obvious -- one of those Canadian 'dicks' was our pastor, and an object of my natural boyhood hero-worship, for a number of years when I was a child.

One frequently runs across God-haters who use the horrible behavior of some (presumed) Christian or other as an excuse for dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content. One frequently runs across damned-fool (presumed) Christians who sagely nod their heads at this irrational illogic of dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content ... or even greater fools who offer the excuse in his place, whether or not he would himself, as though he has no moral agency of his own: "Oh! He's so *angry* at God ... some Christian must have done something to justify his anger (or hatred) of God!" ... No, you damned fool, you God-damned fool, he's angry at God because enmity with God is the state in which we all enter this world.

Now, in fact, Christianity explicitly teaches that we *all* are sinners; that we all have done, and will do horrible things; that not one of us can correct this problem under our own power, by our own wills. So, that some (presumed) Christian or other has done some horrible thing is exactly what Christianity predicts.

So, do you want to know about this Canadian 'dick', who had been our pastor when I was a kid?

When I was a young man, mid-twenties -- visiting my mother after she'd had a stroke -- he tried to get me to engage in homosexual acts with him (under my mother's roof, no less!); thereby confirming a suspicion I'd had for a number of years that when I was 10, and had stayed overnight with him (something my brother did frequently, but I had never done before, being a more retiring child than my brother was, and never desired to do again) when his wife and infant son were visiting her relatives in Michigan, he'd come very close to molesting me.

And then, a number of years later, preaching my father's funeral, the very man who had tried to get me to engage in "sex" with him had the audacity to publicly single out my three siblings and me as sinners in special need of attention. And I, being the sort who naturally avoids confrontation, said nothing publicly.

And yet, here I am, a Christian, and a foe of atheism -- for I know that Christ is Truth Itself, no matter what some (presumed) Christian does or does not do.

Evidence

Gentle Reader may recall the strange recent scientistic/evolutionistic theory (no, seriously!) that the human species is actually the result of hybridization between an ape and a pig? Well, maybe the idea is not so absurd, after all

Some will argue that this has nothing to do with anything

Jammie Wearing Fools: Disturbing: Adam Lanza PC Contained Info on “Rights of Pedophiles, Movie About Man/Boy Love, Instant Messages Concerning Homosexual Fantasies”

... Some will argue that this has nothing to do with anything. So then why should the rights of law-abiding gun owners have anything to do with the Newtown aftermath?

That's a more competitive title than you might think.

Mark Steyn, concerning the anti-Constitutional 'lawfare' being waged against him over his mockery of the very mockable warm-monger "scientist" Michael Mann -- "I Stand By Everything I Wrote"

I wanted especially to share the ending quip:

Yet amidst an avalanche of commentary in recent days perhaps the most penetrating legal analysis comes from Kevin Robbins:

Mark Steyn is probably the most dickish bastard to ever come out of Canada.

That's a more competitive title than you might think.

It is, indeed. I've known, or at least met, three Canadians in person, and two were 'dicks'. And, at the moment, I can't even recall who the third one was ... so, it's entirely possible that I've known or met only two and that they both were 'dicks'.

Wet!

... and cold.

When I got home this morning (Saturday), about 11:00, I discovered that water was flooding most of the first/ground floor from a frozen/burst supply line to one of the upstairs bathrooms.

Based on the fact that my (formerly beautiful) hardwood floors were just beginning to absorb water, and haven't yet warped or buckled, I'm thinking that the flooding was for hours, rather than for days. Shoot! If I had just come home last night, I might have caught it before any real damage.

As it is, much of the drywall in the front rooms of the house will have to be replaced. The antique double doors (they're actually old part of a panel of room-dividers from a church) into the LR are ruined. Many of my books are ruined. Granted, most of them are just science fiction and fantasy novels, but still! My wool carpets (area rugs) are soaked. The carpet in most of the upstairs is warping.

Oh, my! The books on the lower shelf of the bookcase which is pretty much just below the burst pipe have absorbed so much water that I can't get them out.

Just a few minutes ago, I discovered that the motor of the "squirrel cage" furnace-fan has broken loose from one of its three mountings. Thus, the fan is dragging on its housing and cannot turn. So, the furnace is now off ... and it's getting colder outside. I wonder whether the furnace not working properly may have contributed to my little disaster?


2014/02/18:
I just received word from the insurance agent that the insurance company isn't going to renew my homeowners policy.

Mind and the Limitations of Science

Shadow To Light: Mind and the Limitations of Science

I've written about the 'Houben Case' in the context of strip-mining of human beings for vital organs to transplant into other (apparently, more important) human beings.

'Shadow To Light' used the reported facts of the case as the basis of a thought experiment concerning 'philosophy of mind', and which high-lights an important limitation of science, and of what if knowable via scince, one which the 'Science!' refuse to see.

Nailing it

Michael Egnor has a recent post to which I wish to draw Gentle Reader's attention, and also to a comment by 'Big Rich' that nails it -- Does Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equal the Inquisition?, which is in response to a piece by John Zmirak, in which is asserted that "Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition."

As you may (or may not) know, I have no use for the Roman denomination; I think Christianity would be much improved were all Catholics to wash themselves of the effluvia of the Cloaca Maxima and become Protestants. That said, I wholly agree with Egnor that it is a "damnable lie" that "Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition."; I also agree with him that the Inquisition itself is not inherently bad or immoral.

Here is the comment by 'Big Rich' I wish to bring to your attention:

Does Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equal the Inquisition? The better and more obvious question is, does the Enlightenment without Christianity equal the holocaust? And the answer is, of course it does. It also equals the guillotines of the French Revolution, Mao's and Stalin's purges, America's forced sterilizations and the -- the greatest genocide perpetuated on mankind and done specifically in the name of enlightenment -- the slaughter of the unborn. The death toll which lays directly at the feet of an unrestrained enlightenment is the better part of a billion human lives, but according to sons of the Enlightenment like Peter Singer -- we need to be more dead bodies -- just not his or course.

'Talitha koum!'

Susan D. Harris (at American Thinker): Hospital Spokesman Dictates Limits For Hope and Prayer --

Sam Singer, spokesman for the Children's Hospital Oakland, has taken it upon himself to dictate the limits of hope and prayer.

Singer is one of the players in the gut wrenching saga of Jahi McMath, the 13-year-old Northern California girl who went in for a tonsillectomy and ended up brain dead. The second girl in two years to suffer severe brain damage under similar conditions at Children's Hospital Oakland, the case obviously has the hospital on the defensive.

In a jaw-dropping statement, made on behalf of the hospital, Mr. Singer, speaking with greater authority than anyone could have imagined, told the world: "There is, unfortunately, no amount of hope, no amount of prayer that can bring her back."

If Mr. Singer wants to tell us she is brain dead, fine. If he wants to tell us that an independent physician also declared her brain dead and "there was no question of that," - fine. She was indeed pronounced dead only three days after she underwent surgery to treat sleep apnea. The "complications" she suffered have not been detailed, but we do know she went into cardiac arrest. We also know that after an independent review of the case, a judge gave the go ahead to remove the life support that was keeping her alive. It was at this point that hospital spokesman Sam Singer threw down his theological gauntlet.
...
It is not uncommon for medical miscalculations to be made, or for God to be underestimated. Just last year, a young man in the U.K. was declared brain dead by four specialists after he suffered devastating injuries in a car crash. His parents refused to give up hope, his father begged doctors to check again, and two weeks later faint signs of brain activity were detected. Seven weeks later, he was released from the hospital. If not for his parent's perseverance, he would be dead.

We don't know what will happen in the case of little Jahi McMath; but with every ounce of my being, and for the sake of everyone who dares to hope and pray for loved ones around the world, may God prove the doubters wrong once again and say "Talitha koum!" - "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

Whatever the outcome, may we never lose hope, nor our faith in the power of prayer - and may we never be guilty of that greater sin...causing others to lose theirs.

As one wag put it: "The problem with living in a less religious society isn’t that people don’t think about God but that they think God has a position in their bureaucracy (below theirs)."