Monthly Archives: July 2017

Christianity or Not!

“Hate” is such an easy word to throw around and is often used to put an opponent in a backpedaling mode—discouraging honest debate and instead putting the other side on the defensive!
It is also used when the one using the word “hate” really has no valid case to present—in other words, it covers up a deficient worldview which doesn’t have to be held accountable if it can remain hidden!
There is a point in which the vitriol towards some worldviews is so “fixed” and established that the only recourse is to ignore the criticism and go on with the message.
The Christian worldview can easily be defended and has a long historical pedigree of good outcomes. While people are imperfect and Christianity sometimes takes a “hit” when evil things are done in its name, the net effect of Christianity has benefited mankind far more than not! What is happening now by some in our society is that by definition, any belief of Christianity is automatically “evil” and hence “hateful” if it differs from the other side!
Our society has many divisions and cultural chasms, possibly unbridgeable for a long time, and the religious/moral one is the most important divide in my view since morality plays a large role in what the trajectory of a nation goes. The Christian worldview and the anti-christian worldview( represented by ABC News in this instance), represent two different choices, stark choices, which can determine the road taken and the destination achieved. And they are different destinations! 
If the influence of Christianity had never occurred, if Christ had never been born, if civilization proceeded without a Christian thought ever becoming an influence—how different would this world have been?
Then think about the scenario where all Christian influence was suddenly removed tomorrow, no Christian thought or idea ever uttered again—would we be better off as a society?
How those questions are answered will say a lot!

Humans and Monkees

This actually could be a major step towards breaking the “species”   distinctions which some PC people hate. Discrimination against animals is a real thing for some of them and they have an ism called “speciesism”–the assigning of different morals and rights, etc., based on the species and different from humans!
Apes especially, since they resemble humans in some ways, are frequently looked at as having similar rights as humans!
I don’t think apes and monkees should be needlessly harmed and treated cruelly and they definitely are a neat species—but they are not on the same par with humans! We have to make that difference or….!
A few quotes from ethicists of the past should make us pause concerning where this kind of thing can lead.
1.  The fact that animals are nonhuman makes no difference. In fact, an intelligent adult ape has more conscious interests than a newborn human infant. Therefore, faced with the choice of rescuing from a fire either a severely retarded infant, who is unlikely to develop many preferences in the future, and an ape, we should rescue the ape. To think otherwise is simple bigotry, an example of speciesism. We should no more be speciesists than racists or sexists.     Peter Singer
2. In reference to the Baby Fae case, in which a baboon heart was transplanted into Baby Fae, David Larson said, “If a primate’s capability was higher that that of a child-I think it would be appropriate to support the opposite of Baby Fae, a transplant from a child to save the life of a healthy baboon or chimpanzee.”
These quotes are a few years old and reflect the beginning of a philosophy which may begin to flower even more now given the right circumstances!
And who can predict when those circumstances arise?
This “selfie” case does seem comical, but then again—we are living in a “brave strange world”—you never know when one thing ends up leading to another, and then ends up leading to a situation which will make our heads spin due!

Hawking, Trump, and Venus

As far as I am concerned the theory of evolution is one of the most laughable viewpoints ever devised!

Having said that, Hawking is an evolutionist which makes this “sky-is-falling” screech so ridiculous. Has he forgot his own evolution story of our Earth?
1. Earth has been hotter in the past!
2. Death of species is a normal occurrence in evolution so what if mankind dies off—evolution-wise—no big deal! (I hope proponents of evolution realize that this isn’t a “cold” sentiment, evolution has no “value” system, it is just a made-up thing by us)
3. Earth survived impacts of meteors, one which is accepted as causing a major dinosaur extinction.

Evolution is about change anyway—valueless movement of atoms and molecules striving for combinations which may endure for awhile, but may not! On and on and on!

With that in mind, even if the Earth did become like Venus, as far as the evolutionary scheme things is concerned—it is just another event! if evolution could become personified and would utter a reaction to Hawking’s scenario, it may be something like this: “Oh well!” Next!

But even in their own story!!!! and given what they claim is our history, the conclusion that allowing a few extra carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere–and withdrawing from an climate agreement which did very little anyhow—those things will somehow push planet Earth into a Venus-type planet!!! Talking about hyperbole, except he probably really believes it and because of that others will probably as well!

Now I am nowhere near as smart as Hawking, but I am smart enough to know that what he thinks is going to happen—AIN’T!