« Too bad I can't drive left-handed cars | Main | Spare the rod... »

16 December 2004



This is hilarious. If/when I stop laughing I shall come up with a suitable response.

In the meantime: Hahahahahahaha


The scary thing is that sites like this www.christianpost.com are supposed to be mainstream Christianity (look at their absolutist header saying "let your yes be yes, and no be no"). If you could trouble yourself, I would be keen to hear your thoughts on the article in the ST yesterday (15 Dec) arguing against the notion of a secular system.


I wonder how many fundies there are, really. More than they used to be, but are they a vocal minority, or really a majority?

The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.

"As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?'"

If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.

What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.


Someone else:

What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and
religious values coming together turns on those which are socially
conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible
3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially
conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing
that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially
those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.

I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?


"the fruit of the womb is a reward"

Then certainly not to bear fruit is punishment enough?

Did Jesus have a wife? Kids? etc... "Oh but Jesus was the Son of God! He couldn't marry and complete His mission to reconcile us with God!!!" BS at is finest. Not only is it totally wrong it is 100% correct. Donald Rumsfeld could not of done better.

Jesus Christ was the Son of God and perfect in every way. This includes his humanity. Jesus could not of completed His mission had He married and fathered children. His example very clearly indicates that marrying and having kids is no prequisite for getting into Heaven. You are judged firstly by your acceptance as Jesus Christ as Savior and faith in God. Thereafter you are rewarded according to your work done in the service of God and man; NOT the number of kids you had. Were this the case then many of the Apostles would be in serious doo-doo... never mind Martin Luther and most of the Saints---that seem to lend their names to many monasteries and convents where good God fearing people can go and NOT marry and NOT have kids and serve God. How odd.

Mr Mohler's views are not inline with Fundamental Christian thinking but lean far more towards the neo-pharisee frame of thought. These individuals, having extensively tended to the multitude of God's much maligned children, have now turned their focus to theological matters of their own personal opinion that they would like others to suffer with. Paul vermently condems such people in Romans Chapter 14. Jesus himself condems them: "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Matthew 23:4.

As a Christian fundamentalist (as described by Paul in Romans) I have never condemed my atheist child-free friend for not having kids because that isn't my business. Christians are in the soul-saving business and that has very little to do with kids. Infact many mission groups target the elderly that are probably far too old to "go forth and multiply."

However, there is sound reason to "go forth and multiply" and this reason is socio-economics. Today's neo-socialist social security systems rely on a large economicly active population to generate wealth (that the government can tax). This sector of society tends to be between the ages of 15 and 35. If current child-free ideas continue state pension and welfare systems will collapse as they are threatening to do in Europe. Already law-makers in France and Germany are realizing that there is a BIG problem. The choices are: raise tax or raise the mandatory retirement age. Neither option has met with popular approval. People, particularly child-free couples, want to (save thier money and) retire and enjoy their golden years without having to pay very much extra to the State and its social security programs (or worry about Christmas presents for kids and grand kids).

Well, the choice is clear: kids, taxes or work your arse into the grave. What is it going to be? Having kids, while not obligatory, is certainly a serivce to humanity that needs to be rendered by qualified people (and rarely is as Francis Galton pointed out).

To maintain the current economy one couple need only have 2 kids... or import orphans from Russia or China (so you can avoid those nasty stretch marks).



I should really read more carefully...

"I would be keen to hear your thoughts on the article in the ST yesterday (15 Dec) arguing against the notion of a secular system."

Any body thinking about mergine Church and State should take a good look at:
The Roman Empire (The Emperor WAS God)
The Moslem conquest of the middle east
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The Huguenot slaying by the pro-Catholic French Monarchy (again that damned devine right of kings...)
The Taliban Afganistan
The USSR (Stalinist communism is about as much a religion as you can get)
Nazi Germany
Tibet vs China (Budha rules Tibet vs Little Red Book says all Chinese must unite!)

In fact anywhere where religion and state have been fused as ended up in a blood bath. Also, one need not have a god to have theocracy. All you need is a theology of sorts which you can put your faith in and deny every else as being valid.


P.S. I'm afraid I haven't put as much thought into this post as the previous one... nor have I controled for spelling and gramatical errors. Sorry but I'm feeling lazy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

  • Google
    search this duck
  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from budak. Make your own badge here.
  • Nature Blog Network
  • Bringing you closer to Asian nature since 1998!