Skip to main content
Don't dare even ask me why I'm conservative, at this point. And don't even start whining about how my Christian morality is inconsistent with this personal liberty. I wouldn't force anyone to do anything, unlike some people. To be a social conservative today means to advocate ideas that preserve the dignity of people; I don't recall Rick Santorum or anyone failing to recognize the pluralism that we all live under, or even being unwilling to tolerate it. Rather, by our words and lives, we insist that some uses of freedom are beneath the dignity of a human being. But people are so in love with themselves, really, that to say, "Hey, Chief. Hey, everyone, maybe that isn't such a good idea; it might be wrong" is to be a jack-booted thug with a Bible. I get it. Sparky here wants to outright ban bubbly sugar-water and hamburgers, but you're worried about Jesus-freaks. Those fascists. They might even say, "We'll pray for you." Oh, the horror of it all!
I get it. There is nothing written in nature that the Creator of the universe binds us to, but the questionable decisions of self-important bureaucrats, that's what we should do? The majoritarian bloviations of those who "govern" a nation less than 300 years old, that's what matters?
You've got to be kidding me. But Darth Santorum and his army of Imperial Storm-nuns, they'll crush everyone! With love, kindness, and good advice! It's too much! AAAAH!!!
Secularism is so stupid. It blinds you to obvious, empirical truth right in front of your face in favor of what you'd rather do. But you're right. Those Christians are against science. Lock them away, before they help someone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un