Roundup

There is truly no reason for Super Glue to come in anything but single use containers.

 

Gov Christie to Teacher’s Union: ‘You Punch Them, I’ll Punch You’ — I really, really like NJ Governor Christie.  We need more plain talk and common sense. 

Monday Sarcasm and Smorgasbord — great roundup by Roxanne.  A sample:

According to the Washington Post, interfaith marriages don’t do very well.  In fact, people in interfaith marriages are three times as likely to divorce as people in same-faith  marriages.

That one should be in the “duh” category, but I suppose it is news to a postmodern “truth is relative” culture.  What could be more central to one’s view of the world than their beliefs about God?  Christians are specifically commanded not to marry non-believers.  And what an awful message  these marriages send to kids: “We find ways to agree on where to live, how to raise you, what jobs to have, vacations, etc., but God is so unimportant that we saw no reason to agree about him.”

The first of three from the Wintery Knight (I should just redirect my blog to his) — New study compares donor-conceived vs biologically-conceived children

Which group is faring the worst? The 100 percent wanted, planned, intended group. The donor offspring, overall, even with controls, are twice as likely to have struggled with substance abuse and delinquency, and 1.5 times as likely to have struggled with depression, compared to those raised by their biological parents (and these differences are significant). The adopted generally fall in between except with regard to depression in which case they were higher than both the donor conceived and the raised-by-biological.

Forty-five percent of these young adults conceived by donor insemination agree, “The circumstances of my conception bother me.” Almost half report that they think about their donor conception a few times a week or more. Forty-five percent agree, “It bothers me that money was exchanged in order to conceive me.”

Nearly half of donor offspring (compared to about a fifth of adopted adults) agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” Similarly, 53 percent (compared to 29 percent of adoptees) agree, “It hurts when I hear other people talk about their genealogical background.”

Who is really responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists? – good distinction between “equity feminists” and “gender feminists.”

The Wintery Knight asks, Why do secularists think their view should be privileged in debates?

My thoughts: In addition, the "secular only" argument fails because:

1. That pesky 1st Amendment thingy, which explicitly protects, not restricts, our rights to have our religious views inform our political views.

2. The illogical conclusion that we should vote the opposite of our religious views.  I think my religion forbids me to ask the government to put atheists in jail and take their stuff.  Must I vote the opposite of that?

3. Do the secularists complain about the theological Left and their support for unrestricted abortion, open borders, legal recognition of same-sex unions, universal health care, etc.?  Do they hyperventilate about the President’s religious advisor Jim "the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution" Wallis?  No, they generally just oppose religious views that they disagree with, which demonstrates that their tactics are more about bullying than principles. 

Book Review: The Making of an Atheist 

Philosopher James Spiegel has written a clear, biblically-informed, philosophically-astute and well-documented account of the ultimate origins of atheism. Unbelief, he argues, is not attributable to a lack of evidence for God. Rather, the problem is fixed in human rebellion against God himself, just as Paul explained in the first chapter of Romans. This book provides a much needed dimension of analysis in light of all the press received in the past few years by “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

Sir Paul McCartney, Deep as a Thimble — A few more factoids about how ridiculous Paul McCartney’s “library” dig at President Bush was. 

Let’s take a look at just a few of Obama’s greatest hits on Britain since taking office:

  • Feb. 2009: Much to the Brits dismay and embarrassment Obama summarily rejected the famous bust of Winston Churchill that sat in the Oval Office since 2001
  • March 2009: Obama canceled a traditional press conference with the British Prime Minister without explanation then, thoughtlessly gave a pack of U.S. DVD movies to the man as a diplomatic gift — Not only is the British PM nearly blind but the movies were Region 1 discs that cannot play on a British DVD machine
  • March 2009: Obama’s administration refused to return repeated phone calls from the British government to discuss policy
  • April 2009: Obama and his wife broke protocol by touching the Queen of England in a state visit
  • May 2009: Obama did not include the Queen in his D-Day memorial plans as is traditional
  • And in the worst slap yet, April 2010: Obama abandoned the British as they re-asserted sovereignty over the Falkland Islands

So what has Barack Obama done to deserve the appreciation of a Brit, anyway?

This is funny, true and a great parody.  Watch it.

The face of the mainstream media and anti-Semitism.  Seriously, she doesn’t even realize how outlandish her statements are.  Her apology wa
s meaningless, as it was the “I totally meant it but am sorry people were offended” type.  But her reporting was totally unbiased, eh?  Glad she’s gone.  Wish we could get rid of the rest.

 

Digg This

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Unbelief, he argues, is not attributable to a lack of evidence for God. Rather, the problem is fixed in human rebellion against God himself, just as Paul explained in the first chapter of Romans.

    That says quite a bit about Spiegel but precious little about the 10 million or so atheists and agnostics in America.

    This thinking closely mirrors that of the Democrats who presume that everyone who disagrees with them is a RAAACIST, and then they can’t understand why they are losing supporters in droves.

    A far better (and saner) approach to advancing Christianity would be to actually promote it, rather than tearing down the opposition. If someone thinks that there isn’t enough evidence for it, then provide some. (There’s a reason why scientists are about fifteen times as likely to be atheists as the general population, and it has something to do with being trained to be rational and to examine evidence, unpersuaded by feelings. A lot of Christians get very emotionally wrapped up in the evidence for their religion and cannot conceive of the idea that a person could be dispassionate about the evidence against it.)

    if someone is concerned about the moral implications of a religion, and rightly believes that a divine system of morality ought to be free from error and fault, then be ready to discuss the blood and wrath of the Old Testament and the oddities of the New Testament, rather than slamming that person for living a life of sin – a life that might be a hell of a lot less sinful than your own.

    It isn’t anyone’s job to fully investigate both sides of all three thousand religions on the face of this Earth. It’s YOUR job, last time I read the relevant sections of the Bible, to be a witness – one of joy and one who understands the religion well enough to overcome objections to it.

    Spiegel really needs to stop faulting people who aren’t doing his job for him.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s