Read these quotes from Francis Schaeffer, and you will see what we're up against.
On the one side, the heritage of the Enlightenment: democracy, free speech, free inquiry, science, pluralism, tolerance, a secular state, and rights of women, gays, and the poor.
On the other side: people like Francis Schaeffer who reject those things because of "a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ."
I know what side I'm on. Do you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
It floors me that the superstitions of ancient goat-herders persist in a world dominated by the fruits of scientific labors. And it's downright upsetting that a fraction of the electorate sufficient to influence politics believes in that crap, it is so embarrassing for the species.
"But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true."
People with even more understanding realize that choosing your conclusion before your presuppositions is putting the cart before the horse.
It makes total sense that Lil' Dougie and Schaeffer are homies.
"people like Francis Schaeffer who reject those things"
Do they really reject those things at the 100% level like you imply?
Or do they believe in 95+ percent of each of those things?
Miranda, I'd like to introduce you to commenter Melville. You two are a match made in ... well, somewhere, anyway.
Miranda:
democracy - as long as the votes go their way,
free speech - as long as no one disagrees with their holy book,
free inquiry - see above,
science - see above,
pluralism - as long as everyone fits their mold,
tolerance - see above,
a secular state - ha!,
and rights of women, gays, and the poor - ha! again.
You can't partially accept any one of those ideas. If you don't apply it equally to everyone, then you've rejected it.
So, yes. They really reject those things at the 100% level like Jeff implies.
cody said... "And it's downright upsetting that a fraction of the electorate sufficient to influence politics believes in that crap"
It's not just a negligible fraction. I think it's quite large.
Why is it that everytime I comment it STINKS in here. FAAAAAART.
Every time,Miranda? You do realize that the only common factor is you, right? Think about that.
Thanks Jon, for the bullet points you were accurate about, you demonstrated my point very nicely.
Others demonstrate my points nicely but I can demonstrate my passing of gas just as nicely! Sniff, sniff!
Miranda, I notice you have no actual argument against them.
I know a Russian professor who had no idea of the Enlightenment. Not just the word (we managed to translate it in Russian for him), but of the actual Enlightenment. He acknowledged he had never heard of the term. I told him that, without the Enlightenment, he probably wouldn't have been able to be what he is or do what he does.
Although I'm almost certain that most of the religious right(eous), IDiots (a.k.a. creationists), etc., have heard of the Enlightenment, it is as if it never occurred for them. They choose to live in the Dark Ages. They're trying hard, very hard, to convince us that some obscure religious texts (and by-products of them, such as the "works" of IDiots) is all one needs to study.
Unless you're an idiot (or farter), you can't be on their side.
"You can't partially accept any one of those ideas. If you don't apply it equally to everyone, then you've rejected it."
Oh, is that a fact?
After some thought, you'll realize that even you don't believe it to be true.
"Oh, is that a fact?"
You know what is a fact? You cut the cheese again and at church!
Ugh. Talk about the stench of sin...
Miranda -
"After some thought, you'll realize that even you don't believe it to be true."
Still no actual arguments? If it isn't true, show me why.
I'd prefer to let you do your thinking for yourself.
And I appreciate that. But if you have a point to make, you need to support it with arguments. If you can't, I see no reason to pay attention to you. Any parrot can say "Think about it"
"I'd prefer to let you do your thinking for yourself."
The words of one without an argument and with no idea of how to defend their meager assertions.
meranda u sound like teh smaretest woman in the world. u make such logics.
These sound like Miranda and Doug Groothuis' kind of people:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/
> "democracy, free speech, free inquiry, science, pluralism, tolerance, a secular state, and rights of women, gays, and the poor."
FREE SPEECH: "Former congressman Tom Tancredo was invited to speak at the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill. His topic? States failed economic policies regarding giving tuition money to illegal citizens. Of course, he could not speak because all of the race-baiting leftist barged the event, shouted him down and actually destroyed campus classroom windows in the process."
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaTkGgE-hXA
FREE INQUIRY:
"A documentary film covering the assault on free speech and free thought on college campuses."
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg
RIGHTS OF WOMEN:
You'd think that without all these rights, women would be miserable. Yet surveys say that religious women are happier.
Example: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19770325&id=EbcrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3708,3808501
RIGHTS OF GAYS:
I'll grant you this one!
THE RIGHTS OF POOR:
Uh, are poor people supposed to have different rights than non-poor people? This just shows the fault of your thinking. Besides, didn't you know that believers give more to secular charities than non-believers do?
SITE: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577
Silly Miranda, up to her usual stupid tricks. How do you think your examples address anything of what I said?
Just to respond to one of your fallacies: citing a single example, like how Tancredo got shouted down, doesn't constitute a refutation of what I said. The far Left is like the far Right in its intolerance of free speech; read Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee. Neither the Far Left, nor the Far Right, respect the heritage of the Enlightenment.
You will be happy to know that I routinely speak up for the rights of conservatives to speak.
There is simply no question that Schaffer's Christian Right is wholesale in the business of censorship, not to mention denying the other rights I mentioned. Anyone pretending this is not happening cannot be taken seriously.
Jeff, are you a friend of "Miranda Farted"? You surely haven't said a peep about his stupidity. Stupidity against your side you can't put up with; stupidity on your side you're A-OK with.
Miranda: you're an adult. The other guy is a child, or acting like a child. No point in addressing that kind of nonsense.
"How do you think your examples address anything of what I said?"
Actually, I thought it addresses, and challenges, parts of the paragraph that starts with "On the one side." The "heritage of the Enlightenment" is a bit exaggerated, in my opinion.
Who inherited the heritage of the Enlightenment? The non-far-secular-left and the non-far-religious-right? Or just the non-far-secular-left?
I was not trying to address the paragraph starting with "On the other side". Schaeffer's quote sounded like blather to me, so I ignored it.
"You will be happy to know that I routinely speak up for the rights of conservatives to speak."
I had never seen that in your blog, so I didn't know. Your letter was nice.
"No point in addressing that kind of nonsense."
Consider it done!
Thanks for the link to the wisdom of Francis Schaeffer. His love for God and for his fellow man was manifested in his works, in his words, and in his life. They are an inspiration in a dark world.
Thankfully, Anonymous, most civilized people today realize how ignorant & misguided Schaeffer was.
An interesting Pew study on Tolerance: http://news.investors.com/article/604124/201203130802/pew-center-study-of-american-online-habits.htm
"The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that."
It's good to know you're the exception.
I wonder who is the idiot who wrote an article titled "Online, liberals far less tolerant than NORMAL people".
This implies that liberals are not normal.
Just the title of the article makes you want to puke.
I haven't read the Pew study, but assuming the results are reported correctly, isn't there an obvious competing explanation? Conservatives could simply be much stupider and/or more annoying than the average person.
I readily admit to unfriending a religious colleague on Facebook because every single day he was posting multiple messages praising his god. I had to scroll through dozens of his screeds to get to the things that interested me. I guess that makes me an intolerant liberal.
Takis writes: "Just the title of the article makes you want to puke. "
Figures that you'd spend all your focus on the relayer of the survey instead of on the survey itself.
"Figures that you'd spend all your focus on the relayer of the survey instead of on the survey itself."
Figures that you'd spend all of your focus on fighting losing battles, Fart Queen.
Some bloggers that would appreciate the company of the Fart Queen: Doug Groothuis, Albert Mohler, any other right wing evangelical blogger.
"Stupidity against your side you can't put up with; stupidity on your side you're A-OK with. "
- Miranda
...So you are admitting that you spout stupidity? FINALLY!
I think it's kind of ridiculous that you think Francis Schaeffer rejected so many of those things. He believed in Christ, and true, that creates conflict with his world view and others. But to say a completely oversimplified statement such as "people like Francis Schaeffer who reject those things..." is putting yourself in your own label. All Christians aren't Francis Schaeffer, and Schaeffer isn't all Christians. In his book How Should We Then Live? Schaeffer simply challenged the way we all lived by looking at Rome vs America and how we are so uniquely paralleled to the Roman empire. He challenges that. He makes you think.
It seems like most of you that have replied don't really understand what Christianity is about. Miranda...as long as people fit into their mold? as long as people believe their Holy Book? I am incredibly sorry for any believer in that Holy Book that you've met that has been this way - in other words, a hypocrite. Christians don't fit any mold. We don't claim to be perfect, and if one of us tried to, it be simply because we are insecure.
But maybe...just maybe...if you all were wrong, and there was such a thing as spiritual hosts of wickedness...what would you do?
I challenge you to dig deeper. Deeper than the surface of what you THINK you know about Francis Schaeffer, about Christianity, and about spiritual battles. ....What if you were wrong?
What if you were wrong?
Anonymous said... What if you were wrong?
What then? I can't guess. Can you please explain?
Post a Comment