The Christian Apologist’s Dilemma

 Science is a Christian pursuit.  That is the truth of it, and the whole truth of it.  There is no other world view that would allow for it to exist.  The earliest scientists were Christians.  The most influential scientists up to the 20^th century were Christians.  And even now Christians desire to be scientists, and reject the secularist idea of science being anti-theistic. 

But Christians now must fight against Science, and here is the dilemma, must do so while upholding the validity of science.  We must because when science is seen in the right light, it gives us as much truth as humanity can gain (not very much by the way), and it is a great tool that we Christians can use. 

Thus we are hamstrung in ways that our opponents aren’t.  They have no use for Christianity, and to them, it is a lie that no one should even consider.  And so they get to pull out all the stops.  There is no argument off limits be they logical, philosophical or personal.  They get to use them against us and open up with both barrels. 

This is the reason that in almost all arguments, Christians seem over matched.  We need to affirm what is true about what our opponents believe and then try to attack it at the same time.  This leads to our usually timidity in the arguments.  And it leads to the dilemma that we always meet in these fights, and our wishy-washy-ness.  “It is true, but not true enough!”, we protest, making us sound weak.

So I propose we start looking at things from a holistic stance.  Here it is: If we argue against the irrational, we attack their irrationality as fiercely as they attack the Rational God.  If they are rationalists, we attack them as fiercely as they attack the incomprehensibility of God.  If they are Scientists we attack science, and we attack it like it isn’t true, like they attack our intangible God.  If they are spiritualist, we attack their disembodied Gnosticism the same way they attack the Physical Jesus.

We do this because what they believe isn’t true, that is the trick.  Science is only true when it is brought into the right relationship with the Bible.  When it is outside that right relationship, it is a lie and smells of fire and brimstone.  So solve the dilemma, by denying that they have anything of worth to say.  Because they don’t.

Gaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr!

Here is me being a bit angry.

I just listened to a podcast in which a supposed "very smart" man spouted on for 45 minutes about elections and how people get elected. His basic thesis was that he had figured out how to elect people and no one else could understand it, and that way is to not be conservative in any real fashion, just be a RINO and you'll do fine. That was stupid and asinine and hard to listen to, but what really got my dander up was how he finished his screed. Basically he said that while he is a conservative, he is embarrassed by conservatives because they are anti-intellectual and rubes. His example: he has been in rooms where he, as a Darwinist, was in the minority and felt "uncomfortable" being there. Presumably the discomfort was came from the fact that he was smart, knew the truth but the idiots around him would lynch him and all his associates if they knew he ascribed to evolution.

Now put aside the fact the worst he would have got was looks and shrugs from most of those there, and perhaps an explanation of creationism from the most zealous. The thing that has got me riled up, is that this man sat there for ¾ of an hour and spouted, uncritically, the conventional wisdom of “the smart class” verbatim. He gave me 45 minutes of proof of his arrogance and offered up as reason for his arrogance that he thinks the same way as all the good folk.

What he is, in reality, is a smart man that has yet to show me he can think at all. I will put my arguments against anything science tells us up against his reasons for believing Darwin any time. Those reasons I suspect will boil down to this: at some time in the past someone he respected as smart made fun of creationists and so he decided evolution was the way to go. That is not smart, intellectual or even respectable, it is a sad man that is shaped by the fear of someone laughing at him. For this twit to make fun me and others like me for being dumb and anti-intellectual is beyond idiotic.

So for him and all those out there, particularly any students in college that might read this, I give you a definition of smart: Despite what everyone will say, smart is not having a set of predetermined, acceptable beliefs that others approve of, that is programming. Smart is having beliefs that you hold deeply, based on your own research and work, and that will transcend the varying fashions of the echo chambers that decide the acceptable beliefs.

There is No Gay 2+2=4

One of the things that bothers me so much about the naked social engineering of the left it their blatant, Marxist skewing of history. We are told for example that before the 60’s women were poor miserable creatures in abject subjugation, only able to have freedom when their oppressors were passed out drunk after having beaten them and the poor children. That what we think of as a loving familial relationship today only existed in subversive households that fought against the norm.

The norm, of course, must've been horrible, most men cared nothing for their wives, other than considering them servants that they could have babies with legally and with social acceptance. Any literature or movies or works of art or anything historical that challenged this, the portrayed pre-60s life much like the life that married people live now was adopted and redefined as subversive and proto-feminist. And what we have now is almost new men and new women, whose relationships bear no resemblance to the relationships that existed before third wave feminism.

The reality of course is that nothing much has really changed inside marriage. You have to believe that men and women are completely different. That before feminism women couldn't make their husbands miserable, that they had no power in the relationship, and that all men were happy to dehumanize and objectify their wives and children. In fact you have to believe that human nature is clearly different now and changed almost overnight when the "Feminist Mystique" was written.

This is all horse hockey, human nature hasn't changed; men have always been drawn to love their wives and society has always looked down on husbands that don't. Women have always had power, albeit hidden, over their men, even the Old Testament knew this: “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman (Proverbs 21:19)”. Nothing has really changed, we just became arrogant, "chronologically arrogant" as C.S. Lewis called it, the idea that everyone that lived in a different time or situation than we do now must have been miserable and had no real chance at happiness. Pure stupidity!

What has happened is that the 60s asinine belief that public life and private life must contain no dissimilarities or contradictions if there are, then there is self-evident hypocrisy. After this the 90s and their attempt to police thought enforce that all public opinions are the correct opinions by manipulating language and we end up in this idiotic social situation that we have today. Everything private must be open to the public, and we must all express the limited range of correct feelings about it.

We believe that all groups that claim to be oppressed were always treated horribly in all situations and never had any sort of a normal life. The fact that maybe they had to hide their abnormality from the world in public meant that they were psychologically damaged. Or that someone might have made fun of them means that they never had a chance for happiness. The fact that some very funny things might've been said against their particular group meant that they can never have had friends. So all of these things must be regulated and stamped out and all unrelated things must be collapsed into this defining characteristic.

Before the 60s there were gays, before the 60s people knew there were gays, before the 60s people knew other people who were gay and were fine with it. They understood that there were public things and private things, and it is possible to do a very wide range of public things that were unrelated to the societal abnormality. You could have a job as an accountant and be gay, those were separate things. You could be a good driver and be gay, those were separate things.

Now however, they are all the same thing. Those with societal abnormalities (and we all have societal abnormalities) now wrap all of their lives around that abnormality. It used to be that an accountant was an accountant, and at home or outside of work you could be gay, hetero, metro, swinger or whatever. But now because we have no public/private divide, what you are at work is what you are at home and vice-versa (and your bosses know it and, so,invade deeper and deeper into your non-work time). So you used to be Jim the Accountant that worked in cubicle 8G. Now you are, and we are required to think of you as, Gay Jim the Gay Accountant that works in the gay cubicle 8G. Now I am Frank that works in cubicle 9G, and I am ambivalent about whom you have sex with. Use to be that was ok, but now I must think the right thoughts about you and they all have to be focused on your sexuality. I can’t say, “Good job on the TPS reports Jim.” It has to be, “Good gay job on the gay TPS reports Gay Jim (and that is great, gay means you’re edgier, and classier and richer and in all ways better than me. Gosh I wish I had enough money not spent on my kids to buy your expensive hair product).” But you want to know the difference between a gay TPS report and a non-gay TPS report? What about a gay job on them and just a job on them? Nothing, absolutely no fricking thing at all! What should be the difference between Jim and Gay Jim at the accounting office? Nothing!

And so here is the point: I am sick and tired of being told that I have to care about something that shouldn’t affect me at all, I don’t care really if you are gay or black or oriental or red-neck or green. What does make me want to strangle cats is you telling me I have to care about your abnormality, and I have to care in the right way in our societies Orwellian language. So here is the deal you act like you belong in society when you are in society and I won’t give a crap about how you are in private.