Government ‘shutdowns’ and their semantic deception

In fact, the vast majority of the American government’s bills will still be paid in a shut down. That’s because the government’s version of a ‘shut down’ really means living within your means. Running a balanced budget might be something you do every day, but to politicians and economists it’s a devastating concept. One that could reduce American economic growth by a whopping 1.4% in the fourth quarter. Golly gumdrops, 1.4%! The Americans, being American, annualise their GDP growth figures. So 1.4% in the fourth quarter is really just 0.35% to the rest of the world.

Quote source

Hubble, N. (2013). The US Government Shutdown: A Stumbling Empire in Decline. The Daily Reckoning Australia. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Claiming health and naturalness—yet popping The Pill

As a culture, we are increasingly cautious about consuming hormones and other “unnatural” products.  We eat eggs from free-range, hormone-free chickens.  We are incensed by the existence of CAFOs [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations]. Government agencies are investigating the labeling of genetically modified foods.  High-fructose corn syrup and other “artificial” products are on most people’s no-no list.  And justifiably so—such things aren’t good for us.

And yet, we see nothing amiss in promoting—nay, pushing—“women’s health” in the form of encouraging girls at younger and younger ages to start dosing themselves with extra hormones, and by requiring insurance companies to provide such “medical” necessities free of charge.  America’s female elite sees nothing amiss in popping their morning mini-pill before heading out to their gardens to cultivate their own vegetables or picking up the most recent edition of Backyard Poultry.

Quote source

King, N. (2014). Why the Hobby Lobby Decision Is Not About “Women’s Health”. The Family in America. Volume 28, No. 1. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Shining the spotlight on scientism

David Attenborough asserts that:

In the not too distant future, there are certainly going to be major problems: problems about climate change, problems about increasing density of population. There will be a problem too about power – how are we to generate power.

Science will produce the answer. What the answer will be, I don’t know. But I’m perfectly certain that it is science that will find it for us.

Bill Vallicella states that:

The theological virtues are three: faith, hope, and charity. The scientistic virtues are two: faith and hope. The scientistic types, pinning their hopes on future science, are full of faith in things unseen, things that are incomprehensible now but will, they hope, become comprehensible in the fullness of time. They thirst less for justice and righteousness than for the final slaying of the dragon of the Hard Problem that stands between them and the paradise of naturalism.

Quote sources

  1. Attenborough, D. (2010). Genius of Britain. Episode 5. Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.
  2. Vallicella, B. (2013). The Theological Virtues and the Scientistic Virtues. Maverick Philosopher. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Secular support of political Christianity—finally

Many of Ms. [Pauline] Marois’s opponents have noted that while her party [Parti Québécois] promotes secularism, it refuses to remove a large crucifix that hangs about the speaker’s chair in the [Quebec] province’s legislative assembly.

Quote source

Austen, I. (2013). Quebec Calls for Ban on Wearing Symbols of Faith. New York Times. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Unchristian gymnastics over thorny plants

Spiny plant fossils pose a thorny problem for Christians who accept the secular view that the earth is much older than 6,000 years…

Evolutionists try to invent stories of how thorns (and associated plant parts such as leaves) came into existence. In their view there’s long been a biological ‘arms race’ between plants and critters that want to eat them—hence thorns evolved.

But what about the large number of plants that do not have thorns—indeed, which do not evidently have any defence mechanisms at all, and have survived quite well—even under heavy browsing and grazing? This is exactly what you’d expect from the Bible’s Creation account of the original “very good” world, where all creatures (including man) were vegetarian, and plants were created to be eaten (Genesis 1:29–30)—designed to be chomped and pruned, crunched and munched, browsed and grazed…

The plant-vs-herbivore ‘arms race’ idea leaves evolutionists scratching their heads over plants like the thorny shrub Cyanea solanaceae (endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago where it is commonly known as ‘popolo’). “The evolution of thorn-like structures in plants on oceanic islands that lack mammalian and reptilian herbivores is puzzling,” say evolutionary researchers, and “Cyanea’s prickles are an evolutionary enigma”. So by way of attempted explanation they have very creatively come up with the idea that there must have once been native herbivores in the archipelago, namely, “flightless geese and goose-like ducks that were extirpated by Polynesians within the last 1,600 years.”

Quote source

Catchpoole, D. (2013). A Thorny Issue. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Contemporary Christian Music vs. the Bible

I’ve had CCMers scream many times, “The Bible doesn’t give ANY guidelines for Christian music. It’s all a matter of TASTE and PREFERENCE”. I usually turn to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and they surprisingly “eye” them for the very “first time”. Apparently it’s important enough to the Lord to list them twice. The Bible lists three specific types of Christian songs; psalms and hymns and SPIRITUAL songs. I certainly do NOT think CCM and rock music is a psalm, hymn or SPIRITUAL SONG!

Quote source

Anon. (n.d). Bible Guide to Christian Music. Dial-the-Truth Ministries. Available Last accessed 4th Oct 2014. [emphasis in original]

Uncertain framework on the foundation of logic

When puny and sinful man declares that he will define reality by his logic, he is usurping from God the right of definition. God the Creator is thereby God the Definer, and attempts at independent definitions are usurpations of the prerogatives of God. To begin with Aristotle’s logic as our premise of definition is to end with Aristotle’s meager god, a first principle, a limiting concept, used to prevent an eternal regress and to allow for a starting point. But Aristotle’s god is more dead than Aristotle; he was never alive, always only an idea. Of course, a god who is only a concept, an idea, is a very safe and non-threatening god, obviously much preferred by sinners. On the other hand, we are always confronted by the living God of the Bible. Myths of reason are attempts to evade God the Lord, the eternal King.

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (2013). Van Til and the Limits of Reason. Chalcedon/Ross House Books, Vallecito. Ebook Location 964-69.