Dirt Roads Scholar
I can't decide if this is a shade of 'pale smoke', 'fuzzy sheep', 'ash essence', 'moth grey', 'fog', 'thin ice', or 'arctic cotton'. The possibilities are endless. A grey belt in origami might help, but sadly, I lack credentials in that cutting edge martial art. I'm taking large bites from the bread of life. It leaves a definitive space, and is invigorating.
I'm gratified for the corroboration that Communism is just fine, if it's defined correctly, and done right (without interference from fascists for instance). Of course the oppressed proletariat finds it attractive, in that crafted light, and are in good company with anointed, visionary, useful intellectualoids... mostly inhabiting the regrettably un-communist West. I only mention it because, to this proletarian, socialism of all stripes (communist, Marxist, fascist, totalitarian, etc....) looks, sounds, and acts in a distinctly religious manner. And in a purely pragmatic sense, any difference between them is negligible in its felt effects on the peasants.
Your disinterested glance at an insignificant 100 million sacrificial dead to the Bolshevik man-god brings to mind a Black editor at our newspaper here, whose very life is contingent upon outrage over slavery in America, 150 years dead and gone. I asked him about Black and Arab slave holders in Darfur and Sudan today, he said that it was their tough luck. I didn't even mention white female slavery in and around the EUtopian environs.
Hammurabi's laws were only written on a stone. Those, like socialist-engineering merely arranges external circumstances, designed by other men, to either punish or reward behavior. If we were dealing with innately ‘good’ men, that might have a snowball's chance, but that concept only resides in the theoretical section of utopian elitist brains, and has proven invariably, and spectacularly lethal in practice. Christianity is primarily an internal restraint, whether you warrant the fact or not. It strikes me as the height of presumptuousness to occupy an unmerited safe, protected, prosperous environment, and proceed to disdain the lofty perch provided by better men. It amuses me to picture a freshly minted, ivy league journalism 'school', theoretical Marxist sitting in a dank cellar lockup as the guest of Chavez or El Papa's little brother, quoting Derrida and Foucault to the other political prisoners. Government schools and academia pump these ignorant compliant drones out like so many barrels of tasteless gruel.
It's not so much the deferring of the "answer" - science claims it will come, Christians claim it has come - it's what's done in the meantime. We will operate on some premise or another. The motivations and actions of a materialist, or any other false religion will differ radically from those of a Christian. I would assume you believe otherwise, but everyone isn't going to be collectively right. Not even everyone, except Christians. There will be one Truth, and all the others false. If you choose to believe there are a multiplicity of answers, it's not from reason or logic that notion appeals. Certitude is out of fashion, and makes the sheeple anxious.
"Heap scorn" in "scathing terms"? Mockery for sure, but scathing scorn would imply some sort of emotional hatred I don't possess, on a subject that might deserve it if its apologists were any more than comical priests. I've no animus for “science” at all. It's the fundamental jihadist radical religious cult of Scientism, and the science fetishists that dearly deserve much more heaping scorn than currently comes their way. But the tide, it is a'turning.
"But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us
require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least,
unsatisfactory. To the question, "How did it all begin?", science
answers, "Probably by an accident." To the question, "How will it all
end?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." And to many people,
the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no
answer to the question, "Why are we here?" and, to the question, "What
moral instructions do you give us?", the science-god maintains silence."
What we have at the moment in the Designed vs. Accidental view of
origins, is a crucial front in what has been termed the 'Culture War' -
and I don't believe "war" is too provocative a word to use. The competing
worldviews in conflict here have distinct, and antithetical consequences
attendant to their victory. Regardless of protestations to the contrary,
the combatants are not (if in fact they ever were) involved in a
'scientific' debate. The fight is strictly religious, and has very nearly
ceased to be a debate at all - and that, by design. We are Balkanized
groups in a struggle for supremacy.
On the one hand are the fundamentalist Atheistic materialist relativists,
and on the other Christianity. The implications are stark: Man is either
an autonomous, strictly mechanistic, un-caused accident of blind
impersonal self-existant chaos, accountable to no one and nothing but
himself - Or he is a created being with a soul and a conscience, designed
for relationship with his Creator, and subject to His immutable Truth. It
is not beyond the ken of any average human to comprehend what the likely
fruit of each of those two religions will be. History has already judged
the costs, benefits, and lethality of each.
But if 'morality' (whatever that may mean to a relativist) along with
reality, is re-made anew each morning, neither history, logic, reason,
common sense, nor indeed the ideological term formerly known as empirical
science, have any bearing on the issue. For the proponents of Atheocracy,
as long as materialist religious dogma rules the day, collateral damage
is excused by the notion that, 'we meant well'. One hundred million and
counting, formerly animated pieces of meat are merely grist for the
insatiable sacrifices demanded by the man-god. No scheme is too heinous,
foolish, or deadly, as long as it 'feels' good - and 'good' and 'evil'
are interchangeable or meaningless depending only on the whims of 'smart'
It remains to be seen if history will repeat, and that as debate is
stifled and censored the bullets begin to fly. If the historical myth
makers and revisionists are 'right'(?) those murderous Christian
jihadists will force everyone to bow to their God or die. Or it could be
that if the courts inexplicably fail to impose Atheocracy on us by fiat,
that the Darwiniacs will find the evangelical fervor to force those
counter-revolutionary Christians to convert or die instead, as has
already happened in the continuing utopian failures of
Communism/socialism. More likely though, the godless will merely have
weakened and effeminized the will of Judeo-Christian Western civilization
to the point where all any of us really have left is the choice to submit
to Islam or die.
I for one, have no illusions about what is at stake in this fight, and am
compelled to engage in it to the best of my ability, within the
constraints of a transcendent set of values. Those constraints leave me
at a great disadvantage, but in the end, better to die free than live in
bondage to 'well-meaning' amoral sociopathic utopian cultists.