Posted on 12/15/2005 9:21:38 AM PST by Pokey78
Not entirely true. I suppose the term "Marxist" has been soiled to the extent that few people call themselves by that name. Still, Marx's ideas have been folded into a lot of "conventional wisdom" -- they're the driving force behind the WTO/Anarchist folks, for example, not to mention our own beloved Moonbats.
Nope. Although I do find the idea of atheism illogical, as compared to agnosticism.
Can I be put on this ping list, please?
If the realm of Hamilton's Federalist, John Jay, Tom Paine, and Sam Adams were substituted in contemporary times for what serves as political discourse today, Mark Steyn would be single-handedly vanquishing all comers.
Unfortunately, the broadcast nitwitisms of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi reach more people than Steyn's printed word does.
Reading is harder than flipping on the tube, you know.
Yep. In this sense, it is a continuation of polytheism, with a personal, tribal or national "god" protecting the faction in its battles. The idea that my god and my enemy's god are One and the Same is a true departure from historical thinking.
SD
You're kidding, right?
From the earliest days of polytheistic civilization in the Middle East up to Caesar's conquest of Gaul, vicious massacres were the order of the day, mitigated occasionally by the practice of slavery.
I enjoy Steyn as well. He has a parabolic method of enhancing the ideas that are truth! IMO, Christlike in confounding the wise with his deep moral rudder!
You're kidding, right?
From the earliest days of polytheistic civilization in the Middle East up to Caesar's conquest of Gaul, vicious massacres were the order of the day, mitigated occasionally by the practice of slavery.
And as I said they did it either in self defense or for material gain, not because they couldn't mind their own businesses and leave other peoples thoughts alone.
So9
> But if you are an atheist, there are no grounding principles that require you to live that way. You could decide that societal laws are not for such a one as you and scoff at them as you please.
Same goes for theists. All that is required for a theist to rape and torture and kill is for God to tell 'em to do so.
Would such a theist be nuts? Most likely. But then, so would an atheist who rapes and tortures and kills.
Thanks for the pings!
The FACT that you seem to be dodging around is that it is impossible (or nearly so) to live in an enduring, moral society where everyone is an atheist. This is an empirically supported ,common sense judgement, IMO
YOU may be a morally behaving athiest, and so may 10 of your closest friends, but no society can thrive where people think all life ends in dust, where nobody judges you except yourself, where there are no moral absolutes, where everything "depends". Why be compassionate when soon enough you'll be dead? Why propagate when all its going to do is cost you more money? Why wouldnt you be depressed knowing how transitory everything is?
Steyn is not saying you have to have a Christian society, but he's saying an atheist society (ie without God) won't and can't last. Get the point now?
Great article, but I disagree with this final point. Just because red-staters are the ones having children doesn't mean those children will still hold to red-state ideals once they've been run through the leftist state-run education system. Leftists don't need to give birth to the children as long as they can raise them from grade-school through college.
It seems not a few left progressives have problems with narcissism and solipsistic thinking.... It's all about "me, me, me!!!" You can't build a civil society out of garbage like that. FWIW
It's amazing that non-christians spout this exact same line a lot of the time! Must be a VAC out there somewhere!
"> The Jews and their Christian offshoot invented the idea that every individual is important simply because he/she is a child of God.
Well, except for them durn Caananites..."
And pretty much all of pre-Roman Gaul.
Quit with the FACTS already!!!!
Even if we never really believe unto salvation....but have a sort of religiosity/godliness but denying the power thereof...the end is exactly the same as if we made all the other wrong choices..even though we made our space and time here more comfortable for others...
Which is a still good thing... even though the will to do such good things did not originate in us at all...but came down to us from the the creator and provider of all good things.. the one true God.
And so...is it really better to miss the mark completely by an evilly wide margin than to miss by only a a hairs-width...and call it good?
Only God can give the correct answer to that one....and all decisions are final.
Of course the whole notion of a 'purgatory' adds a whole new dimension I suppose..I dont put any faith in that...though YMMV :)
imo
‘Without question, ethical monotheism. The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on Earth determines how we will go into the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.’
Just finished Mr. Watson's "The Modern Mind: an Intellectual History of the 20th Century."
Not a bad book. But as you near the end, and you've suffered with him through the intellectual wasteland that is post-Christian thought (and Watson recognizes that the twilight of faith after the enlightenment is a problem) you expect him to say something profound, or tragic. He ends by opining that Darwinism is the best idea ever, and he hopes it gives mankind the sense of meaning we lost when we outgrew God. He hopes, but he doesn't seem to convince even himself.
Is this really true, or just your opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.