to those disappointed by Donald Trump's loss in Iowa
It's funny how Donald Trump fans think it's awesome when Donald Trump is rude to others, but think it's out of bounds when someone is rude to them
. Well, this is how much sympathy you get when you cheer on a whiny little bitch like Donald Trump. Seriously, the man's even worse at dealing with disappointment than Obama is. Obama whines about it, but then he gets over it. By contrast, Donald Trump is still whining about a tough question he got in the very first debate. Megan Kelly's question to Trump was not even close to being the most unfair question asked that night, but you didn't see all he other candidates whining about it for months afterward.
Even more funny is when people say Trump is an alpha male. Because when a woman does something he doesn't like an alpha male starts acting like a bitchy woman, whining about her every chance he gets.
Mysterion is now accepting submissions
is an anthology being put together by Donald Crankshaw and his wife. The theme is speculative fiction that meaningfully engages with Christianity.
The Mysterion project is part of a growing movement of people who are concerned with the way that modern entertainment is moving society and who want to offer an alternative. This is different from Christian music or fiction or other work which has a specifically Christian purpose such as evangelism, or worship or spiritual encouragement. I've nothing against such work, but it does not serve the purpose of creating a popular culture alternative to the explicitly anti-Christian entertainment that is so ubiquitous today.
If you worry about the degradation of our culture and want to do something to help stop it, maybe you could start by helping to support Mysterion
Here is an interesting video
by Ann Barnhardt. To prompt your interest, I'll just quote the last sentence, "...by the grace of God, I am not a nice person."
science and the post-Christian trinity
It is no accident that anti-Christians believe in a mythological civilization-spanning, almost Manichean struggle between science and Christianity (where Science takes the part of the light and Christianity the part of the darkness). The reason that they believe in this myth is that they see science as a tool for destroying Christianity, and so naturally they think that Christianity must have fought against science to avoid being destroyed.
History shows little support for any sort of general Christian antipathy to science--as opposed to focused opposition to particular scientific theories--but science certainly was used as a tool, or rather a pretext for attacking Christianity.
The original attack on Christianity came in the form of an argument something like this: we no longer need revelation because we have a philosophy and a methodology that will tell use everything we need to know. The problem with this primitive scientism was that there are things we need to know that science cannot tell us: Why are we here? Where are we going? What is wrong with us? How shall we then live?
These are the Big Questions that religion answers. The answer to the last question is easy because that was the whole point of the anti-Christian movement. The answer they are looking for is: live however you want to. But to get this answer, the anti-Christians needed answers to the first three questions to support their preferred answer to the last one. This is where the post-Christian trinity of Darwin, Marx and Freud come in.
Darwin's theory of evolution tells us why we are here. It says that we are just accidents resulting from billions of years of chance events directed by whatever arbitrary conditions happened to exist at the time. In other words: why are we here? No reason. Just that our ancestors were the best survivors.
Marx's theory of history tells us where we are going. It says that human society is inevitably directed towards a future Utopia. We as individuals will cease to be; all of mankind will eventually be subsumed into society like drones in a bee hive with all thoughts directed to nothing but the betterment of society. In other words: where are we going? Nowhere. Our descendants will just be cogs in a machine.
Freud's theory of the subconscious tells us what is wrong with us. It tells us that hate, greed, fear, and self-destructive compulsions are caused by our subconscious--the scientific version of demon possession. The subconscious is trained by childhood events like potty training and little girls seeing their baby brother's penis when mother changes the diapers. When we do evil, it is not us that does it; it is our subconscious. In other words: what is wrong with us? Nothing. Just that we have this subconscious that we need to retrain.
These theories are the foundational doctrines of the of post-Christian religion in the West. They have all been used as justifications for doing great evil. In addition to the horrors committed by the Marxist Communists during the 20th century, the horrors committed by the Nazis were inspired by Darwinism. Thanks to Freud and other theories descended from him, millions of children have been raised without discipline or a sense of responsibility, others have been drugged into torpor to repress childish energy, and still others--we don't know how many but we know of some--were sexually molested by their own parents to keep them from growing up "sexually stunted". Freud-inspired theories have also let to the release of dangerous, violent prisoners to continue raping and murdering their neighbors, and to the mentally ill being tortured as a "cure".
It is frustrating that even though these theories were all specifically created to oppose Christianity and have such anti-Christian implications and have such horrific histories, that so many Christians still believe them. Too many Christians accept "science" as a pseudo-religious authority capable of enlightening us on things that science is wholly incapable of addressing. Science can tell you how the material world works. It can tell you: if you have this cause, then you will have this effect. It can tell you: if you want to get this effect, you can do it with this cause. But the methods of science are powerless against the Big Questions, and any scientific theory that claims to address one of the Big Questions should be taken with extreme skepticism.
time dilation and Civilization
Donald Crankshaw has a post about a computer game
idea that sounds really good. I'd shell out $50 for it.
The game (or at least Donald's interpretation) is inspired in part by the game of Civilization --the first game that made me realize I had a serious gaming addiction. Interestingly, I've explored the idea of a story --also inspired by Civilization-- that is very similar to Donald's game idea.
Like the game idea, my story is about time dilation and technological progress. In my story, a cabal of rich villains kidnaps a few thousand young adults, mindwipe them, and drops them naked on an uncharted planet. The villains plan to return to the planet in 10 generations or so and set up as technologically advanced gods among a population of savages.
The hero is a historian who arranges to get left behind when the villains leave. Like all of the high-tech villains the hero has extended-life treatments so he expects to live until the villains return (although it's a dangerous world...). His task is to protect the people from the villains by guiding their social and technological development to give them the ability to defeat the villains when they return.
From my point of view, this story has two interesting subjects. First, there is the technological development --especially the very early developments such as language, fire and trade. Second, there are the god-like moral issues such as: if you encourage a peaceful civilization, then the people won't have any idea how to fight when the villains return. If you encourage a warlike civilization, then they will know how to fight, but in the meantime a lot of people will suffer.
Firefox substitute browser
So I'm posting this from the Waterfox web browser. No, that's not an obscure joke. I'm really using a web browser named Waterfox
. It is based on Firefox but is compiled for 64-bit platforms so it should be faster.
I was moving to Chrome. I thought I was familiar with Chrome because I use it quite a bit. But what I hadn't taken into account is that I use it almost exclusively for Google sites like Google Drive. It turns out that for general sites I couldn't take all of the
I've been using Waterfox for all of about 20 minutes and already discovered a layout bug. Sigh. I hope that is not the way that things are going to go because other than that, it is working out nicely. It installed and immediately snarfed up all of my Mozilla settings, and it seems very responsive. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.
Christians not welcome at Mozilla
I've been a loyal user of Mozilla products since the beginning, but I've just switched to Chrome. They've just fired a Christian
because of fears that they would be boycotted over his Christian beliefs about marriage. So, now they are being boycotted by me. It's not a very big boycott, but still...
If you are using any Mozilla products, I encourage you to switch. If you know anyone who uses a computer and isn't very computer literate and would like to join this boycott of 1, please offer to help set them up with Chrome or some other browser.
I've also sent a letter to Mozilla's press department, inquiring about the extent of their religious discrimination. Here it is:
Subject: purging the Christians
I have several questions I'd like to ask in light of Mozilla's firing of Brendam Eich for being a Christian.
First, I'd like to know if Mozilla is now going to purge all of the Christians from its ranks or are only high-level positions forbidden to people who follow that religion? If it is level based, how high a position is a Christian now allowed to hold at Mozilla?
Second, Muslims and religious Jews have similar views towards homosexual behavior that Christians do. Are Muslims and Jews also subject to this employment discrimination at Mozilla or only Christians?
Finally, I'm not an expert, but I know that there are both federal and California state laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of religion. Did the Mozilla personnel who made this decision consult with their legal department before firing someone based on their religious beliefs?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
I'll post a followup if I get a response.