Comments for "One Little Hour"

Comment on Settlers of Catan by Jeff H.

Jeff H. — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:39:19 +0000

Fun read.

I played Siedler von Catan a couple times at Uni in Germany, but I assumed it was an old classic. Also not sure I knew about Germany’s board gaming culture.

Comment on Christianity Today on the Prosperity Gospel by paulmatzko

paulmatzko — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:25:25 +0000

“In a way, this is the end of the line for the prosperity gospel; pilgrims desparate for God’s blessings but incapable of grabbing them for themselves.

Perhaps the only real difference between them and me is that for me to be materially blessed I don’t have to turn to God at all.”

While the point of the video is to condemn the prosperity gospel and its export to Africa, the narrator ends by noting that we too abuse the gospel by taking our wealth for granted rather than recognizing that it is a gift from God. I think that we rich young rulers need that reminder lest we be puffed up after (rightly) condemning someone else’s error. Twig and log.

Comment on Christianity Today on the Prosperity Gospel by Dad

Dad — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:33:10 +0000

And the conclusion was?

Comment on Tires, Tires, Everywhere by Dad

Dad — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:18:04 +0000

He’s had a lifetime to practice. I liked the phrase, “invertebrate as he invariably is when organized labor barks.” So keep practicing and you’ll write as well as he does when you are his age.

Comment on Let’s Bully Honduras! by Scott Moore

Scott Moore — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:42:06 +0000

The US stance on Honduras is absolutely ridiculous. Thanks for the post.

Comment on Poverty 3, Obama 0 by Paul

Paul — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:52:37 +0000

Awesome. Much better than the last Economist cover I saw that featured Obama.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/economist_obama_cover.jpg

Comment on Poverty 3, Obama 0 by Jeff H.

Jeff H. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:39:35 +0000

Latest Economist cover:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20090919/20090919issuecovUS400.jpg

Comment on How I Became a Libertarian by Jeff H.

Jeff H. — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:43:14 +0000

An essential basis for disagreement I see in the comments is whether or not one is methodologically an individualist. For libertarians, talking of what “society” or “government” wants or does is useless practically because neither societies nor governments make choices–people within them do. This sounds anodyne, but is in fact a crucial distinction.

It seems incredibly odd and culturally-bound to me to suggest that God judges on the basis of a human construct called “society” or a “nation-state” rather than the individual (though I’m sure you can make a Biblical argument for it). If I can be judged on the basis of my country, how about my state, my county, my town, my subdivision? In what way can I be said to be responsible for all these people who in various ways can be put into a group with me?

And for all the talk of engaging in political action to effect the good, there’s a questionable glossing over of the means to the desired end. Change through government requires violence and coercion. Even if God does judge based on groups and not individuals, can one really imagine him pleased at all the “moral” behavior conducted in front of a gun’s barrel?

And while we’re quoting lions of the faith, here’s one from CS Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Comment on How I Became a Libertarian by Dad

Dad — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:35:15 +0000

My apologies to Sam Small for my mistake. The point I was trying to make is that Prohibition was a great success in protecting women and children from domestic violence. Since “we the people” are responsible for the policies of our government, we have a burden on us, that the Apostle Paul did not have to bear, to ensure through our votes that our government fulfills its God given role to reward the good and punish the evil. Of course what is possible depends on reaching a political consensus with those who do not share our faith, but do share a desire to protect the weakest members of our society.

Getting back to your original issue of denying marital status to homosexuals. Here is an issue where we still have to ability to build a political consensus and protect children from the idea that homosexual marriage should be a normal practice in our society. If the government of Sodom had outlawed the public practice of homosexuality it may not have produced a single new believer in Jehovah, but maybe God’s wrath would have been averted. A libertarian political philosophy weakens our society by helping to destroy the necessary political consensus, opens the flood gates of evil and courts the wrath of God.

Comment on How I Became a Libertarian by Paul

Paul — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:08:44 +0000

Kellen, your question ought to be fodder for a second post. Whereas in this post I attempted to define the negative, what the State shouldn’t do, a second post is needed to define the positive, what the State should do.

In that post I’d hope to make a comparison and contrast between rights and morals. That’ll require a great deal of definitional parsing, but I do not believe that the two ideas are synonymous. I believe that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights. Now what those rights are is definitely open to suggestion, but as a believer I would first attempt to root individual rights in Scripture before attempting to define extrarevelational natural law.