I'm quite fascinated with Not PC's obsession with Christianity. His latest thing is a struggle to understand Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross and why God would allow that if he was a loving Father.
For an atheist to be this interested is intriguing. Peter Creswell does have a truth-seeking mind, so all this investigation may lead him to a place he won't expect to get to. As they say, God works in mysterious ways ...
For an atheist to be this interested is intriguing. Peter Creswell does have a truth-seeking mind, so all this investigation may lead him to a place he won't expect to get to. As they say, God works in mysterious ways ...
"Peter Cresswell does have a truth seeking mind"
ReplyDeleteDoes he?? Well maybe so, but there's a lot of stuff on his site that someone as equally interested in truth but not a Libertarian may take issue with. For example the claim that the political spectrum proceeds from communism to fascism. This is an outdated view that is leftist in origin, and given the similarities of the two systems, quite inaccurate. That this is the basis for the Libertarians proclaiming themselves as neither of the left nor the right, it would seem their whole political direction (whatever that is) could be completely misguided.
Which makes them quite useless in the battle for freedom, as they don't even know which way to shoot. In the tug of war to save NZ's traditional Christian based culture from being trampled into the ground by global socialism, which end of the rope are they on?
Cresswell's preoccupation with religion is symptomatic of the larger problem with Libertarians, and that is their constant inner struggle with ideological purity, and this, along with unclear political objectives and a lack of strategy, is another facet of their organisation which makes them a waste of political time and energy.
Libertarians have some good people, its a pity their political confusion does not allow them to simply fight with pro family Conservatives against big government socialism.
I've never been to PC's site, so I can't comment personally about him. People can change though - just look at Malcolm Muggeridge. A great part of his conversion was due to Mother Theresa, I expect.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with Redbaiters comment.
ReplyDeleteNot PC is a good blog, but Peter has picked up a rather curious preoccupation with Christianity in recent times. Oh, and with John key too I might add.
Redbaiter, I do agree that there is alot on PC's site many of us take issue with. Abortion is another one - I've had a few arguments with him on that one.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that clouds him is that he is trapped in his own religious view of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand.
But, if you look at his last few posts attacking the Bible (these are normally Sunday postings), you will see a progression of thought. Something that people who are not earnest truth-seekers do not exhibit.
Thanks Lucyna, but attacks on the bible bore me to tears. I won't be visiting Not PC to read such hackneyed crap. Perhaps Peter's progression of thought might one day allow him to realise that being a "liberal" and being "tolerant" means a bit more than kissing the arses of politically active homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteRedbaiter, I suppose I find them interesting from time to time (I don't comment on most of them) is that I'm working on being capable of apologetics.
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that PC pulls out this nugget every once in a while and there is nothing new about the latest reincarnation. I've told him off about it in the past.
ReplyDeleteThis time he does note that there is a 'rebirth, of sorts' and I call that progress.
I enjoy his blog a great deal, especially the posts on art and architecture.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-Christian thing seems to be oddly out of place. Not the fact that PC is an atheist, but that he seems to find it necessary to attack Christianity so often and so stridently. It just doesn't seem to fit with his personality.
KG- it might well be something that doesn't fit with PC's personality. However a lot of what passes for "liberal" ideology in NZ is driven by politically active homosexuals who don't like religion. Consequently you have the situation wherein with many so called "liberals" its forbidden to say nasty things about queers, but quite acceptable to indulge in anti-Christian bigotry.
ReplyDeleteIts my opinion that the Libertarian movement in NZ has been used as a vehicle to promote homosexuality at the expense of broader and more politically effective agendas. Just look at their banner- "promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults". What the damn hell is that unnecessary shit about???
Lucyna, I do thank you for the implied compliment, but perhaps you didn't notice that the post to which you've linked argues that your God is fictional, and as a fictional creation shows signs of being psychopathic. That view, incidentally, comes from the UK's Dean of St Albans.
ReplyDeleteFurther, and very far from being "a struggle to understand Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross," my own contribution to the post suggests that such a "sacrifice" (even if it were true) is both absurd and a poor base for an ethical system -- and definitely not something either to worship or revere.
As such, your expectation of where my "journey" may end up is a tribute to your optimism, but not perhaps to anything else. Perhaps in amongst all my posts on religion you missed my post in answer to the question, 'What's With All the Religious Material?' I can assure you that it's certainly not because of any immanent need to convert.
PC
PS: Redbaiter's own comprehension skills are in a different league altogether, I'm afraid. From his misreading of the political spectrum (the Nolan chart, which is presumably the spectrum to which he refers, has both fascists and communists down at the bottom in the Authoritarian quadrant -- where I'd suggest he might be found himself) to his twin delusions a) that there is a homosexual agenda that somehow threatens the country, and b) that what goes on in somebody else's bedroom is either his business or a threat to, his bilious rantings are quite beyond absurd.
If Red finds that promoting freedom is an agenda that is followed by Libz "at the expense of broader and more politically effective agendas," then I fear for the agenda that he himself might endorse.