My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Is the "Mallard affair" really so terrible? | Main | To hell in a pink handcart... »



To clarify the position:

Think of the many times you see on television, photographs, badly malnourished mothers from all over the impoverished world - desperately trying to sustain babes in arms.

This is a maternal thing that is quite intrinsic - nothing to do with whatever religious dogma might be floating about.



Thanks, but that is jus rewording what I was saying above: "Simply put: many animals,including humans, seem to have an instinct to protect their young, agreed. This isn't necessarily morals as I understand them, because morals are taught and chosen."

Didn't claim any religious dogma there :-)



I find it hard to draw the line between what humans CHOOSE to do, and what they do instinctively, when it comes to nurturing and supporting.

There is choice in loving enemies, crossing the road to pick someone up, provide rewards to the apparently "undeserving" - and this is where I see the opportuntity for Christianity in the future. But society does a lot of this now - I think Christian fundamentalists call this socialism! Ha Ha Ha!



Yes, we need to be careful when judging people's motives.

You are right, the socialist state has picked up many Christian - like duties. It's good, in a way, BUT now many worldly churches take Christian's money and waste it on grandiose buildings and trips for the leaders because there are not so many 'poor' to help (the state will help them...).

Christians do seem to do quite well in giving to charities, all the same.


Robk says ..

"BUT now many worldly churches take Christian's money and waste it on grandiose buildings and trips for the leaders because there are not so many 'poor' to help (the state will help them...)."

I suppose you were thinking of the Pacific Cruise for Brian Tamaki and wife? Or maybe the huge movements of Exclusive Brethren money into the political right?

But actually it has always been this way, no matter how many poor there are around. I was reading that one trigger for the Reformation was the amount of money being gathered by the only western Church at that time - in fact St Peters in the Vatican is a monument to Protestantism in many ways!!

Very ironic. How many knew that?


Yes, Tamaki came to mind... Evidently it was not church money but paid for by the elders but...

Similarly the Exclusive Bretheren (as I understand it) were putting private money into the Nat campaign. Not illegal, but seeming hypocritical in view of the group's theology of not voting.

You're right about the historical church building programs - my point being only that in the past when someone showed up on the street begging for food, people gave them some. Nowadays we mostly point them to the UEB or DPB. Food banks are still around though.


Natural selection is like the law of gravity inasmuch as it describes what we regularly see. Evolution meanwhile is a belief about events in the past that we did not witness.

I don't have a ready explanation as to precisely how the trait evolved, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who might know. Or anyone who thinks this is all rot and would like to prove me wrong... :)

If you came up with an evolutionary "explanation" for why the largest bird gets the most food it would still not be a scientific explanation because we would have no ability to test it or falsify it.

Just to add a little to the story of the Scopes trial William Jennings Bryan was taken to the stand by Clarence Darrow and grilled on a variety of topics. He answered well enough, and believed he would get an equal opportunity to grill Darrow on the morrow.

The next day Darrow came in and directed the jury to find Scopes, his client, guilty. This despite the fact that Scopes had most probably not even committed the crime he was charged with.

Darrow was a cunning lawyer, but I think he had shortcomings in the whole "humanity" thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.