Critiquing Tom Snyder’s “Ten Modern Myth Conceptions”

Excerpts from Tom Snyder’s Ten Modern Myth Conceptions, and my thoughts:

…at the same time the multicultural liberal “pluralist” says, “There’s really no one way to God,” he’s ordering everyone that they MUST believe and MUST follow his own ONE truth that there’s no one way to God, and, therefore, they SHOULD get rid of any idea that there is indeed only one way to God, especially any idea that the only way to God and eternal life is through Jesus Christ and His Gospel of repentance of sin, forgiveness of sin, deliverance from sin, salvation, redemption, and eternal life.

In response to these words:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 834)

As a Catholic, I believe that the Bible is the best way to get to know God and that parts of God can also be found in other religions, too.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 847)

Movie155
My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

…science itself depends inherently on properly using the basic laws of logic.

I thought science depends on the scientific method:

Picture34

Also: For what it’s worth: The definition of “Science”: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And: What does “depends inherently” even mean?

And: What are the “basic laws of logic”? You never say what they are.

While good science is a very good way of determining truth, it’s not the only way, or even the best way.

Is there such a thing as “truth” in science since scientists are constantly discovering that what they once thought was true is no longer true?

For example: It was once “truth” that the Sun orbited around the Earth, but once scientists saw that the Earth orbited around the Sun that “truth” was discarded like a used tissue.

Tissue

Thus: In science, a thing isn’t true always — it’s true as long as nothing is proven, using observation, calculation, and experimentation, to contradict it.

…if it is indeed the very Word of God or at least contains the very Word of God, including God’s message to all human beings, then studying the Bible is like studying the writings of the best scientific, historical and philosophical “experts.”

That’s a big if.

How do you determine if a scientific, historical, or philosophical “expert” is “the best”?*

For example: I could call Sigmund Freud “the best psychoanalyst” for no other reason than that he is the founder of psychoanalysis. Not bothering to find out if the conclusions he came to have merit.

Also: You say that reading the Bible is like reading the writings of the best scientific “experts.” Where are the passages about science in the Bible? Give me verses.

Since science is partly about testing, “scientific” is not the word I would use to describe belief in God:

You shall not put the lord your God to the test… (Deuteronomy 6:16)

In fact, it’s probably even better!!!

I don’t have time for probably. I want certainly.

And the use of three exclamation marks is very unprofessional.

The sixth myth conception is the statement, “Evolution, including human evolution, is a proven scientific fact.”

Then explain the human skull:

Picture35

My point is: We have evidence that human beings have changed over time.

Evolution is a “proven scientific fact” because, using science, evolution has been proven to be true.

But: Scientists, being scientists, are always willing to say “What I believed to be true is no longer true” if, one day, they discover that some force other than evolution is what caused changes in human beings.

Also, after studying the theories and “evidence” of human evolution, I can say with certainty right now that there is no evidence whatsoever that humans, or homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, including their art and religious beliefs, are in any way biologically and mentally related to the other “earlier” so-called “hominid” species paleontologists say they have found. In fact, as I proved in my book MYTH CONCEPTIONS (Baker Books, 1995), studies of the earliest religious beliefs on this planet shows that a belief in one benevolent, moral God was indeed the very first religious belief among humans. This historical evidence lends support to the ancient biblical story of God’s interaction with the first humans, Adam and Eve, and their [descendants], many of whom fell into idolatry, including animism, superstition, paganism, polytheism, and occultism.

Then why don’t you provide passages from your book, in order to back up what you say?

Saying, basically, “I’m right. Just trust me,” is as un-scientific, un-philosophical, and un-biblical as you can get:

  1. You say your book proves you right, but you don’t provide passages from your book. i.e., You don’t provide evidence to back up your claim. So: You’re not being scientific.
  2. You’re not being a philosopher: Did Aristotle ever say to his students “Just believe me”? Or did he encourage his students to use their brains?
  3. The Bible says this about testing the validity of a belief:
    Test everything. Hold fast to what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
    Be as shrewd as serpents. (Matthew 10:16)
    How am I supposed to test something if you don’t give me anything to test?
    How am I supposed to be shrewd about something if you don’t give me anything to be shrewd about?

Tom Snyder: It sounds like what you want is for people to accept what you say is true even though you give them no evidence to base their acceptance on.

The Bible has something to say about that:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

…you’ll often hear secular liberals, leftists, atheists, or even libertarians exclaim, “You can’t legislate morality!”

Who, exactly, is saying “You can’t legislate morality!”? Give me names.

If you can’t give me names, than why should I believe you?

Ever since the insanity of radical liberalism and atheist humanism broke out in full bloom in the 1960s, we have been living in a Liberal/Secular Age of Stupidity. Liberals and secular humanists, including atheists and socialists, have been spreading many falsehoods, lies and myth conceptions ever since.

This article is intended to combat these myth conceptions, and help people be victorious in refuting them[.]

Way to be humble.

When I read these words, the first image that popped into my head was this:

Christian2

*Tom Snyder: Why did you put experts in quotation marks?

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Critiquing Tom Snyder’s “Ten Modern Myth Conceptions”

  1. Tim, your first comment is irrational. You’re assuming that my point about Jesus being the only way means that Non-Christians reject all the truth that can be found in the Bible or Jesus. Yes, Jesus and the Holy Spirit will, can and do touch the hearts and minds of Non-Christians in small ways to lead them to Jesus, but what the Catholic Church too often fails to note is that the basic concepts of God, Jesus and humanity in other religions and the main forms of atheism are false. Instead of attacking us, you should be listening and learning under us.

    1. Thank you for reading my writing and commenting.

      “You’re assuming that my point about Jesus being the only way means that Non-Christians reject all the truth that can be found in the Bible or Jesus.”

      Did I ever say “Tom Snyder believes non-Christians reject all the truth that can be found in the Bible or Jesus”?

      No.

      With my first comment, the point I was making is:

      As a Catholic, I believe that 1) The Bible is not the only way to get to know God (though it is the best) and, 2) A person doesn’t have to hear the Gospel in order to achieve salvation.

      “…what the Catholic Church too often fails to note is that the basic concepts of God, Jesus and humanity in other religions and the main forms of atheism are false.”

      You’re right: The basic concepts are false.

      Regardless of that, though, the Catholic Church believes:

      “…all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.'”

      For example: I don’t believe in Shintoism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t things I can’t, as a Catholic, appreciate about Shintoism. Like, for example, Shintoism’s emphasis on respect for the environment. Respecting the environment doesn’t go against my Catholic faith. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2402)

      “Instead of attacking us…”

      How am I “attacking” you?

      I am critiquing an article that you put on the internet for the whole world to see.

      “…you should be listening and learning under us.”

      I don’t feel comfortable listening and learning under you though because, as I have pointed out more than once, your logic is flawed.

      1. Jesus: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” John 14:6. I think, Tim, you may be taking those Catholic writings out of their full context, because I think that Church does indeed teach this verse. Also, I think the Church believes that, if you’re explicitly presented with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but reject it, you cannot be saved. Do you know about the group Catholic Answers. Peter Kreeft?

        Also, how is my logic flawed? I just showed you that it doesn’t contradict your point that some Non-Christians, if not most, may indeed believe in part of the truth of the Gospel, such as “Love thy neighbor.” I refer you to the first two chapters of Romans, where Paul refers to the fact that God has revealed Himself through nature. He goes on from there to talk about the Law and the Holy Spirit.

        That picture you inserted? It says nothing, is ad hominem and could be considered libelous/slanderous. Besides, at least the boy pictured is holding up the Cross of Christ and a Bible. Sometimes, it seems that your Pope Francis forgets to do that. For instance, I think he doesn’t teach Numbers 35:31, which says that ALL people convicted of first degree murder MUST executed.

      2. “Also, I think the Church believes that, if you’re explicitly presented with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but reject it, you cannot be saved. Do you know about the group Catholic Answers. Peter Kreeft?”

        I know about Catholic Answer and I know who Peter Kreeft is.

        Regarding the salvation of a person’s soul, the Catholic Church says:

        “Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.” (CCC, Section 844)

        But:

        We imperfect, finite humans don’t know with certainty the fate of anyone’s soul.

        The fate of a person’s soul is known by God alone.

        You’re right: Rejecting the Gospel puts a person’s soul in danger.

        But:

        God could still have mercy on that person, for one reason or another. We’ll just have to wait until we’re in Heaven to see who is there too, and why.

        “Also, how is my logic flawed?”

        An example of flawed logic:

        You say it’s a myth that human evolution is a proven scientific fact.

        Why is such logic flawed? Because:

        The reason evolution is considered a “proven scientific fact” is because, using science — using observation and calculation — scientists have found evidence (for example: human skulls) that humans have changed over time.

        You say it is a myth that human evolution has been proven scientifically, yet fossils say otherwise.

        “That picture you inserted? It says nothing, is ad hominem and could be considered libelous/slanderous.”

        The picture conveys what I thought when I read the words I quoted above.

        I am being honest with myself and with my readers when I say “When I read these words, the first image that popped into my head was this…”

        “For instance, I think he doesn’t teach Numbers 35:31, which says that ALL people convicted of first degree murder MUST executed.”

        This is the Catholic Church’s view on the death penalty:

        “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” (CCC 2267)

        So, if the first-degree murderer, through imprisonment, is no longer a danger to people, he doesn’t have to die.

  2. Scientific “method”? Your definition is rather broad, and would include things like history and criminology, not just science. Some things can’t be observed and placed in a laboratory. Also, you can’t reduce my personal thoughts and feelings down to mere electrical impulses, as some “scientists” are wont to do – I am not just a meat machine! Finally, what you say is subject to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is a philosophical point, not a scientific point. To put it simply, the scientific method, however you define it, is subject to the basic Laws of Logic, including the Law of Non-Contradiction. Thus, the Laws of Logic are higher than the scientific method. Furthermore, the scientific method is part of what we call in epistemology empiricism. I think you are just trying to be contentious for the sake of being contentious, Tim.

    1. “Scientific ‘method’? Your definition is rather broad, and would include things like history and criminology, not just science.”

      When I talk about the scientific method, I am not using “my definition” — I am using the commonly agreed upon definition.

      Which is:

      “Scientific Method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

      “Also, you can’t reduce my personal thoughts and feelings down to mere electrical impulses, as some “scientists” are wont to do – I am not just a meat machine!”

      I never said you could, and I never said you are.

      And why are you yelling at me?

      “I think you are just trying to be contentious for the sake of being contentious, Tim.”

      I’m not.

      This is why:

      In your article, did you ever say what the “laws of logic” specifically are?

      You did not.

      So:

      How am I supposed to know that, when you mention the “laws of logic,” you are talking about the Law of Non-Contradiction?

      All I can go by is what you wrote. And what you wrote was vague. So I said so.

      1. You can look up the Basic Laws of Logic. All language, all thought uses them or violates them, consciously or unconsciously. If science doesn’t follow these laws, then it is irrational and false. For example, if a scientific truth claim contradicts itself, violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, then it can’t be true and must at least be partially false. I believe in science, but it’s not the only Test for Truth. In your replies, you are using laws of logic, and probably violating them at times (as I suggested in my first point). You are also using an empirical method. You also are appealing to Authorities and other experts, including some Catholic writings. Have you not read my article “What’s Your Test for Truth,” on the Movieguide website, to which I’ve referred you at least a couple times now, as I recall. Every article can’t mention every thing. Otherwise, it would be a book or a monograph of some kind.

      2. “Have you not read my article ‘What’s Your Test for Truth,’ on the Movieguide website, to which I’ve referred you at least a couple times now, as I recall.”

        I have read it. And I agreed with a lot of it. Thank you for recommending it.

  3. Tim, you seem only to spend a lot of time trying to attack me and the group for which I work. I can’t help it if you’ve never heard anyone say, “You can’t legislate morality.” I’ve heard that from many people, especially liberals, leftists, libertarians, and atheists. However, I believe the government can and does indeed legislate morality, and I support local, state and federal laws against abortion, for example.

    1. “Tim, you seem only to spend a lot of time trying to attack me and the group for which I work.”

      How am I “attacking” you?

      I am critiquing your writing.

      “I’ve heard that from many people, especially liberals, leftists, libertarians, and atheists.”

      What are these peoples’ names?

      As a philosopher with a PhD, do you not know that it’s not a good habit to believe someone just because they tell you to believe them?

      1. I’m talking about your overall demeanor. Are you Christian, or not? If you are, then go attack an atheist or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian Scientists, or one of the overt heretics working in the Catholic Church or the Episcopal Church, instead of spending so much time on me, a brother in Christ. Or, do you want to renew the fight between Protestantism and Catholicism?

      2. “Are you Christian, or not?”

        I’m a Christian. Specifically, I’m a Catholic.

        “If you are, then go attack…”

        How am I attacking you?

        I am critiquing an article that you wrote and posted online for the entire world to see.

        There is a difference between criticizing a person’s writing and attacking their character.

        “…instead of spending so much time on me, a brother in Christ.”

        You are my fellow brother in Christ. And I hope and pray that you will lead many people to Jesus. Which is why I criticize you: So that you’ll be able to lead more people to Jesus. “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

        “… do you want to renew the fight between Protestantism and Catholicism?”

        What I want to do is point out what I believe is wrong with your reasoning. I do it to help you.

    1. “Tim, I don’t have to include passages from my book. People can go buy and read my book!”

      So, people have to spend money to learn something that you could tell them for free?

  4. Tim, there is no solid evidence of any art or religion until about 15,000 to 30,000 years ago. All you’ve shown me are a bunch of pictures that, from all I know, are partly recreations of the “hominid” bones (with some plaster or plastic to fill in the gaps) before homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens. As I note in my book, which you can buy and read, there is still debate on whether Neanderthals were even human and whether they just weren’t a race of homo sapiens who represent adaptations of a people who encountered Ice Age type conditions. The illustrations you see? They may just be exaggerations, caricatures of what the bones they found really say. A few changes, and a Neanderthal might look more like an Eskimo. Also, Homo Erectus is more ape-like than human, so there’s no real evidence that HE “evolved” into homo sapiens. They probably just died out. Again, did you go to godandscience.org, as I suggested in this article???

  5. Exclamation points are a valid part of the English language. It’s not shouting. It’s affirming a point. Your criticisms of their use are narrow-minded and trivial. I don’t overuse them. Who cares what a fictional character on a TV show says anyway?

    This again sounds like another slander/libel. Why don’t you take your own advice about treating other people properly?

    1. “It’s not shouting. It’s affirming a point.”

      Still: I think it’s annoying. It makes you sound like an internet troll.

      If you want people to take you more seriously, don’t end sentences with multiple exclamation points.

      “Who cares what a fictional character on a TV show says anyway?”

      I included that clip from Seinfeld to bring some levity to my post.

      1. Who made you the Internet police? Too many people are using the troll excuse to avoid dealing with the issues. It’s an obnoxious form of cutting off debate when you can’t handle what a person is saying or Tweeting or posting. By your own words and thought process and rules, one might conclude that you are a troll and perhaps even a tool of the Devil, trying publicly to undermine ecumenical Christian conservative websites like Movieguide and the Culture Watch.

      2. “Who made you the Internet police?”

        No one.

        “Too many people are using the troll excuse to avoid dealing with the issues.”

        How am I avoiding anything? I’ve been talking to you for almost an hour, and have responded to every point you made, and acknowledged the truth of something you’d said. For example: I said that I agreed with you when you said that the foundations of worldviews like atheism are false.

        “…you are a troll and perhaps even a tool of the Devil, trying publicly to undermine ecumenical Christian conservative websites like Movieguide and the Culture Watch.”

        The Devil is a liar.

        I hate liars.

        Everything I have ever said about Movieguide or the Culture Watch I have backed up with my own reasoning or the teachings of my Catholic faith.

        So, everything I’ve said is questionable at best. Not outright false.

        And if something I say is proven to be a lie, than I will gladly acknowledge that. I am happy to learn new things — being proven wrong doesn’t upset me.

  6. Taxes of 10% or more, centralized power and big government lead to tyranny and slavery – God, 1 Samuel 8:1-20.

    If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat – St. Paul,
    2 Thessalonians 3:10 In other words, don’t even give private charity to people who are unwilling to work. f course, if they’re unable to work, that’s another story! (Oops there’s another exclamation point. Heaven forbid!)

    The website for Catholic Answers – http://www.catholic.com/. Also see http://www.eguip.org for The Christian Research Institute and http://www.answers.org for the old Answers in Action group. There’s also websites for William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland, and Greg Koukl, who’s dialogued with Catholics many times.

  7. You forget one thing about the death penalty, Tim. A convicted murderer may still be able to kill a prison guard, or even escape and kill someone else. Does the Catholic Church really obey the actual Word of God and its basic principles or not?

    1. “You forget one thing about the death penalty, Tim. A convicted murderer may still be able to kill a prison guard, or even escape and kill someone else.”

      Three words:

      “Robots” and “solitary confinement.”

      Technology, and the layout of prisons, can ensure that dangerous members of society no longer have contact with humans.

      Thus, a murderer is imprisoned and more people don’t have to die.

      Which, in the view of the Catholic Church, makes the death penalty superfluous.

      1. They still may escape. Besides, we’re a long way off from using robots. It’s actually more humane to execute the person and let God judge him or her, than throwing them into solitary confinement for 50 years, or even 20 years. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment! No human contact at all? Let’s just follow what Scripture says, not what some man-made excuses say. This is one of the major problems with the Catholic Church today. Are you an ordained priest? You see, in the Protestant faith, we believe in the priesthood of all believers, and all believers are judged by what the Bible says and by their fruit. We are bringing Jesus and His Gospel, including the Bible, to Hollywood and the world. Am I perfect? Of course not! God will hold us, including the Catholic Church and Pope Francis and all Protestants and Catholics, accountable for abiding by Numbers 35:31, not to mention Romans 13, which seems to support the Numbers passage.

      2. “It’s actually more humane to execute the person and let God judge him or her, than throwing them into solitary confinement for 50 years, or even 20 years.”

        Question:

        What if, during their life sentence, a mass murderer finds Jesus and asks for forgiveness for the lives he took?

        That would be a wonderful thing.

        A thing the murderer would be deprived of if they were executed and, thus, not given time to re-think their life.

        You say it’s inhumane to lock someone up for decades by themselves.

        Is it also not inhumane to believe that the heart of a mass murderer can never change?

        Do you think that God would be glad we followed the Bible and killed him, or disappointed that the man wasn’t given a chance to redeem himself?

        And I agree:

        We will all be held accountable.

  8. I’m defending this article and especially its ideas from your false, illogical accusations which seem to come from a Non-Christian, unbiblical perspective. We must avoid legalism and lawlessness. Also, I am schooling you and informing readers about the Truth. The lies I am critiquing are real, and they have infected the whole society, including many churches, and, apparently, you as well. Again, for instance, I refer you to Rich Deems’ website, http://www.godandscience.org and its Rebuttals of Evolution.

    1. You say my arguments for evolution are false because fossils of human skulls could be faked.

      The key words here are “could be.”

      I’ve noticed that you say “could” a lot when you’re criticizing my reasoning about evolution.

      Evolution *could* be false.
      Evolution *could* be real.

      I choose to believe that it is real, because the evidence that I have seen says that human beings change over time. And nothing has contradicted that evidence yet.

      Who knows: I could change my mind after I go on http://www.godandscience.org. We’ll see….

      1. Let’s just say that the picture you presented doesn’t really prove “humans” have changed from Homo Erectus (the last “hominid” species, I believe) to homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens, created by God some 15,000 to 150,000 years ago or so near or in the Middle East, assuming the geology by which the dates are often determined are correct, of course. The geologic record actually shows no great changes within homo erectus, much less within homo sapiens sapiens. Apparently, they are separate beings. But, the Deems site are the real experts, not me, though I still stand by my book, which hasn’t been refuted in a major way, to my knowledge.

      2. Evolution is a complex subject that, because of our limits and imperfections as humans, won’t, I believe, ever be definitively proven or debunked.

        All I can do is speak what I believe to be true:

        I believe that the fossils scientists have found are real and haven’t been modified in any way.

        I believe that scientists are genuinely trying to figure out where human life comes from — they aren’t mustache-twirling Satanists who invented the concept of evolution in order to lead people astray.

        Regarding the Catholic Church’s teaching on evolution:
        http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

    2. So, if Catholic doctrine disagrees clearly with the Bible, what do we do? Follow Catholic doctrine, or go with what the Bible says, ala Jesus Christ’s statement in Matthew 4:4? Also, Catholics note that many Protestants disagree, but so do many Catholics. For instance, Gov. Kaine disagrees with his own Catholic Church (and St. Teresa) and says the government must let mothers murder their babies, and even use taxpayer money to pay for it. Also, some Protestants and Catholics believe same-sex marriage is okay, but Jesus overtly defines marriage as heterosexual and monogamous in Matthew 19:1-12, which means neither same-sex marriage nor polygamy are okay. Protestants like me seem more consistent to me. I don’t spend a lot of time, however, berating Catholics for their Catholicism (Kaine to me is an evil apostate who needs to repent for going against His church and Christian, biblical definitions of charity).

      1. These are all good questions. Thank you for asking them.

        My thoughts on all this:

        The Catholic Church can trace its founding back to Peter, Jesus’ apostle. Peter was the first Pope. And if you look at a chart of the Popes, you’ll see a line of them all the way from Peter to the current Pope, Francis.

        The Protestant denominations — if we start going by when they started to be founded: during the Protestant Reformation — can trace their founding back to the 16th Century.

        That means that, for almost 1,600 years after Jesus walked the Earth, Protestantism wasn’t a thing.

        So: If the Protestant Churches are the “true” Churches, like their founders claim they are, than I have a question:

        Why would Jesus wait almost 1,600 years after he walked the Earth to establish his church?

        He didn’t tell Peter “On this rock I will build my church in 1,600 years.” He said “On this rock I will build my church.” Implying that Jesus was going to be building his church now — not almost 2 millennia later.

        Regarding people like Gov. Kaine:

        He says he’s a Catholic, but if he supports abortion he isn’t following the teaching of the Church and should either change his view on abortion or leave the Church.

        Regarding the Catholic Church’s view on Scripture and Tradition: I recommend reading this: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

        Thank you for making me think.

      2. Thinking more about our conversation we had earlier today, I wanted to say a few other things:

        First:

        Thank you for talking to me. I have to admit, a lot of my posts about Movieguide or The Culture Watch are the result of boredom. I’m currently waiting for news about a job opening, and until then I have a lot of free time. And I’ve, unfortunately, lost contact with many of my friends. Which leaves long stretches where I have to fill the free time. So I choose to critique your and your colleagues’ writing because I see it as better use of my free time than, for example, playing video games.

        I know talking with me isn’t your favorite thing to do, but I really do appreciate that you take the time and effort to do it, and I hope our conversations have been as rewarding and thought-provoking for you as they have been for me.

        Second:

        I do write about subjects other than Movieguide and The Culture Watch.

        For example:

        My thoughts on one possible solution to the problem of pornography:
        https://timothyach.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/the-virtue-of-cute-why-kawaii-matters/

        A message to gay people:
        https://timothyach.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/a-message-to-gay-people/

        My thoughts on how Christian movies can be better:
        https://timothyach.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/how-can-christian-movies-be-better/

        I’m always here to talk more, about anything.

        God bless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s