If you have a moment, you might want take a look at this video, starting at about the 45 minute mark. In the course of a panel discussion at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a point I had made about the American and Confederate flags came up. My guess is the point they were likely dealing with was the third point in this post.
Being always grateful for a chance to interact with various saints, let me join in on this discussion, albeit somewhat belatedly.
In his response, Dr. Akin said that the two situations were different. His reasoning was this — he said that when the average person looked at the Confederate flag, he would simply think “slavery,” and that there is no comparable reaction when people looked at the American flag. There are two responses to this that I would like to offer.
First, we could round up quite a few people who do in fact have a visceral negative reaction to the American flag. They do exist, and there are quite a lot of them. It is not that people have a universal negative reaction to the Confederate flag and they also have a universal happy response to the American flag. There is a mixed response to both. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t be having the controversy. Now controversy exists because what some people think is simply dismissed. So you could reduce my question to this — why do we dismiss this group and not that group? I grant that our reactions are different. What I want to know is why they are different.
If slavery was such a horrendous cultural sin that it can entirely discredit everything else that was worthy about the South, then why doesn’t our sin of legal human abortion, a much more horrendous cultural sin, discredit everything worthy about America? We are painting with a wide brush, are we not? One begins to suspect that it is because the former sin is defeated and dead, and has been in the ground for 150 years, and can therefore be opposed with impunity, while the latter sin is the one we are committing right this minute.
To his credit, Dr. Akin granted that the American abortion holocaust is in fact a holocaust, but he argued that people didn’t think of that when they saw our flag. Now of course I know that generally speaking, this is quite true. People don’t think that. But that was not my argument. My argument is that they should think that. If logical consistency matters, and not just emotional reactions, then what ought the response to be?
It is quite true that I have this strong negative reaction when I see the mote in my brother’s eye, and I do not have that same emotional reaction to the beam in my own. But that is not really a good argument; that is simply a statement of the problem.
Now it really is reasonable to ask what an African-American Christian thinks when he sees that Confederate flag on a fellow Christian’s pick-up truck. Let me repeat that — that is a reasonable question. It should be taken into account. What would a charitable approach to this be? I don’t despise this question. What I despise is all the special pleading and hypocrisy. So if we want our redneck brethren to learn how to remove such offensive stickers from their vehicles, we could begin by calling on all hipster Christians to show them the way by scraping their Obama/Biden stickers off. You know, Barack “God Bless Planned Parenthood” Obama.
So with rednecks confronted with a reasonable question, it is also reasonable to ask what the thirteen million African-American children who were aborted since Roe think when they see the American flag. But of course, they were never given the opportunity to think anything about it because we killed them first. They won’t ever see the American flag that flew over and authorized their “legal” slaughter. They don’t know what to think about it because we sold their brains to StemExpress.
What flag was flying outside the Supreme Court the day they settled Roe? And you want to judge the old Confederacy? Suit yourself, but the judgment with which you judge you shall be judged. What you measure out will be measured to you again. So before putting on your indignation robes and ascending behind the bench, you need to remember that the flesh of black Americans is still for sale in these United States. They are doing it right now in FedEx boxes. So before you get agitated by what I am saying about the flags, reflect on the fact that a whole bunch of “racial-reconciliation Christians” voted for Obama. Why are you so worked up? I didn’t vote for Jeff Davis, and they did vote for Obama.
Until we learn a true and principled ethical consistency, we will be constantly manipulated and steered by the zeitgeist fog machine. That, incidentally, is my point in posting the meme above. Our tangled inconsistencies are the reason our opposition to the secularists is so pathetic. Because of our unwillingness to live and die by the Scriptures, we are a coalition of dust bunnies fighting an F-5 tornado.
The rumor is that God can do a lot with dust.
Can someone explain to me why these guys have to mock Wilson? They obviously didn’t understand a main point of Wilson’s original post on this, which he makes again in this post. But Wilson does his writing gracefully, not saying, “Hey dummies, you missed the whole point, maybe you should reread what I wrote.” To answer my question, our “intellectual” culture seems to be full of mocking (spend some time at a secular university), and I think this is bleeding into our Christian culture. But Wilson made this point about “cool shaming” before. I have nothing original. Can we discuss… Read more »
They mock do for cool shame value, true. And some professional jealousy.
But also don’t discount the content of the point they agreed upon — what folks think when they see an object.
Modern philosophy has led even Christians into assigning meaning & bowing before what we want to think rather than what we should think about.
Interesting that you heard them mocking. I didn’t think they mocked so much as dismissed him as “wrong on this one.” What I noticed is they are not interrogating the “meaning of the Civil War” from a Christian perspective to nearly the extent that Wilson has done, namely the rampant failure of both North and South to apply the truth of the gospel to the social problems and to see the gospel break down barriers and transform all lives into true freedom. I was deeply compelled by Allen Guelzo’s piece in The Atlantic where he asked the question whether religion… Read more »
Now that makes sense. Earthly symbols aren’t eternal, after all.
There is a substantial difference between what the American flag means, and it’s continuous growth as a political symbol, and what the last functional political use of the confederate flag was. It was a battle flag. A battle flag that in its last breaths as a operating political symbol for the southern states stood for slavery and the right of white men to own, abuse, and otherwise do as they please with other human beings. The American flag stands for us now as we contribute to the meaning of our nation. You might despise us as a nation but especially… Read more »
If a flag has evolving meaning, what of post-Confederate usage of its flag? The stars and stripes flew over slave ships once, but no more. It flew over Sherman’s destruction of Atlanta, but no more. It flew over KKK rallies, and maybe still today. It flies now over the Court’s abortion decision. Which meanings and usages should a flag connote?
It’s fair to ‘fix’ the meaning of a flag politically on the last time it was used politically. No other use since the civil war comes close to the meaning instilled by battle, no transformation can undo the death of the flag when it died defending the right to kill and abuse.
I say let it stay dead.
It is still alive. God raises the dead. Death and resurrection are repeated motifs in the Bible. Why wouldn’t God use that flag for His glory under a just cause?
Symbols are not people. To insist on using a symbol of death as a symbol for a good cause is to put undue burden on your neighbors to divine your actual intent.
We are a very different people. We do not sell baby parts. We sing How Great Thou Art at high school football games. We pray in the grocery store holding hands on a tuesday, Our families are happy, children cherished and churches everywhere. We decorate our graves with confederate flags and flowers on decoration day. Our doors are unlocked.
It is my opinion that the balance of power has shifted, in that the intent of the stars-and-stripes is quite clear–it is now a symbol of institutionalized evil. The stars-n-bars is Godly antithesis to it.
Your narrative is dead.
Wow. So you think you’ve sanctified an earthly political symbol by being righteous in your own eyes. Do you really need a political flag to be antithesis, to be called out? Real antithesis is to not be puffed up. I couldn’t care less what cultural trappings exist in your world. The biggest antithesis I’ve seen in the south is a church-full of believers forgiving someone who murdered their brothers and sisters. That was true faith and that is the narrative you should be trying to represent.
God sanctifies. God blesses. God raises nations and humbles them. His people He is true to through all.
The perverts and baby-killers who hijacked that killing of the faithful in that church into a jeremiad against a symbol of Christian resistance that stands in open defiance of them deserve our utter contempt and active resistance.
I don’t care what you think mr. I know where I live. I know Who I serve.
Timothy,
I suppose nothing I could say to you would but cause you to dig in your heels all the more – and I don’t want to goad you to dig your hole any deeper. However, in view of all your righteous-us-evil-them-up-north themed posts, I urge you to read Luke 18:9-14.
And it was far more than “perverts and baby killers” who “hijacked” it…it was also leading- generally- considered- more-conservative voices calling for the removal of the alleged symbol of “Christian” resistance as well as praising Governor Haley. Is it being suggested they also deserve our utter contempt and active resistance? Once again, I’m reminded that perhaps we don’t even agree what the word “Christian” these days :)
‘m reminded that perhaps we don’t even agree what the word “Christian” these days
agreed.
gondolin25 wrote:
If murder can be forgiven in the South, can slavery 150 years ago also be forgiven in the South? This is the question that haunts the narrative in our day. Is the Confederate flag an active symbol of slavery, or is it really a reminder of an active refusal to forgive?
That’s an assertion, but it’s not an argument. Or basically, “says you”.
Let’s break it down.
1. Flags are primarily political symbols
2. Flags are put into formal political use for governing bodies and troops
3. Flags are retired from political use
If a flag has not been used formally in a political setting since, it follows that generally it will retain its meaning at retirement up until the present unless it is forgotten.
Any transformation of the flag is only on a texture level. To change the flag’s primary political meaning, a political event that formally uses the flag on a level equitable to the events that led to the flag’s retirement would be necessary.
In short, war is a very big deal. A war defending slavery is a very big deal. There has not been something comparable for abortion. Up until such a time as brother turns against brother, the American flag stands for both sides and hope of a war averting resolution as it is yet still possible.
That would make more sense if the context of this discussion wasn’t a modern hate crime. Symbols live past their original intent because the use of something and its history are not the same thing. It’s futile to tell another person that the meaning they place on an object is wrong as the object has no inherent meaning to begin with.
Not sure your argument is sound, and it certainly isn’t valid. Your “conclusion” is a non sequitur.
Is the Gadsden flag retired from use? Does Heimiller determine when a flag is retired from use and when it is still relevant?
If there is no standing government or army connected to a flag isn’t it out of institutional political use?
So the rainbow flag is out of political use because homosexuals don’t have a standing government or army? Specious.
It’s not that the rainbow flag, or the rainbow, does not have meaning. It’s that there is contest over the rainbow. We have the promise to Noah and one day we may yet have a political lobby for remembering the rainbow in light of that. Modern proponents of the gadsden or rainbow flags do not have the same institutional staying power as a government that killed a bunch of people to perpetuate itself. There is also the element of a flag at one time being associated with a strong government or military. Each subsequent use of the flag can be… Read more »
Heimiller seems to have descended into the realms of special pleading. It’s becoming too complex to keep track of the rules and exceptions to the rules.
Let me make it simpler:
meaning imputed by the civil war > meaning imputed by a non-profit lobbying effort
How about some real clarity:
meaning imputed by the designers of the symbol > meaning imputed by the victors of the war < meaning imputed by current strugglers under bureaucratic tyranny
Katecho likes to speak in the third person but the style-points still elude him. Katecho also pretends his inability to follow or respond to an argument automatically disqualifies his antagonist.
katecho’s third person address is a wonderful tool for separating the man (you) from the argument (which you have not made)
His intellect is impressive. You? let’s see.
Heimiller kept inventing new rules from the hip. He started out saying that a symbol is fixed once it is retired politically, but he didn’t tell us how to know when a flag is retired (see Gadsden flag also). Then he said that a flag is retired when there is no more government or standing army. This couldn’t explain the rainbow flag since it represents neither a government or a standing army, yet is highly political (has even been flown at the FED building and celebrated at the capital). Now Heimiller adds some new notion of “institutional staying power”, whatever… Read more »
Then what is the meaning of the American flag? Previously it represented the war against the Nazi holocaust, and currently it sanctions and supports the abortion holocaust…
The flag on the “General Lee”‘s roof was a political symbol? It was used for governing bodies and troops? You’ve been protesting “The Dukes of Hazzard” for 36 years?
“…the right to kill…” is exactly what is assumed currently under the American flag…
But if subsequent usages are not identical to the last political usage, and if no one today claims that the meaning emanates from current official usage, then who are you to decide it *must* be tied to the last official political usage and not the decades of social and cultural usage since then? In the end, you must account for that social and cultural use or you simply aren’t factoring in all the facts. To insist on the last official usage 150 years hence, and not one bit more, is to purposely be selective about the evidence of it’s use.
The Confederate flag serves as a symbol of resistance against the imperial forces of New England liberalism. Since liberalism has met no significant resistance since the American civil war, the Confederate flag remains the most appropriate symbol of that resistance (at least, in an American context).
You’re kidding.
“no significant resistance since the American civil war” we should all just pack up our religious institutions, universities, non-profits, political lobbying groups and churches.
Reducing the civil war to a conflict over “New England liberalism” is hilariously wrong headed. Slavery is the evil here. Overreach in the pursuit of justice is a real concern but not the central fundamental concern. It requires that wrongs be righted for these new wrongs to even be possible.
Slavery is not evil or sinful.
Well, Biblical slavery is not evil or sinful…let’s be clear.
Any human relationship can be perverted by sin. That doesn’t make the relationship itself bad.
In turn, I’d respond to your statement with “Biblical parenting is not sinful” or “Biblical marriage is not sinful”. True enough but not a direct response to the situation at hand.
Jewish or Roman? A pointless argument to have. Absurd to say that slavery isn’t sinful in the context of a discussion about the civil war.
That would be the war of northern aggression. It is still being waged today. You will notice that evil empire up north advocates killing babies for baby parts and despises any and all who dare say “no!”.
I am proud to stand in open defiance of them. Kneel before your god Moloch. I will not.
Gosh, I feel so enlightened now. And safe. With you on the front lines of the culture wars.
Somebody has to lead. It sure ain’t you. You don’t even see the battlefield.
True, but the word “slavery” has come to mean the more recent sinful aberration that slaves had to be liberated from. The distinction with ancient slavery mentioned in the Bible must be made repeatedly. Some will not even have known there was another kind, even from reading the Bible, until they find out by talking to someone who knows.
What a broad and entirely unhelpful thing to say. To make a
statement about the sinfulness of something, you have to use an argument about what scripture says — which you haven’t. Once more, I think you had better start proving that the buying and selling of human flesh on our continent was in any way similar to anything condoned in scripture. When you are done, I’ve got an African prince on the line who wants to share his fortune with you.
Slavery was normal in the first-century Roman world and the Scriptures don’t condemn it; Moses gave Israel laws for treatment of slaves; Paul speaks to Christian slaves and masters on how to live. The burden is on those who believe slave-owning to be sinful to prove their case.
Indeed. The issue behind forced labor is restitution for the one sinned against. The issue pertains to real debt owed (moral or civil). Kidnapping and racism are excluded as a grounds for slavery, since no debt is implied by those. The direction of God’s stories are away from indebtedness and toward liberty. Restitution is part of that process, and shouldn’t even require us to be forced when we truly owe a debt.
The principle of restitution is one that is foreign to our culture, which is why the very idea of forced labor is also foreign.
I don’t think restitution has to be a necessary component, though sometimes it’s present.
I agree about the move from indebtedness to liberty, but a parallel perspective is movement from immaturity to maturity. A Christian understanding of slavery should not be too far removed from a Christian understanding of parenthood.
Count me as among those who believe Christ changed everything and St Paul’s address to Philemon is the plain statement that we are all one in Christ.
However, bond-servitude is looking mighty attractive given how the heathen aggressors of the North have sinned by killing the unit-of-exchange for their benefit while impoverishing those of us who do their labor.
I will only work for a Southerner, a slave has to maintain his dignity you know.
I’m not aware of a biblically sanctioned case of forced servitude that doesn’t involve restitution (at least at the outset). Even the slavery of particular Canaanite peoples was grounded on a moral debt owed to God. God was requiring it of them; their life, their labor, their land, and all of their great possessions, were His restitution to dispose of as He saw fit. The one case of slavery that seems to exist beyond restitution is the case where a slave is allowed to voluntarily indenture himself for life because he has done well under his master and wants to… Read more »
Yes.
For those who lack the maturity to be free men, better that they have a master obligated to provide for them and control their behaviour.
Ancient slavery was a primarily financial arrangement. Christian parenting is not.
The slave in the ancient arrangment would have received some kind of remuneration for their labour, even if it was just food and shelter.
Parents may require their children to perform chores, but the relationship is, Biblically, very different.
Racist slavery was excluded? Like freeing Hebrew slaves after 6 years but not non-Hebrews, would that count? How about this from Leviticus? “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and you may make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” That certainly appears to… Read more »
This. And I’m particularly fond (not) of assuming what Paul would have said as a way to hope to bolster the strength of an argument… :D
The slavery of the surrounding peoples of Canaan was a moral judgment from God, not racial. They were not a different race from Hebrew people. The Midianites, for example, were descendants of Abraham, and the Moabites were descendants of Lot.
That’s not an absence of tribalism (the word racism being so politically loaded as to be unusable) its a more profound tribalism.They were as “racist” as their surroundings allowed. A tribe who happened to be 5th cousins was dissimilar enough.
This is false on multiple levels. Slavery in that region was not based on ancestral, tribal, or physical dissimilarity. If Barnabas’s tribal theory was correct, then it would also apply to Israel, since Israel was composed of 12 distinct tribes. Barnabas’s dissimilarity theory doesn’t explain how the mixed multitude coming out with Israel from Egypt was readily incorporated and intermarried into the covenant, or others who came in later on (see Caleb, the Kennizite, and Uriah the Hittite, and Rahab, and Ruth), nor does tribal dissimilarity explain how Israel was permitted (on certain occasions) to marry virgin women who were… Read more »
The burden is on you to prove your claims. The Israelites took and (and exclusively kept) slaves from other tribes. They went to war with other tribes and took slaves as well. Your concepts of equality between people is completely foreign to Semitic thought. Closer bonds of kinship would have meant a lower likelihood of conflict or war with a neighboring tribe, lack of kinship bonds would have essentially guaranteed it. The temporary debt slavery of Hebrews may not have been based on ancestral or tribal differences but the long term slavery described in the passage of Leviticus I quoted… Read more »
Slavery wasn’t something restricted to other tribes outside of Israel. Israel took slaves from specific tribes under God’s judgment, as given by God to them, but Hebrews were also permitted to sell themselves into slavery within Israel. They were offered their freedom at the Jubilee year. As such, slavery was not a statement about basic human dignity or equality. If it was then an Israelite couldn’t have become a slave himself. Further, aliens living within Israel, as non-slaves, were to be treated with all of the same dignity as any Israelite, regardless of any tribal dissimilarity. Equal dignity was not… Read more »
You can read the Leviticus passage I posted above. Work that contradiction out however you want but it looks like loving him as yourself did not preclude permanent slavery. “Israelites took slaves from specific tribes under God’s judgement” Yes, they took slaves from those peoples. (I could argue that since God commanded genocide of those peoples, instructions regarding foreign slaves applies no all foreigners BUT Canaanites.) However, Hebrews held slaves prior to the conflict with the Canaanites and they held slaves 1500 years later in the time of Jesus. Come to think of it, they went on to hold slaves… Read more »
I don’t know if it serves any purpose to continue to go around and around on the topic. I think that the reading of Leviticus and Deuteronomy you’ve adopted is a recent interpretation that seeks to conform to current moral and political norms. You repeatedly use the word “dignity” and apply it to the culture of ancient Israel but I feel quite sure that ancient Israelites (or any ancient people group) would have no concept that coincides with your use of that word. Can a man “own” another man created in the image and likeness of God? Apparently he can.
I think I may see a possible disconnect between our understanding, and I’m happy to be shown from Scripture if my view is incorrect. There are several groups that need to be distinguished. God was judging Canaanite tribes for their great iniquity. Some of their iniquity required complete termination as a people. Some tribes God specifically gave to Israel for slaves (even as perpetual slaves). There were also aliens around who were not included in the judgment of the Canaanite tribes. These aliens could be free, or they may have indentured themselves. There were also Hebrews who could be free,… Read more »
See, there you go. God took great care to take the sting and thorns out of an existing sinful institution. The Jewish code on slavery was essentially anti-slavery. Think year of jubilee.
Arguably so, but this is a long way from calling slavery evil.
And the slavery which Christians (such as Wilberforce and Lincoln) sought to abolish was not first-century Roman, or ancient Mosaic slavery. It was a sinful, dehumanising oppression of one race by another. I have no doubt that Paul would have written a letter (perhaps not Inspired though) as strong as anything he ever wrote to the Corinthians if he had ever known that one ethnicity of people created in the Image of God sought to use as property another ethnicity created in the Image of God. And some of those opressors claimed the name of Jesus Christ! The hypothetical letter… Read more »
Agreed that Paul would have denounced race-based slavery. Paul wasn’t against the principle of forced labor to make restitution, he even offered to help make things financially right between Onesimus and Philemon.
I really think it is past time to lay this fabricated notion of Lincoln. I hope to meet him in heaven, but some of the fruit his tree bore in full public view makes me a tad leery of calling him “brother”. And it is simply to reflect wrongly on history to put Lincoln in the category of those who had a passionate desire (as did Wilberforce) to abolish slavery.
I didn’t see ashv defending the race-based kidnapping that occurred in the South. He was simply observing that slavery, as a general relationship, is not any more sinful than war. It depends on what the war is about, and what debt the forced labor is about. Forced labor may, in fact, be the righteous sentence when a debt of restitution is really owed.
You didn’t see it, because you chose not to see it. Because he used an imprecise word completely out of context. What is the point?
“the Confederate flag remains the most appropriate symbol of that resistance” really? You can’t think of any other way to be distinctly for liberty and against slavery? There are no other better options?
An extended middle finger comes to mind.
I haven’t hit on the correct color scheme.
‘Twould make a nice flag, though…
Matthew — can you not allow that the meaning of the Confederate flag can still evolve?
Why? Are we so culturally attached to an earthly symbol that we must defend it and mold it to make it acceptable and relevant. Vanity.
Who attacks it is relevant. The “who”, in this case justifies the killing of babies for money.
I, opposing them, run to the symbol they hate and wave it proudly.
It is an act of defiance against an evil people.
You, vainly, call bravery vanity.
Alas, we also are of the earth, and so must love and defend and mold our symbols in imitation of whom & what He made.
Methinks you are a bit hasty in concluding that the Confederate battle flag (which, by the way, is completely different from the “Stars and Bars”) was a flag of “death and abuse”, at least, in any measure different from the use of the American flag during that horrific war.
And your strong defense of the American flag, and expressed wish to see it in a positive light, seems a bit suspect to me. Almost akin to a blithely chanted, “God Bless America!”, when in fact, as Christians, we probably ought rather to be praying, “America Bless God!”.
It would make sense that all (4-7?) of the flags would be institutionally supplanted by the American flag after the war. Borrowing recognizable iconography like what was done for many state flags is different (a textural difference) but that does not make the last institutional political usage any less grievous. It is not the flags’ association with battle but with the system the battling is for perpetuating.
Sometimes symbols become so tainted by their assocation with a bad cause that they can no longer function as symbols of anything other than the taint. The swastika had been a symbol of German national pride, much as the bald eagle in the United States, for a thousand years before Hitler came along and poisoned it. Today, that pre-Nazi past means nothing; the symbol is permanently ruined. That’s because a symbol represents whatever it represents in the mind of most people; if most people associate the swastika with gas chambers (as they do), then it simply doesn’t matter if someone… Read more »
Krycheck_2, given your premise, the stink need not stick. If “a symbol represents whatever it represents in the mind of most people” is the basis for what a symbol means, then changing meaning should be expected. Is “most” your democratic cut off for current allowable usage? It sounds like you take the modernist philosophical view that realities outside the mind are tenuous at best, and possibly irrelevant for getting to the meaning of things. Else you might admit Douglas has a point that in fact & in reality the American flag as it is used today does also stand for… Read more »
If the change in meaning becomes so firmly entrenched in the minds of most people that the new meaning has replaced the old, then you are right. And I would say you have it backward; when there is a conflict between realities inside the mind and outside the mind, the outside ones control. In this case, though, we are talking about symbols, which are largely subjective, even though most people come to the same conclusion. Saying the American flag stands for abortion is the result of having singled out one court decision and then claiming that that one decision is… Read more »
Actually, a symbol means precisely what its designers SAY it means, and for all the reasons THEY give.
All other attempts to render meaning are invented whole-cloth and non-applicable. A symbol most definitely does NOT mean whatever most people think it means. “Most people,” in this case, are ignorant and in desperate need of an education. Everyone else is in need of spine.
Krycheck_2 — does majority vote determine what you think something means?
If the majority thought & voted that the outcome of it’s votes do not determine the meaning of things, would that be your opinion as well?
It seems that Krychek_2 only employs the ad populum fallacy when his preferences already align with the majority. But when it comes to something like his atheism, he breaks with majority, in order to lead the rest of the herd to enlightenment, or something.
The same way that it’s determined what is the proper usage of a semicolon (if anyone still uses semicolons). No, there’s no formal vote, but conventions evolve over time. The purpose of language, and symbols, is to communicate, and that requires acknowleding the reality of what people today understand a particular word or symbol to mean.
The only people who don’t use semi-colons are the uneducated or the ignorant; it’s also possible they were poorly taught.
I still find it beyond credible that a materialist such as Krychek_2 thinks that the universe has meaning that needs to be communicated. Where did all this meaning come from? What matter is it made out of? Materialism is funny like that. Because it wants to be funny.
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then by all means, you go right ahead and believe that.
Materialistic neurons don’t believe things, they just fire when the chemical potential makes them fire. Meaning has nothing to do with it.
This seemed to happen in record time…some people are “funny like that”…
It always does. Katecho has this idea that chanting “You’re a materialiast!” is a magical incantation that makes his opponent’s arguments disappear.
This is disingenuous. I don’t say that Krychek_2’s arguments disappear. Rather they stand as witnesses to his monumental inconsistency. I’m simply clarifying this without much effort. For example, when Krychek_2 climbs up on his holy hill to argue anything, he has, at the same instant, abandoned his materialism. In materialism, laws of matter govern the motion of everything, right down to the subatomic layer. Abstractions like meaning and truth and correctness don’t have any influence over that motion. None. So the more that Krychek_2 argues that things ought to be other than they are, the more he testifies against himself… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, you just keep right on keeping on.
Not sure why Krychek_2 wants to keep giving me permission to do what I plan to do anyway. I think it’s because he doesn’t have an answer and has to resort to patronizing dismissal.
Not sure how you can say that given that I’ve answered, time after time, on one hijacked thread after another, for the past months. But at any rate, it’s a free country, and if you want to believe I don’t have an answer, knock yourself out.
I don’t recall a substantive answer to the problem of meaning and purpose and prescription. Perhaps Krychek_2 could stoop to simply quote one of his earlier materialistic explanations if he thinks they still stand up. I’d be happy to interact. However, I suspect that Krychek_2 is simply deflecting again and isn’t really interested in making a case for materialism.
Katecho, you effectively told us in an earlier thread that you won’t accept any answer to the problem of meaning and purpose and prescription that doesn’t involve God. (If that’s not what you meant, then please feel free to give me an example of a non-theistic argument that you would find persuasive; let’s cut to the chase.) Which means nothing I say is going to persuade you, even if we hadn’t already had this conversation multiple times. Which is why I’ve decided your hijacks are mostly a waste of my time, to say nothing of bandwidth, and am tossing you… Read more »
Is it ok with you that Doug wants folks’ use of flag symbols to evolve and become better informed, and more consistent?
— such that if they want to burn the Confederate Flag because it symbolizes to them a society’s protection of the slavery, they likewise ought to consider burning a flag that in fact protects the murder of so many more?
But the American flag doesn’t protect mass murder, and one reason the symbolism argument falls flat is that most Americans don’t consider abortion to be murder. So you have a failed symbolism argument twice over. As a foundational matter, most people don’t accept your argument’s premise because they don’t consider abortion to be murder, and not only that, they also see America as being far more than just a place where abortion is legal.
As Doug said, you will soon personally meet quite a few million folks who’s murderers were in fact protected by a justice system that flew the red, white & blue over their decisions.
And those multimillion murderers will themselves confess their murders.
And ALL Americans, yourself included, will consider and accept abortion to be murder.
Are you willing to do so now?
My belief system is based on evidence, not threats. The best science currently available does not hold that life begins at conception. Most scientists draw that line at consciousness.
I’m sorry, but I thought you were a materialist. The materialist, I believe, holds that consciousness roughly equates to neural activity. Surely you are aware that science demonstrates that neural activity is present in a child that is still in the womb.
Or do you believe it takes a spank on the butt to awaken consciousness?
Finally, I’m curious what sort of evidence you see that allows you to conclude that life begins at consciousness. Seems a tad bit arbitrary to me.
Neural activity is not consciousness; you have neural activity when you are asleep, in a coma, or under general anesthesia. (And no, being asleep does not render someone sub-human as it is a temporary state that happened after they already became human.) We had an extensive discussion on the beginning of human life on another thread; rather than repeat what I said there, I would simply refer you to those comments, unless you think there’s something that wasn’t covered. As far as evidence that life begins at consciousness, Steven Pinker and others have written extensively on that subject. If you… Read more »
Krychek_2 likes to blind everyone with science, but the more he tries, the more his own presuppositional blindness shows through. First, we need to observe that, in Krychek_2’s evolutionism, life is an utterly subjective and arbitrary distinction anyway. What distinguishes one molecular arrangement from another? It’s all just molecules in motion. Evolutionists would have us believe that there was a gradual progression of molecular history between non-living and living molecules, so what non-arbitrary boundary does Krychek_2 even have access to? None that I can see. Spirit and soul do not factor into Krychek_2’s understanding of life, but he may appeal… Read more »
OK, so we’ve established that you don’t understand either materialism or evolution. Be that as it may, it’s a free country in which you’re free to believe whatever you like, so if it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead.
More dismissal and unsupported accusations. But my questions stand.
At least Krychek_2 didn’t claim that I was off topic. The definition of human life is quite pertinent. However, for someone who stridently presumes that science is on his side, Krychek_2 is making a very poor showing. I thought that having science on his side would make his arguments devastating to us religious folk. What happened? As soon as anyone pushes back, he just folds.
If you want to believe that science hasn’t devastated your arguments, you go right ahead and believe that. But your last comment makes it clear that you don’t understand science anyway.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Does Krychek_2 think that asserting something is the same as establishing it? How has science devastated my arguments? Will Krychek_2 ever show us his cards? We’re waiting.
Well, life intervened and I am late to the game in replying, but it seems katecho has been doing a more than adequate job of calling out the errors in Krychek_2’s assertions. I’m sorry; I wasn’t part of your previous discussion on the beginning of human life, but I gather they weren’t all that helpful to you. I think you are equivocating on the meaning of “consciousness”. You want to use it as synonymous with “living”, but then speak of having lost consciousness in instances of sleep, anesthesia or coma, as if the person is still alive, though “consciousness” has… Read more »
There’s a difference between human life and being a human being. The blood in your body is human life but it’s not by itself a human being; we don’t have a funeral for the dead blood cells if you have a nosebleed. A cancerous tumor is human life but not a human being. The real question is: What gives it its humanity? And the answer to that question is the ability to think, to reason, to understand. In other words, consciousness. And the reason I don’t lose my humanity when I go to sleep at night is that sleep is… Read more »
The real question is: What gives it its humanity? And the answer to that question is the ability to think, to reason, to understand. In other words, consciousness. And I would have to say that the answer is that God, Who knits us together in the womb, gives us our humanity. There are humans who cannot think, reason or understand, due to congenital defects, trauma, and so forth. Are they less human, in the sense that their lives are less valuable? You are right that for materialists, there is no bright line; determining when the embryo is fully human is… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: The blood in your body is human life Wait a minute, if a blood cell can be human life, then so can a zygote I’m glad that we’ve established that a zygote is human life. This is a great milestone. I invite Krychek_2 to join me in repeating this a few times into the culture: a zygote is human life. Krychek_2 also wrote: The real question is: What gives it its humanity? And the answer to that question is the ability to think, to reason, to understand. In other words, consciousness. So dolphins are humans too? They have… Read more »
Did you miss the distinction I drew between being human life and being a human being? Where did I say that only humans can think? This is the sort of stuff that makes it easy for me to dismiss what you say with the wave of a hand.
I saw Krycheck_2 assert a distinction between human life and human being, but I pointed out that the criteria that he offered are all things which are metaphysical (not material), and are not externally detectable (in adults or in the unborn). Did Krychek_2 miss all that? Where did his materialism go? Krychek_2 wrote: What gives it its humanity? And the answer to that question is the ability to think, to reason, to understand. In other words, consciousness. Krychek_2 never said that only humans can think (nor did I say that he did), rather I just observed that dolphins share all… Read more »
Again (even though you probably won’t have read my earlier reply to one
of your comments further up), there are abortionists, and even an
atheist, who admit that abortion ends the lives of unborn children.
And Christopher Hitchens cited his reflection on recent embryology as basis for his thinking.
There are abortionists who believe that abortion is murder and do it anyway for financial gain. Even though I disagree with them that abortion is murder, I find it outrageous that they are willing to do what they think is murder for hire. There are also people who think the death penalty or going to war are murder. Defining the boundaries of murder is more of an art than a science; some cases are clear cut but some are not. But as I said to Travis, most scientists belive human life begins at consciousness, and there are a whole boatload… Read more »
There is not a single geneticist, embryologist or neurologist, whether atheist, Christian or otherwise, that believes life begins at consciousness. At least, they don’t believe it scientifically. Many non-Christians, I grant you, do believe it philosophically, though philosophy and materialism are strange bedfellows.
My original comment was sloppily worded; I should have said that most scientists believe it becomes a human being at consciousness. A human life, and a human being, are not the same thing. Does that change your response?
Maybe you’re still having that “sloppily worded” problem; I can’t see a distinction (other than semantically) between “a human life” and “a human being”.
Referring to another of your posts, I also don’t equate “life” with nosebleeds and cancer. When I refer to human “life”, I mean the existence of a creature bearing the image of God. That’s what I think is willfully, callously destroyed through abortion, and that, in a nutshell, is why I call abortion evil.
Human life means nothing more than that something is alive and is human. So it encompasses things like individual blood cells and malignant tumors and zygotes; they are alive and they’re definitely human. But that’s not the same thing as being a human being; that’s a special subset of human life.
I’m sure Krychek_2 is just waiting for the right moment to deliver the objective scientific material criteria which distinguishes “human being” as a subset of “human life”. Or maybe he is still trying to figure out how he is going to answer that question without abandoning his materialism and inventing a new faith-based religion. We are all ears.
Where has his science gone? Long time passing.
Materialism includes human consciousness, which includes the ability to do metaphysics. It’s not that I don’t understand materialism; it’s that I don’t subscribe to your caricature of it.
Krychek_2 has previously informed us that “Neural activity is not consciousness”. So what is it? What matter is it made out of? If it is not material, then materialism is false. Regarding metaphysics, it means beyond the physical. It refers to that which is not extended in space (not concrete). In materialism, metaphysical things don’t exist. How does one “do metaphysics” with things that don’t exist? Krychek_2 is full of mysteries, and very few answers. It’s not like he hasn’t been given an chance at this. He just refuses to explain himself. Being coy isn’t helping his case. I can… Read more »
Of course metaphysical “things” don’t exist, because metaphysics deals with concepts and ideas. Are you seriously suggesting that having an idea is incompatible with materialsim? If so, I’m just going back to saying you’re very silly but you’re free to believe whatever you like.
Which I should have done three comments ago.
Did Krychek_2 just admit that he has been arguing for his belief in things that don’t exist?
Ideas have no referent in materialism. Concepts have no referent in materialism. All that exists in materialism is matter (energy) in motion. Atoms banging around. Krychek_2 reacts to this because he actually experiences ideas, and concepts, and awareness. His experience contradicts materialism, but he wants to retain the label anyway. It may have something to do with his related view that meaning is fluid, and rests with the hearer.
Wait, what? You’re now claiming that materialism precludes idea, concepts, abstract thought and the like? OK, I knew you were silly, but I had no idea how much.
But hey, if believing that makes you feel better, go for it.
Krychek_2 wrote: Of course metaphysical “things” don’t exist, because metaphysics deals with concepts and ideas. Apparently Krychek_2 is the flavor of materialist that permits the belief in things which are not even material, and which do not even exist. He says that metaphysical things don’t exist, but he traffics in them with unreserved and unashamed belief. Consciousness would be an example of a metaphysical thing which is not material, and which does not exist, but which Krychek_2 believes to appear at week 26 of fetal development to control the motion of muscles. Krychek_2 has become the materialist who believes in… Read more »
Katecho, you don’t actually believe any of that, do you? You’re really an atheist plant, sent here to say silly things to make Christians look bad, right? If so, you’re overdoing it.
Anyway, if you actually do believe all that, then I hope you feel better.
Chalmers’ “Hard Problem of Consciousness” deals with this exact issue. I’d love to hear your response to Chalmers.
Interesting read at the link. Thanks for providing it.
Chalmers has the interesting idea that everything on the planet, down to the photon level, has consciousness in one form or another. I would not be surprised if he’s right, but of course there’s no evidence for that theory yet. His view is different from Daniel Dennett’s, which is that consciousness isn’t even an interesting question; we are nothing more than the sum of our parts. The problem with the Dennett view is essentially the problem of saying that water is H2O. While that is true, just saying that doesn’t really tell us much about water: What is it like?… Read more »
“It’s one of those great mysteries for which science does not yet have an answer. I hope I live long enough to hear the answer when it is discovered.”
I can give you an answer right now, but since it’s incompatible with naturalistic materialism, you will reject it a priori. You are indeed a man of faith.
And yet we know that life begins at consciousness (whatever it turns out that may be). And it is with this level of understanding that you are willing to condone the murder of the unborn? Very un-scientific of you. Sounds more presuppositional to me.
Most biologists go with consciousness because if you’re trying to define a condition — in this case, what is a human being — you have to think about what distinguishes that condition from other conditions. The same issue arises at the end of life; is someone dead when they no longer have a heartbeat, or when brain activity ceases? For a very long time, the answer to that question was the lack of a heart beat, but with better scientific measurements it’s now been set at the cessation of brain activity. And it’s possible that science could re-think when the… Read more »
Alright, I’m calling your bluff.
“Most biologists go with consciousness” [citation needed]
“Just as the legally recognized end of life is now defined by the cessation of brain activity . . . the beginning life life is sensed to depend on the first stirrings of consciousness in the fetus. The current understanding of the neural basis of consciousness ties it to reverberating neural activity between the thalmus and the cerebral cortex, which begins at around twenty-six weeks of gestational age.” Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature, p. 427, citing Gazzaniga, Onset of Neural Activity.
That’s one. You have a lot more to go.
That’s actually two, but why do I have this nagging feeling that if I gave you a thousand, you’d say “But that’s only a thousand, got any more?” I just googled “life begins at consciousness” and got nearly 3 million hits. I spent 10 minutes skimming. Once I discounted the ones by advocacy groups, both pro-life and pro-choice, and also the ones that talked about when the fetus acquires consciousness but didn’t go on to say that that’s when it becomes a human being, I found that the ones written by scientists, who were writing as scientists, overwhelmingly took the… Read more »
Basic human rights depend on a majority vote of scientists who have no idea why consciousness happens yet deign to kill children because ….nothing.
Timothy, you haven’t established that the fetus is a human being entitled to basic human rights. You’ve asserted that it is based on your religion, but an assertion with nothing more isn’t evidence. It’s the logical fallacy of ipse dixit.
Those scientists have at least done the hard work of actually thinking through what it means to be a human being and how that applies to fetuses. Get back to me when you’ve done the same.
Those scientists have at least done the hard work of actually thinking
through what it means to be a human being and how that applies to…
babies.
Done.
Oh good, we agree that babies have basic human rights. Now if we could just resolve the issue for fetuses.
fetuses are babies. They are human beings. Starting at conception. full stop.
‘Scientists’ do not know what consciousness is decide that x weeks is close enough.
You, who do not know, expect us to kowtow to your beliefs over what makes a human a human because ‘majority’.
Given your metric, when Peter Singer’s views become the norm, it will be x weeks after birth. You will be fine with that.
Scientists, who are often wrong. Who lie, Who want Lamborghini’s for baby parts who do not know what consciousness is tell us what it is that makes us human.
Timothy, all that huffing and puffing does nothing to offer evidence that life begins at conception. Banging your fist on the table isn’t evidence.
Whether you agree with it or not, scientists who claim that life begins at consciousness at least have some evidence to support them. You have none. Or at least you haven’t offered any.
I will leave you in the hands of the biologists on the comment board.
You are a moral monster.
Have you offered any evidence that life begins at consciousness? except to say that scientists who claim that life begins at consciousness have evidence to support it?
There are no scientists who disagree that an abortion ends the potentiality of life.
That’s why the question of when life begins will always be a moral question.
Will we follow the laws of God or the laws of man? and don’t think for a second that one position is any less religious than the other.
Being so interested in scientific facts, you will certainly agree with me that counting google hits does not a proof make.
For purposes of a formal peer reviewed statistical study, no. For purposes of talking on a blog, it’s fine. The Pinker quotation that I gave earlier seems to be pretty representative of what’s out there, and I found nothing to remotely suggest that most scientists believe anything else.
You asked me for a citation; I gave you one. You quibbled with my citation, so I took a wider look at what, in general, is out there, and found it mostly conformed to what I said. You got any contrary evidence?
Yeah, I googled “life begins at consciousness” and got 369 results. I googled “life begins at conception” and got 248,000 results, lots of these were affirmations of scientists with Ph.D’s in relevant fields. I’m not disputing your 3 million results number. Google is funky; that’s one reason I don’t trust it. A scientific minded person like yourself shouldn’t go throwing around things like “most scientists think that life begins with consciousness” without any solid proof. “I found some on google” doesn’t cut it at all. Second point, please stop equivocating. Don’t say that malignant tumors are human life and then… Read more »
OK, I thought I already said this a couple of times, but maybe not: “Human being” is a subset of “human life”. “Human life” takes in everything that is both alive and human — individual human cells, individual human organs, malignant tumors, dendrites. Think of it as small-l human life. A human being, on the other hand, is not only human life, but _a_ human life. And that’s what begins at consciousness. It’s human life with its own personhood. Clear? With regard to what “most” scientists believe, if you’re looking for scientists to have an election and vote on it,… Read more »
Did you ever see any of the “fully human but have no/ almost rights” posts about the Roman law on pirates/ brigands and the Werewolves (German soldiers captured wearing American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge, Dec ’44)? BTW, that Roman law is not some dust-covered historical curiosity of only academic interest. Much of that law survives today; example: drone strikes on terrorists. (BTW, many of the same people who are trying to erase the validity of the nation-state are also supporters of abortion in any week.) “When life begins” may well turn out to be a proxy for… Read more »
How do I even know with these long strands of thread if K2 or jig see this… I think K2 told me once that if I could convince him–or persuade or have very good reasonings (can’t remember exactly) that potential life was more than just potential…that it would influence his views on the laws to some extent…so that’s why it might help with the dispute at times, though never end. Did you say that K2? the one who is allegedly here only here for the agenda to convince us of the awful errors of our ways? And K2, I don’t… Read more »
“”When life begins” may well turn out to be a proxy for “when enforceable rights – – as in “protections: – – attach.” That’s obviously legit as a rationale for both sides to argue with their neighbors, voters, the courts, and a legislature. But answering the “yes, it’s now human” does not necessarily end the dispute.”
See my top-level reply to Krychek_2 regarding scientists and legal definitions.
Did you mean this line from immediately BELOW this sub-thread: “So … what do I care about the legal opinions of scientists?” Above it the closest I saw was about scientists had been wrong before. If not, they’re close enough. “When does life begin?” is probably not a pure biology/botany question. Recall the classic Roger Taney line from Dred Scott about Black slaves having NO rights a White man was required to respect. That’s not remotely a scientific conclusion; it’s pure law. Of course the morality of it is quite another matter. “Law often permits what honor forbids.” I see… Read more »
jigawatt wrote:
Well said. Krychek_2 may see himself as the enlightened voice of science on this blog, but I certainly don’t. His concept of science is far too fuzzy, subjective, and democratic. He seems to think that science is something that is done by consensus.
“That may be the reduction of humans to our most basic level, but it really doesn’t tell us anything about what humans really are.” Exactly. But not only does materalism not tell us, it absolutely CANNOT tell us. That’s what the Hard Problem is about. And your mention of Chalmers’ panpsychism is immaterial (ha!) to the questions that the Hard Problem brings up. God gave us consciousness. It is part of the immaterial aspect of our nature that He gave us when He designed us. Science may yet explain some more of the “how”, but that wouldn’t hurt God in… Read more »
Yes. What this implies is that the argument that Science(!) disproves our God is bunk. Scientists do not know. .. How the universe came to be How life started. If TENS is true Why we have consciousness. What purpose their is to life. Why we sin. Why we do good. So then we turn to evidence..and from my reading the evidence is much stronger for God than for science. Note that these intellectual exercises are independent of the reality of Himself that God has shown to me. I believe because I have met a Person. The science/philosophy/logic just follows as… Read more »
OK, you’ve made the same category error Katecho did earlier, which is to assume that being a materialist precludes someone from also being anything else. It’s a little like me saying to someone, “But you told me you’re a Christian, and now you’re telling me you’re an engineer, so which is it?” No, materialism does not answer every question, which is why we have other disciplines as well. You don’t look to zoology if you’re trying to understand weather patterns, and you don’t look to materialism if you’re looking to understand human consciousness. And the problem for theism is that… Read more »
Your use of “materialism” in the context of this conversation is very odd. You seem to think that it’s a subset of science like chemistry or zoology. No, materialism is the philosophical principle that only material things exist. See e.g. wikipedia, dictionary.com, websters, thefreedictionary, britannica. In fact, I would actually love to see a reference which said otherwise. The category error is actually on you for classifying materialism as simply a discipline of science and not an overarching philosophical doctrine. If materialism is true (as everyone else defines it) then nothing that exists can contradict it. If the answer to… Read more »
Yes, of course, it’s a philosophical principle, but as with all principles, it doesn’t answer everything. No single principle does. And the key word is in your second paragraph: “IF the answer to Chalmers hard problem is immaterial . . .” but there’s no reason to think the explantion is immaterial. So your statement is really like saying, “If pink unicorns exist, then . . .” only pink unicorns don’t exist so it’s an incoherent proposition. Materialism doesn’t preclude ethics, or philosophy, or metaphysics. They all have their separate realms. The answer to Chalmers hard problems (plural) is as I… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: “Materialism doesn’t preclude ethics, or philosophy, or metaphysics. They all have their separate realms.” Materialism DOES preclude ethics, philosophy, and metaphysics, if those things can’t be explained exclusively in terms of matter in motion. If vegetablism asserts that everything is vegetable, then, logically, vegetablism has to explain the existence of bacongranite in terms of vegetables. Krychek_2 wrote: “The answer to Chalmers hard problems (plural) is as I already said: We don’t know; at this point everyone is just guessing. When those questions are answered, I will confidantly predict they will have material answers.” The problem for Krychek_2 is… Read more »
jigawatt’s understanding of materialism is correct. Krychek_2 is completely misusing the term, which is very odd, given that Krychek_2 professes to be one. Krychek_2 wrote: No, materialism does not answer every question, which is why we have other disciplines as well. You don’t look to zoology if you’re trying to understand weather patterns, and you don’t look to materialism if you’re looking to understand human consciousness. What would Krychek_2 think if a materialist said the following: “Materialism helps me understand questions about matter, and spiritualism helps me understand questions about contacting the dead. We really don’t know a lot about… Read more »
“jigawatt’s understanding of materialism is correct. Krychek_2 is
completely misusing the term, which is very odd, given that Krychek_2
professes to be one.”
same could be said of those in Christianity…those who profess do not always agree on the usage no matter the “expert” or favored sources…
I’m trying to wean myself off this thread given that it’s over 700 comments and at this point I think people are mostly repeating themselves. The problem with jigawatt’s and katecho’s discussion of materialism is that, as with many words, it means different things in different contexts. They’re using one meaning of the word; I’m using another, and I assumed the context of my comments would make that obvious, but I guess not.
As is the current cultural vogue, Krychek_2 self-identifies as a materialist, but we come to find that he believes in things which are not material, and which do not exist, and which are metaphysical. Krychek_2 might as well self-identify as a Christian. It would make as much sense.
If we’re using different meanings for “materialism”, then please give us your definition, Krychek_2.
From dictionary.com:
2.
(philosophy) the monist doctrine that matter is the only reality and that the mind, the emotions, etc, are merely functions of it Compare idealism (sense 3), dualism (sense 2) See also identity theory
3.
(ethics) the rejection of any religious or supernatural account of things.
If you look at definition 2, it’s not that the mind, the emotions, philosophy, etc. don’t exist; it’s that they have material explanations. I’ve mostly been using defintion 3, however.
How can Christians look bad when Krychek_2 keeps giving me his continual blessing and well-wishes? In materialism, nothing is bad if we just believe in ourselves (and other non-existent, immaterial things).
But that’s not the same thing as being a human being; that’s a special subset of human life. Statements like this illustrate beautifully that we are not being pedantic when we insist on defining our terms from the outset, and holding to those definitions. If we can draw a distinction between human life and human beings, as is being done here–and again, I say that you are engaging in equivocation–then we can distance ourselves from the shame and guilt of not abhorring abortion and rather try to convince ourselves that we aren’t really committing murder because, after all, having human… Read more »
I wouldn’t accuse you of being pendantic, but some lines are not as bright as others. A dolphin has the intelligence of a human 12-year-old, so why is it not murder to kill a dolphin? Why is someone who is 18 legally competent to join the Army, buy a house or have sex, but someone who is 17 years, 364 days is not?
It would be nice if the world were black and white, but sometimes it just isn’t.
A dolphin has the intelligence of a human 12-year-old, so why is it not murder to kill a dolphin? I thought we were talking about humanity, not intelligence. Dolphins aren’t made in the image of God, thus they cannot be murdered (though they can be killed or otherwise abused in a sinful way). Why is someone who is 18 legally competent to join the Army, buy a house or have sex, but someone who is 17 years, 364 days is not? Because in this country, that is the subjective consensus to which we have been committed. There is certainly room… Read more »
I gave those examples, not to answer them on the merits, but to show that sometimes things aren’t black and white, particularly when people don’t all share the same premises. You accept the Bible as absolute authority; not everyone does. And even those who accept the Bible as absolute authority reaches different conclusions as to what it says; that’s why there are hundreds of denominations. I could make a Biblical case both for abortion and for the proposition that killing a dolphin is murder. You wouldn’t find it persuasive because you have a different interpretation. But hey, different Christians come… Read more »
Disqus has a strange way of ordering comments, but I’ve now noticed that Krychek_2 acknowledged the sloppiness of his earlier claim. I give him credit for admitting that. Unfortunately, his second attempt isn’t an improvement. Krychek_2 wrote: A human life, and a human being, are not the same thing. Krychek_2 seems to be conceding my point that the scientific classification between life and non-life, and between human and non-human, do not support anything but a conclusion that a zygote is human life. A zygote satisfies all the ordinary criteria for that classification. So instead Krychek_2 is shifting to a new… Read more »
If you are looking for a recipe for chocolate cake, do you go the Bible? No, you go to a cookbook. Does this mean you have “abandoned” the Bible? No, it means the Bible answers some questions and cookbooks answer others. Materialism can tell you how to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, but it can’t answer the question of whether you should; for that you need ethics. I never said materialism answers every question, but to acknowledge that there are other disciplines as well is not to “abandon” materialism. And again, it’s silliness like this that… Read more »
I’m not sure that Krychek_2 understands what materialism is. To suggest that he can be a materialist on material issues, and then a metaphysician on metaphysical issues is simply to declare that he isn’t really a materialist at all. Krychek_2 might as well profess that he is a vegetarian, except while he’s eating a cheeseburger.
Materialism is the view that nothing exists but matter(energy) in motion. If Krychek_2 has to appeal to abstract metaphysical (non-material) entities to explain what is, then materialism has failed as a worldview.
Oh come now. Materialism includes consciousness, which humans have, regardless of how we got it. Human consciousness includes the ability to do metaphysics and to have purposes. Do you really not grasp this?
Again, no one is disputing that Krychek_2 has a consciousness. We just point out that it doesn’t fit in his professed materialism. Therefore the existence of his consciousness is the problem. Krychek_2 has previously informed us that “Neural activity is not consciousness”. So what is it? What matter is it made out of? If it is not material, then materialism is false. Regarding metaphysics, it means beyond the physical. It refers to that which is not extended in space (not concrete). In materialism, metaphysical things don’t exist. How does one “do metaphysics” with things that don’t exist? Krychek_2 is full… Read more »
Neural activity is electrical charges. Electrical charges aren’t material? Hmph. I learn something new every day.
Depending on how advanced the fetus is, they may or may not produce a conscious reaction; that typically doesn’t happen until about the 26th week of pregnancy.
Empty sarcasm? Krychek_2 continues to ignore the problem, but his facts about conscious reaction are also off by over 100%. Movement in response to skin touch is observed at least by 12 weeks. But why is movement the criteria? Are paralyzed people somehow not people? Does their consciousness vanish? By what rational theory? This whole discussion is moot now. Krychek_2 has already conceded that the mother’s consciousness outranks the full human consciousness of the unborn. Krychek_2 has declared the end of equality, and fair game on fully human beings. The deliberate destruction of other human beings is now rationalized in… Read more »
So plants that move in response to touch are conscious? I’ve now learned a second thing today.
For the rest of your post, go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.
Krychek_2 forgot his opening sarcasm tag, so I’m not sure if he included the entire first paragraph, or just the preceding sentence.
In any case, electrical charges are material, and so is neural activity, but Krychek_2 already informed us that “Neural activity is not consciousness”, so what is he on about? Krychek_2 is still pretending that he has a scientific basis to detect the presence of a consciousness. Apparently he refuses to educate himself about the Chinese Room thought experiment. Consciousness is an abstract subjective quality that is not externally detectable in any materialistic or scientific sense.
Please see convo beneath this section (I think) that involves you. Your username isn’t amongst it to be able to reply to you and make sure you know your presence is needed…should you have the patience…
begins at “jigawatt/(reply to Krychek 2)”
I don’t think the convo can go any farther until you clarify a couple of things (and so far, the dreaded “m” word hasn’t been used there, yet…coast is clear so far… :)
When does consciousness arise in humans? Is that answer a proven scientific fact? What’s the final nail in the coffin of Chalmers’ “Hard Problem of Consciousness” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)?
Until these kinds of questions are answered satisfactorily, Krychek_2’s theory about abortion must end with “… but it MIGHT be murder.” Kind of like shooting a deer that MIGHT actually be a person.
Most scientists believe it’s about the 26th week of pregnancy, but it’s a continuum. Like puberty, some will reach that point earlier than others.
But don’t forget, personhood only partially resolves the question of whether abortion should be legal. Even if the zygote were determined to unquestionably be a human being, that still leaves the issue of the rights of the woman carrying it. The woman is undoubtedly a human being with the full panoply of human rights, and telling her that her body is being taken over by someone else for nine months is not a de minimus intrusion.
[Deer hunter looking through rifle scope]
“I’m not sure if it’s a deer or a person. But even if it is a person, he’s trespassing on my property, so … ”
And after following the trail of blood to the dead body he discovers it was not only a person, it was his own daughter.
You can shoot a trespasser on far less provocation than trying to assert control over your body for nine months. However, if the trespasser turns out to be your daughter, the fault lies with you and not with the general proposition that there are situations in which you may permissibly shoot a trespasser.
Here we go with the “most scientists” shtick again. Apparently Krychek_2 is the new spokesman for “most scientists”. Somehow Krychek_2 never gets around to citing the study about what “most scientists believe”. Perhaps it’s filed right next to the study on what most scientists believe about Country music. What this demonstrates for us that Krychek_2 thinks that science is a matter of consensus, rather than repeatable observation. He is interested in what “most scientists” think. Krychek_2 may be disappointed to learn that a 2009 Pew Research survey found that 51% of scientists believe in a deity or higher power. Only… Read more »
Katecho, if believing all that makes you feel better, then I’m happy for you.
Krychek_2’s prescriptionless worldview doesn’t supply him a basis to be anything other than happy for me. It’s all good. Whatever is, is.
Again, this is like Krychek_2 saying that his vegetarianism includes the steakburger he ate last night. Regardless of his repeated attempts to redefine the issue, this is not a dispute about whether steakburgers exist. Materialism makes a particular claim that all that exists is matter in motion. If consciousness is reducible to matter in motion, then Krychek_2 needs to demonstrate how consciousness is materially detectable. The firing of neurons is insufficient, since materialism would claim to model all such firing based on pure laws of chemistry, without respect for anything like a consciousness. In materialism, neuron firing is independent of… Read more »
Well said.
Eric The Red. As God Almighty is my witness. I had nothing to do with Mr. Childer’s comment!
However, I am ROTFL!!!
“most scientists”? Are we supposed to take that remark seriously? What survey is Krychek_2 citing for that credibility-straining claim? As per his tactic of late, Krychek_2 didn’t even bother to answer my direct questions on the matter of biological definitions of life and human classification. I believe he didn’t answer because he has no scientific argument whatsoever to offer for his classification. He seems to be riding on the fumes of his own presumed scientific prowess, but that’s not the same as actually delivering the goods.
Supporters of abortion are beginning to admit that abortion does end a human life: -http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/; -an abortionist readily admitted ““I know that. We are killing children”: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/we-know-they-are-killing-children-all-of-us-know They add that it is still justifiable because the rights of someone else effectively nullify any rights the unborn child may have. If the mother determines that the unborn child isn’t worthy of life, she has a doctor rip it out. The Nazi’s who murdered millions of Jews and others had exactly the same reasoning: life unworthy of life. And regarding the use of the term “unborn child,” even Christopher Hitchens recognised the… Read more »
Fortunately, your idea of “permanently tainted” doesn’t always hold true. The rainbow was first called a symbol, a seal of God’s promise never to destroy the Earth again with a flood. The alphabet soup of deviants has usurped that lovely symbol for their own sin parades–which, incidentally, is one parade we wish God would rain on–but Christians are NOT about to give up the original meaning, tainted though it now is. This is a case of the original meaning being good, and the taint being later applied. The same is true of the Confederate Battle Flag, if you will. Though… Read more »
Beat me to it.
fwiw, the gay “rainbow” only has six colors. I understand God’s rainbow has seven colors.
Not worth much, I’m afraid. ;-)
“Permanently” may have been an overstatement on my part. I suppose it’s possible that at some point in the distant future, the Nazis could be grandly forgotten and the swastika could once again be nothing more than a symbol of German national pride.
Nothing is permanent in Krychek_2’s materialism. Evolutionism theory will evolve into a form of intelligent design creationism. There are no barriers! Time makes all things possible, and then more time makes them inevitable! Believe in the power of evolutionism!
When was the swastika EVER a symbol of German national pride apart from the Nazi party?
Oh, for a good thousand years, maybe two. And not just Germany; there were Anglo-Saxon swastikas, Norse swastikas and Celtic swastikas. I’m sure you can find full details on google. You didn’t think the swastika originated with the Nazis, did you?
Krychek_2 wrote: That’s because a symbol represents whatever it represents in the mind of most people; if most people associate the swastika with gas chambers (as they do), then it simply doesn’t matter if someone comes along who wants it to symbolize nothing more than pride in one’s heritage. Let’s test this assertion. What does the rainbow represent to most people? Does the rainbow represent God’s covenant with Noah, or does it represent gay pride? Homosexuals started using the rainbow while just a tiny minority, right? Christians are a majority right? So where was Krychek_2 to tell the homosexual movement… Read more »
The purpose of language, and the purpose of symbols, is to communicate. That purpose can only be served if it communicates in a way that people understand. So, it simply doesn’t matter what a word or a symbol used to mean; the question is how do people understand them today. Words, and symbols, do change in meaning over time. You can stubbornly insist that what a word meant a century ago is the only proper meaning, or you can recognize that if your purpose is to clearly communicate, then you need to use words in a way that the hearer… Read more »
Language has a purpose? How can language have a purpose in a purposeless, accidental, meaningless universe? If Krychek_2 is going to invent meaning and purpose, why not invent gods for himself too? It would make as much rational sense.
Katecho, you just go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.
Why do I need Krychek_2’s permission to do what he claims must be the case anyway? The hearer hears and believes whatever he wants to hear and believe, right?
“The American flag does not have that problem. The numbers of people who think “abortion” when they see the American flag is quite low.”
The voices of 58 million American human beings (Yes, Krychek_2, human beings) cry out from garbage dumps and furnaces and wherever else “medical waste” is disposed of. They are testifying to the injustice of the only American institution they experienced in their short lives. To them, the American Flag stands only for death. You can hear them yourself if you have ears to hear.
And I will sing their song in the land of my sojourn.
Here’s an alternative question. Who determines what a word means? When I use a word, how is the rest of the world meant to respond? It seems incoherent to me to say that the meaning is exclusively lodged in my head, irrespective of what anyone else thinks the word might mean: this is Tweedledum’s argument, no? It is possible to be misunderstood, of course, but it is also possible to say something I didn’t intend to say – and the fault in that case belongs to me, not my audience. Isn’t the normal range of meaning for an English word… Read more »
I don’t think Joel should call jigawatt such harsh names. Still, if people considered the Bible to be a racist taunt, would we simply concede their reaction to them? I think there should be an option to help to educate people about the Bible, so that they become informed of its meaning, and come to the truth. Whether or not to defend the Confederate flag symbolism (as resistance to federal tyranny) is still an open question in terms of choosing our battles carefully, but this is the same question we must ask about the symbol of the rainbow.
Perfect! Couldn’t have posed the thing better myself! See, I wasn’t meaning to insult jigawatt in the slightest; I don’t think he even made that argument directly. I was referring to Alice in Wonderland, where (if I recall correctly) Tweedledum asserts that “A word means exactly what I mean by it, and nothing else.” But see, my comment was also susceptible to being read as an attack, and I recognize that, and now it seems like I have a responsibility to point out that I don’t think jigawatt is Tweedledum, and I am sorry to have accidentally insulted him.
For the record, I didn’t read your reply as an attack. And a slight correction, it was Humpty Dumpty, not Tweedledum. And Humpty’s last line on the topic is most instructive:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
Even Humpty knew it was all just a power play.
Humpty-Dumpty. It would be him. Thanks for the correction.
Does Joel get to decide whether my comment about him and jigawatt was sarcasm, or a perfect demonstration of his democratic view of meaning? How deep will his apologies go for my continued “misunderstanding”?
I think I am making a judgement as to whether the construction of what I was saying is reasonable or not. At some point I will simply laugh at you and go to bed.
But will Joel laugh at me because I don’t have authority to redefine and reinterpret what he actually meant and said?
The crux here is that as thought is mediated by language, there is inherent ambiguity. Hence, more than one possible, good-faith interpretations of a given statement. That is why I clarify – which is really what I was doing, rather than apologizing. There’s a plausible range of meaning to words and symbols, not just one per each, so it makes sense to clarify. That’s not the same thing as redefining my words.
Clarification and education are wonderful. Does good-faith interpretation entail removing a symbol from public display, and refusing to permit that a symbol could be used with its original meaning and intent?
I don’t condone bullying, any more than I condemn wars of territorial expansion. I am merely allowing that both happen, they succeed, and we should take them into account. Oklahoma is American soil now, not Cherokee, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. That doesn’t exclude explaining that the conditions of its appropriation were unjust.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the South won the war. However, the flag is a conversation piece to educate and discuss the many consequences of what happens when states lose their jurisdiction to a heavily centralized federal layer that was not intended by our founders. We can also talk about the role of slavery too, but there was a whole lot more motivating the war. What other symbol would better serve as a conversation piece for the highly relevant subject of centralized federal abuse? Perhaps the Gadsden flag, but it sure seems that the real agenda is to… Read more »
So this is a slightly different subject. Now we’re talking about the flag as something valuable, despite its very real baggage. Which is to say, the negative things that a lot of people associate with it, implying that they get a real vote in determining its current meaning.
I also want to emphasize that I am talking about the current meaning. The Confederates are dead, and we don’t have the arbitrary right to change the meaning of their symbol as it was understood at the time. Nor should we tell lies about that.
Well, we’re certainly full of the references to guys named Lewis, aren’t we? ;)
Ain’t we just?
I agree about the Bible, though, so it seems like we can’t be democratic about everything. Perhaps that’s the difference between a theological communication and a mere human contrivance?
I don’t think we can be “democratic” with the historical facts of anything, theological or otherwise. It just ain’t smart.
I agree that theology isn’t democratic in any sense. I am less sure what you mean about historical facts… do you mean the current meaning of the flag?
Any historical facts. I understood your “being democratic” about things to mean that the majority decides the true meaning, especially as it pertains to “mere human contrivances,” which, according to your post, seemed to include everything that wasn’t expressly theological.
However, in one sense everything is theological; that is, God has something to say about it. And if everything is theological, then we can be democratic about nothing.
So in your view, is it possible to use a word incorrectly? I mean, use a word that you think you know what it means, but is actually the wrong word?
Know, win eye tock ewe sea watt aye mean.
Then we are agreed.
Except that we’re not. I used EVERY word incorrectly! Despite the fact that you were able to RE-interpret what I wrote to gain a sense of what I actually meant, I clearly demonstrated the possibility of incorrect usage, hopefully in a humorous way.
Or try this:
crunchy after Run cup personable filter was which link the if you
Lagunage is suirprsginly roubst.
Our brains are surprisingly adept at deciphering the truth value of a poorly written sentence. We actually CAN determine original meaning if we give it some rudimentary effort. Pity more people don’t try.
See, that’s the thing. There’s a reductio on both sides of the street. I think you ought to grant that.
–“Isn’t the normal range of meaning for an English word basically established by how English speakers as a set understand it? So why should symbols be any different?”
Because symbols are defined by their creators, not by majority opinion. All other uses and definitions are rightly called “appropriations” and this comes either by secondary design or by ignorance. Or by willful usurpation.
Do you really think that holds in all cases? Is there no public dimension to interpretation?
Interpretation involves the goal of determining the author’s intent, not in determining our own intent.
Agreed, but since all we have to go on is words, don’t we have to accept a kind of democratic definition for what those generally mean? I mean, I can only communicate if I speak in terms you already know. That is, if I use words to which you can apply a commonly accepted definition.
What katecho means is WE don’t get to decide the Confederate Battle Flag’s meaning according to our own intent…because the good Virginian’s who designed it have already stated what the thing meant. Our job in “interpreting” this is to read what they said. We don’t have the right to make things up as it suits us.
I insist that Joel drop the unnecessary accusations and slanders.
Cute. It’s a good point though, because obviously the meaning of language has to be controlled by something.
No apology this time? :-) I agree that meaning is controlled. I believe it is controlled by the way that God made the universe we all live and move in. There are certain concepts and meanings that we bump into, objectively, under the sun. We need symbols and utterances for them, but the meaning and the concept remain objective.
Ask the poet what he thinks of “public interpretation.” Or the artist, or the architect. Heck, ask the designers of flag what they think of the “public dimension to interpretation.”
I’m pretty sure that when Jesus said of the bread “this is my body” we don’t get to then say it means anything other than that.
Can you think of a case where the designer of a symbol is rightfully trumped by public opinion? I can’t.
If we’re including language, I would say that meaning determined exclusively by the creator makes communication impossible. I just typed some things, and you read them. The ideas I suggest are now, for better or worse, in both of our heads. But suppose I then said that by “heads” I mean the part of our bodies that we walk on, and by “ideas” I mean a kind of cheese, and so on. Insisting on a personal definition of all my words means that you can’t understand a word I’m saying.
Nicely said. But this understanding is quite the opposite of what people are currently applying to rainbows, wine, and Confederate Battle Flags.
What if underlying meaning and concepts are objective in the world God made, and the vocalizations and characters are just local ways of conveying those meanings and concepts?
I’m amenable to concepts being objective. The question would be whether a vocalization or what have you must be identified with a single concept, or whether it can refer to one concept now, another later, or can shift over time.
Symbols can be reassigned, but the question is by what authority, and does the later reassignment retroactively apply to past intended use, and does it overrule those who still use the symbol with its original intent? We seem to be told that the meaning of the Confederate flag is completely determined by the current reaction of the audience (who has, by the way, been heavily educated by the government and media on what the flag is supposed to mean).
(Review the image that Wilson attached to his post above.)
Yes, the cyclical nature of Liberal re-education for generations–call it continued Reconstruction–followed by a growing population who agrees with the sanctioned text would seem to me to be a primary cause for the recent backlash against the Confederate Battle Flag and all associated inanity on display. It further explains why folks can’t seem to connect the dots when the very same scenario is laid re: the US Flag flying over abortion mills.
It seems to be a kind of herd mentality. If the reassignment of a symbol comes from the approved media sources, we don’t question it. But if someone outside of the approved source suggests another consistent reassignment, we are very suspicious. It’s sort of like how so many Christian parents can deliver their children, daily, for government education, but would never accept an openly government-run single news institution. As adults, we insist on not being monopolized and indoctrinated by a government system. But it’s really quite okay for our children.
Yeah, so people are easily led. Additionally, what you have here is a conflict between different subgroups who define a particular symbol differently, and a rather tyrannical attempt by one group to suppress the other group’s interpretation. Which is tyrannical and wicked. But I think the same could be said for language – you know the case of the Saxon cuss words, right? Well, those four-letter words now really are obscene, because people at large agreed with the Normans, and the Latinate versions now are less so. So even if it was a rotten thing to do back then, I… Read more »
I agree that we need to choose our battles carefully. But what I don’t agree with is the idea that Joel should never have been informed about the history of Saxon cuss words. Someone is doing a lot to remove certain symbols and counterpoints from discussion.
In other words, someone is trying very hard to keep people like Joel uninformed.
And they have stiff competition from my own distractions, let me tell you. But now you’re changing the subject. I agree that there’s bullying going on, and am agin it. My point is simply that if the bullying succeeds, then it has succeeded.
Sometimes enemies of Christ get the upper hand. This doesn’t change our commission in the least. I’m not suggesting that the Confederate flag is our commission, but if we are tempted to resign a symbol under their pretenses, then we will find ourselves abandoning the symbols and meanings that we are not permitted to abandon. We will simply cease to be salt. We need to stop being played.
Amen, brother!
Yes, every case.
If I design a symbol that the public thinks means something different than what I intended, then either I didn’t do a very good design job, or I didn’t explain it very well, or enough time has passed that people have a different understanding than they did when I designed the symbol.
But the purpose of a symbol is to communicate, and communication is with the hearer. One of the few things I remember from my seventh grade literature class is that the author’s intention is irrelevant to the meaning of a story.
Your seventh grade literature teacher was an idiot. And filling kids’ heads with such drivel is precisely why people disregard the plain doctrine of Scripture.
Since I agree with Malachi, we are well on our way to overruling Krychek_2’s intended meaning.
We might save the seventh grade literature teacher if we suggest that he was saying that the author’s intent is irrelevant apart from what the author actually chose to write down. This is illustrated by the notorious “Dumbledore is gay” controversy: it doesn’t matter a hill of beans to the story what J.K. Rowling was “thinking” about Dumbledore’s proclivities if she didn’t bother to write anything about it into the story. All that matters is what was actually written. But even granting that, the seventh grade literature teacher either communicated poorly, or Krychek latched onto only part of what he… Read more »
I wouldn’t go that far. I mean, is it possible for me to misunderstand you? Or if I wind up getting something different than you want me to, is it all your fault?
Joel, you’ve hit on the central problem of communication. I may not be communicating as clearly as I think I am; you may not be understanding what I’m very clearly saying; and between those two extremes are perhaps a half dozen other possiblities. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that you are most likely to understand me if I use words as you understand their meaning. I may think that the definition of “pig” is “a cigar with wings,” but if that’s not how you understand it, then we will talk past one another every time that word comes up in… Read more »
Thus the reason to object so vehemently when someone purposely tries to subvert the clear meaning of a word, symbol, or story!!
In Krychek_2’s materialistic utilitarianism, understanding is not relevant (see the Chinese Room thought experiment). All that matters is the consequence. This is why the media can do what it does. They use words for their effect (stimulus response), not because they want to maximize understanding. Advertising is not about making you understand your actual needs, it’s about getting you to think that you need something regardless of whether you actually do. If saying “pig” could get you to buy the cigar, then the ad will feature pigs.
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then please feel free to believe that.
I thought Krychek_2 was telling us that there was no other option but that the hearer hears and believes whatever he wants to hear and believe. Why does he feel the need to give me permission to do what he already thinks I’m going to do anyway? Perhaps he isn’t completely convinced of his own views. Strange.
Perhaps he’s not willing to be drawn into yet another thread hijack and so, going forward, whenever you try to hijack the thread, Krychek_2’s contribution will simply be to repeat as many times as is necessary that if it makes you feel better to believe your own spin, knock yourself out.
I’m simply critiquing how Krychek_2’s materialism/utilitarianism undermines his ability to engage consistently on these topics. He wants us to ignore the implications of his worldview, but I think it’s important to continue to note that Krychek_2 speaks on and on at length about topics that have no referent in his materialism. It’s kind of relevant. If Krychek_2 can’t or won’t explain his way out of the dilemma, then he can just let them hang there for other guests to see. His contradictions are pretty straightforward to describe. As a utilitarian, Krychek_2 may come to admire my efficiency at pointing them… Read more »
Katecho, what you just said is very, very silly. But since believing it obviously makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Apparently calling me silly is all that Krychek_2 has left. Meanwhile, the materialistic dilemma is still present, and I’m still content to point it out whenever Krychek_2 ascends his air inflated hill to prescribe how anything ought to be other than it is. I have a pin for that bubble. It’s so relevant, every time.
I didn’t say you are silly; I said your comments are silly, which they are. But if believing them makes you feel better, you go right ahead and keep believing them.
Earlier today, Krychek_2 was informing us that the hearer determines meaning, regardless of what meaning was intended or what symbols (words) were used by the author. But now all of a sudden he presumes to correct me about what he meant and didn’t mean. He seems to want to vindicate his original intent over against the hearer. Unfortunately, that ship already sailed. He already gave away that store. If I think that he said I was silly, then that is true for me, right?
Krychek_2’s attempt to have it both ways is… silly.
Nice try, but no. I said that the meaning of words changes over time, and if you want to be understood you need to use words in the way that most people understand them today. That is not the same thing as saying that any individual may decide for himself on a whim what a word means.
Here, there is no doubt as to the contemporary collective understanding of the meaning of any of the words I used. So not only is your last comment silly, it’s also disingenuous.
Krychek_2 wrote: But the purpose of a symbol is to communicate, and communication is with the hearer. One of the few things I remember from my seventh grade literature class is that the author’s intention is irrelevant to the meaning of a story. It seems Krychek_2 can’t keep his own arguments straight. He said that “the author’s intention is irrelevant to the meaning of a story” because “communication is with the hearer”, irrespective of the author’s intent. That’s what I was referring to, but Krychek_2 won’t own his statements any longer. Now who is being disingenuous? In any case, Krychek_2… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to think that, then have at it.
And in case you hadn’t notice, I do engage you — when your comments are on topic to what’s being discussed rather than an attempt to derail the thread with yet another hijack about my world view.
Krycheck_2’s concern for my feelings is noted, but his dismissal and lack of engagement seems to have reached new heights. Apparently he feels that he should have free reign to shower the blog with criticisms of our Christian worldview, but that his worldview should be off limits. Not only this, but his glaring contradictions with his own professed worldview should be off limits too. He wants to rest secure and safe in his little worldview bubble as he flings darts at us. I have a very simple response to that gargantuan hypocrisy. No.
You could try responding in kind by not responding to me. It’s a thought.
Krychek_2, when I wrestle with my boys at home, if one of us gets pinned, they have to say ‘uncle’ before they can be let go. I think Katecho is waiting to hear you say ‘uncle’.
I want to resist the temptation of a debate victory for its own sake. I would prefer to see Krychek_2 interact honestly and openly about the consistency problems that he has, and ultimately I’d rather see him repent and return to a relationship with Christ, or at least be torn down from raising up false arguments against the knowledge of Christ.
“I want to resist the temptation of a debate victory for its own sake.”
Well said, I will pray that you do.
2Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
13No
temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is
faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but
with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may
be able to endure it. 1 Cor 10:12,13
Well said. Sometimes the best choice to avoiding temptation is to flee from it.
“Well said. Sometimes the best choice to avoiding temptation is to flee from it.”
That sounds clever, but remember, the temptations is not whether to
“destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,”. The temptation is a “debate victory for it’s own sake.” I would encourage Katecho to continue to do the former, while fleeing from the latter.
Uh? Yes? I was agreeing with you, and you are still agreeing with me. And I wasn’t trying to be clever, it’s pretty basic Christianity. So, I repeat, “Well said. Sometimes the best choice to avoiding temptation is to flee from it.” Indicating that yes (even as you redundantly repeated) there is a choice. And it is true that sometimes when we are not able to continue to do some good because there is too much temptation to do the wrong, we should flee. If destroying arguments and every lofty opinion” turns into words to destroy people rather than their… Read more »
Evan, if and when Katecho succeeds in pinning me, I’ll be the first to say uncle. I admit when I’m beat, but so far it hasn’t happened. And look, we all know the real reason Katecho insists on changing the subject to my overall world view: If we get past the issue of whether I have a basis for morality, and start talking about what the substance of morality is, he gets his butt kicked. The only way he has any hope of winning an argument with me is to try to keep me from talking about the substance at… Read more »
I for one would love to hear you say something of substance.
: )
Not bad.
If you can help me keep these threads from getting derailed onto my world view, maybe you’ll have that opportunity.
So in order to hear something of substance from Krychek_2, we must first agree not to challenge his worldview? Cute, but no deal. I’m perfectly content with Krychek_2 not saying anything of substance. It makes my refutation of his unbelief easier. I’m happy to respond to Krychek’s challenges from within the Christians worldview, on its own merits, however I’m not sure why Krychek_2 thinks that his worldview is irrelevant to the conversation, particularly since his worldview lies directly beneath all of his challenges and ridicule of our worldview. Let’s just say that I have never looked to unbelievers to define… Read more »
Know what else I just realized? You’re gonna have to get beyond not only your materialism, but some extreme Arminianism or Calvinism (haven’t figured out which because now I’ve been figuring out the post-mill stuff weighing into all this…) could be they are Calvinists but also living in the millenial age…(and there are some Calvinistic that DON’T believe they are in the millenium). So, I don’t know about Kate, if she’s more Arminian or Calvinistic, do you? Her pre-eminent concern for your spiritual well being leads me to think Arminian…but the Calvinism tends to lend itself to post-mill…and the “evangelistic”… Read more »
I don’t believe in free will — at all — so if I were a Christian, I would be a Calvinist. And basically material determinism and Christian Calvinism are the same basic belief system; the only question is whether your strings are being pulled by God or by the forces of nature. The interesting thing to me about the pre-mil/post-mil dispute is that if you are pre-mil, you actually want things to get worse because they have to get worse before they get better. You basically want society to collapse so God can build it up again. Whereas with post-mil… Read more »
No. Well. Then again. It depends on the audience. He has no hope of winning an argument in my eyes because it’s obvious he only wants to keep the topic where he feels safest–having your “best interests at heart” and all that. Unless he lets the rest of us engage you without his caustic “first things” interruptions, we can’t get to other matters of substance. Wait. There used to be advice from the blog elite concerning a couple of others that brought up the same things over and over and over…
Its very pertinent and you know why. katecho’s repeated return to first principles need to be intended for you in order to be a benefit to others. As a utilitarian, I would hope you would appreciate katecho’s efficiency in maximizing human happiness with minimum energy.
Timothy, if believing that makes you feel better, then you go right ahead and keep on believing it.
Katecho – there’s a retiree who haunts the comments section of the local paper with the “physics of ethics.” Do you really want to become any more like that? Give it a rest. Please.
kmh
Kelly, I respecfully disagree.
EricTheRed is active enough on this blog that new commentator’s are led to ask what EtR’s meta-physics are. The are, literally, nothing and naming and exposing them saves time for the saved souls here.
Law and Politics are derivative and although many prefer to play in that arena of ideas, first-things rule the later things.
Lastly, EtR’s eternal soul is at stake. Katecho has Eric’s best interest at heart by being a thorn in EtR’s side.
Sorry, haven’t been here long enough to catch that drift. Are you saying EtR is an atheist? Or that he is K2? Or that his meta-physics are “nothing?” What is it that you or Katecho are “naming and exposing?”
EtR is a former “seminary student” (he took systematics) He is now a professing atheist .
His “working philosophy” is something he calls “Modified Humian Utilitarianism”.
Over many blog posts, katecho has engaged EtR and reduced the conversation to first things.
A representative comment thread can be read here:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/a_rook_for_a_queen/#comment-2168086712
(Link is to Eric’s comment which ends the discussion, so scroll up)
Kelly, I respectfully agree. And then I disrespectfully disagree. EricTheRed is active enough on this blog that new commentator’s (such as myself from two months ago) don’t give a damn about EtR’s meta-physics are. There are plenty of other interesting topics presented in the posts to work through (that even Christians don’t agree on, so why expect it of non-Christians). The saved souls here have their own connection to God and urge to dialogue and inquire as they are led or not…and others don’t think that an unsaved person’s views are “nothing”. We value good civil pleasant conversation that can’t… Read more »
Alex in Wonderland may be unaware, but many guests have expressed the same opinion about Wilson’s comments that Alex does about mine. Should Wilson just stop posting because they don’t like it? One might be tempted to think that perhaps Alex simply has a personal aversion to worldview conflict, but where is Alex’s complaint against Krychek_2’s constant critique of our Christian worldview? Why does Krychek_2 get a pass, an up-vote, and a “God bless”, but I am told to simply ignore him if I don’t like it? Alex seems to be suggesting that we should just accept the unbelieving onslaught… Read more »
It is important for all of us to remember that we are dealing with worldviews here, and that they are not secondary, nor certainly irrelevant, to whatever we happen to be discussing at the moment. My hope is that we are engaging in meaningful debate here. Otherwise, we are all wasting our time, and merely stating subjective opinions that smack of pride and self-centeredness. If I claim to be opposed to x, I do so (hopefully) because, according to my worldview, x is wrong. And so, we deal with truth, and our response to that truth. In order to see… Read more »
“It is important for all of us to remember that we are dealing with worldviews here,” In the sense that we all have a worldview that affects our actions yes…yet sometimes we act contrary to our worldview…there is inconsistency even among a “right” worldview. “and that they are not secondary,” it depends on the issue at hand. as jillybean mentioned somewhere, do we all HAVE to agree on “first things” to rally behind some cause? no. and that’s the point of most of my time here. what are those of Wilson’s “stripe” doing (even though I’m not a post-mill or… Read more »
I’m here to listen to what you say to see if I might be wrong or
fortify where we do agree, and enjoy the camraderie along the way
That is what I do at a baseball game or a piano bar over sazeracs. Here, I try to learn about my faith. So, we approach the blog differently. So be it.
This is a big part of why I’m here. Glad we agree. : )
Kelly, I respectfully agree.
“One of the few things I remember from my seventh grade literature class is that the author’s intention is irrelevant to the meaning of a story.”
And you believed those words as they were intended, right?
I believe those words as I understood them.
Perhaps you misunderstood your teacher.
See my response to Katecho above.
Wow this thread really exploded. My main point here is that the real victims of abortion would see the American flag as representing only abortion.
We empathize with the victims of slavery and of the holocaust. We hear their cries of injustice. The confederate flag and the swastika are toxic symbols now. Why are our ears deaf to the cries of the victims of the atrocity occuring right now under the Stars and Stripes?
Very true.
Symbols are only toxic if we allow ourselves to be played like fiddles by the liberal media. What happens when the media decides that it’s time for us to be offended by the Bible? We ought to use the rainbow and the Confederate flag for practice in not being played. Just say no to the reeducation. It’s not difficult.
I’ve asked before, and haven’t yet seen a straight answer. Justly or not, can words and symbols change their meaning over time? Yes or no?
I did respond the first time this was asked. My answer below was: “Symbols can be reassigned, but the question is by what authority”. Jesus reassigned the elements of the Passover meal, for example, because He *was* the Passover Lamb. I made reference to the rainbow and its co-opted use as a symbol for gay pride. Just because symbols may be culturally reassigned, it doesn’t follow that there was any authority for the change. Our response should not be to simply abdicate. God is the great Author, the world is full of the meaning that He purposefully and beautifully arranged.… Read more »
Just the word “gay” itself is a perfect example. It used to mean nothing more than a feeling of being happy or light-hearted or some similar pleasant feeling. Now it’s totally assumed to be a sexual orientation category.
Does meaning change over time, yes or no? I say “no” because He changes not and He is Truth.
If He rules us, then any symbol that correctly conveys that meaning is a good thing. Any symbol that seeks to subvert or obfuscate meaning is to be spurned.
Conversely, any subversion of a symbol that correctly conveys meaning deserves threads like this; it is not a war of words but a war of meaning.
Okay, so then, what about the F-word? You know it wasn’t an offensive term prior to 1066. It meant, simply, the act of copulation, with no derogatory sense. (So I’ve read. I’m not myself an expert in Saxon.) Should I be spelling it out here on the blog? Is my treating it like the dirty word it’s commonly perceived to be wrong in some fashion? Am I misusing to treat it that way, and in regarding people who sprinkle their discourse with it as uncouth do I err? That’s the implication if all meanings are eternally fixed.
You are correct. I am incorrect. My comment was sophomoric.
I’m not arguing that the proper expression of our hatred of injustice is to make various symbols toxic. I’d say that “don’t cause your brother to stumble” would be a good rule to keep in mind, but I don’t really want to jump into that fight. What I do know is this: Many people empathize with victims of one sort (slaves and Jews) who are generations removed from us, while having not empathy but indifference at best (and contempt at worst) for tiny, helpless victims who are being murdered right before our eyes. This is the problem – inconsistency. People… Read more »
Yes, I was just reading through some of this that I missed and thought…stumble/association, etc. and it most certainly (biblically) should have some bearing. And so I wondered if the same people that think we should use a rainbow or confederate flag without thought so we aren’t being played, would also advocate displaying a swastika. It’s usually where the adamency breaks down. “Toxicity” is important, too. I don’t really care if people use the flag, the rainbow, or swastika. I’m curious and well aware of differences of opinion to just hold off judgment till there is a time to inquire… Read more »
K2 is correct on this point. I guess we’d need a serious Gallup effort to know with any degree of confidence, but I’ll bet most people’s first takes (inside the US) are: – swastika = Nazi – Rebel flag = racist – US flag = just plain America, not abortion. It’s like the word association thing; shrink says “salt” and most people say “pepper.” Off this blog, show various images for a few seconds and ask people to write one of two words, what would we get? If we showed any of the gruesome frames CPM has exposed about PP,… Read more »
Wilson addressed this beautifully in his post above when he wrote: Dr. Akin granted that the American abortion holocaust is in fact a holocaust, but he argued that people didn’t think of that when they saw our flag. Now of course I know that generally speaking, this is quite true. People don’t think that. But that was not my argument. My argument is that they should think that. If logical consistency matters, and not just emotional reactions, then what ought the response to be? It is quite true that I have this strong negative reaction when I see the mote… Read more »
I don’t think the holocaust model fits America at all. In fact, I think it’s a libel/slander against America to say it is performing a holocaust. And Pastor Doug is in serious error when he says we should see our flag as emblematic of a second holocaust. The real holocaust was an official instrument of state policy, funded and executed by all branches of that state, with very little domestic opposition. By contrast, our abortions are not funded by the national government; the Hyde amendment was passed very early and is still in effect. By contrast, we have had –… Read more »
“By contrast, our abortions are not funded by the national government;”
I am unclear as to how you arrive at this conclusion. Please elucidate.
The Hyde amendment forbids the US from funding abortions. The original Hyde amendment was passed in 1976 and upheld by Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). Text at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/297. It’s a rider, not a permanent law, so it gets passed again every year. Here’s the 1993 version, http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/103/112.pdf, on page 32 of 32: SEC. 509. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of… Read more »
And yet we fund PP which orchestrates abortions.
Yes, money is fungible. This am I saw that Cruz has started another effort to defund PP.
“Politics is the art of the possible.” Hyde preferred a total ban but didn’t have the votes. Recall Rubio’s comment that voting for a 20 week ban does not mean he favors abortion at 19 weeks. It means he can round up enough votes to pass 20 but not zero.
So Hyde notwithstanding, our federal tax dollars are being used to fund abortion.
OK, I’ll withdraw and rephrase. Instead of the glass being either half full or half empty, it’s more like 90% empty and 10% full. However much dissatisfied you are over the 10% yet to be drained, try visiting the blogs on the opposite site. They’re 100 times as upset that their is any limit at all as you are over the 10%. Trying not to belabor the obvious, and maybe I’m just a Ye of little faith, but getting that last 10% pulled is going take persuading a boatload of K2s to pull the opposite lever. Or you win the… Read more »
I roger your points, and agree with your assessment as to the enormity of the task. Yet it remains a task to be done. As Luther said “Here I stand God help me I can do no other”.
As an aside You may be interpreting my lack of invective and vulgarity as “not being as upset” (paraphrased) Not necessarily accurate I am really pretty upset.:)
Sorry. To stand before a living God and call this slaughter a “mistake” just won’t cut it. I’m no longer interested in manipulating a political change by employing careful tactics, or tipping a court in my direction. I’m more interested in calling this bloodguilt what it is, publicly, and calling for true national repentance.
We do not walk this carnage back without actual repentance. Mea culpa is insufficient.
Every now and then we all get a choice between “feeling good” and “being effective.”
I just can’t accept that there is any lasting effectiveness without actual repentance. In fact, I don’t even want political victory without repentance. To simply legally bar the people from killing their unborn on the altar of convenience is not enough. There has to be a change in the heart, so that it is washed clean and doesn’t love such death any longer, even if it is legal.
“I just can’t accept that there is any lasting effectiveness without actual repentance.” I don’t think there can be a lasting anything – – not in this world – – even with actual repentance. “All have fallen short . . . .” As long as there are humans, we can try, we can pray, we can confess, we can seek God’s will in the daily challenges of life, big and small, but we can never reach perfection. In the meantime, we do the best we can to persuade our fellow citizens that what’s happening in these videos must be stopped.… Read more »
The attitude that “nothing in this world is lasting” is an argument against all solutions, including political ones. It seems to be a cop out that discredits Haggar’s approach to the same extent that it would discredit mine. Conformance to an external law is the exact sort of righteousness that the jews were after. Jews thought it should be pleasing to God for its own sake. However God wants the entire man, including the heart, not just outward conformance. Haggar may say that issues of the heart are simply not within the purview of government. Indeed so, which goes back… Read more »
We agree more than you appreciate. Recall the many times I have cited the saying, “Politics is downstream of culture.”
I started to say last night that yours was an excellent explanation, but I thought it was obvious :) The nerve of anyone that is a faithful reader of this blog saying such to you and of you. Talk about matters of the heart among other things. Why am I surprised, but I am. I should have known it would be a matter of time before one could not appreciate where things were agreed even with you, and begin a third person “it seems”. Actually what I’ve realized is that there are some serious chasms of perspective and attitude in… Read more »
Thx for the kind words.
Alex,
Kelly M. Does wonderful work. I hope and pray his approach succeeds.
However, as kmh agrees, politics (and law) are downstream from culture.
Now, the word “culture” is a bit too upstream for me for what we Christians call bedrock issues.
I fully appreciate that many people enjoy living in the world of ideas that kmh relishes–and it appears that you do too.
However ‘source’ issues are where others of us live and breathe and do our work. Please do not begrudge us that.
God bless.
It’s a sort of idealism that is more defeatist than the defeatism otherwise decried on this blog. Apart from common sense and history, even from the faith circle, we have a Bible that shows examples aplenty where we do what we can under or with the politics that God has placed over us and can work with those not “of our faith” to influence improvement and peace in a nation–albeit imperfect and temporary though it be. Abrahama…Joseph…Daniel…all along…they weren’t solely concerned with heart before influcentince as they could or demanding salvation from “heathens” before they could talk of other things… Read more »
I take it you saw this…it’s still ringing in my ears…”In fact, I don’t even want political victory without repentance.” I guess it makes sense if one is in the millenial age…because more repentance means closer to Christ’s kingdom in full? And of course, repentance (from the inside out) is wonderful. But to not even want political victory without it…I don’t see how any one with children, grandchildren, or hope for “one more baby saved” or one more day to work at a job to provide for my family or one more day not imprisoned for faith or with more… Read more »
*raises eyebrows* are we reading the same blog/comments?
Cel ph went off telling me an e-mail had come in as about to turn in. All I’ll say tonight is: 1. I can’t make anyone go to church at all, much less pick out which church is for them, much MUCH less make them believe anything while they are in a church. (Plus I don’t WANT such power, if a mortal could exercise it.) But I can drop bombs on people who want to prevent anyone from going to church. I can prevent Jews from being loaded into rail car for a one way trip. I can prevent Commies… Read more »
– mote in my brother’s eye = serious problem requiring immediate attention
– beam in my own eye = I can see just fine, thank you
Pull down the altar.
End the USA.
You say they are selling brains, but really, it’s just neural tissue in a calvarium.
And they’re not “selling”, they’re just exchanging goods for money.
And, ” I want a Lamborghini!” is just table-speak for, “This fetal tissue research is so very important, and yet it grieves me and breaks my heart that we’re destroying human beings in order to procure it.”
There’s a Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD. They decorate it every Fall; pictures of prior themes used going back to the mid-30s are framed all around the lobby. One of those lobby framed pix is of a BIG swastika covering the whole upper left front corner on the Palace in – – I forget; 1935? – – . . . along with a note that it was only an ancient Indian good luck symbol and was not used as any reference to Nazis. This URL does not show that particular year but it will give you the idea: http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/corn-palace-mitchell?select=XoVVbBaxdUQeC6jVLyx89g So,… Read more »
Unfortunately, the “young skulls full of mush” are the ones who are taught only the standard-issue government education program, in which the South was a rebel band who simply fought to keep slaves, and the North fought for unity, righteousness and black equality.
Some may say that the rainbow symbol is hopelessly lost, but I would say that it is available to be conquered back as our covenant sign. In both cases, they don’t get to tell us what we should find offensive.
My experience with “I’m offended”/”You’re a racist” is that with any degree of push back and they collapse and quit. They’re so used to the targeted person instantly caving and begging for forgiveness that resistance stuns them. Witness O’Malley groveling because he had first said, “All lives matter.”
Not that I’m a Trumpster by any means, but he threw Jorge Univision out of his press conference while later letting him back in on condition of good behavior.
That’s the ticket. Don’t accept an erroneous premise from the questioner. Draw a line and defend it.
“My experience with “I’m offended”/”You’re a racist” is that with any degree of push back and they collapse and quit.” Wow. Not my experience. They are as bullheaded and unreasonable continuing to resort to personal attacks rather than discussing ideas…their continued mantra revealing their own bigotry against those that do not agree with them. Trying to lie low on Trump comments as I watch the evangel drama concerning him, but I’m sensing his boldness against pc and establishment is going to be the opium for masses of self-labeled Christians to rally behind him (along with those Dems that see he’s… Read more »
Ok, so now you are in grave danger of becoming my hero. That read just like something I almost but not quite screamed out from a platform not too long ago.
Well said.sir!
“Feelings… nothing more than feelings…. ” There were no substantial, logical responses to Pastor Wilson’s point. So Dr. Akin feels that the Confederate flag conjures bad images. It’s nice of Jimmy Carter to subjugate his feelings on this topic for the sake of his Christian brothers, but in true Christian charity, shouldn’t black brothers be subjugating their feelings about the flag in deference to the Jimmy Carters out there? Why is it such a one-way street? (PS My great-great uncles fought for the Union and spent time in a Confederate prison camp under horrible conditions. I’m no advocate for the… Read more »
Nope. No moral equivalence between the rebel flag and the national flag. The American flag flies over a country that is guilty of countenancing abortion but not one that was established for the express purpose of doing so, and for the bulk of her history did not do. America is guilty when it comes to abortion, but America has never been all about abortion. The rebel flag symbolizes (besides rebellion) an attempt at establishing a country expressly for the purpose of perpetuating chattel slavery.
The case against your narrative is quite strong. Are you aware of it? Can you state its principles?
“My” case is the facts recorded in history. I am aware there are revisionist narratives.
The way that JohnM presents this as fact, one would think that he was genuinely unaware of any other evidence. Or else he thinks we are unaware.
I’m aware of what the secessionists themselves declared. Argue with them if you will.
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true,… Read more »
Cleburne was correct in that slavery was not all, it was not even primarily, what those he made his enemies were fighting for – they said so themselves from the beginning. It is only certain present day confederate apologists who talk of the war as Lincoln’s approach to ending slavery. On the other hand, secessionist leaders in their several declarations and ordinances from the beginning said something very different than what Cleburne claimed almost three years into a war that was by then not going his side’s way. If Cleburne thought slavery wasn’t important enough to fight for he might… Read more »
So you’re okay with the swastika then, right?
As I’m not Buddhist or Hindu, and as the Third Reich was another entity founded on the premise that one race ought rule over, and might legitimately persecute, others – no I’m not okay with the swastika.
A Buddhist person moves in next door and hangs up a swastika flag outside. What do you say to him?
Hi neighbor. He might be a mission field. Just like the neighbor who flies a rebel flag might be. The difference is the Buddhist doesn’t scare me. They are lost, but generally peaceful folk.
Slavery is not sinful, thus you are correct; there is no moral equivalence between a nation that legally allows slavery and a nation that legally allows murder.
Regarding man created in the image of God as livestock, as did southern slave holders, is heresy and sin. That they in no way regarded scriptural admonitions to masters (stop kidding yourself, you won’t kid me) was sin. In any case, don’t tell me, tell Douglas Wilson. He’s the one who posed the comparison. If you think there is none, ask him to explain himself.
“Livestock”? This is the Yankee/Hollywood propaganda view, unsupported by historical evidence. Regardless, there’s no doubt that every society where Christians have had servants/slaves that some have treated them sinfully, just as every Christian society has fathers that have treated their children sinfully. Neither case renders the relationship invalid.
It seems that JohnM has a tidy view of the Civil War that simply sees the South as bad, and the North as better. At one point, not even Lincoln had such a simple view toward the South: When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what… Read more »
What JohnM sees is that the governments of southern states, which is not to say all the citizens in those states – so much for tidy views -, were wrong to wish and attempt secession. They might well have been wrong had they a better cause, as it was, they had a very bad one. The United States government, with the general agreement, and aid of United States citizens, not an inconsiderable number of them southern – again, so much for tidy views – was correct to disallow secession.
As to the merits of secession, JohnM should be reminded that this country was founded through an act of secession: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Appeal to the principle of the consent of the… Read more »
Katecho, This will be my last reply on this one – already dragged out way too long. Just remember, I’m not the one who first conflated abortion and the civil war. I’m also not the one who has been demonizing an entire section of the U.S.A. Your earlier “It seems that JohnM has a tidy view of the Civil War that simply sees the South as bad, and the North as better.” describes the opposite of what has actually been going on here. Anyway… The truth is the merits of the American revolution and the notion that legitimacy of a… Read more »
I appreciate the compliment. My point in referencing the “consent of the governed” was not to argue that it is above debate. Christ’s rule as King of kings is not based on our consent. The nations were not asked if they wanted to become His inheritance. The nations were given to the Son of Man by the Ancient of Days. Similarly, children are not authorized by God to band together and secede from their parents. Rather my point was that the founding principle in the formation of the union of colonies was the freedom to dissolve political bands whenever the… Read more »
Too many responses to read them all currently. A few points if they have not been covered. Symbols can be redeemed. The cross as a symbol is an example. Of course the cross as a metaphor is redemptive. While I sympathise with Doug on this issue (to an extent) his opponents are not without a point. I think we need to distinguish between those who actually are offended by the flag with those who want everyone to be offended by the flag. It makes a difference whether through a range of experiences I get a little upset or anxious every… Read more »
So hey everybody! The thing to do is “Live and Die by the Scpritures”, and somewhat less by our own opinions, keeping in mind that admonition and speck hunting are OK, as long as any planks have been removed from our own eyes. Romans 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. (even if some of us might be “dust bunnies” in the body of Christ.) As for our opposition to church and achurch secularists, their being lost is not all our fault, no matter how obediant to The Word and Word… Read more »
The bronze serpent once stood for God’s mercy on those who would look on in faith. Later, a time came when the very same serpent stood for a false god and for the great idolatry that had polluted God’s people. When that time came, it was also time to smash the bronze serpent and be done with it. When the Son of Man came, however, He still saw fit to draw upon the bronze serpent in it’s original meaning. There is a time to abolish a once good symbol due to its corruption, and sometimes there is also a time… Read more »
Well said.
Statement 1: The Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery.
Statement 2: Not everyone who fought for the Confederacy fought for the purpose of preserving slavery.
Statement 3: The most recent use of the Confederate battle flag was in the cause of segregation.
Statement 4: If we want to represent resistance to tyranny, the “Don’t tread on me” flag would be much better.
Statement 5: The Bible is not man-made, the Confederate battle flag is.
The cause of segregation was resistance to tyranny as well.
The cause of segregation was a bunch of tyrants upset that someone was telling them that they couldn’t tyrannize.
Naturally the winners of a conflict are certain that their enemies possessed every bad trait they were accused of.
And those who lost the conflict aren’t certain that they possess none?
Read some history.
I have to say that I most assuredly do NOT agree with Dr. Akin…
…Australia is the best country on the planet not the United States.
Sorry about that.
Focusing on the liberation of slaves from masters is to pull one chapter from a longer story. This is a story that begins with liberation of subjects from their king followed by liberation of slaves from their masters, liberation of wives from their husbands, children from their fathers and ultimately liberation of mothers from duties to their unborn children. Viva la revolucion.
The Telegraph is reporting a gay pride flag taken in evidence sweep of apartment of gay, black killer Vester Flanagan.
When the United States got its independence, all 13 colonies had slavery.
Part serious and part fun, then off the air until after supper. Took a totally unscientific poll of the men’s Bible class this am – – what pops into your head when you see an American flag? “Betsy Ross” “The Boy Scouts.” That sort of thing. Not only did not one man say “abortion,” but all those who spoke up thought such an association was nuts. Second, what do the phrases “Push ’em up” and “Gimme a knob” mean? VP of Playtex at a sales slogan meeting? Hugh Heffner making notes on an X-rated script? No, they’re radio calls made… Read more »
Now, what if you similarly polled a room of older-generation Navajo, Apache, Lakota, Cherokee, etc..? Sure, “abortion” may not come up, but might other negative connotations appear in the list?
If “redskin” can be offensive (I’m not debating the merits of such here), then the political sign of those who conferred the epithet upon Native Americans (a political sign under which massacres were committed against those same Native Americans) is offensive, no? And if it’s offensive to them, then why do we get to NOT listen to their opinions?
A few points; I wish Emily Post or Miss Manners could weigh in on some of them. 1. Just because people are offended doesn’t mean their argument has some special or added weight. Maybe it was ever thus, but it’s a safe bet that most rage today is manufactured. Black Lives Matter is a classic example, following in the worn-worn shakedown path pioneered by Jackson and Sharpton. 2. Even when the offense is sincere, what if it’s unreasonable? OK, OK, Jack and Jane aren’t pretending to hurt by X; they actually are. What if they have no right to be?… Read more »
In the first place, primitive Christianity had no problem with slavery: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5) Christian slavers and segregationists used this and similar verses, repeatedly, over the centuries to justify the horror.And let’s not ignore that support of human bondage is why there’s a Southern Baptist Church. In short, when it came down to the morality of some humans owning other humans and subjecting them to a life of exploitation, murder at the whim of the owner, prostitution and degradation generally, Christianity… Read more »
It’s remarkable how many people come on this blog and just assume that no one here has ever actually read the Bible.
You mean that Scripture (divinely inspired by the Creator) isn’t merely two-dimensional and deals with humanity as fallen (consistent with Scripture itself) and that God isn’t merely a caricature that we can distill down to a few simple moralistic rules? GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!
I’m pretty sure most of the people who comment here have read the Bible. I’m also pretty sure they ignore its moral implications by filtering out what’s inconvenient. I notice that when one posts (1) difficult biblical texts and (2) inconvenient Christian history, one gets a response I call “faith talk,” evasive, free of content or context, but nevertheless condescending. And evangelicals wonder why they keep losing the argument. LOL
What argument? Conner didn’t give any example or argument.
The abortion argument, the subject of the article on which the comments are based. You’ll note–or perhaps you won’t–how the subject of the Stars and Bars slipped from slavery to abortion without addressing Christian complicity in slavery? You’ll notice–or perhaps you won’t–the non-response to implications of the texts I cited? Another example of slippery “faith talk” that burbles on without ever addressing issues. But as you so eloquently said, “What argument?” Since you’re so keen, perhaps you can explain how millions of tax dollars wasted on “abstinence only” and opposition to contraception prevents abortion? Feel free to cite some figures… Read more »
I was referring to Conner’s arguments, which haven’t been forthcoming. For arriving so late to the conversation, Conner is quick to declare what topics haven’t been addressed. Apart from multiple treatments on this blog over the years, Wilson has also written a book on the slavery issue, including discussion of the nature of biblical slavery, so Connor is simply incorrect to say that it hasn’t been addressed. Conner is free to interact once he comes up to speed. Regarding the implications of the texts Conner cited, he will need to give us something more to work with than unstated implications.… Read more »
The essay to which readers are referred concerns the criticisms Roman writers leveled against Christianity: https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner Jesus and early Christians obviously expected the End was imminent. Paul promised the Thessalonians concerned about the death of some believers before the parousia that the dead and those who survived until Jesus’ coming would be snatched up into the air. Several hundred years later the Roman critic Porphyry noted that no one had been snatched into the air to meet a returning Jesus. It is my position that the expectation of an imminent end contributed to early Christian egalitarianism, pooling of resources, and… Read more »
Hmm. Yet another “Ready, Fire, Aim”; this time in a completely new direction concerning prophecy. It’s almost as if Conner doesn’t trust his earlier shots enough to even pursue them. In any case, Conner doesn’t seem to know his audience here very well. For a self-styled scholar, one would have thought that he would at least be aware of the partial preterist view. A quick search revealed no mention of it in his book. We can get him started though: “Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by… Read more »
That the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled Jesus’ prophecies is an old apologetic tactic. As Porphyry pointed out, 17 centuries ago, no one was snatched to heaven as foretold by Paul, dead Christians weren’t raised as promised, nor were the kingdoms of the world judged and overthrown. Some Christian Armageddonist foretells the End about once a week, Pat Robertson, the evangelical Nosferatu, on a daily basis, all for nothing. The message of modern Christianity is simple: send that contribution in today! As Lucian joked, that’s as old as Peregrinus who played the Christian yokels of his day and moved on.
Is Connor suggesting that the destruction of Jerusalem didn’t happen when Jesus said it would, within that generation? Is Conner suggesting that Jerusalem wasn’t surrounded by armies, just as Jesus said it would be? Is Connor suggesting that the temple wasn’t destroyed without a stone left on another, just as Jesus said it would be? I’m afraid Conner is not much of a historian either. Regarding “snatched to heaven”, Conner needs to provide a biblical reference for us. Does he refer to our meeting of Christ in the clouds at His victorious return after the nations have been discipled? That… Read more »
Funny. Not meant to be, but funny, very funny. Jesus: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:27-28) Did the Son of Man come in his Father’s glory with his angels and reward EACH PERSON in AD 70 before the disciples who heard him died? Nope. Did the disciples taste death before they… Read more »
I am a mere christian, laity and not a scholar. However, a quick reading at biblehub.com shows your analysis on Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 16:27-28 is bunk.
Do you have the verse for stone-on-a-stone? thx.
“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:2) No Bible? No google? So, no, Jesus’ “prophecy,” read back into the gospels by the early church, did not come true.
Agreed, you’re not a scholar. I figured that out for myself. For the opinion of real scholars, try this out:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner
You’re welcome.
lololol
and roll eyes at the “mere Christian” assertion and common “laity” pretense of humility…while declaring a “quick reading” at some generic site is enough to judge your analysis as “bunk”….
Alex, I call myself a “mere-Christian”; I belong to no formal denomination. I am not schooled in the Bible, I have no training in it. I do read it. I am not a pastor or a scholar or anything of the sort. I am laity. There is no pretense of humility, just a statement of fact. As for ‘bunk’ Mr. Connor’s argument has several parts. I referred to his analysis of Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 16:27-28 as bunk. My judgement is based on the bible commentary at biblehub.com. If that is wrong, make your case that refutes that commentary. As… Read more »
A casual reading of this commentary on that verse at biblehub.com belies your assertion. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/24.htm
Tell me Robert Connner, is faith pretense or knowledge? Do you think we Christians are liars? men who refuse to think?
Have I been duped?
Am I lying to myself?
Am I stupid?
I browsed the first page of your scribd. I am not in the habit of reading stuff at the behest of people I do not know or trust.
Perhaps you can convince me that yours is an intellect I should consider..
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. — Daniel 7:13-14 The Matthew passage is a reference to Daniel 7 where the Son of Man ascends to the… Read more »
I’ll refer you back to Jesus: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2) Jesus, walking away from the Temple compound, predicted that “all these things” would be destroyed. “Not one stone here will be left on another.” Jesus said “all these things.” Every one, every stone. So if you’re still alive when Jesus returns, you’ll… Read more »
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2) I draw your attention to Jesus words (not mine): “all these things,” “every one.” From the context it could be argued that Jesus had the Temple precinct in view. Next time you talk to him, why don’t you ask him? So can I assume that if Jesus comes back… Read more »
There were lots of “things” to see besides just the temple proper, there was a high wall around the temple court too. All of that was destroyed in 70AD, without one stone left on top of another, even the outer court wall surrounding the temple. The wall that Conner is referring to was retaining the outer grounds that the temple was built on and would have been below Jesus and the disciples, and probably wasn’t even visible except from the ravine below the temple grounds. So from the context “all these things” that they could see around them were leveled… Read more »
Of course we don’t have Paul’s original to the Thessalonians, just copies of copies, but I have the best Greek reconstruction of the text of the letter, based on decades of textual criticism, open before me as I write. The letter from Paul and his companion missionaries Timothy and Silas is specifically addressed to “the church of the Thessalonians.” Oddly enough, the letter doesn’t appear to mention you. Paul assures “the church of the Thessalonians” that although some of them have died, “we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,… Read more »
Below with the Daniel/Matthew explanation, Kate does an “and you want to laugh at ‘us'” First, I do not believe as she does, though I am relieved to see exactly what she does believe because I think the difference in this (as explained to Kelly/Brigham elsewhere) greatly affects the attitude toward current government and those outside our “faith” as well as regrettably not being able to “work together” in many cases. I do not wish to argue “first things” or get into a debate to “be won”…but I would really like to know if this is exactly as all post-mills… Read more »
“The kingdoms of the earth belong to our God…” Apparently Matthew was unaware of that: Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” (Matthew 4:8-9) Paul was similarly in the dark: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4) “For we do… Read more »
“Apparently Conner’s books contain fanciful speculations that Jesus was
bisexual and/or homosexual. Where do these folks come from? There must
be a really wild backstory that gets them to this level of bitterness
and spent calories.”
Apparently someone that isn’t of someone else’s One True Way MUST have a really wild backstory and MUST be at some level of bitterness. Such calories spent indeed with such leaps of illogic. Where do these people come from…
A number of scholars have noted some sexual ambiguity in the gospel stories. I’d refer you to Sex and the Single Savior for starters. Not that you read works outside the evangelical echo chamber. Jesus wasn’t a family guy. Jesus commanded his disciples to forsake wives and children: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) At 30 years of age when baptized by John, one could wonder if Jesus was leading by… Read more »
Conner seems to be eager to out himself as nothing but a run of the mill scoffer. He’s jumped right into his scoffer’s bag of rocks and is already throwing them as fast as he can, without even looking to see where they land, or if they even hit us. In my experience, this is an attempt to try to overwhelm Christians and try to keep them on the defensive. The sad part is that even when you offer an answer to a particular challenge, you usually find that they have long since abandoned that rock and have started throwing… Read more »
It is universally agreed that no original copy of any New Testament document exists. (Strange, given that God sent the Holy Spirit to write them and then didn’t preserve them.) As such nearly all mainstream scholars acknowledge that there is little or no direct eyewitness testimony in the gospels. https://www.scribd.com/doc/125993290/Faking-Jesus I consider it likely that the oral tradition preserved some of Jesus’ more memorable quotes, but the verses you reference are at second hand. Given the vagueness of the institutional memory of the Church, whether any of the second-hand material can be attributed to Jesus is debatable. You are correct… Read more »
What does Conner mean by “no original copy”? I thought an original meant that it wasn’t a copy? Anyway, having an original written non-copy of the books of Scripture would certainly deprive the scoffer’s of a huge chunk of their arguments and speculations, putting them to bed once and for all, but the basic ability to carefully copy manuscripts, and to compare and crosscheck those copies going forward, means that we have sufficient data to expose any deviations. Having multiple copies is quite a robust way of guarding against unwanted accumulating change. Of the differences that early mss do have,… Read more »
It’s refreshing to see that Conner is willing to simply confess that he has no actual interest in answers. Given that he is openly disingenuous in his use of the question mark, we conclude that he is only here to try to move us from our position. This is wonderful news. It puts us squarely in the judge’s seat in regard to his evidence. If we aren’t impressed (which I haven’t been so far), then we can simply let him know that he must work harder. We don’t have to worry about neglecting a genuine seeker in his case, because… Read more »
Talk about clueless. You appear to be under the impression that I haven’t heard all the faith talk before. Bit of background: I started studying Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Coptic in a state university in the 1970’s. So a person who’s researched and published three books on magic in early Christianity, including the Jewish background, and recently published an examination of the “Secret” Mark controversy isn’t interested in answers? Granted, not your “answers.” No, I’m not one of your home-schooled goggle-eyed prospective recruits. No, you won’t get to chalk one up for Jesus here. I have an interest in Christian… Read more »
Robert Conner, I’m not sure what circles you’re moving in but status signalling is a pretty subtle art in most online communities these days. You’re attempt was ham-handed and amateurish, please up your game.
Not that into subtlety or obfuscation. I leave that to the jesuitical types. There’s some question about where I’m coming from and I’m addressing where I’m coming from. Ex-believer, no particular “circles.” Quite surprising that no one appears to have glommed on to that. Too ham handed? You’ll recover. Did you have something of substance to contribute?
On the subject of gay bible magic? No, you have at it. Ive gotta make a run to WalMart.
Don’t get Raptured on the way! And don’t worry yourself about stuff like evidence or canons of interpretation.
Robert,
Can’t resist. Given the age of the B-52, we used to joke that being “called up to meet him in the air” was a safe bet.
Back to our regular programming . . . . .
But please go ahead and explain to me why Paul’s letter addressed to a house church in Macedonia, written over 19 centuries ago, has anything to do with you or anyone else living today in North America. Because Christ has risen. He is active today. His Holy Spirit still draws men to Him, convicts them of their sin. and He works as the Scriptures record. That this testimony of this Risen Christ by men and women is consistent, independent of organized religion (in many cases–C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, myself) and true. That Heaven is real, Hell is real and… Read more »
So a letter written 19 centuries ago to a house church in Macedonia is really all about you? Interesting, because I’ve read the letter pretty closely and I don’t recall it mentioning anything about you. The addressee is “the church of the Thessalonians.” You a Thessalonian? Nineteen centuries old?
Very impressive.
Actually my books have focused on the role of magic in early Christianity. I’ve also posted brief essays on readily accessible venues, such as this discussion of the magical properties of Peter’s healing shadow: https://www.scribd.com/doc/70353722/The-Shadow-as-a-Magical-Assistant It has been remarked by several specialists in Greco-Egyptian magic that Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26 have a number of nearly word for word parallels in the sexual attraction spells of the magical papyri. I cite some of these in my books that you haven’t read. You seem to be “responding” to material you don’t know anything about. In some circles that’s considered an indication… Read more »
Once again, note that Conner doesn’t even bother to interact with any of my responses at all. He just changes the subject again. He has informed us that he is not interested in hearing from us. Apparently he is here to advertize his books and essays. At least he isn’t pretending to be genuine. In any case, Conner seems to think that he will surprise us all by pointing out similarities between the Scriptural record and certain practices of magicians. We affirm that God not only does miracles directly, but that He often uses people and objects. There are many… Read more »
As anyone familiar with the professional literature on the topic knows, scores of authors have written hundreds of pages attempting to distinguish miracle from magic, all without reaching a consensus. It’s refreshing to hear a Christian admit that Christian works of power are magic. That’s exactly what the Roman critics of Christianity said 18 centuries ago! We have, at long last, come full circle. I rest my case.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575794/Christianity-s-Critics-The-Romans-Meet-Jesus-by-Robert-Conner
Unfortunately, Conner was unable to interact with the distinction that I offered. There are only two actual supernatural forces – Godly and ungodly. Conjuring of demonic supernatural forces is forbidden by God. There are also human sleight of hand counterfeits, illusions and deceptions, but those don’t involve the supernatural. Conner was also unable to explain to us what is wrong or inappropriate about God’s use of people and/or objects as means of exerting supernatural influence in history. Conner seems to think he has won some sort of victory, but his case can’t be rested if it has no implication or… Read more »
Here’s a helpful link to a the books and essays you haven’t read before engaging in the usual faith blather. I suspect you’re really just doing in a little false assurance for the benefit of anyone who happens to be reading this. As those who have actually read and reviewed my books are aware, there is very little if anything original in it. It is generally a survey of evidence that incorporates the work of scores of specialists and scholars over a span of decades. All the material is fully referenced. The reason fundies have barricaded themselves in Bible colleges… Read more »
Conner wrote: Here’s a helpful link to a the books and essays you haven’t read before engaging in the usual faith blather Conner splatters us with the usual scoffing blather, but he seems to hold it as a mark against us that we don’t dutifully read his books. I’m curious if Conner could explain to us why we should read his books when he openly refuses to engage with anything we say, and declares that he is not here to even listen to our answers. That seems quite hypocritical of him. Perhaps we should give him the same level of… Read more »
You claim to be disproving an argument you admit to being unfamiliar with, refuting books you haven’t read, which is, for the lack of any better term, stupid. The Roman critics of Christianity knew the Jesus cultists couldn’t compete in an open forum of ideas; Paul’s little day trip to the Areopagus confirmed it. It is significant that none of the works of the Roman critics survives intact. The Christians eventually found a spokesman, Origen, who attempted to answer Celsus–70 years later–by quoting Celsus’ work partially and tendentiously. None of the Christians could answer Porphyry so his works were simply… Read more »
Conner wrote: You claim to be disproving an argument you admit to being unfamiliar with, refuting books you haven’t read, which is, for the lack of any better term, stupid. I don’t recall claiming to disprove any arguments that I wasn’t familiar with. Could Conner quote me claiming such a thing? When Conner has offered misrepresentations of specific passages of Scripture, I’ve dealt with them, and then he has just abandoned them and retreated to something else. For example, in his latest distortion of Acts 19:19 Conner implies that Christians were engaging in some sort of censorship or cover up,… Read more »
Thank you for your example.
katecho. My interlocutor has made his case to the moderator at the other site; you will find it interesting. Actually, you will find it important. if the debate goes forward, I am happy to bring my brute axe to the fight, a swordsman or two would be most welcome.
The sad part is that even when you offer an answer to a particular
challenge, you usually find that they have long since abandoned that
rock and have started throwing the next one. This simply shows that
they aren’t really genuine at all. They aren’t actually looking for an
answer.
Note to self: learn to recognize what katecho recognized early on. thanks k.
Alex may want to examine why his loyalties and defenses keep coming down so quickly on the side of open scoffers of our faith, like Conner. Alex may want to ask why he is so eager to find fault, not with the substance, but with whatever side comment is made by the Christians who are engaging in a refutation of the scoffers. This is a loyalty question. Alex is doing to me exactly what he implies is so offensive about me. So he doesn’t look any different than I do. He just looks like he is standing with the unbelievers,… Read more »
Regarding my comment that Alex took such offense to, it’s an observation based on not a little bit of experience with scoffers. Folks like Conner don’t write books full of blasphemous speculations about Jesus because they have nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon. We can be pretty sure there’s a back story. Unfortunately, it often involves a history in the Church, or relationship with a professing believer, that was genuinely a bad experience for one reason or another. So the resulting scoffing is a life-consuming reaction against that experience. I don’t want to trivialize how bad and hurtful… Read more »
Here’s John’s description of the bride of the Lamb:
“These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.” (Revelation 14:4)
Except for the lack of methamphetamines, it sounds like Ted Haggard’s vision of heaven.
Seriously, you could also try reading the evidence of early church apologists:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/178452567/DID-EARLY-CHRISTIANS-PRACTICE-SAME-SEX-RITUALS
Thank you for doing that work.
Apparently Conner’s books contain fanciful speculations that Jesus was bisexual and/or homosexual. Where do these folks come from? There must be a really wild backstory that gets them to this level of bitterness and spent calories.
“Conner may want to slow down a bit before doing the “Ready, Fire, Aim”
blitz. He may find that there are areas of potential agreement.”
Wow. Sage advice.
Oh, the joy of irony considering the source of this irony…
Conner is coming in a bit late to the conversation, so he may have missed the distinction between Southern race-based, kidnap-based slavery, and approved slavery in the Bible which pertains to actual restitution and moral/financial debt owed. Conner also neglected to support his charge that Scripture condones or protects murder or prostituting of slaves. Before Christians shrug, we need to know that what we are shrugging is a false charge. Regarding sentencing of those involved in abortion, the goal is not to maximize those on the wrong side of the fence when it goes back up. It should be widely… Read more »
Now here’s an interesting development:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/undercover-planned-parenthood-videos-were-altered-analysis-finds/ar-BBm9HE0
From the article: “The analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood cover the first four videos …” Big surprise that the bought-and-paid analysis reached the “right” conclusion, but the article was rather light (absent) on what the evidence of “altering” was. CMP has released the unedited videos. PP seems to have commissioned the services of an “experts for hire” group. From the article: A transcription service was hired to transcribe the videos, without being told that Planned Parenthood was the client, to compare with transcripts publicized by the anti-abortion group. That comparison, the analysis said, showed “substantive omissions” from the group’s version.… Read more »
K2, you’re the other JD on the thread. Of course the edited tapes are not evidence in a criminal case against PP. The originals probably are, so the whole MSN/NYT story is just smoke and mirrors. Second, conspicuous by its absence is any discussion of the g-1 alter/timing/mean/method issue in this story. Recall the very first NYT story way back on July 15th. That’s where the ethics prof at the NYC med school said the ultrasound-guided forceps were a medical ethics breach. I’ve had a few chats with other lawyers in town about RICO, conspiracy, and g-1. Even the liberal… Read more »
Kelly, I agree with everything you said, and please note, I didn’t comment on the article beyond calling it “an interesting development”, which it is. While I believe abortion should be legal, I also think it’s a dirty business. And one thing that came through loud and clear on the tapes is the raw arrogance of PP. I don’t know at this point if any actual laws were broken, but given the arrogance we’ve seen on the tapes, that’s how I would bet. Part of that arrogance comes from knowing that your friends in high places will protect you. Part… Read more »
Krychek_2, if the videos are deceptively edited, what’s wrong with that? Wasn’t that you earlier who was disregarding authorial intent?
Disregarding authorial intent is one thing; out and out fraud is another.
It can only be fraud if CMP (again, ASSUMING deception on their part) should have known what the authorial (or, more correctly, speakers’) intent was in the first place. It’s impossible to twist someone’s words if you get to decide what they mean anyway.
And, moreover, the editing and presentation of the videos is itself a form of communication, subject to Krychek_2’s same “it is whatever you understand it to mean” hermenutic.
Nailed it.
The Confederate flag was inoffensive enough to be in prime time in the early 1980s but is abhorrent today because the concept of antebellum slavery is much more abhorrent to American society in 2015. One of the reasons is because the Marxist political demands hinging on race grievance have become so outrageous that they demand an outrageous supporting myth. If racial grievance is to become more powerful year after year, 150 years after slavery, then slavery must be made a more grievous offense. Another reason that slavery is more abhorrent in 2015 is that our society puts more and more… Read more »
Wow, what a happening thread. I have some questions. They are not a challenge. They are genuine questions. Is slavery necessarily evil? If so, why? The bible teaches that we are all slaves to the one we obey, which means, among other things, that we are all slaves. The bible condemns kidnapping, brutality and not giving a man his wages, but what is wrong with being the servant of another? Why is it wrong for a culture to force a man to dig my ditch until he pays off what he owes for running over my Ox while drunk at… Read more »
How would you reconcile the concept of slavery with the concept that men are made in the image of God? How can I claim ownership of someone who is not only an image bearer, but God’s child?
K2 – if I beg, whine, and plead, will you NOT answer Katecho after your party tonight? Or tomorrow? Or ever again if the topic has anything to do with – – OMG, be still my heart – – the dreaded . . . wait for it . . . “materialism?”
I’m making the same request to her in a comment I’m about to finish.
Thx
kmh
Sorry, too late.
Katecho is a her?
If so…bossiness…oh, never mind.
No idea on the “her.” (You, either, if that matters. If it matters, I’m a he. Or maybe not. What if I can logically prove I’m here but not that I’m a “he?” If being black is only social construct, as is being a woman, then tomorrow I’m going to be a goldfish.)
I’m a he, at least unless I decide to self-identify as something else. These days, we are told that race, sex, and sexual orientation are all just social constructs, which I candidly am not entirely sure I buy. If Katecho is a her, I’m glad I didn’t know until just now, otherwise my raspberry kiss dismissals of her posts would lead to accusations of sexism on my part; since I thought she was a he, at least I can’t be accused of that. Or maybe sexism is a virtue around here anyway. Just to be clear, if I had seen… Read more »
katecho is a Greek verb that basically means to hold fast.
It shouldn’t make any difference on this blog, but I’m male, not female.
The labor of undermining K2’s materialism is very apropo. The justification for legalised abortion falls right in line with the philosophy of materialism. I say keep hacking away at the root.
So this is to be our modus operandi with every woman or infidel or elected official we meet up with? It might be a point from time to time, but otherwise it’s quite a turn off even for some that are not “materialists”.
Whenever you would like to start the sensitivity training, feel free. ;)
I’m not so sure. Nat Hentoff, the famous atheist civil libertarian, was warmly embraced by Cardinal O’Connor of New York as an ally in the pro-life movement. I am glad that O’Connor welcomed him with open arms and encouraged his participation, as opposed to telling Hentoff that his opposition to abortion made no logical sense. My goal is to reduce the number of dead children–not to ensure that my allies’ principles make sense and align with my own.
‘zactly.
Except in this case Krychek_2 defends abortion, tries to undercut Wilson at every turn, and squeals when confronted about his glaring inconsistencies. At some point it is appropriate to put down things that are arrogantly raised up against the knowledge of Christ. Even if it isn’t popular, and even when there is lots of squealing involved.
I had never considered that I had to reconcile the two. The fact that we are made in the image of God effects how a man should be treated whatever his station in life is.
Or how many milliseconds he has existed since conception…
Agreed.
K2 is talking literal slavery rather or at least as much as spiritual slavery.
In other words, would you own a slave and why or why not? It’s a choice that many Christians have had to reconcile…
It’s easy to talk slavery when discussing it in terms of “others” or with an immediate historical disconnect…but put it as a personal choice, that’s where the rationale gets worked out or not.
Alex, I cant see that dichotomy in anything K2 said. It would be interesting to explore what dynamic people think is at work when a court orders a man to do 100 hours community service.
Trounce already addressed the essence of Krychek_2’s question by citing the biblical principle that we are slaves of the one we obey. Our indebtedness to God is beyond our ability to repay, and we are forever to be in His service. We are to be fully His, which rightfully acknowledges His rightful and total ownership of us. The emotional problem of slavery, that Krychek_2 is trying to leverage, is the result of our view that we belong to ourselves, and that any form of slavery must be unjust, regardless of actual debt owed.
David,
May I ask you to delete this post? The issue on the front burner is abortion. That’s a tough row to hoe under normal circumstances. Dragging in the artificial weight of Rebel flags and slavery and the “true” causes of the Civil War just needlessly compounds our problem.
If we can’t make the case that the federales are too large and too intrusive just with today’s headlines, how’s a 170-year old dispute (Dred Scott) going to help us?
kmh
I don’t understand this unless you are also in disagreement that the proprietor of the blog should not have brought up some of these topics in this post. Are you recommending we just talk PP and abortion till that evil has been conquered? There are other interesting age-old questions in both Bible and legal circles that happens has the threads unravel. Sometimes things that finally click in our minds from the past can help with the present and future? Or not. Or not. Okay. So what do we talk about? Abortion? What about it? The meme? I was offended with… Read more »
We have to win a political argument to defund PP. Recall Joe Biden telling black groups last time that Romney wants to put you back in chains? Picture the DNC running with “Extremist pastor opposes abortion by liking rebel flags and hosting site saying maybe slavery wasn’t so bad after all and we ought to seriously consider if it’s OK for a “slave to choose to remain a slave for life if he loves his masters family?” Really? You think pushing that extra rock up a steep helps the defund PP effort?
Haggar may be disappointed to discover that, for some of us, incremental political victories are not the top priority. Politics is not the basis for turning around our nation. That’s what the Democrats thought when they voted for “hope and change” Obama. Look what they got. More of the same. I don’t oppose genuine victories and attention to politics, but it is simply not going to be the basis for significant change. Politics is too far downstream of culture. What we need is not a top-down political coup, but a bottom up change of heart, and the politics will follow.… Read more »
Amen. PP will not be making an appearance before the great white throne. Cecile, young Deb and Dyer will be. Let’s not lose sight of the target or the goal.
PP should be defunded but that is no victory. The knives will just change hands.
Victory will be celebrated when some young girl sees those videos, cries out to God and is born again.
Or it will be when some former Laodicean is emboldened by them to speak up for the weak and the Fatherless.
May it be a victory multiplied by 10,000 times 10,000.
True, PP will not be making an appearance. It’s a corp. But the people who ran it will stand there.
But what happens before the Throne is a different question. Their judgment is not only not in our hands but we are further forbidden from attempting to make it. We are allowed to be fruit inspectors but not more.
“that is no victory”? i thought Wilson said it was a way back to turning minds back to Roe…if so, it is a huge victory…and speaking of symbols, how symbolic it could be that the name of names in abortion–Planned Parenthood–was brought down… i’m not downplaying the individual changed lives, victories as well, but with a rallying cry against PP and on to Roe (which there should have been in the beginning) and, presumably as Wilson said, there have been increasing victories along the way…that too can signify a nation’s conscience that has been pricked on some level…victory, a miracle… Read more »
Doug, I think, would call it a tactical victory. I was using the term in light of Kelly’s comment about the political means necessary to defund PP. If motivated by a pricked conscience, defunding would be a good. If motivated by political expediency, not so good in my view.
If Gideon only snuck in at night and stole the Midianites sandals I would cheer, but I wouldn’t have called it a victory.
If PP staff started resigning becuase of a change of heart I would call that a victory.
Agreed. The PP videos are useful in the political and legal battle around abortion, which has its place, but they are far more valuable for their use in confronting the culture with a reflection of itself, and what it has become. Wilberforce said it well:
Yes, and after the neutrals become convinced that you’re a racist nut job because the MSM trumpeted some of the posts on this page, how many doors of the unchurched will spring open for your evangelism?
“how many doors of the unchurched will spring open for your evangelism?”
Probably the ones that God foreknew?
Weak attempts at Methodist humor; thread is getting heavy. So the two are walking down the road and one stumbles into a pothole and the other says, “I’m glad that’s over.” As Heinlein once quipped, “Last I heard the Freewillers and the Predesinaters were tied late in the 4th quarter.” WE don’t know who will answer the knock. But if we are enjoined not to offer meat before a new Christian is ready for it, and to stay with milk until the right time, should we not also refrain from driving away converts with needless controversy? The plain vanilla message… Read more »
“should we not also refrain from driving away converts with needless controversy?”
Agreed. Can you point me to the needless controversy, I’m not seeing it.
How about these:
&&&&&&&&&
Why is it wrong for someone to make themselves a slave to pay off debts and get back on their feet?
Why would it be wrong for a slave to choose to remain a slave for life if he loves his masters family?
Why do many Christians equate slavery with cruelty?
&&&&&&
Why/when would ANY Christian NOT equate slavery with cruelty? Loves his master’s family? Given that the pro-choice troops can’t wait to present us a racists and nut jobs, can’t you picture “They also want to bring Hattie McDaniel as Mammy!”
“Why/when would ANY Christian NOT equate slavery with cruelty? Loves his master’s family? Given that the pro-choice troops can’t wait to present us a racists and nut jobs, can’t you picture “They also want to bring Hattie McDaniel as Mammy!”
You seem to be under the impression that a culture darkened in its understanding would able to do anything other that misrepresent us.
Then we ought not increase that darkness and provide extra ammo to the other side.
“Then we ought not increase that darkness and provide extra ammo to the other side.”
How much ‘ammo’ they have is irrelevant. “I will put enmity between you(the serpent) and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;” Gen 3:15
Please. I’m not suggesting K2 is a snake. Talk about irrelevant!
“Please. I’m not suggesting K2 is a snake. Talk about irrelevant!”
?You lost me there. I was commenting on why a darkened culture misrepresents Christians(nut-jobs, racists, 1st century cannibals, etc..) The reason is the ‘antithesis’, which is is stated succinctly in Gen 3:15.
I’m not sure what that has to do with calling K2 a snake? Unless you were joking?
Do you think there is no room on seeking wisdom in dealing with this darkened culture? I think Kelly’s recommendation is sort of kind of closely like when Wilson said to not talk so much Oberg so that we wouldn’t lose focus or distract our/their focus on PP (and I’m not saying I agree with that…) Maybe there’s a fine line with freely discussing fussing about whatever while the world is an audience and focusing on the “more important issue at hand”…I don’t know. Maybe it’s like when I refrain very most usually from saying what “bigoted” college I graduated… Read more »
“You seem to be under the impression that a culture darkened in its
understanding would able to do anything other that misrepresent us.”
That’s the way K2 is misrepresented, btw. Because, as they say, he is on the brink of hell and spiritually blind, that he has no relevant input or understanding of our concerns. However, I am misrepresented here by a couple of “spiritually enlightened” ones as well. Must be because they have my “best interests” at heart as well.
Sounds like we need sensitivity training.
Alex is working really hard to paint Krychek_2 as the helpless victim. In doing so, he simply shows that he has a very low regard for Krychek_2’s intellect, and he doesn’t know Krychek_2’s agenda like we do.
It’s one thing for sure to be “nicer than Jesus”, and it’s another concern, yes, to be “meaner than Jesus” :) “Alex is working really hard to paint Krychek_2 as the helpless victim. In doing so, he simply shows that he has a very low regard for Krychek_2’s intellect, and he doesn’t know Krychek_2’s agenda like we do.” bwahahahahahahahahaha…i don’t speak with people that have a very low regard for others’ intellect (considering it “irrelevant” and all that)…that attempt to make people victims of their words by twisting words and doing leaps of logic with those that might challenge their… Read more »
Christ has given us Victory. We are to proclaim it, not meekly apologize for it. You are under the impression that His people have lost in this country. You are wrong. The courts, your “laws” your “civil society” are so much puffery before Him. The Holy Spirit is moving, now, today reminding His people Who it is that they serve. It sure is not the goddamned U.S.A. The Bible verses escape me, but nations are nothing to Him. That means your beloved law and government. Can this country repent and be re-sanctified? sure. It sure will not if the gospel… Read more »
ROFL Add to their chatter talking of us as we save those black babies from the slave master of PP, we’re quite okay with them being born and having a master for the rest of their life… Yes, I can see it and hear it now…you are starting to convince the “hard contrarian” just a little bit… though I still say they’d leave “no tern unstoned” to make us look like racists and nut jobs…and heavenly day, we do that quite well to each other here, they don’t even need to do it :D Laughing. I shouldn’t be laughing? Okay.… Read more »
Alex – – I’m simply trying to say we should not be needlessly offering up self-inflicted wounds to our opponents.
I understand. I truly do. We just have so many self-inflicted wounds. We are our own worst enemies at this stage of the game, imo. But I do understand. I have no urgent interest in discussing slavery. It’s way too convoluted a topic to get mixed up in rook and queen talk. (I just do wonder if we’ll eat a lot of our words when we ourselves are slaves…as we have to eat our words in a “post-Christian” Christianity and America.) Falling asleep as I type…I do understand…simply saying :) and P.S. I wasn’t laughing at YOU in the above… Read more »
people’s irrelevancy in the conversation simply because they appear to not be of the elect…
Evan and Alex, We Methodists don’t have that “elect” thing. I even looked up the 2002 paper which condemned Pastor Doug for heresy. Not only did I not understand a word of it, but about every third word of it I had to look up. Believe it or don’t, but I looked over the “main differences table” and found it more puzzling than helpful. My hunch is that non-believers would think no rational person could worked up over those differences. Classic example of a self-inflicted wound. In Bible study this am, a sideline came up if James was the half… Read more »
“Believe it or don’t, but I looked over the “main differences table” and found it more puzzling than helpful. My hunch is that non-believers would think no rational person could worked up over those differences.” And yet Jesus himself preached this doctrine to hardened Pharisees. “22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them,… Read more »
Evan, Is that “meat” or “milk?” We’re not speaking of a theological debate inside the church among believers. We’re talking about trying to reach the unchurched.
I’m not sure what you are trying get across here.
Yes and no. We no longer live in an era which worships virginity. It would make no difference to me if my church taught that, after the birth of our Lord, Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage and other children. What inspires me about Mary is not her virginity but her faith and trust and humility. She would be as much saint and role model if she had not been “ever Virgin” as the prayer says. But it is still formal church doctrine to which I am for the most part faithful!
Thx for chiming in. If it’s been a while since you last picked up Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, he’s got a nice bit in the Intro about reactions from the ordained folks he had sent a draft, then circulated their comments. “How could you leave out X?” while others thought X was not worth discussing.
BTW, am I posting too much? Be as frank as you feel led.
Where is this 2002 paper?
“people’s irrelevancy in the conversation simply because they appear to not be of the elect…” *wags finger* If you’re speaking of K2, his ‘irrelevancy’ (as you say) is based on his inconsistency with his own worldview. From Katechos response to K2: ” Krychek_2 seems to be livid that I would continue to point out his inconsistencies after he has dismissed them. He apparently feels that he should be free to critique our Christian worldview unfettered by any examination or accountability for his own worldview. If he doesn’t like the attention, perhaps worldview discussion is not for him. Crying about it… Read more »
and since we don’t know who God foreknew…we ought not be presumptuous in how we represent what we believe to be truth.
plus some here are all bent out of shape that it is their DUTY to call out the wickedness and irrelevancy of others to make them reflect on their pitiable condition and destination…so to them they MUST be in evangelistic mode…that’s why I told K2 these people that act like this must not be Calvinists…they wouldn’t get so bent out of shape on blaming K2 quite so much as leaving things to God’s design :D
“Yes, and after the neutrals become convinced that you’re a racist nut
job because the MSM trumpeted some of the posts on this page,” You’re telling me. Just wait til they get a hold of Pastor WIlson’s Stonewall video. They’ll be tearing their cloaks and gnashing their teeth I’m sure.
Not quite. They’ll be beating US with that video. This thread is overwhelmingly populated with believers. We’re divided on what the Rebel flag means and why the Civil War was fought. Many on this thread seem to have real problems following as simple a taxonomy as the secular circle vs the faith circle.
Yet we’ll all be burdened with defending a “paleo-Confederate” film advancing a fairly complex and oft times subtle argument about slavery and the Civil War? And that’s a plus for us?
Many on this thread seem to have real problems following as simple a taxonomy as the secular circle vs the faith circle.
Raises hand and goes ‘ooh! ooh! choose me!’
timothy (also applies to Evan) – taking this one at face value. Then off for honey dos. “When does life begin?” belongs in the faith/moral circle. It’s a value judgment. It’s not something which can be proved. Our black-robed tribal elders agree on this point. “If I bake a cake for a gay wedding, am I sinning? Have I participated in their wedding, a thing I believe is a sin, if I make them a cake?” Also a moral/faith question. Not a thing which can be proven. Many honest people agree with K2 that baking the cake is not a… Read more »
Yes. All of this. And as much as I felt America was “lost” with Roe…as involved as I’ve been in the cause, still it did not alarm me in such the sense that Oberg did. And why I disagree with the rook/queen delineations. Roe has not gotten “in our face” as in making us individually do or not do something yet. We are not yet limited on how many children we can have and of what gender. We are not yet demanded to perform an abortion. Obamacare is testing the waters on this, I think, but one on one… How… Read more »
Think about the consequences of error. If we’re right and the gays are wrong, the worst thing that could happen is they have to go across the street and get a cake from another bakery.
But if they’re right and we’re wrong, faith has become a thing which only happens for one hour a week and only on the church lot. Nero on his worst day never tried anything that extreme. 1900 years later another ruler in Rome (NOT the Pope!) coined the phrase “Nothing outside the state.”
Good think through. And yet, I guess from their perspective “if we’re right and gays are wrong”, they wonder if that is indeed the worst thing that could happen…will we swing things back and farther…each side always fears the others potential extremes. As to one hour a week…what about when that is considered an enemy of the state and hate speech as well… (extremes on each side again…) My guess is, apart from some dramatic something, we’ll be so caught up in “inner civil war” over all kinds of extremes that an “outer” extreme will take command of all of… Read more »
Kelly,
I will reread tonight,but I lost patience at Our black-robed tribal elders
With all do respect, those lawyers are nobodies and I am not of their tribe.
Try not blocking the door of PP and see how fast your aren’t of their tribe. You’re a US citizen. That makes them 1/3 of our “tribal elders” and you a member of their tribe. If you don’t like that, move to Mexico or Canada.
Have you figured out a term for this type of philosophy/thinking they are representing? Or what vortex of first things this is starting from? I don’t usually wonder about these things with people, but I’ve never met up with anything quite like it–are there more of them? Is this the approved philosophy of those in Wilson village? Is this what they teach at that college that was promoted. I need something professional to call it…besides arrogance…and scary…
Such namecalling. Where’s the sensitivity? I might suggest a name of “Christian presuppositional apologetics”, or “worldview apologetics”. Unfortunately, that first label will probably lead to a bunch of false and really weak criticisms of it online. But maybe it will just lead to a great opportunity for clarification and discussion.
“Such namecalling. Where’s the sensitivity? I might suggest a name of “Christian presuppositional apologetics”, or “worldview apologetics”. Unfortunately, that first label will probably lead to a bunch of false and really weak criticisms of it online. But maybe it will just lead to a great opportunity for clarification and discussion.” Yes, I know, everything we learn from experts is not always to be imitated… I can do that…minus the “Christian”. But I was more referring to the concept that one cannot have much discussion about anything else with those outside the presuppositions or worldviews or faith…except…this. Maybe that’s a part… Read more »
In terms of valuable and constructive conversation, a lot depends on where our loyalties are, and what our agenda is.
Rural perhaps?
My take is quite common outside the cities.
I prefer to ship them off of our shores. You can come along for the ride; try not to get in the way.
Is it a secular question whether the king should bow and give homage to the Son?
Earthly king give homage to the Son? In every nation not a theocracy, yes, that’s a secular question. Bibi doesn’t worship Jesus. Neither do the Mullahs.
“My Kingdom is not of this world.”
Psalm 2 requires kings of the earth to give homage to the Son, or perish in the way (by God’s zeal, not ours). They aren’t given an option. It is their duty and obligation in this world, with more force of authority than any secular law. The phrase “My Kingdom is not of this world” is very commonly misunderstood. Certainly Christ’s Kingdom does not originate or derive its power from this world (it originates from Heaven), but Christ’s Kingdom is most definitely in the world and overcoming the world. This is why we pray for His Kingdom to come more… Read more »
Just for the record, this is what we mean when we speak here of Biblical Christianity.
Well, I am very thankful for this record. I have been wondering about the specifics. When you say “this is what we mean when we speak here”…who is “we”? You, Evan, Timothy, and Kate? Or are you the moderator or on a moderating team for the blog? If not, are you four members of Wilson’s church or graduates of the college? Or are you all one in the same or joined up to be a debate team here? “Jesus has been installed on His throne”: Where? Does He or will he have an earthly throne as well right now? “He… Read more »
When you say “this is what we mean when we speak here”…who is “we”? You, Evan, Timothy, and Kate? Or are you the moderator or on a moderating team for the blog? If not, are you four members of Wilson’s church or graduates of the college? Or are you all one in the same or joined up to be a debate team here? When I said “we”, I was referring to those of us who would call ourselves Biblical Christians, and seek to apply our beliefs about what that means to all areas of life. I do not know personally… Read more »
Hello, sir. I was not able to keep up comment by comment in this unraveling thread. Today I dared to come back and catch up. I think you understood what was going on before I did and now I think I am finally understanding what you understood. Or rather…I’m verifying something. You see Evan, Travis, Kate, and Timothy’s fairly identical direction and emphasis and attitude? Most importantly, what is in their faith circle and, whether they acknowledge a legal circle or not, from that vantage affects their view/actions on a cultural/legal level? That totally is a brick wall in getting… Read more »
The one time I suggested K2 and K1 (katecho) drop an argument I got called out for trying to “police” a thread. Frankly, I don’t see any more point in arguing about the supposed conflict between “ethics” and “materialism” than about “pre” and “post.” So I’ve taken up a belated New Year’s Res. From now on I’m staying out of theological disputes. Pre and Post can knock themselves out. I truly seeing see no point in wading into that dispute.
P.S. Scroll around to my answer to JB’s Jesus/throne rebuttal. I predict you’ll like it.
As you know, I did not come here for theological disputes. And I had avoided them unless seeking clarification just to increase my understanding of other views, but not to “win” anything of that nature. I’ve had enough of those in my lifetime, and I believe what I believe, and I give people enough respect that they don’t need me ramming anything down their throat..and we can all learn from each other as we wish. Problem is, much as I try to stay in the legal circle with the focus to help better everybody’s faith circle…it keeps getting dragged back… Read more »
Does that feel better now that you’ve got that off your chest? :)
Tim/Kate/Evan/Travis…when I once excused myself from their
representation of Christianity in a particularly stomach churning
completely cold and scathing rebuke to K2, said “Please. There’s the
door.”
It was me. It was not Kate/Evan/Travis….. It was me.
As for a particularly stomach churning completely cold and scathing rebuke
Why thank you! Thank you very much for the compliment; it warms my heart.
Sounds like you’ve run into a few of us that have a high view of the scriptures and rely on those scriptures to shape everything about us. We like to take every thought, word, and deed and bring it under the light of God’s word. Some of us by God’s grace are much more gifted than others at it(not me obviously :)) If that’s considered a ‘cult’ these days, so be it.
” Many on this thread seem to have real problems following as simple a taxonomy as the secular circle vs the faith circle.”
Prolly because we don’t grant that distinction.
Why not? Do you think it is sinful to do so? What do you do with Romans 13:1-7, and the many biblical examples of God’s people working harmoniously as possible in the secular political realm? You think that there is no benefit in conversation with others other than the gospel when talking with those that do not believe the gospel you believe in? Just trying to figure out exactly where you stand. I live according to my faith, share my faith, but I also know that is “faith”…and until eternity has begun–where faith becomes sight–there is a world with people… Read more »
Who is “we”? You, Travis, Timothy and Kate? or are you representing the post-mills on this blog? Or are you the moderator or on the moderator team? I’m not being snarky. I am seriously trying to figure out who believes what. Because this that I’m catching up on this thread today…represents what I’ve been wondering is the underlying friction in communication (apart from bullying and snobbery)… Along with my questions below, if you don’t grant that distinction…then? Didn’t Romans 13 give that distinction? One passage that explains to the early church (under a tyrannical government and with less opportunities than… Read more »
Belgic Confession (1561) Article 36: The Civil Government http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession#3487 (bold mine) Additions by the Synod of 1958 And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship. They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them. They should do it in order that the… Read more »
timothy, timothy, timothy,
With all due respect, please search for an asst football coach who teaches Civics to 8th graders, show him your post, and ask him if he can see any difference between what I wrote – – upon which you spit – – and what you have quoted here. I predict he will be unable to find a difference.
cc: Alex-in-W
Do you have a link to your comment(s) so I can review? (the link can be gained by copying the ‘X hours ago’ or ‘y days ago” url just to the right of who you replied to) In the meantime, let’s look at this confession. Does the supreme court in removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship. do this with same-sex mirage? Does it completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, or does it do the opposite? Is finding “penumbras” a fancy way of functioning in the sphere entrusted… Read more »
“Tact” mode engaged, feeble tho’ it may be . . . . 1. What you are doing here (citing an alternate authority; arguing from it; “distinguishing” one case from another) IS “lawyering.” Nothing to feel bad about. IMHO, it does you credit. 2. Take another bow for spotting “penumbra” from Griswold (1965). As folks such as Alex can attest – – and as McD/Rev Shazbat has always protested – – I have long argued Griswold-Roe as the source of Obergefell, NOT Loving (1967). 3. Meanwhile, since it be a quite a while before I can dig through weeks of posts,… Read more »
“‘Tact’ mode engaged, feeble tho’ it may be . . . .”
Good. It’s good to see you less combative today I was wondering if you were going to start losing your reputation for “even-handedness.”
never had the patience of a saint
;).
I don’t begrudge you that, particularly when you have to deal with arrogance and snobbery on the blog comments here.
“It’s the dose that makes the poison?” “You can’t tell the players without a program?” Some 18th Cent British wit once quipped, “I’d like to be as confident of anything as that man is about everything.” If you really do believe you’re one of the Elect then having to put up with both K2 and a Methodist on the same thread must be a challenge. Robert Browning was drooling over the babe a few pews ahead of him …. and then a louse crawled out of her collar and headed up her wonderful neck. Went home and wrote a poem… Read more »
The Sciptures are a sure and certain testimony. They are the christian’s only rule of faith and practice. They are the christian’s only authority. Those scriptures tell us a great many things that we can know, and know for certain(read 1 John for a perfect example). It’s sad to see someone from a denomination that boasted the likes of the Wesleys and Whitefield to be relegated to quoting “18th century british wit” when he has the whole canon of scripture as a treasury of knowledge given to him freely by his God in order for him to know things for… Read more »
“The Sciptures are a sure and certain testimony” . . . which obviously explains why we have 500+ denominations.
I’ll be eligible to resume doctrinal disputes next January.
Unless I resolve to skip them for 2016 as well.
“”The Sciptures are a sure and certain testimony” . . . which obviously explains why we have 500+ denominations.”
Incorrect. 500+ is first of all a greatly inflated number. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJW-AajJnGA
Secondly, the fragmentation says more about the people in those denominations than it does about the Scriptures. (see WCF chapter 1)
Alex in W was wondering how it could be possible to keep my resolution on a blog such as this one. One way would be to not respond any further on a sub-thread such as this one. Like I’m about to start doing.
OTOH, the civics sub-thread will re-open once timothy is able to use some of his down time to take a second look at my “black robed tribal elders” comment.
“Alex in W was wondering how it could be possible to keep my resolution on a blog such as this one. One way would be to not respond any further on a sub-thread such as this one. Like I’m about to start doing.” No worries, just trying to help. Plus i wouldn’t look down on you if you don’t keep your New Years resolutions; I can never keep mine either! ;) “12Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13But exhort one another every day,… Read more »
One of us – – at least one of us; I concede it might be both of us – – is definitely irony-impaired. I feel like I’m watching cars go by leaving paint on both guard rails.
No hard feelings. I’m sure trying to beat up on K2 could easily keep many of the Elect busy. McD/Rev Shazbat says he has lost interest in this blog and I’m really going to try to keep the Res. So perhaps doctrinal disputes will taper off due to a lack of contestants?
“So perhaps doctrinal disputes will taper off due to a lack of contestants?” The subtitle of this blog is ‘Theology that bites back’ so I’m guessing that’s not going to happen. ‘One of us – – at least one of us; I concede it might be both of us – – is definitely irony-impaired. I feel like I’m watching cars go by leaving paint on both guard rails.’ Yes, one of the deficiencies of conversating on blog comments. Without facial expressions and tone of voice, you pretty much have to take everything at face value. I try to make my… Read more »
Is this conversation an example of the ‘Two Kingdoms” doctrine I have read of here on this blog?
Kelly, do you subscribe to that view?
Evan, if so, we have the source of the disagreement in how we approach things.
Kelly, I will get to your lawyer comments later this week. I am dog tired at the moment and need a rest.
Hmmmmm. Not sure how close to edge I’ll wind up if I chase this one. Let’s try this instead. Whether you believe in Zero Kingdoms (K2, most likely), or One Kingdom (kathecho?), or any of the several versions of Two Kingdoms, or something else, how would beginning from any of those places change how one of those folks react to or end up on PP or Obergefell? Or Loving? Or Roe? Or the Hyde Amendment? Or Griswold? Unless the beginning point changes the outcome, I’m not seeing (for the rest of 2015) the value in hindcasting the ground track back… Read more »
In other words, for the rest of this year, I’m only interested in chasing that part of the path which begins on the secular game board. I respect that and it is good to know what you are doing. I suspect that the adage “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you” will assert itself in that the basis of law for Christ’s enemies (that would be the Political Class and the Supreme Court) is at war with Christ. I am confident that He will reveal that to you. It will be a few day… Read more »
Already has been revealed. Long familiar with that quote. (Trotsky, if memory serves.) Used it often when I was in commercial life and clients tried to be nice to regulators. The taxonomy I believe best fits the current USA is Codevilla’s “ruling class”/”country class” from The American Spectator, July-Aug 2010. Notice how stunned Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal was to discover that “America is in play.” (Noonan had been a speech writer for Reagan and is a practicing Catholic.) Back in my college days, Pauline Kael, big New York movie reviewer, could not believe Nixon had beaten McGovern.… Read more »
“Already has been revealed”. And you’ve already acknowledged such. So those were the first words I thought, too. I’m sure it’s frustrating to have typed all these weeks where the line of reasoning and observation could be easily followed throughout. I recommend to anyone wanting to catch up on the wealth of information that you’ve offered–to click on your Disqus username and settle in. “ruling class/country class” can be reflected in other ways, too, in other arenas. “They really do believe they are the forces of light, justice, truth, equality, and a better life, while the Christians are repressed racist… Read more »
The real question for you Alex is, how do you know your not one of the ‘nuts’? :)
If we could post pix I’d attach Palm 90 (Air Florida, 1982) or Air France 447 (2009).
Well, you are better dressed and mild of tongue… It is interesting the the Country Class candidate is a billionaire. I don’t think Codevilla saw that one coming. His was a seminal essay and I quote it often. Noonan’s change surprises me. As a writer for Reagan, and an op-ed columnist under the Bush failures, she was pretty in-tune with working-class/middle-America. I am glad she is waking up. I stopped my subscription the WSJ when I realized their god was money, so I don’t read her anymore. My take is that things are worse than they appear on the surface.… Read more »
Hi Kelly, Thank you for the courtesy of your response. It is my opinion that “law” doesn’t matter anymore in America in that 1. “our” government does not abide by it. 2. John “However” Roberts showed the plain text of any law can be ignored for any reason. 3. The political class is pagan, not Christian. 4. The will to power by the political class is in play (globally, not just the U.S.) You think the political class can be salvaged, I do not in that they have decided to wage war on us and we will have to defend… Read more »
please make the effort override your gag reflex long enough to go all
the way through the “black robed tribal elders” post you stopped
reading.
I will make the effort.
I have added a TODO at the top of my ‘philosophy’ file and I will get to it this week in my down time.
.
Fair enough and thanks; I’ll start digging out my old posts if the quickie/summary isn’t enough.
Meanwhile, McD/Rev Shazbat has just posted his own “Cliff Notes” at
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/carve-outs-and-ghettos.html#comment-2226262414 of his argument. It’s a fair summary of the arguments he made these past weeks. No point in my arguing with him any further, so I’m not doing any more with his latest than pointing out his summary to you. In the event you decide to trace through these legal steps, let me know.
Lol, you really seem like your tweaking out about who believes what. I’ m not sure what everyone believes. For myself, I’m a member of the PCA but what does it matter? Maybe try just interacting with the comments on their own merits?
Scripture doesn’t put forward a faith/secular distinction. We do however see right from the beginning (Gen 3) a distinction between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (sometimes called the antithesis in reformed circles I believe(?)) This theme is interwoven throughout all of the scriptures(i.e. light/dark). This is paradigm I believe we should be working with instead of the faith/secular. If you have a scriptural case for the faith/secular distinction, I’d be happy to look at it. Also, “.represents what I’ve been wondering is the underlying friction in communication (apart from bullying and snobbery)..” I’ve seen… Read more »
‘zactly. we’re even divided here..about so much. I came here originally to see how united Christianity might still be..and what it would take, what seriousness of an issue would bind us…needless to say, I haven’t been all that encouraged…more accepting of a reality that I suspected…a seriously splintered society and church. and you are right…we exemplify it so well. i keep wondering if he hasn’t had second thoughts about keeping this blog open (maybe that’s why comments are deleted…they are so volatile…but I don’t doubt some of Wilson’s enemies are taking screenshots…)…do we take away from his goals, I don’t… Read more »
what is our main goal, by the way? I hope and pray that it is this: To glorify and enjoy Him forever. You are so correct that there is much that divides us (“us” being the Church). Since we hold that there is absolute Truth and also that we all are fallen and have only imperfect knowledge/understanding/wisdom, it is understandable that true brothers and sisters often disagree. Lamentable, but understandable. And so, I think forums like this one can be helpful to us all in gaining wisdom, and in learning to listen to the thoughts and perspectives of others. What… Read more »
I have seen more and more links to this blog in places I’m not used to seeing them…hmmm…maybe some of us who don’t want to be a part of it should leave the scene now…
Is the Stonewall video more about abortion or the Civil War or Oberg stuff or what? I never really understood it. Or freedom of religion/speech?
The problem with Haggar’s approach is that the MSM has already discovered that the New Testament permits of Christian slave owners in good standing in the Church. Now what? The elephant is in the room. Is Haggar going to pretend he doesn’t see it? Is he going to react in shame at the “barbarism” in Scripture? Or is he going to start drawing out important biblical distinctions on this topic and insist that we all start working through them in rational conversation?
I know which approach I’m going to use.
Wait a minute. When was the last time you saw/heard a controversy about Philemon and Onesimus in a recent secular debate? I’m not worried about the Bible being a liability. Far from it. If and when a pro-choice person brings up the slavery of 2,000 years ago, I’m going to quickly point out the war we fought to end it.
I’m NOT going to re-open 1864 defenses of that war as anticipating the overreach of the EPA. The EPA needs to be popped in own right.
Yes, the MSM may have discovered the NT but it’s Christians far and few between that want to keep revisiting the controversial obscurely related topic and making a target for ourselves…I’m not keen on kow-towing and hushing interesting discussion, but I do see your point on unnecessary distractors. But what isn’t a distraction. They could take the Oberg stuff, the complementarian stuff, the civil disobedience stuff and wreak unreasonable (or not) havoc with it. I don’t know where the line is.
And you suggest?
IMHO, the central gummit is far, FAR too large and too intrusive, and not just in sending bakers to re-education camps. There’s a world of difference between a church teaching as a doctrine that, say, women should not work outside the home or be ordained, and what John Locke called the generic “Magistrate” requiring or forbidding women priests. That’s because His Kingdom is not of this world. katecho and timothy are completely correct that putting the EPA or the IRS back into their proper roles wouldn’t do a thing to help K2 see Jesus as we do. Cutting the feds… Read more »
Other than the misleading “His Kingdom is not of this world” slant, I agree with Haggar’s description here. He has put the value of political victories in their proper proportion.
Haggar didn’t really answer my question. When the topic of slavery in the Bible comes up (and it often does in this present culture), is Haggar going to find himself doing just what Wilson is doing (only without having prepared himself for the argument), or is he going to look for an exit? One of Haggar’s comments led me to believe that he does not affirm Scriptural inerrancy (if this was carefully defined it could still retain orthodoxy), and that position is usually motivated by a view of Scripture as a liability somewhere. Coming from the broadly compromised Methodist denomination,… Read more »
The “broadly compromised Methodist denomination?” Really? And what voltage is YOUR Hotline to Reality? Bonus: your Hotline also sees motivation to boot. Cool. Methodists do not worship the Bible. It’s not an idol for us. Instead we worship the Lord. Of course the Bible is not inerrant. For one thing, it gives the wrong value of Pi. But that’s not important because the temple descriptions weren’t written by architects or engineers and they weren’t trying to lay down any physical principles. The Jews spotted the Pi disconnect centuries ago and decided that “one hand wide” was the easiest way to… Read more »
Yep, yep, yep. See where this is headed? As with the high calling of having “best interests at heart” by “being a thorn in the flesh” and reminding others why someone’s comments are “irrelevant”…and because of it, being duty bound to be every new commenter’s mediator between God and man by reminding us of “first things”…I can now see the “it may be helpful for Haggar to clarify his position on errancy” being added. I really thought they wouldn’t stoop to this level with you. Anyway, amazing. I woke up in the middle of the night and laughed at this… Read more »
I’m totally supportive of “living room” worship. We’ve turned the simplicity of the early NT church into some unrecognizable monstrosity. The key is to recognize that we aren’t imagining these things…and recognize it before we become a mindless part of it.
You have indeed said your view, and it sadly relegates everything good you’ve said to mere opinion.
If the Bible isn’t inerrant, then we haven’t a leg to stand on. Maybe our “educated guesses” as to which parts are true are completely off-base, even your supposed loathing of sodomite unions.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the definition of inerrancy that I was hoping for. The way that Haggar handles the value-of-Pi “contradiction” is the kind of approach we would expect from one who sees the account as a liability, complete with a willful Jewish cover up story. That doesn’t comport with a high view of the authority and accuracy of Scripture. If one was going to have a temptation toward idolatry one could do worse than the Word of God. I’d take it over an idol in the form of “Methodist brass” or “CREC brass”. If I were standing before God’s throne… Read more »
Yes.
We are not given a spirit of fear. People like frank discussions. To cower? The 501c3 church has been doing that for decades. spew that.
timothy – That’s why the Methodists will spew all over both SSM and a local option on SSM at our General Conference next May in Portland OR. (As a bonus, maybe the delegates will pass a resolution condemning OR for fining the bakers $135K.)
At least that’s the current take of both sides.
Too funny. SOME people, most people seem to like frank discussions when people cower to their biases. 501c3? Hardly anyone wanted to have a frank discussion or be associated with Bob Jones University with their religious views vs. the government. The church chose to call them bigots and mock their efforts. We’ll see how far our frank discussions and cowering goes as our 501c3’s are threatened….
There is no way on God’s green earth my churched doors would spring open for the evangelism or enlightenment or governing policy of a couplish here. I’d rather have lunch with my atheist friend. It’s not even the slavery issue as much as the ATTITUDE presented towards those outside their faith or vantage or group think. Anyway… “neutrals”…that’s what I was wondering if you meant in my original response. I do understand you on that score….but where do we draw the line…they’d think we are wacky on just about anything. which brings me back to my atheist friend. we disagree… Read more »
Now Kelly has to disagree with Alex in W. If K2 or katecho were willing to have a beer/tea/coffee and “come let us reason together” I would sit down with any/all of them.
Yep, we’d have to disagree. Something along the lines of one of those two verses in Proverbs they have eagerly thrown at other “trolls” gives me caution enough that there is not much reason to be had. I will not do it here any further nor irl. In light of that, I will say to K2 as someone said of me to ‘cho…”You are more patient than I could be. God bless.” Do I really need to quote to prove why there is a serious caution in my spirit? And I’m a very easy to get along with person. Go… Read more »
I don’t drink beer but I buy it for those who do. My life experience is that Heineken disappears first. Always.
BTW, do I post too much? Should I cut back? Only answer when you or jillybean asks a Q? Be as frank as you feel led.
I generally am edified, educated, and interested in your comments.
And where are you?
“I generally am edified, educated, and interested in your comments,” too. But they are too few.
Crazy evening. And I still don’t even know what the headlines of the day were that Kelly was referencing… Maybe I shouldn’t check, and they will be gone by tomorrow. Blissfully ignorant…
You can’t tell by now that I read a comment of yours and stare into the past, present and future with it? Think, think, think… Too much?! Never enough. I would probably not still be here had you not come and brought relief (as I then stated) to the anarchy and chaos ensuing without those faith/legal circles being delineated. And what fun is a blog when we don’t “Interject nonsense” (or in your case, interject substance) where we are led. You haven’t been policing. If your polite suggestions and urgent concerns are policing, then I’d sure like to know what,… Read more »
You’re one of my favorites here, and not just because we were in the same branch of the armed forces (that reminds me…BJ, thanks for your service as well!). You have a sense of balance that I would do well to emulate.
I was truly blessed to have spent 4 years around the loggies at Tinker. The life of the average crew dog is radically different than officers in every other branch. Boomers and gunners are honorary officers. The only enlisted folks you ever see are the 702 admin who types your flight orders and the crew chief who gives you the 781 forms on the bus. But you can’t spend a day at a depot and not realize what the policy wonks call the “tooth to tail ratio” is ferocious. My little 6 seat jet sat at the tip of a… Read more »
Thank you. BTW, earlier in this cruising-altitude-high comment section, Katecho clarified that he’s a he.
As Wilson has said at various times, there’s a world of difference between a refugee from the world and an apostle of the world. Wisdom is in patiently discovering which agenda is being brought in. Jesus was very tender and patient with refugees from the world, but He was not nice to the apostles of the world. Krychek_2 has made his agenda very clear that he intends to undermine and criticize nearly everything that Wilson stands for. Krychek_2 doesn’t come as a refugee, but to confront and challenge at every turn. Krychek_2 is here to evangelize for his unbelieving utilitarianism… Read more »
I get your point…some of that “wise as serpents harmless as doves” type stuff…but given the state of affairs these days, I can see them running around–as they do–calling anyone extremist for just about anything…what about that vicious doggie picture…”theology that bites back”…how AWFUL, how unloving, how HATEFUL. “Really? You think pushing that extra rock up a steep helps the defund PP effort?” Are you talking to me, or the audience at large? Well. I don’t think hardly any pay attention to this little blog and even evangel Christians have probably written him off as an extremist for one reason… Read more »
“The idea that we can whip up a good voter turnout and push our candidate into office by the usual tactics (and then go back to sleep) is just a false hope. Hearts must change. There must be repentance. Getting some funding taken away from PP is not a substitute.” We can work on both. And I appreciate your views. I am still in shock as to the lack of concern represented here by some (and I don’t know if it’s the proprietor’s views or not) on what we still can while the opportunity is there legally as “we the… Read more »
Sorry Kelly but both the content of the post, and the video that prompted it and the bulk of comments (Barnabas comes to mind) seemed to be about one’s attitude to a flag that seemed to some to suggest slavery.
Way down on the thread I promised katecho that I would explain why his attempts to change the subject from whatever we’re talking about to my general world view are irrelevant. So let me see if I can explain by illustration. As it happens, it is impossible to logically prove one’s own existence. Since nobody really questions their own existence, this is mostly a non-issue. But if pressed, the question “Do I exist” is a question that logic cannot answer. However, since I’m fully aware that I really do exist, I will simply write that off as an interesting philosophical… Read more »
I’m trying to imagine Joseph refusing to talk to Pharaoh, and Daniel refusing to talk or work with Neb… unless they continually were given an explanation of their worship of false gods at every turn… As to the ad nauseum references to lack of consistency from a worldview and alleged irrelevancy because of it, there is lack of consistency and agreement among even those with a Christian worldview…we just have to start where we can as we can when working beyond a faith circle. Why would I need to harp on your eternal destination when you are fully aware of… Read more »
because,
“Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we
are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.” 2 Cor 5:11
Alex, it’s one thing to compare and contrast world views, the premises behind them, and the conclusions they lead to. Not only am I fine with that; it’s part of the reason I’m here. What’s not fine is to stack the deck by playing fast and loose with definitions, to keep ascribing views to me that I have repeatedly repudiated, to continue making claims that my world view necessarily leads to places it doesn’t. At this point, I honestly can’t tell if Katecho simply lacks the capacity to follow an argument, or deliberately and disingenuously misrepresents the argument. Whatever. If,… Read more »
I’m afraid I don’t grant Krychek_2’s comparison. I’ve never asked Krychek_2 to “prove his own existence”. I fully acknowledge that, whether we consciously accept it or not, the presupposition of one’s existence is a precondition to even consider the question. In other words, we have to believe that we exist in order to even take up the question of our existence, in the same way that we must believe in the law of identity in order to distinguish existence from non-existence. Krychek_2 seems to have forgotten that I’m a presuppositionalist, and have no problem with our dependence on presuppositions. However,… Read more »
Katecho, you go ahead and keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
My favorite parts “seems to be livid”…and “crying about it”…so how I would NOT describe your comments.
declaring your actions “unbecoming”…I guess “unbecoming” is in the eye of the beholder…and then, heaven help us, being “equal opportunity”…oh, the joy.
And yes, some of us know it’s been “made before”…that’s why I don’t bother to read the comments in full…just enough to find my favorite parts where one could argue, if one were arrogant enough, to conclude that they are “being deliberately dishonest in misrepresenting” K2.
Got back early; found a swirling storm of what seems to me to be a repetitive, multi-party collection of nonsense. Decided not to heed Alex-in-W’s advice so I’m going to deprive him of the fun of reading any flame throwing. Instead, I’m going to try this: Since the topic here is abortion, not slavery, I submit that no one with the sense God a gave a doorknob ought to care about when “life” begins. It doesn’t matter. The answer doesn’t alter any outcomes/decisions. Just in case that didn’t sink in, I’ll hit again: “life” is the WRONG QUESTION. To the… Read more »
I 99.9 percent am nodding my head…the remaining percentage is just the thought that sometimes thoughts of “when life begins” makes people a little more concerned about the budget and the law…and for some, even the thoughts that the PP videos making people do a retake of thoughts of “taking a life and is it really a life” will influence what they are willing to find common ground in “budget and law” which then in return might “save one more life”…
Beyond that, and for all, thank you. Well said again.
If I can find it, I’m about to reply to the “what if Apaches are offended by the US flag?”
And maybe I should have laid out the two circles again. “When does life begin?” is in the opposite circle from “What’s a court gonna do?”
Yer gonna have to lay it out a-gin and a-gin…it’s all too easily determinedly forgotten at times…and yer the only one that could get away with sayin’ such…I’d be well-nigh called a post-modernist again (is that worse than a “materialist”?) or some quick dismissive label if I tried :)
I did find it, and I did reply. Meanwhile, special just for you, here’s a tiny bit of the flame I was thinking about throwing: “Abstractions like meaning and truth and correctness don’t have any influence over that motion.” Duh. Abstractions like those DON’T and CAN’T have any influence over ANY motion. For that matter, neither can any OTHER abstraction. There’s no such thing as a pound of “truth” or a meter of “democracy” or a gallon of “evil.” Incorporeals (literally a thing which has no body) are “comprehended only by understanding.” If we could “prove” Christianity there would not… Read more »
Now if I can make my bits of flame sound as inflammable as yours… Until we reach some eternal destination to prove final and for true who was right or not…it is all of faith and then of logic best we can to persuade and confirm. Which reminds me of someone mocking The Rapture concept…saying how they knew for sure it was a wrong belief…well. We don’t know till we don’t know…and so with other things in the “faith” circle…it calls for a dose of humility so we won’t have to eat so much humble pie should we have messed… Read more »
If all we are looking for is a legislative victory, then we will only ask questions relevant to that. But if we are concerned about hearts and about a cultural victory, we need to ask questions that push the culture to confess what it is actually doing. With that in mind, I don’t want to ask the culture to simply decide when it wants to attach “legally enforceable rights” to fetal tissue. They can attempt to answer such a question without ever being confronted with the realities at stake. Instead, I want to ask the culture whether the unborn are… Read more »
If it were really true and really “obvious that the child is alive and is human” then I submit there would never be a need for PP secret taping program in the first place. IMHO, the problem here is that far too many people believe the unborn child is not human. Only pro-life people care about when “life” begins. The majority cares about when “humanity” (rights) begin. Yes, the polls are moving our way, and that’s a good thing. But we’re not there yet. I must be doing a really poor job of getting my points across because you keep… Read more »
“You’re stuck in this rut that somehow I’m not interested in souls; not in the “(1)” arena. I’m instead arguing that doing stupid and counterproductive things in the (2) arena is making the (1) arena a tougher place. ”
This describes pragmatism more than it describes Christianity.
Pragmatic? It’s bad in mission work? Like when Paul was “all things to all people?” Or evangelists in Moslem or Jewish communities should bring ham to every meeting?
When will you become liberal enough to eat ham?
At your wedding, father.
“Pragmatic? It’s bad in mission work? Like when Paul was “all things to
all people?” Or evangelists in Moslem or Jewish communities should
bring ham to every meeting?”
No, as in pragmatism:
“an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”
Doesn’t apply to me. I’ve never argued that an idea must be popular to be correct or that a truthful idea must be a successful one. We Methodists used to have a hymn called “Farther Along.” It tried to comfort people who wanted to know why the wicked could be rich.
“Doesn’t apply to me. I’ve never argued that an idea must be popular to be correct or that a truthful idea must be a successful one.”
Okay, but you seem to be implying it in this statement:
“”You’re stuck in this rut that somehow I’m not interested in souls; not in the “(1)” arena. I’m instead arguing that doing stupid and counterproductive things in the (2) arena is making the (1) arena a tougher place.”
The idea of being inoffensive for the purpose of witness slides almost immediately into counterproductive pandering. Ideas such as American slavery being the most grievous sin in history, or the idea the black Americans in 2015 have problems because of slavery, or concepts like white privilege have serious social consequences. Those ideas aren’t good for black Americans or Americans in general. Those ideas are causing riots, murders, and rapes right now. The church should have no part in that but you will see exactly those ideas being pushed on blogs like TGC and in a hundred evangelical roundtable discussions as… Read more »
I’ve not advocated any of those things, nor have I shrunk from attacking them. Scroll down and you’ll find my objection to the idea that people claiming to be offended have a special privilege. Speaking of privilege, the nonsense of “white privilege” and the reparations idea are NOT replays of 1859. They are current and active controversies which should be addressed this hour, and by both Scriptural and secular arguments. IMHO, attempting to deal with them by resorting to defenses of the Rebel flag or the “real” reasons why there was a Civil War is “stuck on stupid.” That’s leading… Read more »
You are not advocating those things but you are attempting to police the conversation here as some of us attempt to undercut the first principles of those ideas. This is a conversation between fairly like-minded believers. If the conversation should not be had here, where should it be had? Shouldn’t there be one forum where Christians can speak honestly of such things. I would point out that I didn’t bring up the issue. Pastor Wilson did and really he didn’t either since as you might have noticed, its a popular news item.
On second thought, although “police” is too strong, since I made suggestions and did not attempt to issue orders, but I still see your point. In fact, now I’m especially glad I left the flame in the “draft” file these last two days.
Moreover, I’ll pulse jellybean and Alex in W. Your comment makes we wonder if I’m posting too often.
Barnabas, this is excellent. I would love for you to write more on the subject, especially on what a Marxist understanding of race relations is and some examples on where you see it at work in America.
KMH: ” But He is not on the bench now. His return has not yet come.”
Here is the root of your problem – and of your misunderstanding! When Jesus ascended, He ascended onto His throne. He hasn’t given it up since.
JB, Now it’s my turn to do a better job of following Buggs, Read Alex’s take, but I’m taking a different angle. Below is another story I wish I been smart enough to write: Two guys are dying; that’s why they’re sharing a room in a hospice. One afternoon they have this chat: “You know, I’m kinda lookin’ forward to dyin’.” “Really? Why?” ” ‘Cause I want to ask Jesus why He allowed so much pain and suffering in this world. What about those six million Jews?” “That’s funny; I’m scared of dying.” “Really? Why?” ” ‘Cause I’m scared He’s… Read more »
Yeah, yeah, I’m smiling big as my avatar. I like it. Speaking of “theories being correct”…I read out loud here the rebuke given to you of your “inerrancy” views…and also read out loud the thought that if someone didn’t believe in inerrancy then “everything” else you said had no merit, was an opinion or subjectivism or some such conclusion. And someone said (a child), “isn’t to believe in inerrancy an opinion/faith?” Mmhmmm. It’s like my atheist friend tells me…”I don’t have enough faith to be a Christian.” And I reply, “I don’t have enough faith to not be a Christian.”… Read more »
Alex,
Although this comment was addressed to you, there was some collateral spillover, so I replied as below:
Kelly M. Haggar timothy • a few seconds ago
timothy, timothy, timothy,
With all due respect, please search for an asst football coach who teaches Civics to 8th graders, show him your post, and ask him if he can see any difference between what I wrote – – upon which you spit – – and what you have quoted here. I predict he will be unable to find a difference.
cc: Alex-in-W
“(BTW, I’ve never heard a sermon arguing that some other group of believers was “compromised.” When someone says they don’t know if I’m a Christian, I’ve been known to retort, “You mean you don’t know if I’m a Baptist!”)” Well, i grew up indy fundy baptist and am baptistic…and yes, i’ve met that mentality along the way…but i’ve learned it’s not necessarily the BELIEF or the QUESTIONING of the belief as much as the ATTITUDE behind it…and “thar’s some in evuhry bunch”…after being here, I’ll be likely to retort to the question asked in a superior manner, “You mean you… Read more »
Anyone who actually wished to engage the material presented would do more than call it a “vent.”
Which part of that vent do you want me to engage with?
Evan,
Whatever your little heart desires. However, I won’t break my brand new belated New Year’s Res. If I believe you’ve responded on a theology matter, I’ll tag that part and move to the next.
Trying to take some of Sun off so it may be late.
As you wish.
“So, I making a belated New Year’s Resolution. From now on I’m ignoring doctrinal questions.”
Can I hold you to that? Do we have to wait until New Years?
Evan,
Really? Is it truly possible that you could need a steer to the definition of a New Year’s Res? Also to the definition of “belated?”
Face value once again:
1. Yes, you may hold me to that.
2. No, you need not wait until New Years.
And to all a good night.
I am content. Thank you for putting me in my place. Happy New Years.
Since everything is a “doctrinal” faith question of the Kingdom with them, were these actually doctrinal questions? And upon further reflection, since you don’t believe in inerrancy-according-to-them, I’m surprised he didn’t talk of “first things first”…and that he would accept your answers since “everything you say” is only opinion…without a leg to stand on, etc.
And good night. I think I typed “good night” hours ago. :D
If my spiritual quotient were high enough that I had enough prayer power to shift the hearts of the mullahs, if I had the power to persuade ISIS to stop chopping off the heads of 82 year old museum curators, to stop selling 13 year old girls as sex toys, to change the hearts of PP, etc, etc. What a wonderful world. But my dad died anyway. My brother died anyway. My mom died anyway. And ISIS kills anyway. K1 and Evan and tim can do whatever they want. Right now, it’s still a free country. If they’ve got such… Read more »
This is for JBrigham below, but I don’t want to presume to assume your beliefs/views. So I’m putting it here so you’ll see it…I’d rather make sure you saw it in order to present your own case. —————— It is not the root of “our” problem that believe that way (and I have enough “sensitivity training” to not say it is your “problem” and that you are “misunderstanding” by believing as you are led to :), but it most certainly is the Niagara Falls in being able to hear each other in much of the discussion on this blog and… Read more »
OK, I’m going to try to construct a scripturally sound criticism of antebellum slavery. Let’s start by expanding to a more general understanding of slavery as dependency. Ashv has done a good job describing this concept and maybe he will weigh in. Under this understanding my children are a sort of slave and so are welfare recipients. You may not require them to work in the fields but you could if you so desired. The Bible tells us that it is not a sin to take a dependent person under you authority and patronage, to make a slave of them.… Read more »
Thank you so much for this, Barnabas.
Very well-stated. Thank you.
Good food for thought. I agree there is a lot to criticize in antebellum slavery. The biggest thing is the racism and the original kidnapping. Then there is the perpetuation of the slave condition from generation to generation, rather than working toward a swift jubilee. I’m not aware of any record of original restitution owed by blacks, let alone a generational debt. I think Barnabas is onto something regarding the condition of dependence. Slave masters had very definite obligations toward slaves, similar to a parent over a child. When restoration was complete, they were not to turn slaves out empty… Read more »
K2, timothy, and katecho,
OK, I read the subthread on “materialism” last night, wrote a reply that started out calm but became flame, tried to cool it down, didn’t succeed, and went to bed.
Long story short –
K2. Your initial plan to not respond was correct. Had I seen this thread earlier I would have even more strongly urged you to not play.
tim and kate. I believe your method and approach will cement K2 more firmly in place, not soften his heart. The rest I’m leaving out due to flame.
Which is exactly why I excused myself from their identical twin representation or brand of Christianity as I am completely uncomfortable with what I see (and trust that K2 is reasonable enough to not do a “hasty generalization” with the whole lot of us who ascribe to the term “Christian”)…also, I do not care to get into definitions of those sorts with their “high calling” mentality. I was shown the door, and I haven’t looked back since. Plenty of others seem to not mind engaging them perhaps because they agree with them so much the third person and the flames… Read more »
“tim and kate. I believe your method and approach will cement K2 more firmly in place, not soften his heart. The rest I’m leaving out due to flame.”
No worries, I believe Alex has some sensitivity training in store for us. Or perhaps both of you could moderate our comments before they get published. That way we wouldn’t be putting out anything that, you know, might be construed as ‘nut-job’ or ‘racist’ or ‘hurtful’. Thanks for looking out for us.
Krychek_2 seems to have been knee deep in cement before he ever got here. However, I suppose that someone might have rebuked Jesus the same way while He was calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, and white washed tombs. Someone could have piped up in the crowd and said, “It might not soften their hearts.” Here’s an example of an attempt to restrain Jesus: Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places. Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe I’m on the defensive, keep on keeping on.
It all seems to come back to feelings and sentimentalism. It’s not about whether Krychek_2’s worldview is actually true or defensible. It’s about feeling better. Believe in stuff for its therapeutic effect. Utilitarianism doesn’t care about whether something is true or not, only if it gives the desired effect.
Those who are interested in truth aren’t satisfied with the feel-good fluff though. They want substance, even if it sometimes cuts. God’s pattern is to do open heart surgery by cutting first, and then healing.
Been thinking about the the “cementing K2”. From what I can tell, he is a reasonable person that doesn’t shut off ideas and thinking…and knows not all people under a label are exactly the same…or else he wouldn’t be willing to have interesting civil convos with BJ, etc. As for method and approach, though, it is true that even though we should be on the look out for truth wherever we find it…one pretty much shuts off sources that resort to…well…you know. It’s why I’ve been trying to excuse myself from their “we” towards, oh, let’s see now if I… Read more »
So, your reasoning is that while the Confederacy had legalized slavery, the modern USA has legalized abortion, so we’re just as bad, or worse? That’s such a poor analogy, it’s actually false. The CSA was founded to protect slavery, while abortion is a violation of the basic rights this country was founded to protect. Slavery does not discredit the Confederacy merely because it was horrible, but because it was a horrible sin that defined that putative nation’s very purpose for existing. In the USA, abortion is not only NOT our reason for existing, but is constantly under assault, and rightfully… Read more »
Interesting article, and horrifying (for the most part) comment thread. I didn’t read all 500 comments, so if someone already said this I missed it. The ‘what about abortion, doesn’t it ruin the American flag’ argument as a defense of the confederate flag can only be described as some type of red herring. Whether the current flag of a particular country should, or does, evoke shame because of a national sin like abortion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is charitable to our fellow countrymen to fly a flag last flown officially by a country fighting… Read more »
One of the 500+ comments about ” ‘what about abortion, doesn’t it ruin the American flag’ argument” was yours truly arguing that connection/ association is wrong per se, period, with or without the confederate flag being dragged into the discussion.
Alex said, “I was shown the door, and I haven’t looked back since.”
Consider LinkedIn. It allows private replies to authors/posters and there are both moderated and unmoderated groups. I don’t have a Facebook alias but it must be possible.
Omnibus (package reply), then I’m taking the weekend off: Alex wants to know “what I think of this reasoning [Ober means polygamy] in Utah?” Ans: Haven’t read that story; don’t need to. As I pointed out when cited fn11 from my 2004/05 law review article a few weeks back, ever since Goodrich (MA, 2003) every honest lawyer who has thought about that exact issue has wondered about limits. If a state lacks the power to specify race or gender, how does it retain the right to specify number or commitment? For the Nth time, such questions are pure Caesar issues,… Read more »
Well then, you feel better now that you’ve vented?
Well. I’ve read this many times. Once out loud for the family’s enjoyment–with a southern accent on the “Darlin'”, of course. All I can say is, “Perfection”. Snark and all, thank you. It’s nice when someone else says what you wish to say…and so much better. A masterpiece, a gift. As T would say to K, “Thanks for working on that.” and “You have more patience than I have. God bless” :D I didn’t plan to be here today at all…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…but I kept thinking I needed to respond to this…besides smiling and laughing behind my screen :) and wondering what… Read more »
https://dougwils.com/books/unvarnished-ungarbled-unfettered-unashamed.html
I’ll just leave this here…
Perhaps a primer on sensitivity training for Alex and Haggar?
Evan, playing a hunch here. I think you may have “sensitivity training” mixed up with Dale Carnegie. Please define what you mean by the phrase “sensitivity training.” Thx kmh
I was hoping you could show us how to word our comments so we don’t appear as racists or nut jobs. Did you read the link?
Yes, I did, and it caused me to wonder – – among other things – – if we shared a common understanding of the term “sensitivity training.”
Meanwhile, I’m answering JB.
Buggs; notice I didn’t ask Evan if he knew what he was talking about. You were a good influence on me last night. And thanks for your thanks! We both served, while no one else has mentioned any GI time. Perhaps you & I are it?
Notice he said a primer FOR Alex and Haggar…and now says he was hoping we could SHOW them how to word our comments…who can answer when the question keeps changing. He was first saying WE needed to learn…then we need to teach… I read the link, too…and honestly, when Wilson has ever personally commented here, in the twoish months I’ve been here, he has never been rude or dismissive or presumptuous of intent or demanding a worldview to prove our relevance in a discussion of a topic…simply put…whatever his stronger views are, one on one so far, I have seen… Read more »
Aw, Alex, I’m not sure whether to be hurt that you don’t see my individuality, or pleased that you associate me with those that generally write in a logical, clear manner, and with a passion for proclaiming our Lord in all areas of life. : )
For the record, I am who my username says I am. I never carried for aliases in computer-land, though I sorta understand some of the reasons others have for using them.
And I’m completely with you in having difficulty keeping up with newest comments, etc. Especially when we’ve gone down the rabbit trail by miles and miles. (Does anyone remember what the original post was about at this point?)
By the way, regarding who’s male/female, you write like a girl. Hope I didn’t just insult you. : )
“She, Timothy, Evan, Travis type and sound so similarly, I always assume it’s pretty much the same person”
I don’t agree with that at all because I’m not even close to the same league, but that’s probably one of the nicest things anyone’s ever said to me. My apologies to Katecho, Timothy, and Travis for having to be grouped together with me. *blushes*
Hi Kelly, BJ is either active duty or active guard/reserve from what he was saying elsewhere. The others will have to out themselves. Oh, and you are too kind.
Hey Buggs,
Nope, flat out missed that. Oh, OH; being in a minority ought to us special treatment. How about “#ex-GI opinions matter?” Or “matter more?” Has a nice ring to it, huh? ;).
LOL, “Those who serve, deserve….” I am being a bit cheeky, huh?
No, Buggs, not by the recent standard set by the Elect! Not even close.
I had to read around a bit to derive the context/nuance for the term “Elect” as used vs. the biblical definition. I think I can chuckle at that one.
“had to read around a bit to derive the context/nuance for the term “Elect” as used vs. the biblical definition.”
Whatd’ya come up with? Just curious. I never get Haggar’s ‘elect’ jokes (it’s not him, it’s me)
My guess is that it is a dig at hardcore calvinism. Kelly, hope I am not spoiling the fun.
Lol, well I knew that much. I was more curious about the “vs the biblical definition” thing.
Context taken from Matt. 24, and other places. Referring to those God had chosen. The reason I set a distinction is that short of Christ’s judgment, there may be a difference between those who are chosen by Him vs. those who think they are the elect by virtue of a belief in particular doctrinal points.
Gotcha. You were seeing a different view than this espoused in the comments though?
Not in any way that warrants jumping off the thread, no. Rather, in this rather epic comment section, it was fascinating to see all the spectrum of thoughts (obviously not all of which I agree with) fired about. Especially the ongoing debate regarding confederate flags (earthly symbols are not eternal ones, IMO, and should not be held onto with anything other than a light grip) and whether slavery was a sin – whether or or not biblical slavery would have been sanctioned vs how it was actually practiced in fact. I cannot speak to the Southern experience as I do… Read more »
Maybe my next career in comedy has a faint hope left? ;).
It just might. ;)
For a relatively dull, americano, politico centric post, this has generated an hilarious amount of commentary. It’s been like watching Homer Simpson chase a poodle.
Ok Disqus is disgusting me. Is there any way to show a comment and ALL comments under it besides starting at the very top and clicking “Load more comments” 50 times? I’m on Android.
Let me know if you find out. This is what happens on my laptop, too. I thought I was going to lose my proverbial mind last night trying to catch up and keep up. And I’m quite sure I had context missing or
out of order…which can make volatile convos all the more volatile…
I wasn’t going to even come to this thread today…but your first five words made me LOL. That’s a promising start :)
See above to jigawatt.
That’s EXACTLY why I went with the “Omnibus” instead of posting each answer under each comment/question/reply. And it was REAL pain going through my e-mail trying to find, cut, paste, and import them into WP.
(Reply to Krychek_2’s comment #2226954666: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-coalition-of-dust-bunnies.html#comment-2226954666)
It sounds then (using your customized terminology) that “human life” in the personhood sense, the sense in which you claim most scientists believe is tied to the onset of consciousness, is really a legal term and not biological one. Even if consciousness comes about around 26 weeks (the unanswered questions of consciousness notwithstanding), the attachment of “personhood” to the now conscious fetus is squarely in the legal relam. So … what do I care about the legal opinions of scientists?
Exactly. Krychek_2 implies that he is throwing the full weight of science at us, but then we find that he is actually just appealing to the current arbitrary legal definition (whatever is, is). Not only this, but we also find that Krychek_2 already concedes that even if the unborn is fully human, with full consciousness and life, and with full personhood, they still get to die because the inconvenience to the mom’s body trumps the child’s life. So while Krychek_2 may not like the label, he is actually defending full on murder. How? Because murder is the premeditated destruction of… Read more »
No, K2 hasn’t.
Never thought I’d get to imitate Bill Clinton. “Depends on what is is.” K2 is an attorney while neither of you are. Yet the laymen are trying to school a JD on the correct definition of a legal term.
Instead, you two should be playing at the other end of the field. Make your case on moral grounds, not legal ones.
Or persuade secular authorities to amend the definition of murder to match what you wished it were.
Krychek_2 is equivocating. He’s using the phrase “human life” which sounds like a science term, appealing to “most scientists” to define it, but then, when pressed on it, he admits that THIS VERSION of “human life” that he’s talking about actually doesn’t concern biology or even the poorly understood concept of consciousness. Rather, it concerns personhood attachment, a legal construct where the opinions of “most scientists” carry no professional weight.
And, as katecho pointed out, this is kind of a moot point. Even if he admits his equivocation, Krychek_2 will then fall back on “My body, my choice”.
Right now, K2 gets to do that fall back. Right now the law does say exactly that. If the mom-to-be doesn’t want to be a mom, she can pretty much have the “tissue crushed above or below as the customer has ordered” for whatever reason strikes her fancy, other than being paid for the parts. (Even there, as long as the Dept of “Justice” is willing to keep looking the other way, the doesn’t-want-to-be-a-mom could get a % of the “expenses” of harvesting the parts.) You know, brainstorm!!! PP could team up with the sex tourism hotels in SE Asia.… Read more »
Haggar seems to have misunderstood my point entirely. I was making my case on moral grounds, and not circularly “appealing to the current arbitrary legal definition”. Obviously the law does not recognize abortion as murder, as of today, otherwise it would already be illegal. However, all of the ingredients that would otherwise constitute murder have now been granted by Krychek_2. For the sake of argument, Krychek_2 has granted that the unborn could be fully conscious, and full human beings, and he would still support the legality of their death because of the temporary inconvenience to the mother’s body. Given Krychek_2’s… Read more »
“because of the temporary inconvenience to the mother’s body” Strange; when I import bold it goes to plain text. But importing someone else’s bold and everything stays bold. No tab or switch visible to me. Anyway, that’s why this is all in bold. [Stranger yet; as soon as I pasted in a second bold ALL the bold disappeared.] I agree on the circular. I leave it to others to decide if either of us is being vicious. Or begging the question. Because the entire dispute here is whether or not LEGAL status attaches to the unborn. K1 wants to ascribe… Read more »
K2/Kelly, Per this of Echo’s comment: “For the sake of argument, Krychek_2 has granted that the unborn could be fully conscious, and full human beings, and he would still support the legality of their death because of the temporary inconvenience to the mother’s body.” I am remembering a conversation where K2 did not grant this…indicating at some point it turned into “infanticide”…and the later the age, etc. the more he was willing to consider arguing laws, etc. K2 I could be misrepresenting you, but I don’t have time this evening to go through your Disqus comments. I remember it, I… Read more »
Alex continues to place his loyalties with the wrong camp, but for Alex’s sake, this is one of the earlier comments from Krychek_2 that I’ve referred to: Even if the fetus is fully human, though no fault of its own it is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that bad things happen to people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case, the legal choice — not the moral or ethical choice — is the rights of a woman who indubitably is human to her bodily integrity,… Read more »
K2/Kelly, Here it is (what I was referring to in the comment below/above about what K2 “grants”.) And I’m not trying to confuse legal/moral circles. I just thought this was important about some things asserted. —-START: Krychek_2 to Alex in Wonderland 17 days ago My comments have probably suffered from a lack of clarity because I think abortions fit into three categories, and I haven’t always been careful to clarify which I’m talking about. I don’t think the fetus is a human being until it acquires at least some human traits, such as consciousness, and prior to that point I… Read more »
Here’s another quote from Krychek_2 for Alex’s sake: But don’t forget, personhood only partially resolves the question of whether abortion should be legal. Even if the zygote were determined to unquestionably be a human being, that still leaves the issue of the rights of the woman carrying it. The woman is undoubtedly a human being with the full panoply of human rights, and telling her that her body is being taken over by someone else for nine months is not a de minimus intrusion. Again, notice that Krychek_2 always puts the legality of the “rights” of the mother above those… Read more »
Haggar wrote: Murder is what a legislature says it is, as interpreted by a court. Period. Full stop. Full stop? Where is the mention of what God says murder is? If a German court said that mass killing of Jews in a gas chamber is not murder, would it have ceased to be murder? Is Haggar really putting courts in the place of God? Haggar is confused if he thinks the question is about “what the law IS”. We already know that abortion is not currently classified as murder. We have been talking about whether it ought to be considered… Read more »
Then why keep challenging me to come up with a different rationale? Especially when I’m not trying to keep abortion legal? The real problem here is that you have not yet been able to convince five justices to see things your way. Or, if the next prez can replace a 5th vote, that you will not be able to convince half + 1 of legislators in all 50 states to see things your way. BTW, the stance you’re taking here will NOT help you pass the bill you want. Were I sitting in such an office, I’d throw you out… Read more »
K2 did make a passing speculation that someone might be a Christian “poe” of sorts…pretending to be one for the point of making Christians look very bad… they can be a sort of troll…google up and read up on “Poe’s Law”… I think I’ve been pointed out several times for, well, you know, “loyalties” and all that, so just thought I’d point that consideration out ;) P.S. If this is no Poe, these four at least don’t care about the bill, etc. Secular government is perverse, not to be bartered with…hearts first. And until they are in control and all… Read more »
Took your advice, looked up the term, found: “Poe then replied, ‘Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article’.”] OK, I see your first point, but my hunch is it’s instead your second one – – sincerity. In all fairness, if you really do believe you’re one of the Elect and your “Hotline to Reality” is not only wired up but also static-free, then it must be pretty hard to suffer fools (esp. OT definition) gladly. OTOH,… Read more »
We all have the same “hotline to reality” Kelly. It’s called the bible. It’s the authority over all authorities is it not?
That’s not the question. No Christian disputes that. I surely don’t. It’s Step Two where the problems begin; when we answer the call, what do we think the receiver in the headset is saying? Some denominations ordain women; others don’t. Here endth another opportunity to have a theological dispute.
*shrugs* I think you’re making this more complicated than it has to be. You have the same sword as us and its a lot more effective than legal reasoning. If You’re not going to use it , at least don’t begrudge us the opportunity eh?
I think the impetus of this blog is help Christians recapture step 1 instead of just giving it perfunctory nod.
I NEEDED a laugh…the Elvis one kept me going for most of the day…but…it was high time… Okay, so I will be honest…yes, you nail it for some of them…though, they aren’t all created equal…and I am prolly more Calvinistic than not…and indeed that’s why I don’t joust atheists or “only God really knows” fellow team members unless they are being bullies. What’s the point. That’s why I can’t quite figure it out. Personality or the post-millenial thing on steroids…or both…if you are trying to hurry up a day of the Lord and it’s your responsibility, then everyone that opposes… Read more »
Yo, Alex it’s a SIN to tempt me so strongly to break my brand new, still shinny, belated New Years Res! Shame on YOU!!!
Psst. Pssssst. Over here. Quiet now . . . don’t tell anybody I asked , but I gotta know. Were you old enough to recall any sermons in that UMC saying that mere mortal man cannot do anything to speed up or slow down God’s time table?
I told you I’d be watching and enjoying…and now you figured out I didn’t necessarily LIKE your resolution, so I have no shame in tempting you. Though I’m beginning to wonder what the point is at all on any of the discussion. If Christianity is as splintered as society and or of the majority mindset of … on this blog… Could you let me know where it was on this dusty thread or another where it was said that you didn’t have a leg or foundation to stand on with your inerrancy comment? I can’t find it, and I want… Read more »
“For future snark and all that ;)”
Please reconsider saving up things to snark with. I’ve decided returning the serve to an Elect is squarely in the “pig/wrestle/you dirty/him like it” arena.
I started to clarify “or for future rebuttals”…but your advice seems to work with that, too.
Yes, I know. I can’t make any promises or resolutions on it, but I do believe they count the opportunity of giving/receiving/giving as “part of the P in the TULIP…perserverance of the saints”.
I haven’t been understanding the force/pressure/repent or else language more like an Arminian…but the millenial age/bring in the kingdom makes all the difference in their perceived “duties”…but if they are hoping to reach hearts first, mercy me…
Onward…not looking through the dust here any longer!
I’m not even sure, since none of this subthread has been “replied” to K2’s username if he even knows his presence here is desired (by those who think he is relevant, of course.) There’s not much more can be said till he cares to engage further. “Alex continues to place his loyalties with the wrong camp,” Damn. I’ve never been asked where my loyalties are, but they judged to be “with the wrong camp”. I guess it’s beyond someone’s comprehension that camps, unless their millenial age theology says it can’t be–I’m still trying to catch up on the ramifications of… Read more »
Alex, unless you’re getting some kind of inner satisfaction out of jousting with K1, I’m suggesting you give some thought – – or prayer? – – to the utility of answering. I’ve been on that fence myself for a while but tonight pushed me off. I’ll bet I could cut-n-paste a few lines from a dictionary taken at random and get the same canned responses. It’s like that Far Side horse vet cartoon. Long list of aliments with the same “cure” beside each one: “Shoot ’em.”
Oh, so you see me actually smiling on this subthread? Yep :D
But, I understand.
And anyway. Far Side. Theology in Far Side… “Just to make it interesting…”
http://i.imgur.com/lSZuQiW.jpg
Screaming? Who’s screaming? I would point out that Haggar didn’t address my questions to him regarding the incompleteness of his view of who defines murder. I think Haggar and I are in substantial agreement on direction, but we are not following the same thought process in terms of the authority behind the goal. I’m not appealing to Congress or to the Supreme Court because I think they are the solution. They are currently the problem. They are guilty. I’m appealing to them to repent, and to represent our nation in repentance. Then let whatever bills follow (as they will if… Read more »
See? The whole comment including, “I think Haggar and I are in substantial agreement on direction, but we are not following the same thought process in terms of the authority behind the goal” and all the rest. I told you! With these, it can’t go anywhere but back to theology…that’s what they are all about. I think convo is totally pointless with those of this view. And they’ve said their beliefs crystal clear a few times even on this thread. It’s good to know. But again, what to do when sub threads get this way. Why do they even talk… Read more »
“I told you! With these, it can’t go anywhere but back to theology…that’s what they are all about.”
Your welcome to join us at anytime. See you at the top.
“”For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of
ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself
over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have
been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow
I may join you at the top, or I may not. Time will tell. And definitions have not been clarified. Either way, until then, Mrfranklinb23’s proposal for a US map, should we be blessed with such an opportunity, looks better and better to me, and I’ll know what state to not move to ;)
Is there a state on his map for all the ‘perpetually offended’? That might suit you pretty well, yes? Imagine all the commiserating you could do with those who have been similarly mistreated!
Failure to recognize screaming is a real problem in winning friends and influencing people.
My hunch is no one looked for (or recognized) “To a Louse”. Also, my memory was bad. It didn’t crawl up neck; it crawled out of a curli-thingy on her bonnet. “The gift to see ourselves as others see us.” Not happenin’.
I hear the scriptures make a pretty good “mirror”. With the bonus being its much more reliable than the way other people see us. Good for finding louses as well. Or is it lousi?
After all, he WAS attending a church service. But it’s so hard to figure things out when everyone’s mirror – – except MY mirror, of course – – is the fun house kind.
But I need to dig out the HandsOn URL and get ready for a long day tomorrow.
The bible is a fun house mirror? Never heard that one before. That’s a colorful analogy.
Surprised myself yet another time. What I thought was crystal clear turned out to be opaque to others. “Communication” strikes again. Moreover, if I was THAT wrong on clarity then I’m likely also wrong on the need to power up my feeble “tact buffer.” Thought I could leave it in STBY (“standby” is warm up but not on – it doesn’t emit anything while in STBY) for that comment. All that said, here’s my second attempt; tact rotary control switch moved to “Operate” this time: If you believe (a) there is an Elect and (b) you are one, then seems… Read more »
“BTW #1, I’m not interested in hearing/learning what anyone else thinks about how “Elect really works.” Measure with a micrometer, mark with a grease pencil, cut with an axe. I rarely listen to Methodist bishops. I’m surely not going to listen to anybody else’s bishops. If that damns me to Hell then I’ll take number and wait in line with K2.” Me either. I don’t get a kick out batting around the minutiae of doctrinal/philosophical questions just for the heck of it. “BTW #2, those of you who DO want to play with doctrine/theology questions, have all the fun you… Read more »
Glad we were able to clear that up! Amen from me.
But I’ve got to chase some assignments so I’m staying off the air the rest of the day. Will check in after Cub Scouts tonight.
“Glad we were able to clear that up! Amen from me.”
Okay. Just remember, the sword you’ve been given for the battle won’t do you any good if you leave it in the scabbard. Shalom.
Ever hear “If all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?” Maybe it would be better to have a whole bag of different tools/weapons, ranging from a soft word to turn away wrath all the way up to megatons?
tsk, tsk…”no one”? that’s almost as offensive as the all-inclusive “we” :D
harumph.
perhaps some go with the alternative interpretation:
“An alternative interpretation is that the poet is musing to himself how
horrified and humbled the pious woman would be if she were aware she
was harboring a common parasite in her hair.” not to harbor common irrelevant louses…
Maybe it was an Elect louse, so it was OK.
My bad. That was more terrible than it was funny. Better not quit my day job. Comedy Central is not EVER going to come looking for me. Probably a good thing, too!
LOLOLOL
Yes, YES, the louses, if not elect, were at least fore-ordained and foreknown…so no sense complaining either way…
Your “flame” and “no tact” are the best.
Still trying to block out the ballerina slippers mental imagery so I don’t wake up the household :D
Well, if you and I are the only ones who thought it was funny then it must have been really terrible.
Lights out for me now.
No, I’m thinking theology differences affect humor differences, too.
Plus, when I did my avatar, it was because America and the church at large was feeling like a Wonderland…I never imagined even this blog would feel like one. Now I’m thinking I should change it to The Twilight Zone avatar…”You have now crossed over into the Twilight Zone.” More creepy than funny most times :D
What fun!
” Maybe I’ll just compile the clearest expressions of their beliefs on this and quote it as a warning and reminder to everyone…just as they like to do of other commenters. “Just so you know…”
It’s good to see you’ve assumed the role of ‘courtesy police’. I look forward to the law and order you’ll bring to the comment section.
I said, “maybe” and “just as they like to do”…
and it was said because it’s what EchoChamber and MereChristian have indicated they would do to a select few others
and I don’t remember your complimenting them when they didn’t say “maybe”, but rather they said they “would”…and have.
And I actually chose to respond to this because on the front thread INDEED you quoted exactly what I “might have” done too when people of that ilk want to talk about the law (or rather, not want others to). Irony indeed.
Sounds good. I’d like to see it when it’s done. That would be welcome change to your posts rather than your usual ‘Mr. Offended’ spiel. :)
Listen, Evan. I’m a little sick and tired of this. Not in a mad way…a stomach churning, exhausted way. I have done far more than “Mr. Offended” spiels. I’ve only been here since around the Oberg ruling, and I’ve have had a tremendous amount of challenging conversation with all kinds of people that are “different” from how I choose to believe theologically or live personally. It’s not even my style to be offended except with “giving back as good as they give” to those that are perpetually offended by me or others and our views that offend them. Dealing with… Read more »
Alrighty then. Sounds like you’ve got plenty to deal with. I’ll leave you to it. *backs away slowly*
“Here’s another quote from Krychek_2 for Alex’s sake:” My response is the same. K2 and some of us are talking law vs. belief and how they merge or can within a society we are all trying to get along together in. Until some of us see the nails in the hands of King Jesus on this earth we are willing (and believe biblically responsible) to do this. While I guess to some, that keeps a day of the Lord even farther way because our hearts are not right on this. I don’t know. Either way, since Echo’s whole message regarding… Read more »