Just Watching

A few days ago I wrote, in that lucid and penetrating way I sometimes have, that we ought not be tying other political or cultural issues to our pursuit of Planned Parenthood. As much as within us lies, we ought to keep the focus and attention on the indefensible conduct of Planned Parenthood, and the outrageous behavior of those politicians who are covering for them.All Livers Matter

All well and good, but at least one astute observer noticed (and thereafter mentioned to me) that I have been spotted, within the precincts of this abortion issue, horsing around with the Confederate flag, and Bruce Jenner’s predilection for girly stuff, and so on. What’s with that?

There are two ways to reply to this, but they actually reduce to the same point. We must notice, first of all, the particular way in which God has served this collation of issues up to us. As I wrote previously, we ought not try to cobble our pet projects to this issue (e.g. #DefundPP and #FlossDaily), but that is quite different from seeing the straight line connection between these apparently disparate issues as they all come barreling toward us.

These videos are simply God’s return volley to the Obergefell decision. In the conclusion of his opinion in that case, Scalia wrote this prescient sentence.

“With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

That is what is happening right now. The nation acquiesced to Roe, which we should not have done. That acquiescence makes the entire nation complicit, but God in His great mercy has presented us with an opportunity to repent of that complicity. In 1973, we saw Gross Constitutional Overreach A, and we did nothing. In 2015, Gross Constitutional Overreach B arrived, as it had to, given A, and then God — whose mercies are everlasting — gave us an opportunity to react to A the way we should have the first time. We are now being given an opportunity to undo Roe and to do so by direct action.

Now there are no doubt some who would grant this point on a flaming issue like Obergefell, but the Confederate flag? I do sympathize with the one who says, “Oh, for pity’s sake.” At least flossing is good for you.

But I would still offer two responses. First, look at the time line. If you were reading all this in a novel, or watching it in a movie, would the timeline say anything to you? Do you know how to read a story at all? Jenner identifies as a girl, Dolezal identifies as black, a grotesque shooting takes place, a frenzied campaign to make South Carolina take down the Confederate flag breaks out, a few days later, the Supreme Court imposes same sex mirage on a whole bunch of states that didn’t want it, and then just a matter of days after that, these devastating videos start to come out. I am not trying to cobble anything to anything. I am just watching.

And here is a second response, one that requires an answer from anyone who wants these particular issues to be kept in separate boxes. In 1830, if the Supreme Court had mandated that the several states had to allow for abortion on demand, and had to embrace same sex mirage, all the state governors and all the state legislatures with them, would have laughed the Supreme Court to scorn. The replies would have varied, but they would have all been along the lines of “come and make us.” They would have reminded SCOTUS of their impotence, and would have done so promptly and without hesitation. But in 1973 the Supreme Court decided Roe and in 2015 they decided Obergefell. For some reason, the governors and their legislatures, which by and large overwhelmingly dissented from these decisions, had come to believe that they didn’t have the right or the authority to laugh the Supreme Court to scorn. What changed? When did it change? How did it change? You don’t like my answer? Fine. What is the right answer then? When did that happen exactly?

At the Founding, the Bill of Rights used to be taken as a set of restrictions on the central government (e.g. Congress shall make no law), with the states functioning as the guardians of those restrictions. It is now being taken as a restriction on evangelical florists and bakers, preventing them from hurting the feelings of lesbians, with the federal government functioning as the guardian of those restrictions. Now if you want to explain how we got from point A to point B without appealing to the 14th Amendment, and then (of necessity) explaining how we got that amendment, then good luck to you, says I.

And returning to the top, here is the second great reason why abortion and same sex mirage cannot be discussed biblically without talking about slavery. The other side won’t let you. One of the books I am currently working through is Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? It is a very fine book, but in it, there is a section on . . . you guessed it, slavery. This is because any faithful Christian who appeals to Scripture as normative on homosexuality will be asked, in the first ten minutes of any open Q & A session, why we take scriptural teaching on sexuality the way we do when the Bible allows for slavery. Hmmm?

If we say, “no, it doesn’t,” that response is what should be called, to use the exegetical term for it, “a lie.” The Bible does allow for slavery. If we say, “that was then, this is now,” we will be asked why that neat little maneuver works on slavery and not on committed and monogamous same sex relationships. Homosexuals have hands also, which means that they can just wave them over the text as well as we can. In short, there is no way to fight intellectual dishonesty with intellectual dishonesty.

Now because the previous paragraph contains the phrase “the Bible does allow for slavery,” I would urge anyone who feels an attack of the vapors coming on to read my summary of what the Bible teaches on slavery in Black & Tan. That chapter is called Scripture and Slavery, and I come out of it looking like a very reasonable man. And if you don’t want to give me the satisfaction of getting the book, then you can read something here on the biblical strategy for tackling social evils like the institution of slavery. But note, mark it well, hark! The social evil of slavery and the moral evil of same sex behavior are not in the same category. They must be treated very differently. And intellectually dishonest ways don’t count.

So the real issue in all these controversies is biblical authority. Christians should know by now that as soon as we start apologizing for the Bible, there is no consistent stopping point. You have had it, you’re done. This is because when we act embarrassed about parts of the Bible, the Bible says that God will act embarrassed about us.

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

And when God is ashamed of us and our caviling words, it is a safe bet that the Spirit of boldness is not on us. And that might explain some things.

278
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
14 Comment threads
264 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
35 Comment authors
mikePrincess Erika the Radiant(((Aron)))Rev. R. W. ShazbotDunsworth Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Stephen Larson
Guest
Stephen Larson

I have three brief points in response to your post, Pastor Wilson. Thank you for your ministry! 1: I believe it is very possible to acknowledge and accept the Bible’s allowance of slavery, without necessarily justifiying American slavery in the process. We can correctly observe that faithful Christian slaveholders could have been admitted to the church, and grieve over the complex and tragic Civil War, while also not finding it necessary to uphold the entirety of the Confederate cause. 2: I would argue that you ought more properly to point to Reconstruction, rather than the Civil War and the 14th… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

“What changed? When did it change?”

The 17th amendment. 1913.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

In 1973, we saw Gross Constitutional Overreach A, and we did nothing. In 2015, Gross Constitutional Overreach B arrived, as it had to, given A, and then God — whose mercies are everlasting — gave us an opportunity to react to A the way we should have the first time. A few weeks ago, Rev. Wilson admitted that well, yes, the 1967 Loving v. VA decision that invalidated state laws against interracial marriage was a Gross Constitutional Overreach, and led directly to Obergefell. But now he’s insisting that, no, it wasn’t; Roe v. Wade was Gross Constitutional Overreach A and… Read more »

David Trounce
Guest

Greg, I think you misunderstand what christians are interested in. We notice the overreach as a means of furthering an ungodly cause. But our interest is not the secular overreach, it’s the dominion of Christ. It is no sin for a Hebrew to marry a Moabite. It is a sin to jump into the hay with another Gregory. And regarding PP, I think you will find that international infanticide coupled with the sale of human flesh is not something that will be relegated to the teapot… ever.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Right; just as I said, you couldn’t care less about the Constitutionality of SCOTUS rulings. Your only concern is whether a ruling jibes with your religious beliefs. You think it’s wrong to oppose interracial marriage, so SCOTUS is free to ignore the Constitution and invalidate state laws that ban it. But you think it’s right to oppose gay marriage, so SCOTUS is wrong to invalidate state laws that ban it. Which is blatant hypocrisy. But good luck with the argument that SCOTUS should ignore the Constitution and instead base their rulings on your religious beliefs. It just might work. I… Read more »

A. James
Member

I’ve just been minding my own username business and staying out of trouble by
reading Kelly’s articles and other provided links. But…I had to check
on you. I thought you might have fainted, but I see you survived the shock. Or maybe we should stop being shocked…

“Greg, I think you misunderstand what christians are interested in”?
No, we don’t misunderstand at all. Not at all. And not ALL Christians are uninterested in the secular overreach. Ahem.

Surreal.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Exactly. I post that Christians are being dishonest because they pretend to be upset at SCOTUS for ignoring the Constitution in Obergefell, but they’re quite content with SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution in Loving. So, really, they’re not concerned with the Constitution at all, but only want SCOTUS to issue rulings that line up with their beliefs. And David Trounce comes on and says “You got it all wrong. We don’t care about the secular Constitution – we’re concerned about religion.”

Amazing.

Katecho
Member

This hobbyhorse from McDivitt continues to be a distortion and a distraction. No one here has suggested that the Loving case was a legitimate exercise of SCOTUS jurisdiction, or that it should be ignored. McDivitt appears to be talking about unnamed “Christians” who aren’t here on this blog. We have no difficulty acknowledging that the SCOTUS (like the State of Virginia before it) abused its authority to get ahead of an issue that the Church should have already addressed within its rightful jurisdiction. The case is one of many that led us to where we are. It is not unique… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

No one here has suggested that the Loving case was a legitimate exercise of SCOTUS jurisdiction

Actually, several people on here have said that very thing. And it’s not just here. John Piper, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, Franklin Graham, and many, many other Christian leaders have praised Loving.

Katecho
Member

I notice that McDivitt didn’t provide any names or quotations from anyone here praising the Loving decision, or calling it legitimate. Until he does so, I will point out that he is misrepresenting us, which is not very Christ-like (assuming he claims to be a Christian).

As for the other names, McDivitt is welcome to provide cited quotations of them “praising Loving”. I’m just not prepared to grant them to him without the citations, given his current record here.

A. James
Member

“This hobbyhorse from McDivitt continues to be a distortion and a distraction.” It’s only a distraction as much as others draw attention to it or choose to engage. Your hobbyhorse seems to be to annoyed with his :) “No one here has suggested that the Loving case was a legitimate exercise of SCOTUS jurisdiction, or that it should be ignored. McDivitt appears to be talking about unnamed “Christians” who aren’t here on this blog.” I disagree with the “no one here”. It was all such a surprise to me, a newbie. And I worked very hard to get my mind… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Alex,

Don’t waste any time on Gregory’s attempts at legal reasoning; it’s that “pig/teach/sing” thing.

kmh

A. James
Member

Well…apart from the particular progression and court cases direct connection “legal reasoning”…you aren’t totally without empathy for my general concern here? Right? The whole “need to be concerned very concerned about that legal circle because sure as certain it’s going to eventually affect our individual precious Bible circle (or anyone’s belief circle)”?

Okay, I’ll go find those other articles and hush up :)

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Alex, didn’t see this earlier. I don’t think we saw any “legal reasoning” in Obergefell. The Gang of Five is not concerned with it. They are results driven. That’s why the Chief told the gays rights folks to celebrate their victory, but not the Constitution, because the latter had nothing to do with their win. There is no cure for Obergefell via logic or law. “Reason won’t get a man out of anything reason did not get him into.” The only remedy is a change in personnel. The Ds have ZERO interest in a non-living Constitution; neither do the Rs… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Kelly’s right, Alex. I have no idea what I’m talking about. Obviously, Loving had absolutely nothing to do with Obergefell, and it’s crazy to think there’s any link at all, let alone a foundational one. I mean, just because the Obergefell ruling itself cited Loving repeatedly as a basis for its holding, it clearly had nothing to do with it. That’s just nuts. You should listen to Kelly, because he’s going to write a letter to SCOTUS and show them their error in largely basing their ruling on the Loving decision, and they’re going to see the light and ban… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Gregory, I’m struggling to stay polite here, but you’re the guy who thinks there’s a statute of limitations on the Bill of Rights. You’re the guy who couldn’t read and apply a case as simple as Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. “Ban gay marriage?” Ban? By a FEDERAL court? In a state STATUS question? Ban? Can anyone actually be that clueless? (Samuel Johnson; “You must have taken great pains, Sir, you could not naturally have been so stupid.”) But I’m not curious enough to find out how you could fall off yet another rail with the “ban” notion. kmh

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Good luck, Kelley. You’re gonna need it.

Let me know in ten years how that Palazzolo thing worked out for you.

Semper fry.

Katecho
Member

McDivitt has stooped to a new low with this comment. He misses David Trounce so wide that I’m not sure what he is even reading.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

What he’s reading has nothing to do with it. He “missed” David Trounce’s point only in the sense that the monkey in the cage throwing his own excrement around “failed to make a cogent argument in favor of his own position.” He’s not trying to understand or interact with what’s being said.

A. James
Member

It reminded me of your point, I believe, once upon a thread (or jilly’s, can’t remember). And the comments get deleted from threads after a while, so it’s not possible to “prove or disprove” to kate as far as who said what. The point that I understood most people of the blog elite here to believe back then, as with David (who can feel free to clarify if we misunderstood his point), is that you are okay with the Loving decision but not with how it was made, and thus it was not as concerning because good came out of… Read more »

Jane
Member

Alex, I think you entirely missed the point of my comment.

McDivitt’s “points,” such as they are, when he actually attempts to make them, though weak, are not the excrement. The excrement is the snarky, non-responsive comments that utterly fail to engage but merely belittle others. I merely answered him in kind, but with more provocation.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Jane, have you ever read the spiritual classic Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers?

http://www.jslweb.com/blog/2012/02/07/some-thoughts-on-bobbed-hair-bossy-wives-and-women-preachers/

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Jane, did you and kate go to the same law school as Kelly?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Greg,

And YOU went to law school at all?

kmh

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Nope. One semester of Bible college.

But, hey! It’s never too late!

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

We finally can agree on something; I started law school at 50.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

What he’s reading has nothing to do with it. He “missed” David Trounce’s point only in the sense that the monkey in the cage throwing his own excrement around “failed to make a cogent argument in favor of his own position.” He’s not trying to understand or interact with what’s being said.

Really, Jane? Here’s what David just said about my comment about his comment:

“Now you’re getting it. Correct. My interest is in furthering the gospel.”

A. James
Member

how so? David’s point seemed to be the overreach wasn’t as much of a concern because the outcome/decision of that overreach was right according to the Dominion…? it’s what has been presented here before.

and I’d like to understand how the SCOTUS had the right to interfere in the State of Virginia/Racial Integrity Act? what guidelines are we going by? more of those “Dominion” guidelines? which is okay if that’s your vantage, just trying to get this figured out.

Katecho
Member

Alex in Wonderland wrote: David’s point seemed to be the overreach wasn’t as much of a concern because the outcome/decision of that overreach was right according to the Dominion…? it’s what has been presented here before. Read again. David didn’t say that the secular overreach wasn’t a concern, or that it was justified. He said the overreach was a means of furthering an “ungodly cause”. In other words, it’s not our interest to participate in the tactics of the secular overreachers. None of this is an endorsement or a downplaying of the overreach of the Loving decision. David is simply… Read more »

A. James
Member

“Read again. David didn’t say that the secular overreach wasn’t a concern, or that it was justified.” I didn’t say he did. I said it read to me as it wasn’t as MUCH of a concern to him. “He said the overreach was a means of furthering an “ungodly cause”. In other words, it’s not our interest to participate in the tactics of the secular overreachers. None of this is an endorsement or a downplaying of the overreach of the Loving decision. David is simply saying that it is not our way.” This is so NOT how I read it… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Alex wrote:

David’s point seemed to be the overreach wasn’t as much of a concern because the outcome/decision of that overreach was right according to the Dominion…?

At no point did David say or imply that SCOTUS overreach was a lesser concern, or in any way justified, or right, simply because it happened to agree with his views against racism. David didn’t even say that it was justified because it happened to agree with Christ’s dominion. Rather David said that secular overreach was not our way. McDivitt simply misrepresented him, pitifully.

A. James
Member

I did not say he justified it or said it was right..but it is NOT clear that he doesn’t see it as not on the same level of concern OR that he isn’t more concerned with Oberg because it is a sin issue to him. In fact it seems pretty clear to me on the sin issue… I don’t quite know why you are insisting he is saying what he just didn’t even say…”secular overreach was not our way” “tactics” etc. but I don’t want to insist, there’s no way to clear it up without knowing the author’s (David’s) original… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

McDivitt has stooped to a new low with this comment. He misses David Trounce so wide that I’m not sure what he is even reading.

So, I missed David’s point? So wide that you don’t even know what I was reading? Here’s what he just said about my comment about his comment:

“Now you’re getting it. Correct. My interest is in furthering the gospel.”

David Trounce
Guest

Gregory, just so you know, the gospel I believe and seek to further has plenty to say on all things SCOTUS, starting with the fact that the constitution is not the supreme standard, and neither is SCOTUS.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Well, that has nothing to do with my most recent comments.

Kate said I had misunderstood your comment so badly that it was if I hadn’t even read it.

Jane said I wasn’t even trying to understand or interact with what you’d said, and that my reply to you was so wildly irrelevant to what you’d said that I was like a monkey throwing his feces around in a cage.

Yet you say I had understood your comment just fine, and was correct in my interpretation of it.

David Trounce
Guest

Yes, but I think Kate and Jane are following my meaning more fully than you may be. I suspect you are stopping too soon, thinking you have nailed it.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Did you or did you not write the following about my comment? Now you’re getting it. Correct. My interest is in furthering the gospel. If you didn’t, then you need to complain to Disqus about your account being hacked. If you did, you need to quit trying to worm your way out of it and have it both ways. After posting it, you realized your comment made Kate and Jane look like complete idiots, so now you’re trying to say you didn’t really mean I was correct, and really, Kate and Jane were right when they said I had no… Read more »

David Trounce
Guest

It only seems that way to you because (I suspect) you have a truncated view of what the gospel is, e.g. you referred earlier to the gospel as a, “religious view”.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

One more time, David: (I added bolding because you must’ve missed it the first time.) Did you or did you not write the following about my comment? Now you’re getting it. Correct. My interest is in furthering the gospel. If you didn’t, then you need to complain to Disqus about your account being hacked. If you did, you need to quit trying to worm your way out of it and have it both ways. After posting it, you realized your comment made Kate and Jane look like complete idiots, so now you’re trying to say you didn’t really mean I… Read more »

David Trounce
Guest

“…just as I said, you couldn’t care less about the Constitutionality of SCOTUS rulings. Your only concern is whether a ruling jibes with your religious beliefs.”

Now you’re getting it. Correct. My interest is in furthering the gospel.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I don’t think Doug is attempting to reduce the Roe-Obergefell connection to a simple legal analysis of the progression of stare decisis in a line of cases. I think he’s linking them morally as much as he is legally (which is not to say a legal similarity isn’t also there). In other words, as a nation, we enshrined our “right” to kill the fruit of such unions, and so, by the time the homo “marriage” kerfuffle came along, we then no longer had a consensus about the theology of fruitfulness of marital unions, making the leap to homo “marriage” that… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Correction, I think I got that backwards near the end “heavier import of judicial overreach, etc.” But I gather the point is clear nonetheless. Obviously I mean to say the heavier import is the latter, not the former.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You guys just keep doing this over and over. I point out that you want SCOTUS to respect the Constitution and leave state laws against gay marriage in place, because you think gay marriage is immoral, but at the same time, since you regard interracial marriage as morally permissible, you think it’s no big deal that SCOTUS trampled the Constitution to invalidate state laws against it. And then you guys come on and say, “no, that’s not what we’re doing at all, you’re missing the point. We DO oppose SCOTUS flouting states rights in Loving.” And then, at the end,… Read more »

Katecho
Member

McDivitt continues to miss the point. The SCOTUS flouting of State’s rights in the Loving vs Virginia case followed the previous flouting of the bounds of rightful authority by the State of Virginia itself, in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

Regardless of McDivitt’s obsession over the case, both civil authorities were out of bounds, which is why we have no need to pick sides by attempting any kind of do-over.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Where does the Constitution prohibit states from passing Racial Integrity Acts?

Katecho
Member

I was referring to an authority above the Constitution of the U.S. The State does not have jurisdiction or authority from God to impose “racial integrity” laws over marriage.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

See; there you go YET AGAIN. When SCOTUS invalidates laws banning gay marriage, you denounce them for violating the Constitution and flouting states’ rights. When I point out that they did the very same thing in Loving, first you claim that no one denies or downplays that, and then you say, so what, there’s a higher law, so the Constitution doesn’t apply in that case. In other words, when SCOTUS tramples the Constitution to invalidate state marriage laws I approve of, that’s an outrage. But when SCOTUS tramples the Constitution to invalidate state marriage laws I don’t approve of, that’s… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Before his keyboard catches on fire, McDivitt might take a moment to consider that it is possible to violate the Constitution *and* God’s Law at the same time. It is also possible to honor the Constitution *and* God’s Law at the same time. In such cases I’m free to refer to either the Constitution or to God’s Law with consistency. McDivitt wrote: But when SCOTUS tramples the Constitution to invalidate state marriage laws I don’t approve of, that’s just swell, and it serves those racists right. McDivitt can speak for himself if he thinks that the Loving decision is “just… Read more »

A. James
Member

It was, on an earlier thread (comments now erased, I think), related that idiot bigots (BJU case) gave SCOTUS a chance/excuse to overreach…and so we take what we get–the good with the bad…as far as Loving, the same general consensus… You seem to be saying the overturning of the RIA from Loving is “just swell”, and because of that it was okay to trample the Constitution and States’ Sovereignty… You said both: “The State does not have jurisdiction or authority from God to impose “racial integrity” laws over marriage.” and “(like the State of Virginia before it) abused its authority… Read more »

A. James
Member

You’re not kidding, are you? “McDivitt continues to miss the point. The SCOTUS flouting of State’s rights in the Loving vs Virginia case followed the previous flouting of the bounds of rightful authority by the State of Virginia itself, in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.” Regardless of McDivitt’s obsession over the case, both civil authorities were out of bounds, which is why we have no need to pick sides by attempting any kind of do-over.” You are missing our point. You were against one flouting of States’ sovereignty and then dismissed States’ sovereignty in the same sentence. No we… Read more »

A. James
Member

Kate, please see Matt’s comment below clarifying his position. He says it best as to how I have interpreted others views on this blog as well as David. What he says is exactly what I was seeing in David (and others here) perspective.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

You are simply inaccurate about what our position is. Assigning greater relative importance on a SOCIAL and MORAL level, to Obergefell over Loving is simply not equivalent (as you claim) to suggesting that the Loving case “wasn’t a big deal like Obergefell is.” Let me say this clearly as possible the Loving decision was bad jurisprudence, and it was a big deal. But it wasn’t **AS** big of a deal. Note that I did NOT say that it “wasn’t” a big deal, or that it was a good decision, or that it was acceptable, but merely that it wasn’t *AS*… Read more »

A. James
Member

Thank you for this, Matt. Kate, this is a crystal clear way of saying what I perceived David’s comment to mean…”wasn’t as much of a concern”. I’ve seen this same vantage expressed quite often enough on this blog as I’ve tried to comprehend it thoroughly that I don’t see why my representation of David’s comment might not be so far from the mark. “You are simply inaccurate about what our position is.” This is how I understood it. Just as you described. Again, thank you. Yet I also remember those indicating Loving wasn’t even bad jurisprudence. That the court did… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Just to be clear, I was accusing McDivvitt of mischaracterizing the point. I haven’t read every post on here, but I was specifically referring to his characterization. As for your response concerning relative importance, it’s not enough to say that that is merely trying to be clarified that it’s our point. Greg did more than that. Greg suggested that assigning varying importance is tantamount to saying that Loving basically didn’t matter, that the jurisprudence of Loving was acceptable merely b/c of the outcome. That WOULD be inconsistent if that’s what we were saying. But that’s not what many Christians in… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

And to be clear, I would agree that achieving a good or moral result through bad means (i.e. Loving) – I agree that that is not okay. But since we’re talking relative importance . . . compare these:

A) A good moral result achieved via bad means;

B) A BAD moral results achieved via bad means;

They’re both bad. But he fact that I notice that the second part of B is worse than the second part of A, doesn’t mean I’m denying the fact that the firs half of A is bad

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

gotta correct myself there, I meant to say that the FIRST half of B is worse than the FIRST half of A, and that noticing that does not mean that I am denying the fact that the SECOND part of A is bad. Sorry for the confusion.

Ian Miller
Member

I was wondering that ;), but I assumed it was just accidental mis-ordering.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Well, that’s just peachy, Matt. Except for one huge, screaming fact – it’s not remotely close to being true. Christian leaders haven’t spent the fast few decades trying to overturn Loving, or even denouncing it. In fact, many have praised it.

Katecho
Member

McDivitt wrote: Christian leaders haven’t spent the fast few decades trying to overturn Loving Why would Christians seek to overturn Loving? If one Constitutional overreach at the Federal level cancelled out a moral (racist) and civil jurisdictional overreach at the State level, why would Christians want to overturn it? Both overreaches are overreachy, but they cancelled each other out. McDivitt’s logic is like suggesting that Christians should want to overrule the Civil War and return to slavery because we notice that it was an unnecessary Federal abuse of State’s rights. Is he going to accuse us of inconsistency if we… Read more »

A. James
Member

Why? WHY? Who is to determine whose view of “moral” “racist” reigns in letting the overreaches pass uncontested or not? Who is to determine if there has been civil jurisdictional overreach at the State level? This pragmatism of concern over States’ Sovereignty is exactly why we are weakened in our argument in current day. Certainly we can’t go back, we’ve come too far. But to realize these SHOULD have been overturned or contested before the disease of overreach kept spreading in spite of our definition of what is moral or racist or not. There was nothing cancelled out. The overreach… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Alex wrote: I don’t know which one states should have defied, but there has to be some answer–and I do not believe it should be only when it hit on something “very important to us personally”. We lose credibility when it’s our turn to be in an outrage Certainly Christians have lost credibility for not resisting government overreach in its early forms. Look where we are today. The overreach is so bad that our Federal government is now mandating that citizens and States must buy health insurance. Ponder that for a moment. But McDivitt wanted to say that folks here… Read more »

A. James
Member

“Ponder that for a moment.” I do. And have taken great personal loss in pondering and acting on that pondering. And I don’t understand why there isn’t more of an uproar, but to each his own. I can only do what I need to do in a clear conscience towards God. “But McDivitt wanted to say that folks here were being inconsistent on the issue, and he has spectacularly failed to make that case.” In your opinion. In my opinion the “rook for a queen” thing has spectacularly failed in making a case, but I’m okay if others are persuaded.… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Alex wrote:

Who do you mean when you keep saying “we aren’t saying”. Am I to assume everyone else on this blog agrees with you?

Alex is welcome to assume that everyone else on this blog agrees with me. The rest of us will assume that I’m using a common form of expression called a generalization, which permits that there might be a few exceptions.

A. James
Member

It can also be marginalizing and polarizing depending on the seriousness of the topic and the tone. I would have a hard time in lumping everyone else with my views even if I were presenting my own theological bent on an issue. There are so many nuances, and I’m interested in hearing them all rather than lumping everyone together with mine. But in the spirit of your explanation, “The rest of us prefer to be clearly excluded from the others you are representing.” Or I guess I can just keep excusing myself as I have been :) I keep trying… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Was Jesus a marginalizer and a polarizer? I like the idea of “back to substance” though.

A. James
Member

And He is omniscient as well–perfectly marginalizing and polarizing.

Katecho
Member

Alex wrote: You determine what rises above a Constitutional matter based on what you believe is Scriptural authority on an issue. Those within a state are under the whim of someone else’s moral beliefs to take away that States’ rights. This is the line of argument that one would expect to see from a postmodernist. Alex is suggesting that I’ve appealed to my personal moral beliefs as the authority from which to deny State’s rights. Alex is implying that I only have my opinion about the moral limits of State’s rights, and someone else has their opinion, and therefore they… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Again, you make my point that Greg won’t take yes for an answer. I agree that Loving was wrongly decided, I agree that some Christians have failed to see that, and I agree that in purely legal terms, Loving has a more direct line to Obergefell than Roe. But none of that is enough, b/c if I don’t agree with Greg or whoever else about the exact level of outrage that ought to have been leveled at Loving, then I, for all intents and purposes, apparently cannot still logically claim to disapprove of Loving. So if I think there are… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

katecho, I just have to say that that one line “both overreaches are overreachy,” is up there as one of the best ever!!

David Trounce
Guest

Agreed. That is where I am at. As I recall, the crucifixion was not an example of good jurisprudence or good Roman government, but I think the outcome was praiseworthy.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Can you read? Did I say Christian leaders spent the last number of years trying to overturn Loving? What I did say was that the entire legal and jurisprudential mindset is one large morass – of which Loving is a part. You can hold an argument with specific people. You like to argue against Christians in the abstract or aggregate, then hold specific people (Doug and those interacting with you in the comments) strictly to those aggregate characterizations. Then, when it turns out that the specific folks you are interacting with think differently than others do, you back up and… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Here’s Francis Beckwith, one of America’s most prominent Christian scholars, praising the Loving decision. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

Katecho
Member

The name Beckwith sounds familiar, but, again, after reading the article, I can see why McDivitt didn’t provide any quotations from it. Beckwith nowhere praises the Loving decision, as such, on moral or Constitutional grounds. Rather his focus is on the comparison to the same-sex issue, and on the notion that the State should impose itself at any level. Beckwith writes: This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. Beckwith merely describes the… Read more »

A. James
Member

Here it is. That “we” that drives me cuh-razy. I don’t remember a vote being taken :)
“Remember, it’s not enough to find Christians who agree that Loving removed a racist State law. We all agree with that.”

Katecho
Member

If Alex wants to personally claim the Christian faith, and go on record as saying that the SCOTUS Loving decision did not strike down and remove a racist State law (the Racial Integrity Act of 1924), then I’d consider revising my statement to something like: “all Christians, except Alex in Wonderland, agree that the Loving decision struck down a racist State law.”

That seems inefficient though. We can begin to understand the usefulness of generalizations. Well, most of us can, anyway.

A. James
Member

We also begin to understand the unusefulness of a hasty generalization fallacy. Well, most of us can, anyway. And yes, I personally claim the Christian faith, and yes, you can put me on record as saying that the SCOTUS Loving decision did not strike down and remove a racist State law (the Racial Integrity Act of 1924). Or rather, we need further discussion to validate or clarify what you are asking me to go on record saying before I would commit to it or desire to be a part of your “we” :) 1) It only struck down part of… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Alex makes winning a pyrrhic victory look like a walk in the park. Let’s see what he can do with this one:

“All Christians agree that 1 + 1 is 2.”

(Notice how I left the door open for the pressing question of the meaning of the word “is”.)

A. James
Member

I thought I had responded earlier this morning, but it’s not showing up. If it shows up twice, blame Disqus. Anyway, I’ll make sure I’ve not missed something you’ve added on this thread, respond, and then move on elsewhere. As for this, I wasn’t out for some sort of victory. As it was, it seems I failed again in taking a question of yours as a more serious one and answering honestly. So, the win is yours for what it’s worth. At this point, I’m highly doubtful we’d agree with a definition of “Christian” so we don’t even need to… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Dude, again, like I said, you can’t have a discussion with Doug, me or, anyone else without assuming that another Christian being shortsighted in their legal understanding is our fault. But it’s not. I said clearly up above that some Christians have issued a shortsighted analysis. But for you to haul it in here as a reason Doug and others ought not be taking a certain tack is a bit of an impertinence. Let me grant, for maybe the third time now, that some believers have been opportunists in their legal analysis. Now, then, so what? They are inconsistent and… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Matt, there’s no way around Obergefell without taking on Loving. It’s as simple as that. Loving led ineluctably to Obergefell, and as long as Loving stands, Obergefell will stand. You can’t say it’s wrong for SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution and invalidate state marriage laws, except when you happen to disagree with those marriage laws, and then it’s fine. I mean you can; that’s what everyone is doing. But it’s never going to fly in the courts. If SCOTUS ever would decide to take up a case where the constitutionality of Obergefell was in question, rest assured the justices will… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

“You can’t say it’s wrong for SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution and invalidate state marriage laws, except when you happen to disagree with those marriage laws, and then it’s fine.” You’re right. And I have not said that. Nor has Doug. And it seems you want to assign the ones that have not said that with the task of defending those who have. You and I can agree that anyone who’s done that has is off base. But you seem to want to refuse to take yes for an answer. As for the link between Loving and Obergefell, I don’t… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Here’s Glenn Stanton, from Focus on the Family, praising the Loving decision. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269672/loving-v-virginia-apples-v-oranges-glenn-t-stanton

A. James
Member

It is hard to find anyone who DOESN’T think it was a wonderful decision in all ways–and/or the silence is deafening about the Constitutional grounds…a non-issue along with the praise of the outcome.. Along similar reasons as many think SCOTUS was right and good in all ways in the BJU case. “Bigots” and all that.

Katecho
Member

Never heard of Glenn Stanton. I guess McDivitt couldn’t find any supporting citations from John Piper, Al Mohler, or Franklin Graham. Nor has he shown any quotes of anyone here praising Loving. Perhaps he has given up. Anyway, I read the Glenn Stanton piece. Unsurprisingly, there is no praise of the Loving decision on Constitutional grounds, which is probably why McDivitt didn’t include any actual quotes from the article. Instead, Stanton’s concern is the inconsistency of attempts to link the Loving decision with the same-sex marriage decision. Stanton doesn’t say that the Loving decision was good or proper from a… Read more »

David Trounce
Guest

Bullseye.

Christopher
Member
Christopher

“And this PP kerfluffle will pass, and very little will have changed. It’s nothing but a tempest in the evangelical teapot as far as most people are concerned.”

Of course denouncing Loving wouldn’t change that.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

No, it would not. As I’ve said repeatedly, neither abortion nor gay marriage are going anywhere. But there’s much to be said for integrity and intellectual honesty.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Is there? Do you have any experience with either?

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Nope. None whatsoever, Jane. But thanks for asking.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I want to agree with you here, as such opportunities are so hard to come by.

A. James
Member

LOLOL. I thought a true miracle had happened here of some real import agreement on The Topic, but alas :) I see all of your responses to me…a lot of what you are asking/addressing is all coming right on out with katecho on the “Stonewall” thread (as in clearly expressing where I differ and getting katecho’s views correct–which seem to be in sync with yours). So, I’m not ignoring you…reading yours, including responses to some of it in on the other thread. Thank you for all the replies today. Hearing it thoroughly twice with some different details confirms my understanding.… Read more »

Christopher
Member
Christopher

Which means that overturning Obergefell could lead to overturning Loving. There’s no reason to insist on doing things the other way.

Ben
Guest
Ben

“That acquiescence makes the entire nation complicit…” Logically that can’t be true. You and I had nothing to do with that decision at all. It was carried out by the same Powers That Be that despise and abuse us. How can you rationally defend the idea that everyone within a particular geographical location (or everyone who had a particular blue card with 9 numbers on it) was morally responsible for this atrocity? Once you start seeing outside of this “we as a society” paradigm, it makes it easier to let go of trying to reform the political process. The devil… Read more »

A. James
Member

I agree the balance is tenuous…if not tipped for the foreseeable-before-collapse-future just as you describe in the “politicians enjoy when we cry about the Constitution…” Does that mean we don’t reason, don’t still try to work with the legal means for as long as any “salt and light” can have work there–to hold back the tide? You think we are beyond that? And so…as I said, we seem to be repeating some concepts…if they are officially nothing but unreasonable bullies responding only to emotion as it might suit their agendas or find a remaining bit of conscience…you propose what?

Ben
Guest
Ben

I propose that we stop legitimizing the current political system by participating in it and/or trying to reform it. Legality means nothing to the PTB. They are selective in their enforcement of the laws, which means that they are essentially lawless. There is no holding back the tide at all. When we try and appeal to the law, they laugh at us. More importantly, it reveals to them that we are so naive as to believe that we can actually influence the behavior of the PTB in any significant way by some kind of argumentation or appeals to justice. That’s… Read more »

A. James
Member

I see what you mean. I agree, and I don’t take them seriously except to know they are a serious threat to the freedom we’ve had…to know that we have Romans 14 duties and to figure out when “obey God rather than man” comes into play…

but…”that we have some grave weighty spiritual duty to hold them accountable when they go astray”…
meaning our weighty American duty is null and void now? that we’re beyond all of that?

so then what? (you’ve probably told me before…)

Ben
Guest
Ben

To be totally honest, I don’t believe “America” actually exists. Rather, it is an artificial construct. Did God come down from on high and lay out on stone tablets what the boundaries of the U.S. should be, and then divinely appoint the particular rulers we have now? I contend that God did this no more with us than he did with Nazi Germany. Who says we have this weighty American duty? Was it the job of the first century Christians to chastise the evil government they lived under in the hopes of holding them accountable to an objective moral standard?… Read more »

Benjamin Bowman
Guest

I would like to offer up the argument that the government no longer protects rights but feelings. This is because if Christ is no longer the center, feelings are then all we have.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Rev. Wilson, Ta-Nehisi Coates is leading a renewed effort at securing reparations for slavery. Where do you stand on this? I can see the point of people who demand reparations, but I’m afraid of where it might lead. I mean, if we give blacks reparations for slavery, how long before gays demand reparations for not being kept in bondage?

A. James
Member

“how long before gays demand reparations for not being kept in bondage?”
and who will they demand them from…for they would say we DID keep them in bondage…before our judicial system did an overreach they won’t regard because it suited theirs (and many supportive Christians) religious beliefs…

ultimately we’ll all reap what we’ve sowed in this area…but how can we expect others to regard this overreach or meet on that common ground when…oh, never mind…

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

True story; y’all assign it whatever worth – – if any – – anyone feels it may have. Sometimes the law profs would venture into the student main lounge on the second floor, just to shoot the breeze with anyone who cared to chat. Don’t recall who brought up reparations but I listened for a bit and then chimed in with: “If I were debating this guy [pro-rep], I’d ask him to repeat everything he just said and yield back the balance of my time.” There was silence for a bit and then the prof my age (white male from… Read more »

AeroBob
Guest
AeroBob

Doug, what did you think of Huckabee’s response to your question yesterday? I can’t help but notice a few things: 1) He said that David Daleiden was a modern day William Wilberforce. I know you’ve been someone critical in the past of the abolitionists (in their methods rather than their desired goal). 2) He also pointed to the 14th amendment as a grounds to stop PP (and all abortions for that matter) while you’re pointing to the 14th amendment as the start of the problem. 3) I couldn’t help but notice the timing of this article (one day after the… Read more »

A. James
Member

Number 2 is interesting. If society would regard these babies as “persons” as much as the women are whose rights are being “taken away” by having them.
“All persons born and naturalized…” hmmm. definition of “persons” and “born”… PPers might use that to their “advantage” if we use it as grounds…yep…the “start of the problem”…

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“The nation acquiesced to Roe”

Not that I’ve observed. It’s why Roe is a “super precedent” when it’s not a litmus test. In the same way that Dred Scott did not settle slavery, and Casey did not settle abortion, neither will Obergefell settle gay marriage.

A. James
Member

And states were (for some “the court didn’t dare go that far” reason perhaps) left with SOME flexibility concerning abortions where…Oberg left states with even far less wiggle room in “exercising our religion” even though there maybe a pause in reinforcing or forcing until we are “ready for it”? Do you think Oberg could be used to make Roe more intrusive if the PP videos are not as persuasive to our nation’s numb conscience as “women’s health rights”? Maybe you answered this already. There seems to be a repetition of concepts going on…and you know how confusing it is in… Read more »

A. James
Member
Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Since the Rs can’t override a veto, and since they’re afraid to shutdown the gummit again, I’m doubtful any rider will work. Unless and until the pro-life side can get a Prez who will prosecute (federal statute of limitations is 5 years and the tapes are admissible because neither a DA nor the DOJ asked for them to be made) and/or appoint justices to break the Gang of Five, PP will continue to get funding. But funding is not, IMHO, the value of the tapes inside the secular circle. They’re a sheep/goats tool for 2016. If we can flip more… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

But it’s all moot. The only people who vote GOP in any meaningful numbers are white people, and they’re dying off and being replaced by immigrants, 90% of whom are people of color, and who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. California used to be one of the most solid GOP states in the country, with many hard core conservatives in Congress, like Bob Dornan, Dana Rohrbacher, and William Dannemeyer. Now, thanks to Reagan’s Amnesty, it’s a permanent Democrat state. In 10-20 years, the same thing will happen in Texas. And when Texas’ electoral college votes swing to the Dems, it will be… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

Yeah, unless mass immigration is ended and a large number of immigrants are repatriated, the abortion discussion is moot.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I keep doing a poor of flagging when I’m in the secular/legal circle and when I’m in the faith/ethics circle. Must work on that. Here’s another purely secular circle post by Commentary. I can’t decide if the best part of this blog post . . . https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/08/05/planned-parenthood-donald-trump-government-shutdown/#comment-section . . . are the comments. Tobin is right about the original design of the country – – America is an idea, not a place or a tribe – – being gridlock, but we’ve strayed very far from that original plan. A wise politico was cited by a right side magazine the other… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

From the article: “Those like Boehner and McConnell, who labor to manipulate that system to maximum advantage, may be imperfect and uninspiring leaders, but the politics they pursue is the only constitutional path that makes sense.” Neocons will never understand that Trump gets support because he openly opposes the weak, insipid Republican leadership with manful vigor. In any case, the point is not about whites somehow dying out, merely the observation that Hispanics tend to vote democrat and favor socialist governments. Since they are estimated to be about 29% of the population in 2050, it pretty much guarantees a permanent… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Shades of Maggie Thatcher; “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” I suppose we could have Show Trials by 2050 but at some point our present heading inevitably takes us into territory where there simply isn’t enough to redistribute. If I’m reading Gregory McD correctly, even he seems to have reached the same conclusion, at least as to Earthly matters. Perhaps I should dig out the late Cardinal George’s classic quote about dying in bed, then in jail, then as a martyr in the public square, but then rebuilding a ruined society from… Read more »

A. James
Member

Wonder how that repeating “cycle” works out for post-mills. Practically, we all just keep doing what we’re supposed to do (each accountable to God) and hope for mercy and grace and His return (at one point or another :) Don’t know about Cardinal George, but there’s song that says of optimism in the face of impending doom…Pompeii…after it’s over…seeing the ruination, the wreckage…and the question of “where do we begin, the rubble or our sin”… Long night indeed…I think I said zzzzzzz a long time ago. It was that “Country Class” article. So much to say, and I never got… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Archdiocese of Chicago’s [now deceased] Cardinal Francis George

http://1389blog.com/2012/11/15/i-expect-to-die-in-bed-my-successor-will-die-in-prison-what-cardinal-francis-george-actually-said/

A. James
Member

I’m ornery, I know. Can we count on anyone having a “here I stand” or “is there not a cause” moment any more enough to die in prison or die a martyr…and is the “church” not doing as much tearing down as others these days…

:)

Would you be able to see my disaster of a response to Krychek at the endish of this thread regarding the “role of the Supreme Court” as to its having the “last word” and the Marbury v. Madison case…correct me or clarify me whichever or both might be needed…

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

In the faith circle: Two Ways We Can Respond to Supreme Court Rulings by Dr. Jim Denison Monday, June 29, 2015 http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/1713-two-ways-we-can-respond-to-supreme-court-rulings [Of course there are many similar reactions; I pulled this one pretty much at random out of a collection I made that day.] In the secular circle: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953), Justice Jackson concurrence at 540 But for a few academics, Marbury is “well settled.” The 5th Cir had a dust-up over some position the Justice Dept took… Read more »

A. James
Member

In the faith circle: “Let’s show our world that we can disagree without demeaning, that we can be biblical without being bombastic, that we can care for people without endorsing behavior that hurts them and others. “I love you” and “I accept everything you do” are not synonymous.” I’m all about advocating that And I know there are some on the flip side that can be willing to do the same (basic decent civility and reasonable dialogue). Problem is a) our disagreements become or are so serious or agenda driven, we forget this “code” or still misread it as “hate… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Buddhists think that existence is an endless cycle that never resolves. This is why Christians aren’t Buddhists. We know that God does teach us the same lessons in history (particularly through the history of Israel), but that human history on earth resolves in eternal victory and salvation and glory through the Gospel. His Kingdom comes. His will comes to be done on the earth, as it is in heaven. His Kingdom overcomes all others. The zeal of the Lord accomplishes this. There is a word for the idea that this won’t ever happen. That word is unbelief.

A. James
Member

They have the concept of resolution in conceivable liberation and nirvana, but anyway, That’s not why I’m not a Buddhist. (There are things not necessarily to my liking in the Bible, but I accept them based on what I believe of God and Jesus.) I haven’t met a Christian who doesn’t believe there is ultimate victory and glory through Christ the author and finisher of our faith. Just opinions on the timing of that ultimate victory.

Katecho
Member

McDivitt said that God is not coming back, and that there is “no revival, no restoration, no nuthin’. Deal with it.”

He suggested that I was on drugs if I thought otherwise. But I’m sure McDivitt has all sorts of qualifications and retreats and disclaimers to add to his remark. So perhaps Alex will go ahead and keep up-voting him.

A. James
Member

Can you honestly say you haven’t had your share of “personal insults” towards him and others? It’s the main reason I have chosen to not dialogue with you except to request you stop saying including all of us in your “we” assertions along the way. Which I see you did again elsewhere today. So, I’m not going to bother feeling sorry for you on this count…nor do I prefer to dialogue about “people over ideas”. And I’ve tried to engage your ideas not your person. As you and Timothy do for each other faithfully? Come on. That’s a purpose of… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Alex asks:

Is there a set of beliefs we must adhere to before we can comment?

I recall something against semi-Pelagian comments, but that modest restriction seems to have lifted when the blog went to disqus. However, for someone who is against making things personal, Alex seems to have taken the conversation in a decidedly personal direction. He seems to have jumped to a personal conclusion about me, that I must be against freedom of expression on the blog. Would it be too personal if I said that sort of tactic is a low blow and a cheap shot?

A. James
Member

:) I almost responded, but I see katecho seems to be addressing everyone else but me. Suits me just fine by now.
Enjoy.

Katecho
Member

Alex wrote:

I haven’t met a Christian who doesn’t believe …

Is Alex now speaking for all Christians? I thought Alex was telling me that I needed to let everyone speak for themselves. McDivitt spoke for himself when he said that God has “split town”, and is never coming back. McDivitt said, “no revival, no restoration, no nuthin’. Deal with it.” McDivitt neglected to mention anything about the timing of ultimate victory.

McDivitt is welcome to clarify though. I wish he would. So far, all he has done is offer us freedom fries.

A. James
Member

-I haven’t met a Christian who doesn’t believe …”Is Alex now speaking for all Christians?”

There is quite the difference in saying “I haven’t met a Christian who doesn’t believe” as opposed to saying “No Christian believes”…one is my experience, the other is offering as fact something which I cannot prove.

Job
Guest
Job

The length of the bondage hinges upon the sort of polity that replaces what we have now. Either we slip further into chains or God delivers us, but as you’ve noted the status quo is not sustainable.

A. James
Member

as far as whites “somehow dying out”…i keep seeing articles on the “one perfectly amalgamated mega-race”…there will be no racial discrimination except against those who don’t want to amalgamate…

Job
Guest
Job

It’s funny how people think that if humans could ever find the perfect shade of brown, humanity would be held in perfect racial equilibrium, without recessive traits ever appearing or new races coming into existence. It is as nonsensical a dogma as Nordicism.

Katecho
Member

Fortunately, my hope is not in the GOP. I doubt that Haggar has put his faith in the GOP either, since he says “they’re afraid to shutdown the gummit again”, instead of “we”. It seems Haggar is just talking potential strategies, which is fine. Still, I believe that the value of the CMP videos is in their moral significance for our nation. Their political significance is far downstream. Wilberforce said: You can choose to look away, but you can never again say that you did not know. These CMP videos, for future historians of our nation, will be like the… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

When God comes near? That’s a good one. Are you on drugs? God split town a long time ago, and He ain’t comin’ back to save you. No rapture, no revival, no restoration, no nuthin’. Deal with it.

Katecho
Member

Ah, now it comes out. McDivitt thinks that God is permanently awol. That explains a great deal of his confusion about our methods and strategy.

A. James
Member

I didn’t quite get your “when God comes near” either. You meant the videos were God coming near? You mean the post-mill vantage? How does “national destruction” work into that? I think I’ve got this blog’s majority views on “methods and strategies”, but still trying to get some details worked out.

Katecho
Member

If God has “split town”, never to return, then McDivitt is truly without hope in the world. Why he has appointed himself as ambassador of hopelessness is a mystery though. If there is no God, then there is no reward for being an enlightened cynic either, is there? If McDivitt’s ultimate destiny is the same as that of a pig, then, truly, there is nothing left to fight for. Yet his keyboard is ablaze. Something is eating him.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I never said there’s no God. I said He turned his back on America a long time ago, and there’s nothing for it now.

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN and sh*t like that.

Younomesayin’?

Katecho
Member

McDivitt beats a hasty retreat, but what he actually said was that God “ain’t coming back”, and that there would be “no revival, no restoration, no nuthin'”. It seems that McDivitt’s fiery keyboard requires some important qualifications that he left out. Apart from my alleged drug use, McDivitt’s prophecy concerning God’s failure to come back apparently only applies to America. Why not just move to Canada then? Or is that still America? Wouldn’t “mene mene tekel” be an example of God coming back in judgment? That is one the the options I laid out for our nation, by the way.… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Remember, katecho –

Freedom dies if you don’t order freedom fries.

Semper fry, mac.

Katecho
Member

Is this what McDivitt says when he gets called out about his misrepresentation, or when his reasoning falls apart?

A. James
Member

It’s what he says when he realizes once and anew that some of us are on opposite sides of Niagara Falls no matter how much we try to explain it…and we might as well laugh.

And I think he is saying that this PP video/hashtag business (as okay as it is if some wish to do it, of course) will one day, in his opinion, be like those freedom fries…remembered by a few loyalists, forgotten by others…

nonetheless, speaking of Virginia and Semper. always: “sic semper tyrannis” “:)

Katecho
Member

At some point, it will matter which side of Niagara Falls one is standing on. It’s easy to be the wet noodle of despair, pouring cold water on those who think that certain things are still worth fighting for, even if we lose a battle. What is hard is to stick to principle, because it is the right thing to do, regardless of any immediate pay off. So I would encourage McDivitt to lay off of the unprincipled rhetoric of defeat, and consider how to respond, shrewdly, to PP’s arrogant disregard of the law brought to light by these videos.… Read more »

A. James
Member

Yes, it does. And we’ll all see when we all see. You may encourage of course, but you are not the Holy Spirit nor is any one accountable to you. Must we all agree with you? Must we leave if we don’t or expect ridicules of upvoting or “unprincipled” judgment calls? Usually there is principle involved whether you agree or relate to it or not. And God will use it all for His own purposes. We cannot force people to agree, I see, and enjoy the optimism…because we don’t know the mind and way of God. I am also not… Read more »

Katecho
Member

I’m certainly not the Holy Spirit, but we shouldn’t pretend that we have no revelation on this general question of the direction of redemptive history. God has a lot to say about the victory of Christ’s Gospel among the nations. So it’s not just a matter of opinion. We need to consult Scripture and make our case there. I’m happy to do that, and to hear what McDivitt has to say on Scriptural grounds, if he has any.

A. James
Member

Well, then make your case. I haven’t been here long. It would be much more useful and interesting than criticizing people’s upvotes. I’ve seen they way people’s Scriptural grounds are regarded here…much like…
“I think some of this confusion comes from lack of basic familiarity with Scripture and its use of language and story.” it’s why I avoid the Bible circle or usually simply try to ask clarification questions so I can ponder other thoughts alone.

Katecho
Member

Apparently Alex wants to ignore the substance of my posts and focus on the personal stuff. In any case, I’m happy to discuss the Scriptural case for my optimism regarding Christ’s victorious Kingdom on the earth, in history. We can start with passages like Psalm 2:8, Isaiah 2:2, Isaiah 49:6, Daniel 7, Isaiah 9:6-7, etc., and discuss their contexts. I had a large list of such passages that I quoted on the blog awhile back. Here is a link to the comment: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/the_conservative_upper_hand/#comment-2130367709 But what I was observing is that the ambassadors of defeat (McDivitt in particular) is not offering… Read more »

A. James
Member

Substance of your posts? I have far from ignored them. I addressed your key points, and we, based on your summary, understand each other on SCOTUS decisions–the moral and legal interplay that you believe in). Right? I’m not sure where else to go with that. It seemed complete. We agree that we disagree.

And I did ask/express interest in your making your case. That is substance. I’ll read this with interest. Thanks.

A. James
Member

Ignore your substance? We have thoroughly covered the substance, and we understand clearly our differences in opinion of SCOTUS decisions/overreach and our beliefs of legal/moral interplay. Your summary was accurate enough. What more is there? We agree that we very much disagree.

I was being honest as to why I don’t go into my Bible circle much. And I wasn’t being snarky when I asked you to make your case. That is substance. I’ll enjoy reading it.

timothy
Guest
timothy

You are far more polite than I am; God bless.

A. James
Member

Ha! Here’s the partiality and not just in an upvote. Actually you remind me of each other in the way of “politeness”. But I try to remember you said you were a “mere Christian schmoo in blue jeans” or something like that ;)

A. James
Member

“McDivitt’s prophecy concerning God’s failure to come back apparently only applies to America.” This was no hasty retreat. Actually there are proponents enough that believe America will be “long gone” into obscurity or oblivion or under control of another nation to no longer be an individual nation by the end of time or for revival, restoration, etc. etc. I don’t think it’s an example of “God coming back”…mene mene was of impending judgment not of a “coming back”. Or maybe some think Oberg or Roe was our “mene mene” moment or Fort Sumter or…WHO KNOWS :) We have no chapter… Read more »

Katecho
Member

McDivitt’s hasty retreat was in his attempt to cling to a belief in a god who has “split town”. After suggesting that I’m on drugs for thinking that God will return, and will restore, and will save, McDivitt comes crawling back in with, “but I never said there’s no God”. Apparently McDivitt is a faithful disciple of the god who split’s town, brings no restoration, no salvation, no nuthin’. Alex in Wonderland wrote: I don’t think it’s an example of “God coming back”…mene mene was of impending judgment not of a “coming back”. Alex might want to ponder how judgment… Read more »

A. James
Member

I already responded to this. It wasn’t a hasty retreat as much as an explanation. It doesn’t mean necessarily there is no God when one believes that America will not last long enough to be in the prophetic picture to return to, restore or save. He was referring to this concept in a national aspect not a personal aspect. “Perhaps Alex” You can speak directly to me and not of me in your correction and dismissive mocking, you know. Mene Mene was fine to use in a comparison as to what some regard as America’s fate (depending on their vantage).… Read more »

Katecho
Member

It’s interesting that Alex appears to be running cover for McDivitt, attempting to deliver him with whatever unstated qualifications were missing. I thought Alex was the one who wanted everyone to speak for themselves. Mene mene is a Biblical example of God drawing near to judge. It’s not an example of God “splitting town”, never to return, as McDivitt wrote. Alex doesn’t seem to want to deal honestly with what McDivitt actually said. It seems to be a kind of partiality. If McDivitt wants to revise his position, and suggest that God has sealed the door to repentance against America,… Read more »

A. James
Member

You are unreal and surreal. As if you and Timothy or others haven’t done a back and forth and sharing of a common explanation or thought. What does this matter? Engage me on the thoughts I present not on accusations of motives or intent. I’m not running cover for McD. Any conversation is open for others to engage in. And since my train of thought in some cases is similar to his on some topics (as with others), I add my two cents worth from my vantage. I totally get his “splitting town” analogy regardless if you don’t. I attempted… Read more »

A. James
Member

I’m very okay if you end up being right.
Except for some emotionally temporary politically useful guilt trip (and maybe some real conviction on “fence sitters” as someone described), I would say IMO that ultrasounds were our “you can choose to look away, but you can never again say that you did not know” hope…and how they still fight that. Again though, I’m fine with your hope.

http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/roe-at-risk-the-threats-the-courts-and-you
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/supreme-court-north-carolina-abortion-ultrasound

What do you mean by “When God comes near”?

Katecho
Member

I’m referring to Christ’s role as judge of the nations, seated at the right hand of God, ruling with a rod of iron. This works out in history as Christ’s Kingdom proceeds to overcome the kingdoms of the earth through the Gospel. It’s like leaven. Those kingdoms that refuse to give homage to the Son will perish in the way. The meek will inherit the earth as co-heirs with Christ. Of the increase of His government there will be no end. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts accomplishes all this, not our politics or vote drives. God uses means… Read more »

A. James
Member

gotcha. i was getting mixed up on your timing between the videos and The Kingdom :)
“When God comes near, there will either be national repentance, or
national destruction. Immigration rates and election results won’t
introduce a third option.”
so, for now, or until then at least, yes, rates and results can have an effect on that future repentance or destruction and we should seek to influence (unless of course, it is all pre-ordained…”whatever will be will be” :)

Katecho
Member

It is all pre-ordained, but so are the means, and so are the accountable choices of responsible creatures God has made. History matters. Christ’s death on the cross was pre-ordained. Christ’s death on the cross matters.

A. James
Member

So, then, don’t let our “new lows” or monkeys bother you so much ;) We were pre-ordained to keep you up late at night. Teasing…sort of :) Really, though, I’m familiar with this perspective.

Katecho
Member

We will continue to make accountable choices as we approach national repentance or national destruction. We’ve been under judgment for awhile now. Gospel influence is called for, while it is still called Today. My point was that things like immigration rates and election results can’t avoid a coming national repentance or national destruction. This is because Christ is overcoming all the kingdoms of the earth with His own Kingdom, in history. He’s also very patient and long-suffering about it. Which is apparently why some, like McDivitt, think that God is awol, or think that the existence of a lot of… Read more »

A. James
Member

“We’ve been under judgment for awhile now.” You are speaking “America” or general human depravity? If America, when did you determine we were officially under judgment? “Which is apparently why some, like McDivitt, think that God is awol,” Many would say or be close to saying that, yes, God has turned His back on America–removed His restraining hand because of our evil…whether Roe or Oberg or whatever was “proof” enough for them…not that God is ignorant of the situation or is going to do as He will. I’m not sure any of us can PROVE the mind of God on… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

Katecho, what do you mean by national destruction?

UnreconstructedRebel
Guest
UnreconstructedRebel

What changed between the hypothetical rejection of an un-constitutional Supreme Court order in the 1830’s and the supine acquiescence of the States to Roe v. Wade, Obergefell and a score of other outrages was called Appomattox. When Gen. Lee surrendered, the last chance for a Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States and a limited general govt died; the States since then have been too politically demoralized to mount any effective resistance to rule by DC. It wasn’t the death of mass murdering, war monger Lincoln that killed the old republic, it was the success of his army in crushing the South.… Read more »

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Then thanks for blowing it for all of us by starting a war you could not win and killing the guy who wanted reconciliation afterwards.
–An unrepentant Northerner.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Hopefully the future breakup will be peaceful. Plenty of people that still don’t want that though, unfortunately.

UnreconstructedRebel
Guest
UnreconstructedRebel

Not sure which parallel universe you are dwelling in, but here on Planet Earth, the WBTS was provoked and prosecuted by one Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln committed the first act of war, deliberately, calculatingly and treacherously, by sending an armed naval squadron into Charleston Harbor while having Seward dissemble and mislead the Confederate Peace Commission which had been sent to DC to negotiate payment for the installation. Lincoln is called “Honest Abe” for the same reason the fattest kid in class is called “Tiny”. I’m sure he did want “reconciliation; all tyrants desire that after creating a desert of desolation and… Read more »

(((Aron)))
Guest
(((Aron)))

I can’t believe I actually up voted you, you Nazi schmuck.

Ellen
Guest
Ellen

It seems the MSM are doing their bit:

“The vast majority of Americans — a whopping 70 percent — have heard little to nothing about videos showing the involvement of Planned Parenthood in the harvesting and trafficking of human fetal organs. …

Yet the media have so struggled to cover the story, much less cover it well, that one third of the public has heard literally nothing about them while another 38 percent have heard only a little. Democrats are particularly uninformed on the videos, with more than three out of four reporting they have heard little to nothing about the videos.”

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/05/thanks-to-media-blackout-most-americans-are-in-the-dark-about-planned-parenthood-videos/

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Here’s a D in my adopted home town paper responding to the videos: [Gov] Bobby [Jindal, R-La] launching investigations and accusing PP of lying based on these videos is like me creating a video of edited clips of Bobby talking about Islam, so that an altered video appears to show Bobby suporting “radical Islam” and then clipping that to footage of explosions so I can claim Bobby is a terrorist – and denials would only be proof of guilt. But here’s the most obvious question to ask to disprove this whole scam. Who is the black market purchasing illegally harvested… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Here’s the practical problem: Under any system of governance, there needs to be an authority that can declare with finality what the law is. That authority, being human, will sometimes get it wrong, but somebody has to have the last word. Otherwise, we simply revert to anarchy in which every man does that which is right in his own eyes. I don’t agree with everything the Supreme Court says, but under our system of governance, they are the entity that gets the last word. And, the specific job they have been hired to do is to interpret the Constitution, and… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

Which of those wars had a death toll greater than 55 million?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I disagree with your premise that a fetus is a human being, but even if I accepted that premise, the cumulative effect of religious violence over the years is probably at or greater than 55 million.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And also, you’re assuming that without Roe, the number of abortions since 1973 would have been zero. That’s highly unlikely. It might not have been 55 million, but plenty of illegal abortions would have taken place, and several states had already legalized abortion by the time of Roe.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Which is why we need an amendment that doesn’t just cancel Roe but reverses it. Of course since life is an unalienable right, this is like demanding an amendment stating that the sky is blue. Absurd but necessary.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The disagreement isn’t whether life is an inalienable right; it’s when does the fetus become a human life. And you don’t get to win the debate by assuming everyone agrees with you on that point.

katie
Guest
katie

Because it may be a feline life. It’s so hard to tell.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

No, Katie, that part – – identity – – is not what’s hard to tell. Instead the hard part is at what point do any of the attributes of citizenship attach? For Nancy Pelosi or Pete Seeger, it’s when not until a wanted baby comes home from the hospital. Consider this set of facts about two different groups of grown men, who are both unquestionably humans under any set of laws at any time and any place (absent the special case of slavery). From the days of Rome, both Republican and Imperial: Distinctions of War General Mattis’s Mistake by Mackubin… Read more »

katie
Guest
katie

Except that Eric is having a hard time with identity. He hasn’t gotten to which humans have which rights yet, so hold on to that one til he gets there.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

If I’ve broken the code, that means there are TWO separate questions in play (1) at what point do rights attach? (2) who makes that decision?

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Ah, so just being a human being isn’t enough, gotcha. Smart people disagree on which human beings meet the necessary qualifications to be considered “human life”, so don’t be hasty, little hobbits, just let the killing continue.

But remember what happened when Merry and Pippin showed Treebeard the undercover videos.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Oh wow. Just saw that Krychek_2 doesn’t consider unborn babies to be human beings. Katie was right in her comment. So when the little hearts and livers and legs and hands are analyzed by the “researchers”, DNA from what species do they find? Dog? Elephant? Cypress Tree? Blueberry? Are you really trying to say that a living organism made up of human parts and having human DNA is not “human life” and not a “human being”?

Ian Miller
Member

Out of curiosity, is there an issue that would allow someone to win the debate with you? Something that you view as a key concept, that if you changed your mind about, would change your entire argument?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Are you referring to this specific debate, or my world view in general? I suppose the obvious answer is that if you could persuade me that the Bible is true, that changes my entire world view. On the abortion issue, convince me that the interests of a potential human life take priority over the interests of an actual human life.

Ian Miller
Member

Of course I would love you to return to an understanding of the truth, but I was referring in this comment to the abortion debate specifically.

What, in your mind, separates a potential human life in the womb from that same life outside the womb?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Again, we had this conversation on another thread and I don’t want to rehash it here, but the bottom line is consciousness, cognition, the ability to think, which are the things that make us human. Sometime after the zygote stage but before birth.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

You realize these are entirely subjective, religious propositions, while the identity of a zygote as a distinct human organism is biologically objective?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

“Distinct human organism” is not the same thing as human being, and most professional biologists agree with me.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Peter Singer, Bio-Ethicist Princeton disagrees with Eric’s extreme emotional attachment to a non-human. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_infanticide Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” Singer, like Eric the Red, is a Utilitarian, which you can read in the “Applied Ethics” section of Singer’s Wikipedia page. Eric is reluctant to rehash the issue because it returns to first principles for the Christian and first “somehows” for the unknowing materialist. If you are not familiar… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

So you think Singer speaks for all atheists? That’s like claiming the pope’s comments on wealth distribution speak for all Christians. I’ve been too polite to say this before, but since you keep flogging this dead horse, I will respond that since the Bible is one non-stop gorefest of genocide, rape, torture and murder all at the behest of God, for you to claim that I lack a moral foundation is for you to be a black pot in a glass house casting the first stone. If you really want to go down that road we can, or we can… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

So you think Singer speaks for all atheists? Irrelevant straw man as “all athiests” doesn’t matter. The margin is where change is; the unreasonable man upon who’s shoulders all change gets its start . It is the edge of the slippery slope. You can see the flames of hell at the edge down there if you bother to see. Your blind spot is how irrelevant you and your cute little Utilitarianism are in the sweep of history and the brutality that mankind wages on mankind. It has a pattern and Christianity best explains it as it is of the Spirit.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Such a vile hypocrite you are. In the first place, did you not notice that the links about baby pills and roasted babies were the work of religious nuts using them for religious rituals? Yet rather than blame religion for it, you’re blaming humanism. Second, I have nothing to learn about morality and ethics from a book that glorifies war, genocide, torture, rape and mass murder, and the fact that you think you do tells me it is your own moral compass that is whacked. Finally, the cold, hard statistics are that there is less violence in the world since… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

In the first place, did you not notice that the links about baby pills and roasted babies were the work of religious nuts using them for religious rituals? Yet rather than blame religion for it, you’re blaming humanism My goodness! Moral outrage over a clump of cells. Where did that come from Utilitarian? Those clumps of tissue could be used for science! ™ Stem cells! Introduction to biology classes in pre-school! Your lack of moral imagination is staggering, but , on reflection , it is what C.S. Lewis wrote about you: “When a man is getting better he understands more… Read more »

A. James
Member

Interesting “mere Christian schmoo” ;) that the quotation from “Mere Christianity” is in the context of a chapter advising Christians to evaluate our own (Christians) “goodness and badness” rather than striving to be “Master and Judge”…

timothy
Guest
timothy

Care to address the topics at hand on the merits? Or do you just scan until offended and interject nonsense for a hobby?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Timothy, not only did I catch you in a lie, blaming humanists for the work of religion, but apparently it’s an unrepentant lie. So I think we’re done here. Please don’t expect me to take seriously anything you may have to say about morals or ethics.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Having justified killing the baby and then killed the baby, you are aghast when a Chinese pagan serves it for soup. Sir Eric bravely runs away, again. I point out the futility of your stupid Utilitarianism with a real-world example of how evil will not pay attention to your neat little syllogisms and axioms. While you are debating how many cells can dance in a zygote, baby soup is being served and $$ are being made. Guess what? It will not stop there. The evil will increase and the actions will grow more vile. Philosophies will be created to justify… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Timothy, there is a long list of reasons why someone might choose not to engage a playground bully, and cowardice isn’t even in the top ten. I’m so happy for you that you found religion since it gives you a chance to view your less pleasant traits as virtues. I’m sure those traits would be there regardless, but at least with religion you’ve got a cover that lets you fool yourself into thinking they’re righteous. Whether anyone else is fooled I can’t say. Meanwhile I’m at the Frankfurt airport en route to Dubai, my flight is about to board, and… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Whether anyone else is fooled I can’t say.

It is my responsibility to make sure the faithful are not fooled by you and your flowery talk; I will continue to expose your pathetic ideas for the nonsense they are.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: I’m so happy for you that you found religion since it gives you a chance to view your less pleasant traits as virtues. Krychek_2 thinks he stands on a pedestal of objective virtue to tell us how wicked our religion is, and yet, his alleged utilitarian ethic is not even based on virtue, but on efficiency and utility. Meanwhile our religion rolls on in all its utilitarian superiority to his atheism. Krychek_2 simply makes a lousy utilitarian. He’s busy arguing against the successful, in favor of the minority, and doing so as if the universe ought to be… Read more »

A. James
Member

I was coming to reread this to see if you had told “us” how wicked “our” religion is. Seems you were speaking in second person singular as noted by “you” after having addressed a specific someone. I guess when one gets in a habit of speaking to others in third person and in generalities of “we”, this was only bound to happen…too fun!

A. James
Member

Since both you and k find it “inefficient” to not use “we”, I will exclude myself from your penultimate paragraph.

As for the rest of it, “Almost thou persuadest me to not be a Christian” except that I also reject being a part of this representation of Christianity.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Please. The door is over there.

A. James
Member

What about presenting a strong case that the interests of “potential human life” is as equally or as worthy of a priority?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Fine, make that case.

A. James
Member

My brain is absolutely fried and my body completely tense from that Loving convo after trying to be so careful for two days to stick to fact and emphasize my tone so as to try (try) to not incite or engage in snark so as to get full substance more quickly… I’ll be glad to get back to this here after I recover… For now, which may or may not have anything to do with this topic (can’t remember from when I found it)…here’s this that popped up on Gandhi’s views… http://oldarchive.godspy.com/life/Gandhi-on-Sex-Marriage-and-Birth-Control-by-Daniel-Vitz.cfm.html I haven’t had time to think through it… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

For better or worse, most of us manage to avoid the worst consequences of our actions most of the time, but in this case the consequences of carrying unwanted pregnancies to term would be even worse. Even assuming it really is a child.

A. James
Member

Okay, well, while I continue to try to chillax, could you remind me why you felt “angst” at the PP videos? And I know there’s been much former discussion, but I’m still newish here…do you think human life is a thing to value in the first place and that it’s a good thing to encourage others to value and that we should promote a society that does value life? or we should totally mind our own business and keep our thoughts to ourself in persuading people to value life (euthanasia, suicide, etc.) And you think there should be no laws… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Alex, my red eye flight is getting ready to board and I’m not going to be responsive for at least a couple of days. If you want to continue this conversation, shoot me an email at [email protected] and we can continue this when I get back.

A. James
Member

‘k
and I thought of one more quick yes/no question to add to the other ones…
Do you value or appreciate or enjoy your OWN life, or is it a completely non-fulfilling existence…or as Job might have said, but on a continual level, “Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! 19’I should have been as though I had not been, Carried from womb to tomb.'” :)

wtrsims
Member

So, why in the world are we willing to knee-cap our economic progress for the sake of supposed climate change?

Actual human life benefits from loosening restraints on our energy sector, whereas only “potential human life” benefits from the “green” movement.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Because climate change fits more under the heading of long term strategic planning that benefits or detriments the entire species. And if you think stopping climate change affects the economy, just wait until you see the catastrophic impact on the economy there will be when the coastal cities are under water. I guess you can claim that as Gods judgment on gay marriage.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

Wait. What?
God certainly could put the coastal cities underwater, but what would that have to do with “man made” climate change?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

One of the results of climate change is that ocean levels are rising. If that continues, coastal cities could end up under water.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

I understand (in theory).
The fine tuning required for life on this planet is staggering. It is incredibly arrogant to believe that man, in his meager existence, could control the levels of the sea.
The punishment for gay marriage would not only come from the only one who can define marriage. It would come from the only one who could enact the punishment.
Ironic huh?

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I thought they already were under water. Five years ago wasn’t that what the experts were telling us would happen in five years? Snark aside, Krychek_2, what have you yourself done to prepare for this possible catastrophe? From an interview by Breitbart News: The TV show “Doomsday Preppers” is about real people who believe the end of the world is coming and how they prepare for it. Some of them are crackpots, no question. But they all take their preparations seriously. I may not believe the end of the world is coming, but I believe these people believe. But when… Read more »

A. James
Member

“I guess you can claim that as Gods judgment on gay marriage.”
Here? More likely it’ll be blamed on the dispys or defeatist pre-mills…or it will be God’s way of reclaiming that rook they hope to lose and the opposition’s queen, too…or however that went… :)

Job
Guest
Job

So none?

A. James
Member

What are you making a parallel between? You see women choosing to kill their babies and a government allowing it as “religious violence” equal to a civil or beyond war of killing each other for the superiority or squelching of a religious belief? It’s not the same to me, but trying to understand your point with this. This leads me to point out the slight difference in Roe and Oberg. Roe wasn’t telling us we HAD to have an abortion or HAD to provide an abortion (as far as I know) — although it may come to that. Oberg gets… Read more »

Job
Guest
Job

My dispute is with Krychek using religious violence as a scare tactic. Religion has been responsible for only seven percent of major conflicts. Additionally the 55 million babies killed by abortion already outnumber any conceivable number of casualties that could result from a religious war on American soil.

Simply put, a coup d’etat in 1970 by Catholic intelligence officers who installed a pro-life dictatorship would have saved lives, even if the Papacy subsequently waged protracted civil war against the Protestants. 55,000,000 is at Communist levels of slaughter, never achieved by religion.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

None for either side since a fetus isn’t a human being. Not merely is your question not apples to apples, it’s not even apples to fruit.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Moron. Why are companies paying thousands for fetal tissue? How can hearts, lungs, kidneys, and brains be identified if the fetus isn’t a human being? Why do scientists think fetal tissue can be used for organ donation?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Whoa. Eagle and Kry; Let’s disaggregate and specify for a moment. The phrase “fetus isn’t a human being” is not a biological, genetic, or medical proposition. It’s a legal proposition. At what point will a court/legislature attach any attributes of citizenship – – and if so which ones? – – to the unborn is not a question which can be answered by a DNA test or an ultrasound. It’s simply not a science question. It’s a moral question; it’s a value judgment. Whatever else science can do, it’s wonders do not include the resolution of moral or value judgments. It… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

There’s another thread in which we already had an extended conversation over whether the fetus is a human being. Rather than repeat what I said there, I’ll simply tell you that you can find that discussion a little further down. Spoiler: An acorn isn’t an oak tree either.

Job
Guest
Job

The good folks at Planned Parenthood disagree. They are on video referring to aborted fetuses as ‘boy’ and ‘cadaver.’ For you to second guess these trained medical professionals is the height of arrogance.

The ‘they’re not human beings’ argument is precisely that which the Japanese used to gang rape and bayonet Chinese schoolgirls. Do you expect God and history to accept an identical argument from you?

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

“I don’t agree with everything the Supreme Court says, but under our system of governance, they are the entity that gets the last word.”

No. Constitutional amendments supercede Supreme Court rulings.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Yes, but constitutional amendments are changes to the law. The Supreme Court has the last word as to what the law is at this moment.

A. James
Member

“Here’s the practical problem: Under any system of governance, there needs to be an authority that can declare with finality what the law is. That authority, being human, will sometimes get it wrong, but somebody has to have the last word. Otherwise, we simply revert to anarchy in which every man does that which is right in his own eyes.” Completely agreed. “I don’t agree with everything the Supreme Court says, but under our system of governance, they are the entity that gets the last word.” This is where we diverge a bit. Maybe you mean “practically speaking”…but they weren’t… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Until they lose legitimacy, at which point, as Scalia mentioned, they are powerless. Now, here is the kicker!

They have lost legitimacy.
They are powerless.

A. James
Member

I missed this. But they are far from powerless, their power is ever increasing and encroaching. So maybe the key to their being powerless is when enough people realize they have lost legitimacy and find find a way to render them powerless or to demand their return to legitimacy…

David R
Guest
David R

In our system of government, as founded, the final authority was the people. That foundational truth has been lost and we have gotten to the point where many, if not most, believe that the SC has the final say. Lets see what ole Thomas has to say about this: “The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than… Read more »

A. James
Member

Wow. Livid and saddened anew.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

“Somebody has to have the last word.”

Then it should be someone other than the Supreme Court. Their power is limited in scope, not absolute. And given their interpretation is neither inerrant nor legitimate (Kennedy specifically mentioned he did not follow constitutional limits but cultural movements in deciding Obergefell), we have an obligation to reject their false authority and punish their misdeeds.

Judicial impeachments need to be the second thing President Trump does following immigration control.

Jack Bradley
Guest
Jack Bradley

“The Confederate Flag debacle was a huge overrreaction. . . But one can admit this without going the way of taking the Confederate Flag as a positive symbol.”

Very well put, Stephen.

Andrew Lohr
Member

God’s OT “slavery” laws featured binding marriages and, so to speak, freedom with a mule in the Sabbath year, and 40 acres in the Jubilee year. No problem with slaves reading or slaves becoming free. US “slavery” was rather deficient in all these aspects. Same word, but a somewhat different thing.

freddy
Guest
freddy

So let’s kill 600,000 in this war between the states to stop slavery?

Doug was generous with his Lincoln assessment.

Blood guilt.

Yep.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Who started the war? It wasn’t Lincoln you inbred.

freddy
Guest
freddy

Slavery ended in every other nation without a civil war you pathetic philistine.

Isn’t that precious, another Lincoln idoloter.

wtrsims
Member

How’s about “Cecile the Lion”?