Thomas Sowell has done wonderful work in describing the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. He describes it as the difference between an unconstrained vision of man and a constrained vision. The French revolution was a model of the unconstrained vision, and the American revolution was a model of the constrained vision. In the former, all you have to do is issue soaring declarations about the rights of man, and in the latter what you have to do is build a Constitution that doesn’t trust anybody.
This is why progressives gravitate naturally, easily, instantly, into demands for “solutions,” for solutions must be had, and they never think of the price tag. Conservatives naturally think in terms of “trade-offs”—if we want this good, we must surrender that good. Progressives strike conservatives as being in the grip of “magical” thinking, and conservatives strike progressives as being hidebound and reactionary, unwilling to budge for anything.
Consider the “pony platform” of Vermin Supreme, perennial candidate and performance artist, wherein he promises a free pony to every American. I saw a reporter ask him how he was going to pay for that. “No, no,” he said. “they’re free.” Compare this to the instinctive conservative sentiment of Lord Falklands—“when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” Unconstrained. Constrained.
Someone might object to my use of Mr. Supreme’s platform, when it is so obviously supposed to be a joke. Right, but it is economically indistinguishable from free health care and a $15 an hour minimum wage. If people don’t have health care coverage, you think of the “solution” of giving it to them, and you don’t think of the trade-off. If the recipient doesn’t pay for it, someone else does. Who is that? Should we take it into account before we do anything?
This basic divide affects how we think of everything, including things like human rights and freedoms. The progressive thinks of “rights” as “solutions” applied to “needs”—a right to affordable housing, a living wage, affordable health care, and so on. Here is the problem—the person without—and let us craft legislation that will apply the solution to the person with the problem. Who is going to pay for that? No, no. The ponies are free.
If the right is to “free chocolate milk,” then if someone has a right to free chocolate milk, then someone else has an obligation to provide the free chocolate milk. For the progressive, those issues of obligation are always put in the background, and when referred to at all, they are covered over with words and phrases like “contribution,” and “fair share.” When the conservative applies the language of rights to chocolate milk, he does so by saying that the government must refrain from interfering with the manufacture, distribution, and sale of chocolate milk. In this scenario, no one is forced to do anything — except to leave other people alone. Because the conservative thinks in terms of trade-offs, he minimizes the actual trade-offs. Because trade-offs never occur to the progressive, all the trade-offs and hidden consequences multiply, like the frogs of Egypt.
One final comment, indicating a theme that will need to be developed later. How is it possible for those with the unconstrained vision to go in for the heavily constrained Malthusian vision that comes with their standard “fright-of-the-decade” techniques? Right now it is climate change, but in the past it has been the population explosion, pollution, etc. Limits, limits, limits! Well, except for the government, the purveyor of all the magic solutions. There we never hear about any limits.
And on the flip side, why is it that a number of the advocates of the constrained vision—such as myself—are also postmillennialists, who believe that “eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9). There is a real “the first will be last and the last first” kind of approach here.
Edmund Burke fully embraced the constrained vision, as do I, but I can imagine real difficulties in explaining to him the apparent unconstrained mechanisms I have for communicating this shared vision of ours, as compared with his quill pen. I mean, as soon as I click on the button that says “publish,” within seconds somebody in New Zealand, 19 hours ahead, can start reading it. And, as I have reason to believe, 459 visits to this site from New Zealand have occurred over the last month, I would need to explain to him how I knew that.
But how did we get all this progress? By not being progressives.
There is a knot to untie here. Before I was postmill, I used to wonder why all the most trenchant and incisive criticism of how screwed up our society was came from postmillennialists. And since then I have had occasion to wonder why it is that the pessimistic eschatological vision, which holds that everything was supposed to fall apart, was tenaciously clinging to the status quo. Those who believed everything was getting better provided the most insightful analysis of how everything was falling apart, and those who believed everything was falling apart were providing arguments for keeping things the same. There is a deep structure here, but always remember that life is funny.
Seems like the atoning sacrifice of sacred blood, and the resulting free Grace, ought to satisfy both the constrained and the unconstrained.
Nothing is free, but sometimes, someone else pays.????
And…the one paying is doing so voluntarily and gladly.
Is there any way to put the kibosh on the autoplay videos from your “Related Posts”?
Video … playing … low … bandwidth … Daisy, Daisy, Tell …
Yes, oh my, someone on your tech team needs to get that to stop!
I never see this. What browser are you using?
Chrome
I wonder if there’s some setting there you can fiddle with. I don’t get any autoplaying in Firefox or my Kindle browser.
I’m using Chrome, and I googled it. I ended up disabling flash and have to right click to run a video. Works great for ads, and you can choose which ones run :)
Thomas Sowell is a libertarian, not a conservative, and consequently he really doesn’t have any clue what makes a conservative conservative. The constrained vs unconstrained distinction, while it explains some things, fails badly in other respects. Both libertarians and conservatives, for example, would fall under the constrained view, but they’re actually really far apart in most respects. I’d recommend Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, which does much better in explaining the differences between leftist, libertarian and conservative views of the world. Short version: “constrained” libertarians like Sowell are actually much closer morally to leftists than they are to conservatives. Andrew… Read more »
Sowell is not a libertarian.
He has said he is more libertarian than conservative.
“Short version: “constrained” libertarians … are actually much closer morally to leftists than they are to conservatives.”
That’s because libertarians *are* leftists. And they are leftists because they reject the reality of morality, at least as moral obligations apply to themselves. And the reason they distinguish themselves from more open leftists is because they are open-eyed enough to realize that *they* are the ones who will be expected to “contribute” to paying for those free ponies.
I appreciate abandoning the liberal/conservative continuum in favor of the chaos/order continuum
Or, if not completely abandoning the former, at least adding the latter to our political lens
Keep in mind that even chaos has an order to it. Chaos theories rule.
Sowell is definitely not a libertarian in the normal sense of the word. He’s against the legalization of gay marriage, for example.
Pure libertarians are actually against the legalization of just about anything. For instance, my uncle wishes the 1st Amendment had stopped at: “Congress shall make no law”. To legalize something, it most likely had to be illegalized in the first place. They hate that too.
Let me clarify then: Sowell is not against marriage, but he is against gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a strange beast. It shouldn’t have been discussed in the context of legalization, but instead as an innovation. The way it went, an outside observer could get the impression that gay marriage was totally normal and uncontroversial until some religious fanatics banned it at some unspecified time in the past. This isn’t really how it was at all, meaning there was no time that the government intervened in the past to actively prevent gays from getting married. It just wasn’t on the radar at all. All that to say that I think a libertarian could consistently oppose… Read more »
The racial reconciliators in Charlotte ain’t got time to wait for no free ponies. They’re making the big screen TV’s free right now.
FREE AT LAST!
FREE AT LAST!
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY SH*T’S FREE AT LAST!!!
Thanks for your stupid thoughtless statement..
In this instance, the “stupid thoughtless statement” is your own.
Boys, boys, there’s plenty of stupid to go around. It’s free!
Lol! Yes, teh stoopid, our one renewable resource, safe from global warming, needing no conservation, even by conservatives. Teh stoopid cup overfloweth always.
That’s the thing, ME. Stupid isn’t really free. It always comes with a price tag. The question is who has to pay for it. That is the gist of this blog post, I think.
True. To add some complexity to problem however, there are some genuine victims in the world. Sometimes it seems as if the conservative solution to everything is other people’s problems are not our responsibility.
Your line of argument reminds me so much of a man who confronted NT Wright and tried to blame all Christians for the evil deeds of the Inquisition. Dr. Wright’s answer was beautiful. He didn’t sidestep the question at all. He said yes, there have been errors by the church because it is made of fallen humans. Yet for every evil, there are many other stories too. Stories of good Christian men and women who didn’t run when the Black Death came to their village, but instead stayed to tend to the sick, knowing their death would soon follow. Good… Read more »
Here’s the problem though. I never said a word about “Christians.” I said “conservatives.” Automatically it is assumed that conservatives are Christians and that I am not only pointing out the flaws in conservatism, I am also condemning all Christians and probably committing blasphemy against God himself.
You’re absolutely right. I was in part replying to your other line of posts having to do with conservative Christians. I wasn’t equating the two, but answering both lines of reasoning with the same story. I should have just answered this one.
What I said stands however. Conservatives, Christian or not, cannot be treated as a hive mind. Yes, there are conservatives with hearts of stone, but there are many others with hearts filled with kindness. Painting them all with a broad brush is doing disservice to those who truly care about their fellow human beings.
Well, here’s my point and purpose behind pointing out some of the problems within both conservatism and churchian culture. It’s driving people away from Christ not towards him, it’s causing us to lose the culture war, and it’s motivating people to vote the whole country farther left. So, we can take responsibility for that and try to change the trajectory, or we can just close our eyes and pretend it isn’t happening.
Yes, that’s true.
I have several questions for you, but I’d like to start with this one. You have deeply criticized conservative Christians. I understand then that there must be another group of Christians besides conservatives . Who is this other group, and are they better representatives of Christ?
I have not deeply criticized conservative Christians, I have criticised those who are perceived to represent conservative Christians, such as several on the alt right and a few of the more racist commenters on this site here.
They are poor representatives then for I doubt most have heard of them, especially the ones on this site. I know I have not heard of the ones you listed.
I think I’m missing a line of your logic. You say people are being pushed farther left by rather obscure alt right conservative Christians. Which people are you talking about? Is it a particular age group that is offended?
The alt right has a heavy media presence that has attracted the attention of both presidential candidates. Hillary called them deplorables and trump was advised to distance himself from them.
The fact that you yourself are unaware of them does not mean they are not shaping and influencing people’s perceptions of conservative Christianity.
I’m familiar with the alt right, but your the first person I’ve heard equate them with Christians. I sincerely doubt that Pepe is driving anyone away from Christ. That’s just silly.
There are quite a few professing Christians on the alt right.
I hope you can still laugh at the silliness of Pepe the Frog while you are congraulating President Clinton for wining the election.
ME,
I want to thank you. Because of this conversation I went back and studied what the alt right believes, at least as much as I could find. I have to say it was worse than I imagined. I can’t see how someone could call themselves Christians and also alt right because some of the alt right’s principles are opposed to Christianity. Is this what you were talking about? If so, then yes, it’s worrisome for sure. Thanks again for the swift kick :)
Thank you for listening to my vague rantings and thanks too, for your kind words.
Yes, that is what I am talking about and it concerns me far more than this election. What is lurking in our hearts as Christians, what false teachings are we inadvertently supporting?
“It’s driving people away from Christ not towards him, it’s causing us to lose the culture war, and it’s motivating people to vote the whole country farther left. ” ME, I ask this out of respect: So, when “conservative Christians” voice opposition to things like gay marriage and abortion and the reaction is an even more vehement defense of those things, are you saying we shouldn’t speak up about those things? Or, are you saying it’s the way we speak? And, isn’t it possible that no matter what we say or how we say it, a sinful and unrepentant populace… Read more »
I am totally for standing up for scripture, no surrender, no retreat there, but the problem is our presentation. It is the rest of the world we label as the unrepentant sinners, while within our own ranks divorce is rampant, we are suing one another, and racism is a real thing. These are all forgivable things, Christians are people and as such we can be full of our own hypocrisy. But politically and culturally it often simply reads as hypocrisy and self righteousness. So we point fingers at the transgender and homosexuals as those sins are so much worse than… Read more »
Those are totally legitimate points, ME. Yes, it’s not just that we say it, but how we say it. And I think that the answer is not only the serpent and dove thing, but that we speak the truth in love. We are very clearly told that love is the crucial and central quality of our witness. If we leave that out, we are a nothing more than a clanging gong or a noisy cymbal–and that is exactly what you are describing when you talk about how we are perceived. We should also be wise enough to know that we… Read more »
No, I think I have Christ’s backing on this one as well. This is a Christian site right? I thought I read something about theology, but I can tell I’m wrong. However, you and 40 Acres did teach me a quick lesson in grace, sorry please continue ladies.
I don’t mind … in all grace … telling you to go back to your father (who is a liar).
Well on behalf of all Christiandom and the church ladies too, I do apologize for the behavior of some of the lunkheads on this site.
On the bright side, they do help me to understand what the left is actually rebelling against.
“Well on behalf of all Christiandom and the church ladies too, I do apologize for the behavior of some of the lunkheads on this site.”
1) Declaring yourself a spokeswoman for Christiandom?
2) Not including yourself as a poorly-behaving lunkhead?
Wow. I’ve seen it all now.
You’ve seen it all now? Wow, you don’t get out much do you?
When the day comes that God orders me to apologize for Christendom, I think I will have bigger fish to fry. Pizzaro’s slaughter of the Incans, the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre, the Thirty Years War, the Spanish Inquisition, the forced conversion of the Jews under Isabella, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. And this still leaves us with the next five centuries to cover. But mere trifles in comparison with some unpleasant comments on a website.
No; thank you for your redundantly repetitive retarded rejoinder.
My apologies, Elk.
No matter my political opinions, it was wrong to mock the words of your Lord and Savior, Martin Luther King of Kings.
Nicely, I’m sure you’re a real funny person, but honestly is this what you do? So a person is killed in Charlotte NC, people riot and then you make jokes about it? Then you make fun of me by mocking Martin Luther King. Sorry I’m new to the site and just trying to get my bearings. So this is what I should expect? I’m live in Charlotte NC so it’s kind of serious, it’s not that Martin Luther is my king or whatever that was trying to say. Is this just a site for conservatives and anything goes or people… Read more »
So a person is killed in Charlotte NC, people riot and then you make jokes about it?
Sorry, Elk.
I should show more respect to people looting stores and attacking cops.
I’ll try to do better in the future.
If I understand correctly, Pastor Wilson has said something to the effect that Christians need practice dealing with reprobate minds, and so he doesn’t kick them off the board.
My sister and brother-in-law live just outside of Charlotte. Prayers for all involved.
Hello, fellow non-conservative. Thing you gotta realise is, a lot of us are laughing to keep from screaming.
Ignore 40. He’s still miffed at God for inventing melanin.
I still really, really want to see his Ancestry.com report.
40 Acres’ views are a minority opinion here. If you visit often, you will realize that the silence of others does not imply acquiescence in his views. There are only so many times that people will express disagreement before deciding to move on. And I say that as one who likes 40 Acres.
I think most views here are conservative, with some liberal and centrist ones thrown in to keep things lively. But the kind of conservative worldview that is predicated on a belief in racial inferiority is limited to a few.
The silence of others absolutely does imply acquiescence with his views.
Sadly, no, a worldview predicated on a belief in racial inferiority is not rare.
As I said yesterday, we need to stop this. You find my views and my way of expressing them intolerable. I find yours illogical, emotional, and devoid of any awareness of the rules of debate: you get personal at the drop of a hat, and you are unwilling to back up your assertions. We are not going to find common ground. So let’s stop.
I am not going to stop nor am I emotional nor do I find your views intolerable.
I simply said no, you are incorrect. Silence is indeed acquiescence and people with a worldview based on a belief in racial inferiority are not rare.
That is probably quite true. I do not believe Wilson is motivated by a belief in racial inferiority at all, nor do I believe that everyone commenting here is racist. I am just saying, silence is indeed acquiescence, in the broader context, out in the world at large. When we say nothing we are giving our tacit approval. So you and I are willing to just throw in the towel after being challenged by being tired of the “LMAFO.” A lot of black folks feel that way too, just multiplied and amplified, as if why bother, they are just talking… Read more »
You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.
What word, Malachi? I don’t understand. Do you mean racist? Racist is a word that has been so over played it has lost all meaning. When everyone is a racist, no one is. I get that. I guess I am of two minds here. First of all, we’re all bigots of one sort or another. We should shamelessly accept that that is just part of human nature, that is who and what we do, we form superficial conclusions about people based on many factors, race is one of them. The second idea is that speaking of racial inferiority and genetics,… Read more »
Hey, everybody’s a little bit racist.
You never struck me as an Avenue Q kind of guy:
“Everyone’s a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn’t mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one’s really color blind.
Maybe it’s a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race”
Of course, the music livens it up some.
If someone says something incorrect on the internet, you are morally bound to engage in hours-long comment/tweet/facebook status debates with them. Thus sayeth the LORD.
But only in the time you can spare from watching Brad and Angelina head for Splitsville.
I’ve heard it’s all Brad’s fault, and I bet ME would say the same. In his defense, I wouldn’t be very attracted to my wife if she said that she had more in common with our adopted children than with our biological children, after having said in an interview: I think I feel so much more for Madd and Zee because they’re survivors, they came through so much, Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her…I met my other kids when they were 6 months old, they came with a… Read more »
Let me get this straight. I love some of my children more than others. The children of my flesh don’t actually deserve my love because being born to Brangelina was privilege enough. I’ll throw them a scrap now and then because I can’t ignore their needs, but it’s tough when I don’t really have much feeling for them. Because it is so totally their fault that they weren’t born poor. Because they’re not survivors.
And it is poor little Shiloh who will pay the price for this.
Either the woman is felony stupid or she is nuts.
“I’ve heard it’s all Brad’s fault, and I bet ME would say the same.”
You really needn’t try to guess what ME thinks, me is more than capable of spouting her own opinions all over the place.
Who cares about fault and blame? If someone as hot and as rich and famous as Brad Pitt can’t figure out that leaving his first wife for the other woman is sure to come around and bite him in the behind at some point, oh well. Actions have consequences. He’s not a victim and neither is she.
Somebody just sent me a facebook meme that says:
I don’t think outside the box.
I don’t think inside the box.
I don’t even know where the box is.
So why didn’t one of you guys tell me there’s a box?
While we’re distracted, I thought you might appreciate this: http://i.imgur.com/rNps4aa.jpg
Say it ain’t so! It is a vicious lie from the pit of hell. Everybody knows that Canadians don’t manufacture arms. Just pucks and poutine. And if we sold arms, which we don’t, we would never sell the arms we don’t make to the Saudis.
But I did like my distant kinsman’s speech at the UN.
The deal went through under the PM’s predecessor, Harper the Horrible. But now my heart has been cleft in twain by this revelation, canceling the deal will become my new campaign. CANADIANS ACTUALLY MAKE ARMS?? WHO KNEW?
“canceling the deal will become my new campaign”
Would that be effected by your US citizenship?
“CANADIANS ACTUALLY MAKE ARMS??”
Do canadian humans not come with arms? ;-)
“The silence of others absolutely does imply acquiescence with his views.”
Tacit approval is the technical term.
“Sadly, no, a worldview predicated on a belief in racial inferiority is not rare.”
But that is a minority on this site as jilly said.
And statements of belief in racial inferiority are regularly challenged. But I think there is also a judgment made at times, by people wiser than me, that constantly engaging such arguments merely provokes more of them. And some of the people who make them do not intend to discuss them seriously.
“Nicely, I’m sure you’re a real funny person, but honestly is this what you do?”
Yes, that’s what he does.
“Sorry I’m new to the site and just trying to get my bearings.”
All in good fun here, but if you ever start to get your bearings here and some of these people start to make sense, get yourself checked out for a head injury.
Yes, from him, this is what you should expect.
The ELk wrote:
It’s just 40 ACRES’ way of adjusting to being a minority here. Though we extend him generous tolerance, he seldom misses an opportunity to throw rocks and try to smash a few windows. When it comes to race reconciliation, he’s a regular Al Sharpton agitator.
Nice one, Katecho!
70% of protestors arrested in Charlotte had out-of-state IDs.
Who did not support looting and rioting.
Well this is all very flattering to conservatives, but you should take into account that the last time we elected conservatives we ended up with a couple of wars that were going to transform Afghanistan and Iraq into model democracies. Unless we’re going to No True Scotsman Bush right out of conservatism, the “unconstrained vision” might not be such a liberal thing after all.
I get it! Because Bush prosecuted those wars (*) in a (vain) attempt to satisfy the (irrational) demands of the leftists, therefore Bush becomes a conservative and those wars (*) become conservative wars. (*) in truth, different battles of the same war “Unless we’re going to No True Scotsman Bush right out of conservatism …” A) Bush never was a conservative (which is why I voted against him (**) in 2000) B) The “No True Scotsman” pseudo-argument is itself a fallacy as generally used, and as you’re using it (**) don’t mistake that as meaning that I voted for the… Read more »
Well, this is the problem: most American “conservatism” is really a bastard fusion of libertarianism and social conservatism cobbled together to oppose communism. There were certain pragmatic considerations that made that alliance plausible, but intellectually it never made much sense. Which is why there is so very little in mainstream American conservatism that is defensible anymore. Thus, someone like Ted Cruz, whose whole schtick is doubling down on all the old fusionist talking points, comes across as such a complete zombie. Good riddance.
“Those who believed everything was getting better provided the most insightful analysis of how everything was falling apart, and those who believed everything was falling apart were providing arguments for keeping things the same.” That would be because those who believed everything was getting better had/have the problem of explaining what their lying eyes were seeing, whereas those who believed everything was falling apart had/have no need to explain it; *their* problem was to do their best to hold things together as long as possible, thus the “arguments for keeping things the same”. When you believe that things are/must fall… Read more »
The difference between progressive liberals and conservatives is one of temperament and sentiment, not principles. As Russell Kirk said: “conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such.” One can keep one’s “constrained vision” while surrendering to every new enormity produced by one’s leftward counterparts. Leftism can’t… Read more »
So we need a king?
ashv wrote: Time to rediscover actual right-wing political thought. It seems that ashv has finally tipped his hand here. He is distinguishing “principled conservatism” from “actual right-wing political thought”. Apparently one must be attacked and rejected, while the other is the ideology that needs to be “rediscovered”. In U.S. politics, how is right-wing distinguished from conservatism? Clearly ashv thinks he is keying off of something radically different between those two labels, even though they are generally synonymous and associated with each other in the U.S.. Perhaps ashv is aligning himself with far right-wing ethno-nationalism? That might explain his contempt for… Read more »
In general I would say my views are to the right of ethno-nationalists. (Remember that ethno-nationalism appeared in the 19th century as a left-wing revolutionary ideology.)
Also, what do you mean by “finally tipped my hand”? You’re just the last person to figure it out.
ashv wrote:
So somewhere in the skinhead territory?
For you.
I see a lot of arguing about exactly what is a liberal vs. a conservative vs. a libertarian below, but no one seems to understand that if you give everyone in America a free pony, we should not be surprised when the price of a Big Mac begins to drop.
if you give everyone in America a free pony, we should not be surprised when the price of a Big Mac begins to drop.
Speaking of low, low prices, big screen TVs are free right now in Charlotte.
Well, you should probably go get one then. :)
Hey real quick, is it possible for some of you loyal commenters to give me a little background on yourselves? You all seem to be very passionate about what your saying, it would be great to know why. 40 Acres, Jellybean, Ashv, llion and me to name a few. Is this forbidden or is it better to be secret? Who knows maybe if 40 Acres and I cross paths he might would invite me to his snake handling church or something you just never know.
Elk, you might have a tough row to hoe on that one, but since your question is in reply to my post, okay. Born and raised in Minnesota. Came to know Jesus at a young age and strayed away during the 70’s. A tornado over my pup tent in the early 80’s turned this drug-addicted hippie back to Jesus and I have been blessed beyond measure ever since. Yes, there were decades of ups and downs, but I am who I am because of where I have been. I’ve lived the culture of the godless leftists, I know what they… Read more »
Thank you sir, especially for being the first. What a nice story of hope, seriously that’s great. I’m actually from farm country outside Chicago. Attended college in NC and ended up in Charlotte. Studied some theology so I love hearing people’s views on anything about Christianity. Saw Doug’s Free Speech movie, was fascinated and boom found this blog. It seems to be a very interesting mix of people who I would like to get to know for sure. Your testimony made my day.
Hi Elk, I’m the centrist, ex-pat Canadian, Catholic commenter who goes back and forth between impassioned opinion and silliness, depending on my mood. I live in Los Angeles with my daughter Special Snowflake.
Special Snowflake, if my daughter wasn’t already grown there would be two people with that name.
There are certainly other special snowflakes on here, but I digress…
I went to school in Laurinburg. Welcome Elk!
I’ve always had a special place in my heart for drug-addicted hippies, for what it’s worth.
Especially if they happen to be a Minnesotan as well.
Evan, what’s your story? Come on.
I’ll testify that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried and on the third day he rose again, He ascended into heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Other that that, I’m just ‘Jesus salvage job’ to borrow a phrase. :)
There’s a lot of that. :)
I’s jes’ a po’ li’l colored boy.
I KNEW IT!!!!
You do have a picture of Abe so that’s a plus.
Opinions vary, but don’t expect much Abe appreciation here.
I heard what Doug has said about him, interesting. Wesley what is your background?
White. Gentile. Christian. 66. Corporate Lawyer. Married. Don’t associate with nigglers. Three grown kids. Real name OJ Cosby.
OJ Cosby.
Hearing that name brings back memories.
I believe everything except the part about being a Christian, come on you’re better than that.
Well he has excomunicated himself.
Define “white.” As in “albino?”
Dude, as I’ve said on here many times before, I don’t associate with nigglers.
So run along now.
Odd. Seems you do a fair amount of niggling yourself. Would you describe yourself as more the “Pharisee” or the “Sadducee” type of lawyer?
So forty can you tell me what’s the story with you and black people? I know you’re using sarcasm, but there seems to be a real hatred there right? Always some truth in joking. I’m white and I’m sure everyone else is on this site is because it seems you really lay it out there. I’m not making any judgements just trying to understand what you’re trying to say. I’m in my late forties so you don’t have to use the word dude. Also you don’t have to send replays to irritate me my kids have done that for years… Read more »
The Elk wrote:
To decide whether Wilson is anti-black, just take notice of how and why 40 ACRES mocks and calls out Wilson in previous blog posts on the subject of race. I suspect that 40 ACRES and his ilk are more of a minority here than are actual blacks.
So forty can you tell me what’s the story with you and black people? I know you’re using sarcasm, but there seems to be a real hatred there right? LMAO I don’t hate black people. There are lots of fine, upstanding black people. But I don’t enjoy their company nearly as much as I enjoy the company of white people. Unfortunately, there’s also lots of really evil black people. A much higher percentage than among whites, and high enough that it’s impossible to associate with any blacks without risking associating with the really bad ones. And I find that when… Read more »
Again I can’t tell if your being serious with the LMAO. So that just made you sit back and laugh out loud, interesting. I still got it. So I guess you do nothing more than try to provoke anger, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt so I could have a point of reference, but I guess not. I like how you’ve done nothing but provoke with your niggler comments and others, but then you end this one with “I’m full of hate?” What? That’s right little guy that’s what people think when you say things… Read more »
Feels good man.
First, thanks to Elk for starting this conversation. Second, I am blessed to have a ministry helping low-income people. I get them in my office in pretty much every shade of beige the Lord God created. That’s all the way from ivory with freckles to ebony with ritual scars on their craniums. I have been doing so for over 15 years and I see thousands of them. Thousands. Some of them are truly in need and some of them are scamming the system at every turn. I can assure you, Mr. 40A, evil and stupid and the various combinations thereof… Read more »
LOL
Duuuuude.
Because when Jesus comes back He will ask you, “So, 40 Acres, where’s that car stereo I gave you to watch over?”
Keep in mind that the primary ethnic conflict in America is not between whites and blacks but between “good whites” and “bad whites”. (When you see talk about “racism” and “white privilege”, they are talking about white people in the second category.)
Probably as in ‘The Real Slim Shady’
Does the order in which you listed the first three adjectives tell us anything about your worldview?
Borrowing from grade school grammar–it is unfortunate that one must borrow these days since it used to be widely known, but I digress–the order in which 40 Acres described himself should be seen as “White Gentile Christian,” which, in truth, is an order of ascending importance for the adjectives followed by the noun. Sadly, he used periods after each word, which is not only deplorable grammar (though awfully bourgeois these days) but also confusing because it gives equal prominence to each.
But certainly I am making too much of it…
I.hate.all.the.periods.in.sentences.these.days.
Assuming those sentences are all true except the last.
I noticed that “White” and “Gentile” came before Christian, but at least Christian came before “Corporate Lawyer”.
The words “Corporate Lawyer” in his post were like a 10,000 watt LED blowing up inside a cement truck at midnight during an eclipse.
So much makes sense now.
I know, right? The poor, poor, man, they probably chain him to a desk and make him read IRS manuals all day.
Except on “Diversity Training” days.
I’m just a pretty ordinary retired homeschooler housewife of five mostly-adult kids in western Pennsylvania. Grew up in a liberal pseudo-Reformed denomination that was apparently incapable of distorting the Gospel so badly that a literal-minded little girl couldn’t learn it and believe it, then moved into conservative Presbyteriandom in early adulthood when I began to figure out that there were people out there who BOTH believed the Bible AND held to the theology I’d been kinda sorta raised on. I’ve never met Doug Wilson in person nor been anywhere near Moscow ID, and am a fan of his because I… Read more »
Hey, western PA! Me to.
I’m way up on the tippy-top, by that lake thing.
Ah, the tippy-top lake thing. My family and I love the beaches at presque isle there.
Dunsworth, I owe you an apology. With that name, I thought you were male. I am sorry, ma’am. That’s twice today I have been wrong!
No problem. I used to use my full name but I wound up having two Disqus logins which was a pain, and just picked this one for no particular reason.
Well said and with five kids I trust your judgment.
459 visits to this site from New Zealand have occurred over the last month
Leaving me wondering if I am spending too much time at Mablog.
Perhaps, but the contributions coming from bethyada’s direction have been very constructive in any case.
How is it possible for those with the unconstrained vision to go in for the heavily constrained Malthusian vision that comes with their standard “fright-of-the-decade” techniques?
Because the bounty of man is inexhaustible but the bounty of the earth… well God is stingy.
I respectfully disagree. God is in no way stingy. He is the God of abundance who did not spare His own Son for our salvation. The bounty of the earth, while small in comparison, is more than adequate to meet our needs.
Unless I am much mistaken, bethyada was speaking from the point of view of those who hold the unconstrained vision, not his own.
Oh, well that’s embarrassing. Please accept my apologies. I am clearly wrong. Thank you, Dunsworth.
Completely agree. I was writing from the perspective of those who have faith in man
Yes, apologies. To use an outdated phrase, “My bad.”
No, no, Cap…that phrase is timeless. Like “cool” or “dweeb.”
Mr. Wilson – I’ve poked around (admittedly not exhaustively) for a book laying out your postmillennialist-ness. Is it “Heaven Misplaced”? I’m looking for something to teach me – and I’m open to conversion – on this subject of which I know little.
Yes. Heaven Misplaced.
Doug — you mean dispensational postmillenialism, don’t you?
(But wouldn’t you agree that categorically, a-mil = a subcategory of postmil?}
By referring to some great horde of postmil incisive critics — are you including amillers too, or keeping to the dispensational posties like Rushdoony, North and ??? Who else makes up all them critics, if you exclude amillers?
PerfectHold,
I am sensing some confusion in your question…”dispensational posties like Rushdoony, North and ???”…. I wouldn’t give that label to these men; why do you?
And…” a-mil = a subcategory of postmil”…? Probably not, but both usually come from a Reformed background. A better distinction might be optimistic vs pessimistic eschatology, or ‘Does the church succeed in it’s commission in time and history?’
Hi wisdumb — Did not Rush, like pastor Doug, hold to a form of postmillenialism that believes we shall see, in the future, on earth, before the final judgment, a time of much improved Christian conditions? For some reason (and I think I know the reason), they believe such conditions to be almost a necessary occurrence as relates to what our faith means. Why would you NOT label these men thus? Not sure why you think both amil & postmil both cometh from Reformed. I’d think you’d find these predating the reformers, no? Postmillenialism = a belief that Christ’s final… Read more »
Hi, PH – Thanks. Yes, they would hold to that thought, but neither would call that dispensational. Dispensationalism is usually associated with a premil eschatology, but not all premils are dispensational. The amil, postmil, and premil viewpoints have been developed as distinct theories only in the last few hundred years, I believe. But individuals have held to those views throughout Christian history. My definitions: (biases granted) Postmil = church succeeds in great commission which leads to ‘golden era’ prior to final judgement. Amil = history continues as-is with some success and some failures. Then God declares judgement day or ‘the… Read more »
wisy, Your postmil def leaves out the reason for that era of golden glow, and also how long it should last. It also begs the question of how you define the pre-glow era — ours. You accuse premees of whining that things get worse — but that’s exactly the take posties hold for our era — according to Doug above. Both post & pre dispensationals hold a pessimistic view of the here & now — the “history as-is” as you call it. Amillikittes say history as-is = God working and saving. The “failures” as you call it = just what… Read more »
wis — you state that posters of Doug’s tribe wouldn’t call their view dispensational …
Agreed, but nonetheless, dispensational is exactly what that type of next-era-is-an-improvement-&-progression-upon-this-one take on history is, is it not?
Re your distinction of optimistic vs pessimistic … Since Doug & Rush hold to a future earthly dispensation of peaches & cream, might we say they believe we’re more or less in the pits right now, headed for more pits for a long run? Doug above even touts the incisiveness dispensational post millers bring to their criticism of how screwed up society is and is currently becoming! This Douglian view is pessimistic about how things are & how they are becoming — temporarily! — that is, for the next few dozen or hundred years. The Amil wing of the postmil… Read more »
I think they would see us in an overall progression: better than it used to be and not as good as it will be, but with real earthly progress and accomplishment on the part of those weak Christians, turning the earthly kingdoms upside down by God’s power. It maybe slow and erratic, but overall indisputable progress.
The amil wing (that bird won’t fly!) may see optimism, but only after God shuts down history, and don’t see that Matt 28:18-20 will be a reality.
I’m wondering if overall progression is an accurate representation of Doug’s position, if you mean things are and will generally be better than used to be. Perhaps though — if you’ll allow hundred year peaks and valleys? That is — extended periods when things might become alot worse, for everybody, for decades and decades and decades. But I’m not sure of your measurement devices for that view. You are might be less accurate as to the optimism amils have about the here-and-now, where mountains currently clap their hands and the lost are saved, and almost all the Christians that ever… Read more »
1) Sure. What’s 100 years out of 20,000? A small blip. And would you like to choose the measurement device? 2) Possibly, but if you see believe these demographics…. a) Half the people who have ever lived are alive today; b) The current % of Christians in the world today is higher than ever, and growing; …then, if it continues, the Church succeeds without a battle. Added to this is God’s actions summed up in Ex 20:6&7, and you have a recipe for total success! 3) I think Matt 28:18-20 is a reality now and has been since Jesus said… Read more »
The Church succeeds …
only when you can count a majority percentage of some distant future extant folk as Christians?
If no such future %, then failure?
I will go with that.
Please let me know what scale you would use to evaluate success or failure.
Not going with that myself, my scale would start and then stop with Jesus. That He is man and He rose, means man has been successfully saved. Those who are chosen to come along in the ride to heaven are bonus points.
OK, by this I will assume that you believe that the church is an afterthought, or a byproduct of the atonement, rather than its main purpose and goal. I see the church as the reason for all of history: creation, fall, restoration are all chapters of a grand story which includes redemption as one of the main themes but not the whole story. This scenario gives mankind real purpose and a reason for growth, development, and dominion.
If man has been successfully saved, I would ask: from what?, for what?, and what’s next?
Saving less than all = an afterthought to save any, then? The church as the reason for all history, yes — and Jesus is a member. As second Adam, He father of however many are born of faith. He is man now, and if He alone were the only one of faith, God would have mankind in heaven, if even it were only the man Jesus. But it is not good for a man to be alone, hence He has His bride. But that bride need not be every girl in the field. Doesn’t your reasoning find failure in blood… Read more »
I think the purpose of these posts is to reduce our words – not to increase them! You have an unusual category in ‘DP’. I can’t determine why you are trying to equate the two. It seems we are talking past each other, so to make it simple, please tell me where you disagree with using the simple classifications of amil, postmil, and premil. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ My reading tells me that there will be a bright, Christian future for the world, in which a great majority (but not all) are saved, and… Read more »
Wis — I disagree with classifying amil, postmil & premil as separate, distinct identities like this because … this categorization implies amil is NOT postmillenial. All amillenialists are by definition postmillenialists — that is, they all believe that the return of Christ occurs after — post — the occurrence of the millenial kindgom. Amillenialists understand that NOW (from Eve to whenever Christ returns) is the millenial kingdom. So why the “A” then? Doesn’t that imply “without” or “no” millenial rule by Jesus? Glad you asked. Amillenialists are called “A”millenialists because they don’t believe some separate identifiable period of differentiated, markedly… Read more »
Well, you have sucked me in, PH! Your definitions may be a bit unusual in today’s usage, but I am ok with them. Most people think that postmil is a subset of amil, because they both come from a Reformed perspective. The amil view seems to need to spiritualize too much…”we don’t see it now, so it must have a different meaning”, or “all these bad things are happening, but you’ll be in heaven soon!”. I think my vision is more glorious, because of the triumph of the gospel in time and history as well as in the future state.… Read more »
Hey, PH, you never explained what a DP is!
Your DPism implies present millenial failure UNLESS you get that future semi-utopia, correct?
If He doesn’t come through with future improvements, He will have failed in His mission?
Right. Hasn’t He promised that His name shall be great among the nations? That His name shall be feared in all the earth? I expect to see a greater fulfillment of that than we yet have. And the writer of Hebrews expects to see it as well (Heb 2:8).
jon — why such pessimism?!
You expect only a relative “greater” yet still-incomplete fearing of God, while Heb 2:8 tells you it will be COMPLETE domination leaving no shred of opposition ANYWHERE.
There will be “NOTHING that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.”
Do you expect to see that in your anticipated era?
I can’t respond, because I don’t know what a DP is! It is a contradiction in terms.
He didn’t fail with the first part, and He won’t fail with the completion! He just wants it to play out in time and history, as well as in the minds of His followers.
Thanks for the short reply!
DPism = Dispensational (a future era of) Postmillenialism.
If we were not to get that “completion”, that era of future improvements, that you anticipate, then you’d feel like the Christian experience on earth would not attain the glorious finish it should?
Christ shouldn’t come back this afternoon because He has so much more He should accomplish?
I guess I’m a non-d Postmil… It’s the same ‘dispensation’ (AKA New Covenant). There is no discontinuity with where we are now.
It goes from glory to glory.
Jesus can return today, but He will leave some prophecies incomplete. But, if you were an author, would you want to jump to the end without developing the complete story?
wis — What has He not accomplished?
His-Story
So you say He fails — in part — if He returns today?
If it His will to develop a story, then someone preempts His attempt, then it would either be a failure or submission to someone greater.
Jesus saves all He died for. If some of those are in our future, then it would be a failure if He neglects those and returns today. Same goes for nations, and all people groups
And you ready a prophecy that says there are more guaranteed to come to the party?
Sorry, I dont understand
I meant to say I can’t find the same unfulfilled prophecy you seem to be worried about.
Are you a full preterist?
No.
Other than coming back in a cloud of glory, raising the dead first, then levitating us all to meet Him in the air, what prophecy do read He has not yet accomplished?
Maybe there are more people to be saved ?? – people who are not born yet.
wisdum — totally agree, and hope so.
But your position had been: “Look here, this Scripture clearly says X,Y, & Z will happen. It hasn’t. So wait He will.”
Dispensational Postmillenialism says that X,Y & Z = a world-wide semi-utopian culture of Christian dominance, which we haven’t seen yet.
And it is so gradual that you would not see a distinct change in a single human life (as a dispensationalist would want). thats why you have to look at history to see if that gradual change has occurred.
Tell me this: do you see a change over the last 2000 years that would indicate that the church has been at all successful in it’s mandate to disciple the nations?
Gradual or not, and whether we can ourselves see the change or not, the DP position is that GOD identifies a time at which a threshhold has been crossed wherein a contemporaneous era will then exist that HE rightly sees as better than all previous eras and more-or-less pretty much Christian.
I’ll answer your question about progress, but first, do you agree that is what you think hasn’t occurred and will you please name a single prophecy that hints at this??!!
I don’t agree that there is a DP position at all. But I agree that God’s identification is the correct one.
I think we have seen a measure of progress, and that we will see much greater progress.
A good passage:
Isa 65:19-23
You hold that the experience when “the voice of weeping shall be NO MORE heard” on THIS earth, PRIOR to Christ’s postmillenial return?
That is a pretty high bar we’re awaiting.
No wonder you think it may be awhile.
Yes, a very high bar! Almost like after Jesus returns…
sorry — fat fingers; meant “you read a prophecy somewhere that says there are more folks to come into the faith? What prophecy hasn’t been fulfilled adequately to your liking?
I like the “A Man for All Seasons” dramatization in the background.
“unconstrained” “solutions” “free” “New Zealand”.
Sums up the politics of New Zealand, where our choices are liberal and more liberal.
Not a fan of the autoplaying audio.
Nice the first 20 times. But now we know that we shouldn’t cut down law to tame the devil, not so nice.
Question for you Mr. Wilson. If I write you in for presidency this election – and say everyone else in the country writes you in as well – would you accept? I wouldn’t want to waste a vote. Thank you.
Greetings from New Zealand :)
Greetings to you too. Do you know Bethyada?
(I don’t suppose that you do. It’s just whenever I say I’m Canadian, I’m asked if I know Geoff Brown in Toronto or Marie Lupin in Montreal. So I couldn’t resist.)
Actually I do :) Not in person, but we have corresponded on my own blog.
“MLK wasn’t always your favorite Negro”:
https://twitter.com/BroderickGreer/status/779554637699543041
For a man who claimed to oppose violence, he certainly had an uncanny knack for provoking it on a large scale.
Over and over and over.
But he was against violence. I know because my preacher says so.
Are you including white violence against blacks, such as the bombing of black churches and the murder of civil rights workers?
No.
Did you click on the cartoon?
Nor am I including the black man that shot and killed MLK’s mother in 1974 for being “a menace to black people.”
Okay, I looked at the cartoon. Did the protests engaged in by MLK and his people during the civil rights campaign in, for example, Birmingham in the spring of 1963 cause immediate rioting and social disorder? Or is your argument that any effort to obtain voting rights for blacks, however peacefully carried out, must be condemned because you do not believe that blacks should have the vote? Under this reasoning, would it be true to say you believe it was okay for whites to burn down black churches to terrorize them into not seeking the vote, but not okay for… Read more »
I’m not going to write a doctoral dissertation on the CRM. You said MLK didn’t support rioting. I pointed out that it was widely noted when he was alive that riots often erupted in an area shortly after King led a march thru the community. Then I found this quote from MLK just now: A profound judgment of today’s riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, ‘If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.’ What exactly… Read more »
I think your doctoral dissertation on the CRM would be profoundly interesting. I was probing your beliefs, not to be annoying, but because your starting premise is going to determine how you view MLK. If you think he was wrong (or wicked) in his goals, you are going to condemn his methods, whether he said “Fast, pray, and then march” or whether he said, “Kill whitey.” In fact, I don’t think you will see much difference. I think you will see one as leading inevitably to the other. The only work I have studied thoroughly is the Letter from Birmingham… Read more »
Jillybean, that was so well said only you’re being unreal kind. It’s not “I think that was the point he was making” that’s exactly what MLK was saying when quoting Hugo. MLK is talking to people like you 40, some whites (you) weren’t horrified by the conditions that black people were living in during the CRM just horrified by black people. I know you don’t care, you don’t even you reason in your thoughts, but I wouldn’t have picked that quote. Please KKKman lawyer please give us your thoughts on the CRM I would love to hear it.
Dear Elk, you have completely misunderstood me and my views. I was alive during the CRM and my sympathies were entirely with the movement. My sympathies are with anyone who resists oppression and injustice. I am not sure what statements of mine made you think otherwise. In this recent exchange with 40 Acres (who is aware that I deplore his racial attitudes), I have been defending MLK from an accusation that he encouraged violence.
Jillybean I’m sorry I think you’ve misunderstood me. Not only to I completely agree with you I’m saying you’re being too kind in your response to 40 Acres. You didn’t have to say I think that was his point, that was his point. I’ve study Reinhold Niebuhr and his influence on MLK so I have a little understanding, very little but some of the CRM. I have no idea how you even engage someone like 40 Acres. It really is something like the Geraldo show. He’s no more than one of those KKK people or white supremacist who shows up… Read more »
“you’re being too kind in your response to 40 Acres.”
I chalk that up to her canadian/british upbringing.
“Has he ever seriously given you one educated answer?”
He does give educated answers, just not serious ones.
“I have no idea how you even engage someone like 40 Acres.”
Then watch Jillybean and you may learn something.
Usually, when I talk to someone for a long time, I get a sense about what informs his outlook. For example, ashv’s comments seem to come from a starting point of rejecting democracy and accepting a certain amount of coercion to be applied regardless of race. This doesn’t make his view agreeable to me, but it makes it comprehensible. I don’t understand 40 Acres’ overall assumptions. I know certain specific opinions–racial intermarriage is sinful, blacks tend to be criminals, and women should wear dresses and stay at home. But I don’t know the life experiences that have shaped a worldview… Read more »
I understand, that’s why I asked if some of you could give a little background so I would have a starting point. I agree with everything you’ve said here only that is it really worth responding to someone who doesn’t want to listen? He’ll just respond with something offensive, but you say he can actually be serious at times, interesting.
Plus, I talk like a fag, and my sh*t’s all retarded.
No I don’t think so more like old, fat and gross.
LMAO
I think it’s pretty obvious to readers that if either of us is old, fat and gross, it’s you.
You’re either so out of it or your fingers are so weak or so fat that you can’t type correctly, and any of your comments longer than a couple sentences come off as incomprehensible gibberish.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/the_ponies_are_free/#comment-2919472267
Or is punctuation now racist?
So true, great comeback.
Thanks for sharing!
UNZ
Wait, 40z is being serious?! I always assumed he was just joking around the whole time.