that no one who has signed a Birther or Truther petition should be tolerated within our government, either as an elected official or as an appointed adviser?
And also, if it comes to light that someone did sign one of those documents and participated in a rally specifically focused on the conspiracy theory, then when the public outcry forces a resignation/firing, we will not laud said conspiracy loon as a martyr of the opposing side, but rather rejoice that a kook lost his or her position of influence because of their own stupidity?
We will also expect anyone who played a prominent role in elevating said loon to thier position to at least publically distance themselves from the aforementioned moron. If the kook campaigned for you or you campaigned for the kook, you should at least give a statement expressing your displeasure with the sentiments apparently embraced by the loon. If you appointed said loon, your response should include more than thanking them for their time of service. You should at least make it clear, even if it was already, that you do not embrace the nutjob views and will not tolerate anyone under your employment who does.
You show me a conservative Birther and I show you someone I do not want representing my values in the public arena. I would hope liberals could, would and will say the same thing about Truthers.
The kooks and loons are the far end of the political spectrum are much close to each other than they are comfortable with admitting and than they are to the rest of us.
No Birthers. No Truthers. Should be an easy agreement to keep, no?
Relax, he resigned today.
If he actually believed in 9-11 conspiracy nonsense he should not be in our government. Neither should the Legislators who balked at admitting that the birther thing was nonsense.
your friend
Keith
Well, I would say that there is a massive difference between the two.. The idea that our Government would have a massive conspiracy to destroy it's own buildings and kill it's own citizens, in order to justify an unnessesary war is a much huger issue than wanting the president to prove he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office.
Now Yes, there is a belief in a conspiracy in both counts, but the birther conspiracy involves Obama's mother and father, and little else. They also would have a legitimate motive. (Citizenship for Barak) The truther conspiracy involves a massive portion of the US govt and military. and has to aspire a crazy motive as well. Pretty hugely different scales.
I suspect if Obama is covering anything up, it was that he was labeled as "Islamic" as a child.. I think he likes the speculation hanging around. Makes the righties look like a bunch of wing nuts.
The point is, both conspiracy theories are ridiculous and unworthy of serious folk.
Keith
I suspect if Obama is covering anything up, it was that he was labeled as "Islamic" as a child.. I think he likes the speculation hanging around. Makes the righties look like a bunch of wing nuts.
Well, the righties are are bunch of wing nuts (as evidenced by your post).
While I would say that being a Truther is worse than a Birther, seeing as how being a Truther requires you add a belief that your government is a mass murderer to your stupidity (Birther), neither is fit for service in the government.
I hate when either try hide behind "asking questions." If you truly believe that our government planned or even knew about in advance 9/11 and all you are doing is 'asking questions" you've got problems. You should be doing more than that.
If you truly believe that we elected a non-citizen or an Islamic terrorist or whatever and all you are doing is "asking questions," you've got problems.
Regardless of the specifics of either, I do not want someone stupid enough to believe and espouse loon conspiracy theories serving in my government.
What really amazed me in the response to the Van Jones "resigning," is how many liberal bloggers and political commentators (who admittedly do not always represent liberalism as a whole or individual liberals) started clamoring to make him a martyr and tried to down play the significance of lending your name to a conspiracy theory that says the federal government sanctioned the killing of thousands of innocent American lives in 2001.
I give no support and will give no support to Birthers. I would expect decent liberals could do the same with Truthers.
Hi Aaron: I substantially agree with you here. I quibble with the argument you presented to support the claim that trutherism is worse than birtherism "because [birtherism] forces you to add a belief that your government is a mass murderer to your stupidity". I would say the belief is an EXPRESSION of the afformentioned stupidity and STUPID suspicion of the previous government, and I am not sure it's more stupid than the stupidity of the birthers. I have had many an argument with 9-11 Truthers, but talking to them is like talking to Barney Frank's kitchen table.
There is however a legitimate area of enquiry that is in the neighborhood of Trutherism (well, not THAT close, actually). One can legitimately ask whether or not the Bush admin took the reports that "Bin Laden is intent on attacking the US" and that using planes as bombs might well be the method of choice seriously enough, whether or not they SHOULD have been more prepared to prevent the atrocity of 9-11. It is also legit to ask what the Clinton administration did regarding terrorism of course. Maybe Jones was thinking about THAT question when he added his name to the letter. If so he was careless with his credibility but not so goofy as to be unfit for legitimate influence. But I don't know. The fact is, he DID sign on to the letter and those of us on the left ought to call our side on such things, just like you are doing for your side.
your friend
keith
Keith, I agree that there are shades of Truthers, just as there are shades of Birthers. Some people legitimately wonder why Obama has of yet refused (but I don't think that's the right word) to release his actual birth certificate. I don't hold to that position, think it is too close to being Birtherism, but wouldn't hold it to the same level of condemnation as those who actually believe that Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia, China or Mars.
Same with Truthers, you can legitimately ask if Bush/Clinton/entire government did enough "dot connecting" with the info we had. That is an entirely different area that saying that our government had prior, specific knowledge of the attack or perpetrated the attack themselves.
On Jones, he has a lot of radical (from the perspective of those of us on the right) stuff in his background. It's not just that he signed this letter, which specifically states that it is questioning whether our government allowed the attack to take place in order to justify war. He also participated in a rally, where the same types of questions were being pursued. A article about the event even quotes him and gives the indication that he was involved in the initial planning of the event. All those things and more lead me to believe that it was more than just mistakenly signing an online letter.
But then that brings us back to your point at the bottom that all of us should call out those on our side, whichever side that may be, who engage in this type of nonsense. What blame falls at the White House? The early story coming out is that they did not vet him properly enough? Is that supposed to make it OK?
Bush made some of these mistakes like with Harriet Myers and others. They look bad for the administration's competency and erode confidence. After all the tax problems that his cabinet level appointees had, Obama needs to seriously crack down on who he is allowing to advise him.
Either he and his team have done a horrible job of vetting nominees and appointees or they have known about the controversial statements and financial missteps and thought they could "sneak" (if that's the right word) them past the public and the media (who couldn't be bothered to report on Van Jones until after he announced his resignation).
And how about the morons who made a big deal about Obama's address to schoolchildren, how he was going to try to brainwash them with his agenda? Now that he's given it even seeker's hero, Newt Gingrich, praised it.
The right has lost its collective mind (if it ever had one, that is).
I wonder Louis, are you aware of anything more specific that people found alarming, in particular, something that existed in writing and was changed very quickly when alarm was raise?
If you don't, you might just maybe be working against a caricature here.
Also, are you aware if any former Republican presidents gave speeches to school children that more or less mirrored exactly what POTUS Obama just gave, and if there was any official democratic reaction to that which is much more visceral than what you're seeing now?
Because if you don't, you might not know just how broad a brush stroke you've just painted with.
>> LOUIS: And how about the morons who made a big deal about Obama's address to schoolchildren, how he was going to try to brainwash them with his agenda? Now that he's given it even seeker's hero, Newt Gingrich, praised it.
Well, didn't he actually CHANGE the content after the initial outcry to make it something non-sectarians could praise? I am all for the President urging kids towards personal excellence and service, but not towards helping the president with his agenda. I'm glad that the pressure helped him craft a less partisan speech.
As I understand it, the only part that was changed was the assignment where he asked the schoolchildren to write him a letter about how he could have a better presidency and how they could help. I'd like to see evidence that anything else was changed. This cries out to be painted with a broad brush because of the knee-jerk reaction from the right concerning everything regarding Obama. It's part of an unfortunate pattern, I think: he's just bad and everything he does is bad and even the most innocuous or innocent actions have some dark purpose. Classic paranoia displayed by the fringe on both sides. Just look at Rush's and Beck's reactions.
btw: You guys claim to be studying to be ministers. Well, I haven't seen a hell of a lot of ministering here. Isn't the ideal of the minister to be a servant, even to those he despises – an ambassador for Christ? Why not try giving our president (a fellow Christian) the benefit of the doubt for a change? This is why so many are turned off by your religion.
hi Louis: The initial assignment, the letter about how Obama could have a better Presidency was ALSO innocuous. I could have written a similar letter to President Bush even though I disagreed with nearly every policy he proposed. Asking children what they think the President ought to do is not indoctrination, it is preparation for citizenship.
your friend
keith
The GOP finally catches Obama: a parable.
>> LOUIS: As I understand it, the only part that was changed was the assignment where he asked the schoolchildren to write him a letter about how he could have a better presidency and how they could help.
For the record, I and many conservative outlets (including O'Reilly) thought that the reaction of some neocons was overblown. The part you mention is the part that people didn't like – students were to craft a letter about how they could help the *president*, rather than help the *country*. It's a bit of hair splitting, but since this president is so very agenda driven from the left, helping him was easy to misunderstand.
Yeah, what a crime, asking the kids to help him as president. This just illustrates my point that you guys are against him, personally; no matter what the situation, you assume the worst. Disgusting.
"The part you mention is the part that people didn't like – students were to craft a letter about how they could help the *president*, rather than help the *country*."
HYPOCRISY ALERT!!
Watch this video of George H.W. Bush telling students, "Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." (at about 40 seconds in)
Republican Crumbles When Shown His Hypocrisy Over Obama School Speech
You people make me sick.
daniel a hypocrite? Heaven forbid!
Good Cineaste. Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech.
Louis, what do you think appropriate ministering to you would look like? What do you think the role of ambassador is, and how should that be better presented?
Also, in this statement, you've called into question the validity of our Christianity, but you seem to think that the validity of POTUS Obama's Christianity is beyond question. Why's that?
I'm sorry that you think we're a barrier to Christianity. I'm thankful that ultimately I am beholden to God and not man, and that he knows my every thought.
"What do you think the role of ambassador is, and how should that be better presented?"
Try to not be such A holes?
Mmm, not going to look at the OFFICIAL democratic response to the GHWBush school speech?
Also, in what way do you think we have been A holes, please site specific examples. Also, please answer the first question, what do you think the role of ambassador is? And then be a little more substantive, on what you think would be a better presentation. That requires a positive response, not just negative, though that's welcome in addition.
Well, at any rate, I think if this discussion moved along, then you'd be able to easily agree that an ambassador is representative of the person or body that sent the agent. You'd also want to say that the ambassador, to perform rightly, should constrain himself to representations that are consistent with the desires and stated aims of the sending person or body.
So, to really be able to say that "you're a bad ambassador of Jesus", you'll want to connect the dots a bit. You did X, and that's inconsistent with Jesus for reasons Y and Z. I strongly suspect that when you look at the full picture of Jesus, you'll find that if you want to force everything he did into the servant mold, that he served people by being rude, brusque, abusive, obstenant, inflammatory, and dare I say, an A hole?
At any rate, I know that you like to do zingers, and prefer not to do a back and forth that actually answers questions asked, so I thought this more "getting to the point" would be helpful.
Just to be clear, I'm glad that no liberal here tried to defend Jones here or tried to downplay the significance of Trutherism. That encourages me.
And how about the morons who made a big deal about Obama's address to schoolchildren, how he was going to try to brainwash them with his agenda?
Louis, I know you and Cin love to give Daniel a hard time for referencing his own posts, but your claims and questions here require me to do so.
You commented in the All the News That's Fit to Blog post, did you read the last story on that? Here's what I wrote (in part):
Which that bleeds into your other comment about "You guys claim to be studying to be ministers." For starters I have posted things where I criticized my own political side for doing stupid, political things with no real principle – for two recent examples, see Birthers and War in Afghanistan. I have also praised Obama when I agree with him on issues. I have also consistently said that we should raise the level of discourse.
But I'm not sure what more you want from me. I will not and cannot for the sake of some vague sense of Christian unity capitulate on what I believe to be right. I will not and cannot praise Obama when I believe him to be wrong, simply because you feel I should be a "servant" to him in that way.
Yes, Christians, of all types, not just ministers, should be servants to others. We should love and serve them through our actions and our words. But that does not mean we must agree with everyone or act as if I did. You never make the same calls for Keith even though he holds strong, passionate positions on the issues. Bush was a Christian as well. Was Keith wrong for criticizing him as well? I don't think he was.
You may say, "Well, Keith is not yelling at Bush over health care or social security. He's not screaming at ladies in wheelchairs at protests." To that, I say, "Neither am I." I have not been to the one of the protests and probably never will. Not that I disagree with protests in general, but its not my style. And especially the rude, screaming behavior that both sides have demonstrated is not my style.
If you believe I am not displaying Christ enough in my actions, please let me know those specific ways. I may agree with you and acknowledge my continued struggle in that area. I may disagree with you and say you are holding me to a different standard than you would a liberal Christian, like Ketih. But neither one of us will know if you only speak in vague generalities of not "giving Obama a chance," which I believe I have, as I have shown.
Cin: You people make me sick.
Define "you people." Because you seem to assign blame to every conservative based on the actions of a few. I criticize "liberals" by using an example, but I don't think I've said in the context of discussions here with the liberals that "you people make me sick."
Again, I will resort to what you and Louis, love to define as the Aaron defense, even though I'm not defending any behavior and merely calling for consistent behavior.
I criticized many of the overreaction to Obama's speech, as I said earlier. I think it is a good thing, especially for African-American males to see what can be achieved in our country. Athletics is not their only avenue to achievement and success in life.
I thought much of the response was partisanship, merely criticizing him because Obama gave them an opportunity with an inartfully worded phrase.
But Democrats cannot express shock and horror that someone would dare criticize an innocuous speech to school children. As you pointed out, Bush Sr. gave a similar speech (as did Reagan), but what you didn't point out was the Democrats at time overreacted much the same way Republicans did today.
Then House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt complained that the Dept. of Education should be working to make our kids smarter not producing paid political ads for the President. Several Democrats also referenced a struggling economy (sound familiar) and wasting precious dollars for that instead of other much needed issues.
Just as many Republicans did now, many Democrats did then. They used an issue for political gain, even when it was innocent and meant to encourage school children.
We can and should criticize those who engage in this type of silly political rhetoric, but let's avoid the "you people make me sick" stuff. Glass houses and all. Feel free to say that type of discourse makes you sick.
The Democrat reaction to GHW Bush's speech was actually more than what we see now.
See this:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/b…
Hearings? Investigations? Assessment of "legality"?
Oh, Aaron, I think I missed that you were studying toward ministry. What degree are you working towards and where? How's it going for you? I think I missed that about you, or perhaps I haven't been around long enough to pick up on it.
I'm at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School working on my MDiv. I'm still working full time while doing it, so it's slow going, but I love the teachers and curriculum so far. I wish I could spend more time on campus, but as it is I have to pick and choose… Ravi Zacharias will be speaking at chapel later this month, so I'll be taking some oddly timed lunches to duck in for that! At any rate, I hope your studies are going well and that you're able to keep the joy and the focus in right perspective and balance with the work.
I guess I was thinking along these lines:
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I'm sure you know the reference. I'm also sure that I'll be bombarded with reasons why you have to correct error and argue for the faith, etc. I just don't think that "being right" and "winning arguments" has much to do with ministering. All I can say is that St. Paul regards all alternatives to love as "nothing" (even faith!). Polemics is one thing, love quite another entirely.
"Mmm, not going to look at the OFFICIAL democratic response to the GHWBush school speech?"
Why should I bother?
"Also, in what way do you think we have been A holes, please site specific examples."
Sure! But it's just you I was addressing when I suggested that so your use of the word "we" is irrelevant. When you said, "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech." The proper grammar is "democratic" not "democrat." Now, either your English is poor or that was a dig. I assumed it's a dig, because I've already pointed out the error recently in another thread. So, I thought that was a bit "A-hole-ish" of you because the phrase "Democrat Party" is used as an epithet by conservatives. If you made a mistake then say so. I'll drop it since I noticed that you used the proper term in your next post. But, you need to tell me if you made an honest mistake or not. Is that specific enough?
"Also, please answer the first question, what do you think the role of ambassador is?"
Look it up in the dictionary and that's my answer. If you actually meant an ambassador of Christ, why should I care about that? To me, you may as well want to be an ambassador for the tooth fairy.
"And then be a little more substantive, on what you think would be a better presentation."
Alright. As a pastor, some of the people in your church may not agree with you. Some may even be liberal Christians. You'd be able to present yourself better to them if you refrained from using "democrat" when the word "democratic" is called for. Democrats, the ones who speak with conservatives often, like me, see that as a slur uttered by conservative A-holes. It's impolite. It's a sign of disrespect. It's a bit rude.
You know who I think would be a good ambassador for Christ? Aaron and Keith. They talk with people and not at them. You and Seeker would be better at hosting right wing talk radio, IMHO.
Though I think Aaron is wasting his education in seminary, and I've told him that, he does have the communication skills you and Seeker lack. That's only my opinion, of course, but it's an honest one.
"Define "you people." Because you seem to assign blame to every conservative based on the actions of a few."
I admit that lately I've been appalled at the behavior of many conservatives and I was lashing out a bit. But, the rude behavior and the lies and the animosity and ignorance are just SO prevalent that it's making me more sensitive to right wing extremism. For example, last night as I was watching the President address the nation, a republican congressman rudely interrupted and shouted "You Lie!" I couldn't believe it. You know, I really despised George W. Bush when he was President. But, I always respected the office he held. To me, SC Congressman Joe Wilson may as well have thrown his shoe at the President. And before you ask, yes, I was appalled that someone would actually throw shoes at the POTUS. Have you ever seen, "Band of Brothers?" Lt. Winters: "You salute the rank, not the man." Republicans in congress showed their true colors.
What really grinds my gears are the wing nuts who pulled their kids out of school because they believed the lies in one form or another: Obama is not an American, Obama is a socialist, Obama is a Nazi, Obama wants to kill senior citizens, Obama is a Muslim, etc. And when George H.W. Bush made the same request, for school children to write a letter, I thought nothing of it. In fact, I think George H.W. Bush was the best republican President in my lifetime (back to Nixon). In retrospect, he did a good job. His son though, epic fail.
"…but what you didn't point out was the Democrats at time overreacted much the same way Republicans did today."
I lived through that and I don't remember democrats going nuts. I can see them criticizing it but you won't find reactions like this wing nut who was moved to tears. I mean, holy sh%t!
Yes, the Wilson thing was appalling, but, when you think about it, unsurprising given the state of today's Republican party. Don't believe me? Look here and here for a couple of examples, and, of course, don't forget Rush.
Sure, Cin, you made a mistake:
"The proper grammar is "democratic" not "democrat." Now, either your English is poor or that was a dig. I assumed it's a dig, because I've already pointed out the error recently in another thread. So, I thought that was a bit "A-hole-ish" of you because the phrase "Democrat Party" is used as an epithet by conservatives. If you made a mistake then say so. I'll drop it since I noticed that you used the proper term in your next post."
I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig. I use it to be specific, because "democratic" is a process of governance, and "democrat" is an adherent to a political party. Since appearantly there is some hypersensitive issue where switching "democrat" for "democratic", even where context makes what I'm talking about perfectly clear, to indicate A-holery, I'll be super careful in the future. Though you might need to help me. Was it the "democrat" vs. "Democrat" or "democrat" vs. "democratic". (Either way, I think you really need to step back and take a few deep breaths man.)
In this case, ignorance of any sort of issue, and an attempt at clarity was at play.
(Poor english? Give the folks at Miriam Webster a call:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democra… )
"As a pastor, some of the people in your church may not agree with you. Some may even be liberal Christians"
Okay, so how can I be a better ambassador HERE. You think that because I'm studying to be a pastor I can't have a political opinion in ANY forum? That's ludicrous. This is not my pulpit. This is not my church.
Be more like Aaron? Why, I'm glad Aaron's like Aaron. You don't like me? I'm fine with that. When it comes down to it, until you can show that I've been an A-hole in the wrong way, then I'm going to be very content knowing that I've been an A-hole in the right way.
As it is, if you can come up with another example, I'll assume I can take you at your word as quoted above.
"You know who I think would be a good ambassador for Christ? Aaron and Keith. They talk with people and not at them."
You also fail again, to answer the plainly put question. Connect that now to Jesus.
Good Louis, and that's a beautiful and moving piece of scripture. Now, what is the context? Who is that addressed to? What does that piece do to advance the logical flow of Pauls letter to the Corinthians?
(hint: what is the topic of the chapter before and after? Is it the same? Then is this section on love an excursis, does it relate to that topic?)
Good Louis, now let's do some basic bible study heavy lifting. You've copied out a beautiful section of scripture. What is the context of that section? What is the audience? How does that section advance the argument?
Hint: What is the chapter before and after dealing with? Is it the same topic? If so, is this section on love an excursis, or does it fit into that somehow?
"I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig."
I think you are being dishonest but here is the info regardless…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28ph…
" I use it to be specific, because "democratic" is a process of governance, and "democrat" is an adherent to a political party."
In actuality, you didn't. Here is what you said, "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech." Which particular adherent of the democratic party were you referring to? Does this democrat have a name? Or, were you, as I assumed, speaking about the official response from the democratic party. You are now equivocating Mr. would be pastor.
"Okay, so how can I be a better ambassador HERE."
You can use this blog to hone your communication skills. Communication skills are more important to pastors than debate skills.
"You think that because I'm studying to be a pastor I can't have a political opinion in ANY forum? That's ludicrous."
Indeed it is. Notice though that I think you were being an A-hole specifically because of your use of the "democrat" epithet. Also notice that you ascribe to me a position I never took (you can't have a political opinion in any forum) and then proceed to call it ludicrous. It's an inept attempt at setting up a straw man.
"When it comes down to it, until you can show that I've been an A-hole in the wrong way, then I'm going to be very content knowing that I've been an A-hole in the right way."
Can someone else explain what James means by this in clear English? He assumes we should know what he is going on about. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Is it something to do with being an A-hole for Jesus makes being an A-hole alright? Being an A-hole is the work of Jesus?
"You also fail again, to answer the plainly put question. Connect that now to Jesus."
Isn't that like asking me to connect it to the tooth fairy?
Cineaste, you said:
"If you made a mistake then say so. I'll drop it since I noticed that you used the proper term in your next post. But, you need to tell me if you made an honest mistake or not. Is that specific enough?"
I said:
"I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig"
and
"In this case, ignorance of any sort of issue, and an attempt at clarity was at play. "
Was that clear enough? Because if it wasn't clear, you should let me and everyone who might read this know. Otherwise… well, I guess the best thing I can assume is that you've made a retraction of some sort. It's more likely that you're just a liar, in plain black and white. :/
"I'll drop it" and "I think you are being dishonest" don't fall in the same semantic range.
"I said: "I've never heard that "Democrat" is a dig" and "In this case, ignorance of any sort of issue, and an attempt at clarity was at play."
To preface that you said, "Sure, Cin, you made a mistake:" Now correct me if I'm wrong , but that's not saying that you made a mistake, that's you saying I made a mistake. I told you that I'd drop this if you made a mistake. You even quoted me saying that.
"Was that clear enough? Because if it wasn't clear, you should let me and everyone who might read this know."
It wasn't clear enough. To be clear, answer only "yes" or "no" to this question. Did you James make a mistake in using the term "democrat" instead of "democratic?" For example, the proper construction of your sentence should have been, "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democratic [as opposed to "democrat"] response was to that speech."
"It's more likely that you're just a liar, in plain black and white."
And it's likely that you are both a liar and a fool. Great combo for a pastor. You need to polish those communication skills my friend. Stuff like that won't win you many converts.
Oh, okay, then my bad.
My answer is "yes", I made a mistake per your sensitivities.
Also, I'm glad I made that liar thing conditional. I'm glad you're not a liar and that you just didn't understand my response. I thought it was plain enough, but clearly not.
Okay, can I ask you some Yes or No answer questions?
Is debate a form of communication?
Did you look at the link I provided to Miriam Webster on the word democrat?
Did you look at the link I provided to the Washington Examiner detailing the response democratic party officials GHW Bush's school speech?
Do you think its appropriate to call someone an A-hole because they have slighted you, when you're not sure the slight is intentional?
Do you think that Jesus interacted with anyone who you would identify with in the Bible?
Do you think Jesus response to that person would make him an A-hole?
Do you think that truth is important?
Do you think that truth is important to Jesus?
Do you think that untruth should go unchallenged?
Do you think that Jesus' main mission on earth was to be a nice guy and love on people?
Do you think a pastors job is to be a nice guy and to love on people?
Do you think that the tooth fairy and Jesus are on equal footing, in terms of historicity?
Thanks Cin, I'm glad we had this talk, because now I feel like we can communicate well, and on your terms.
"My answer is "yes", I made a mistake per your sensitivities."
I don't accept that because you added "per your sensitivities." Let's try again and I'll get to your questions. Should you have said, "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democratic [as opposed to "democrat"] response was to that speech?"
Sorry, James, but your attempt to ensnare me in some interpretive exercise isn't going to work, as I'm sure, given your situation, that you can interpret things (context, audience, intent, etc.) your way. Remember, I have a degree in English (even a year or two of graduate work), and I'm familiar with the tactic. The passage I copied is justly famous, not just for its content, but for its poetic beauty. Paul's rhetoric took on a life of its own, encapsulating both his in-context argument and his wider message as well. It's expression is clear: conventional religious attributes are as "nothing" when confronted with the all-encompassing attributes of love – a love which passes understanding. This love, which eclipses the wisdom of the world (and the exegesis of the religiously wise), describes the character of God Himself and his demands upon us. It is the essence of what Jesus taught (his great commandments), and it even supercedes faith. I would think that this should be the credo of every minister, for as Paul puts it, it is the "most excellent way." And it constantly stuns me that the religious right has lost sight of it.
Actually, there's a fine distinction here that needs to play out. It really is a fine distinction, and I want to get this right for you:
The wiki link you gave me said that "democrat party" is a perjorative, right?
It does not say that "democrat" is a perjorative in and of itself. Right?
My post 19 includes the following quote that you find offensive:
"Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech."
Now, if in that post above, I am referring to individual democrats, members of the democratic party (those uses are good, right?), then the use of the term democrat is not perjorative, right?
Here's why the distinction is important… for a response to be the democratic party response, you might rightly and precisely say that response itself would have to come from THE top official of the party (or one of THE, call it the DNC chair, Speaker of the House, minority whip… one of a VERY few people), right?
So assuming that I'm right in understanding that "democrat" is okay for individuals, but "democrat party" is a perjorative, then I'd be right in pointing out to you that I never mentioned party, and its inference is not necessary in this case. Especially if you go and look at the link, I provided.
Let me modify that a little and see if it holds clearer meaning with nothing by which you can be offended (this just for understanding):
Now go look and see what the democrat official's of the highest level response was to that speech.
OR
Now go look and see what the democratic respsonse was to that speech from officials at the highest level.
The first refers to an individual, and the second as an individual or individuals responding in a way that is indicative of a party response. Both of the above are inoffensive, right?
I think I get it what you'd like me to get, but I hope you see what a granular distinction this is. I had no idea that I was getting anywhere near sensitive spots. How about I take that ball a little further away from it than you've even asked me to. Given the information you've provided, I would provide an amended statement as follows:
"No go look and see what steps members of congress took in reaction to that speech, not just what pundits and parents who objected."
By the way, the reason I don't just say, "yes Cineaste, you wrote what I should have said," because it doesn't exactly convey what I want it to. I hope you'll find that any of my above amendments, but certainly the last, makes you happy.
Finally, in addition to post 21, which you already mention I use the terminology you prefer, also see post 10. I hope that you would at least entertain the idea that my inconsistent usage is demonstration of ignorance on this issue of "democrat" and "democratic party", as evidenced by posts before you ever brought it up.
Louis, I know that your proficiency with english is great, and I'm aware of your post graduate level workmanship. I am forever indebted to you for my future correct spelling of "caricature".
It is precisely that mastery that makes me wonder at your response. 1 Corinthians is a single work, an epistle by genre. It is not a compilation of short stories, or an episodic narrative. Either might give warrant to pull a section of text out of its nearest neighbors. To my knowledge, no redaction criticist holds that the section you pulled out is from a seperate author of the surrounding pericopes.
You'll notice that I did not ask you for intent, which you specifically mention. That's too easy to dismiss as speculative. Audience, context, and flow of argument are much easier to agree upon.
How about I give you my high level thoughts on that and see if you disagree: 1 Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth, and therefore has an audience of believers (at least nominal) in mind. The context of the sections both before and after this section deals with spiritual gifts, especially contentiousness over the speaking of tongues. Even more so, there are transition statements that lead into and out of it:
"And now I will show you the most excellent way." immediately preceeds it (and connects it to the preceeding);
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal" immediately follows it, connecting love and the speaking of tongues section that also follows it.
He uses the section on love not seperate from the idea of spiritual giftedness, but to advance his argument that it's just not appropriate for them to argue about such things.
There, a VERY basic, and I believe non-contentious, analysis of audience, context, and argument analysis. Do you disagree with any of that?
BTW, I plan this to be of multivarious help to you. I don't think you care for it when Christians pull prooftexts out of thin air, right? I find it indefensible. I likewise think you'll find it useful to sharpen your own stick a bit in these conversations.
Let me do more: How about the sermon on the mount, and the words of Jesus (always best to go there, so then you can avoid any questions of Pauls apostolic authority, which will then hit a broader audience.), "Love your enemy," and, "Bless those that curse you."
That's one of the many TOUGH ideas that Jesus conveys in that collection of sayings. "Love your enemy." Phew. Good one there. But can we transport what Paul says about love, especially "love is kind" to what Jesus is saying there? I wantt to say yes, but I'm not sure I can.
Look at His interraction with the pharisees. Kind does not apply. Now, if we are forced to say that "love is kind" is bound up in "love your enemies", then we've got to then work out that Jesus wasn't loving, a late redactor made a HUGE mistake in putting those things close together, Paul was wrong, or what Jesus is saying about love for an enemy doesn't quite mean what we'd like it to mean.
I'd posit that Jesus shows a tough love and intimate interaction with a Pharisee, Nichodemus, that can help us understand what this meant.
Love is terribly important. Love is a characteristic of God, and is bound up not only in Himself, but in every one of His works. Love is not *always* kind, at least not in the immediate sense. Love does not require a Christian to act as you think it should, though. The pastor is called to care for the flock, which means fending off wolves, most unkindly. Paul calls on the church in Corinth, in the very same letter you quoted, to cast someone out of the church and turn them over to satan… out of love (maybe better said: with the intent that they will repent and come back to the church), but certainly not kindly.
If you'd like some relatively compact places to get an idea of what the bible says about pastoring, I'd recommend the letters from Paul to Timothy and Titus. I think you'll see that there's some warnings and instructions that place boundaries around this "love before anything" understanding you'd like to have. I'd be very happy to discuss it. In fact, that's why I wanted to you futher elaborate on ambassadorship and connect it to Jesus. A flat nancy-boy picture of a hippy-lovey Jesus just ignores too much.
OH! Funny videos you may like which underscore that… Google (or Youtube search) for "Vintage 21 Jesus" and you'll find 4 episodes which were put together by a church launch team out east (NC I want to say, but I'm not sure). It presents in a mocking way some of the bad misconceptions about Jesus. Some good snark, I think you'll appreciate. :)
"So assuming that I'm right in understanding that "democrat" is okay for individuals, but "democrat party" is a perjorative, then I'd be right in pointing out to you that I never mentioned party, and its inference is not necessary in this case. Especially if you go and look at the link, I provided."
The above is a paraphrase of this…
James: "I use it to be specific, because "democratic" is a process of governance, and "democrat" is an adherent to a political party."
I've already responded with…
"In actuality, you didn't. Here is what you said, "Now go look and see what the official, and I mean official at the highest levels, democrat response was to that speech." Which particular adherent of the democratic party were you referring to? Does this democrat have a name? Or, were you, as I assumed, speaking about the official response from the democratic party. You are now equivocating…"
I hope you'll find that any of my above amendments, but certainly the last, makes you happy.
The last one is fine.
My son crushes my modem with my G5 and all goes to pot here … ;)
James: My education and plans – complicated. I'm at SEBTS pursuing an MDiv in Apologetics, working at night at UPS loading boxes. I was hoping for a graphic design, journalism, photography job (my undergrad), but had to settle for the manual labor with decent pay and good benefits job. Because I work at night, go to class and stay at home with my boys during the day, I am taking 9 hours per semester. Too much reading and not enough time if I take more (I did my first semester).
Current Debate: I have no idea where the discussion has went except on the Democrat, Democratic thing. Cin, I will say this, until our discussions here I never knew the use of the one over the other was an insult. You and Louis noted that before for me and I've tried to adapt since then. But it can be an initial, innocnet mistake. I assure you mine was and I believe James' was as well.
On the role of ministers: A ministers job is to love his congregation, as Louis has said, but often times per Paul, whom you quoted, it manifest itself in "tough love." You of all people should know that Paul does not back down from calling something wrong which he understands as being wrong in God's eyes.
Christians do need to be more loving now. My Baptist History prof was talking the other day and I was reminded of Louis. He said when speaking of gay individuals too many Christians say love and mean hate. He's right. But, even though Louis may not accept it, there's a possibility to love someone and disagree with their actions, even if they view those actions as integral to their identity and who they are. But Christians, in attempting to be "right," have been hateful. I have no problem admitting that. The hate disguised as love makes it difficult now for gay individuals to believe genuine Christians when they say love with disagreement is possible.
All ministers (along with all Christians) are hypocritical. I'm hypocritical. I'm sure Keith would tell you the same thing. We all fall short of being a perfect reflection of Christ. None of us measure up. Some of us have longer to go than others, but none of us is close. If non-Christians want to indict us for that, go ahead. It just reinforces to me how much myself (and the world) needs a perfect Savior.
Current rhetoric: Joe Wilson should have apologized (and he did). But Cin the reason you don't remember the rhetoric being so bad is because it wasn't directed at you. I mean no offense by that, we all suffer from the same myopic view of political discourse. It is horrible when directed at our side, defensible when directed at the others.
You didn't have a problem with Bush 1's speech, but you are thinking in terms of the current discussion looking back. No Democrat today is going to say that. I believe you were fine with it then as well, but the leader speakers of the Democratic party made a big deal of it and accused the president of creating a paid political ad and wasting tax payer dollars during a bad economy. Sound familiar? Same play, different actors.
Remember the Social Security debate. Bush wanted to reform it because it was going bankrupt. Made it the center of his domestic policy. Democrats said it was going to take money away from seniors who needed to pay for health care and prescriptions. He gave a speech to a joint session of Congress (State of the Union). He had Democrat representatives interrupt his speech with boos and catcalls. Same play, different actors.
All of this stuff comes full circle. I'm really starting to see that now and really get less and less worked up about politics. I can't listen to Rush anymore. I don't agree with the way he goes about the debate. I may agree with most of what he says, but I can't listen to the way he says it. I would hope liberals could and would say the same about Olbermann and other lefty flame throwers.
Politics is important, vitally important, but it is the least effective way (highest risk, lowest reward) to impact culture.
…the leader speakers of the Democratic party made a big deal of it and accused the president of creating a paid political ad and wasting tax payer dollars during a bad economy. Sound familiar?
That sounds like the political criticism I allowed for but thats nothing compared to how guano crazy the rank and file republicans have gone. Like I said, there is actually a large grass roots movement of right wing parents to not let their kids hear some very good things from the President of the United States.
>>> Is debate a form of communication?
It can be. Sometimes it just degenerates into argument. [Looks at 90% of conversations here]
>>> Did you look at the link I provided to Miriam Webster on the word democrat?
Yes. Unsurprisingly, it included the definition I use.
>>> Did you look at the link I provided to the Washington Examiner detailing the response democratic party officials GHW Bush's school speech?
No. Why should I bother?
>>> Do you think its appropriate to call someone an A-hole because they have slighted you, when you're not sure the slight is intentional?
No. I don't think you slighted me personally. It was a dig at democrats. You claim ignorance though so I'll leave it at that as promised.
>>> Do you think that Jesus interacted with anyone who you would identify with in the Bible?
Clarify, "…who you would identify with…"
>>> Do you think Jesus response to that person would make him an A-hole?
Who?
>>> Do you think that truth is important?
Very much so.
>>> Do you think that truth is important to Jesus?
Yes. From what I know of Jesus, he probably gave more importance to truth than his modern conservative devotes.
>>> Do you think that untruth should go unchallenged?
It depends. Truthfully, Santa doesn't exist but I'm loath to ruin a child's fantasy. When they become adults though, then Santa's existence should be challenged.
>>> Do you think that Jesus' main mission on earth was to be a nice guy and love on people?
I don't think he had a divine mission. I think he was someone like Buddha, a great teacher of morals (Sermon on the Mount.)
>>> Do you think a pastors job is to be a nice guy and to love on people?
I'm going to have fun with a typo. Love on people? Well Catholic pastors think it's their job to love on young boys. Lots of politicians think it's their job to love IN people as well.
>>> Do you think that the tooth fairy and Jesus are on equal footing, in terms of historicity?
I think a man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed historically but any claims to divinity and supernatural miracles are indeed on equal footing with the tooth fairy. Don't worry, he's in good company with Zeus, Osiris, Vishnu, Odin and a ton of other deities.
Take, for example, the virgin birth. Which do you think is more probable, that a Jewish minx should tell a lie or that that natural law was suspended? I know, I know, you believe the latter. Well, that's your faith talking not your common sense.
That sounds like the political criticism I allowed for but thats nothing compared to how guano crazy the rank and file republicans have gone.
So you have no problem with Republicans saying similar things about Obama? If so, then we agree. Obama (and Bush) can be criticized for the speech and it can be a political issue. However, it is silly or "crazy" to overreact and believe that Obama was seeking to indoctrinate children. I already said that in the other post. So if that is your opinion for both speeches, we agree.
I think a man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed historically but any claims to divinity and supernatural miracles are indeed on equal footing with the tooth fairy.
It's odd that virtually every faith (Islam, Buddhism, etc.) all hold Jesus in high regard. It's odd that so much of society, even those that are not Christians hold Jesus in such high regard.
Why is that odd? Because if what you say is true, Jesus is at best a blatant liar and con-man. Why would anyone respect him for that, regardless of what he may say that sounds wise?
Also, do you know for certain that there can be no supernatural acts? If so, how? Or are you simply "playing the odds?" If so, then no Christian is going to argue with you that it is extremely rare for a virgin to give birth or any of the other miracles associated with Jesus' life. The odds are next to nothing.
They can only be nothing, if you know for certain that the supernatural does not exist. And the only way you can know that is if you have knowledge of everything present & past. And if you have that, then well you are an example of something supernatural. ;)
So if that is your opinion for both speeches, we agree.
We agree. Think about what would have happened to social security had Bush and the republicans succeeded with privatizing it though. Some conservatives worship the free market like a golden idol. When the market crashed social security would have been destroyed and it would have been a disaster for the elderly. G.W. Bush should thank the democrats for defeating him on that.
It's odd that virtually every faith (Islam, Buddhism, etc.) all hold Jesus in high regard. It's odd that so much of society, even those that are not Christians hold Jesus in such high regard.
We disagree here then. I don't think it's odd at all. I too hold Jesus in very high regard. I'm a great admirer of the moral precepts in the Sermon on the Mount. We don't hold Jesus in such high regard as a monotheistic divinity though. Only Christians do that.
"Because if what you say is true, Jesus is at best a blatant liar and con-man."
I don't think so. The legend propagated by his followers may be a blatant lie and con though. It's a common theme with religion. It happened with Allah, Zeus, Osiris, Vishnu, Odin so why not Jehovah? No doubt you will argue Jehovah is a special case but again you are a Christian so you see this issue as a Christian and not objectively.
Also, do you know for certain that there can be no supernatural acts?
No. The tooth fairy may put money under pillows and Mary may have actually conceived as a virgin but I think both scenarios are so improbable that I dismiss them as fantasy. This is a well worn topic that we've been over many times. I'm game to revisit it of you are, Aaron.
G.W. Bush should thank the democrats for defeating him on that.
I think the same will be said of Obama and health care one day. ;)
I'm a great admirer of the moral precepts in the Sermon on the Mount. … The legend propagated by his followers may be a blatant lie and con though.
Why believe the Sermon on the Mount if you can't believe other things recorded about him? If his followers lied so drastically about his acts, why would they not lie about his words? Also, don't you judge a person by the company he keeps. If Jesus was such a good person, why would he keep as his friends/followers people who would lie so blatantly after his death.
The tooth fairy may put money under pillows and Mary may have actually conceived as a virgin but I think both scenarios are so improbable that I dismiss them as fantasy.
Here's the problem with the comparison, no adult believes in tooth fairies. We have actual, concrete evidence that tooth fairies don't put money under pillows. I should know, I have had to play one at my house. ;)
You can put a tooth under your pillow and truly believe that a fairy will put money under it, but it won't happen.
You can't do that with Mary's pregnancy. You can say that every pregnancy you've ever known has been normal and not virgin, but that does not prevent Mary's pregnancy from being different.
Because you cannot possible know for certain that the supernatural does not exist, then you cannot dismiss out of hand recorded instances of the supernatural as fantasy. You can investigate it and find it to be false or plausible or even true, but again unless you possess more knowledge than anyone else, you cannot say all recorded supernatural events are fantasy.
I'm not arguing that you have to believe everyone who ever claims the supernatural. We can and should use our common sense and scientific method to investigate those claims. Many can be proven false and that is fine, but that does not prove them all to be false. The miraculous would be by definition rare.
James, I read your reply with some interest. Although I'm not prepared to give you a graduate level dissertation, I do have a couple observations.
You are treating the text as a literary artifact (applying methods of analysis, addressing audience, placing it in context within the greater whole). These are methods used by critics and literature professors (at least partially so). There's nothing wrong with this, of course, and it provides an excellent preliminary approach. But, sometimes, certain passages take on a life of their own, independent of their context or (dare I say it) the author's original intention. This seems to happen particularly with poetry. For example, Shakespeare's Hamlet and his "To be or not to be" soliloquy. Certainly it has a specific function within the play, but it has also taken on a life of its own independent of its immediate context. I would so argue with the passage under consideration here. 1 Corinthians 13 is justly famous, independently of chapters 12 and 14, and is known even by many non-Christians I would wager. Paul is certainly embedding it within his greater argument. But I contend that something larger happened, independent of his polemical intent. The beauty of the language is one indication, the imagery another: what was prose became transcendent poetry. His heart appears on the page. And I think this occurred precisely because he was expressing the essence of his understanding of God and our response to God. The central idea, love, inspires him, and becomes his inspiration. In this life we see, as in a glass, darkly, but he is inspired by his vision to describe for us what will come later, when we put away childish notions. Next to this, the usual religious paraphernalia – prophecy, tongues, charity, even faith itself – pales into humdrum prose. Can the minister convey this vision? Can he rise above the prosaic to the sublime and inspire his congregation? Mirroring his Lord, he must apply and model love, and Paul shows the way for the minister:
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Here, as elsewhere, scripture rises above literature and becomes sublime. Critical tools and assumptions cease to work very well. Dissecting the passage misses the key point: reading and absorbing this passage, we are touched by the Divine. Certainly, on some level, this was St. Paul's intent.
Further, you rightly hold Jesus up as the model of the ideal minister. However, I must differ when you use his "tougher" actions as justification for the modern minister using "tough love" on his flock (or even outsiders, as seeker would do). For one thing, He is Jesus, the man without sin. Who among us can claim likewise? I think it's dangerous to assert we can likewise take it upon ourselves to chastise out of anger (even righteous anger) or from some assumption that we are wise enough and pure enough so to do. Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Judge not, and so on. The point is, that we are all sick and sinful, we can only see in part (as through a distorted or darkened glass), and the only just judge is the perfect one – God. We are not Jesus, and no minister should mistake himself for Him, even (as he may think) in the service of "tough love."
Aaron illustrates this perfectly with his admission that Christians (not all, of course, but most) have so damaged their credibility with gays that we now dismiss them and ignore their protestations of "love." These Christians, thinking they are displaying "tough love," have, instead, shown self-righteousness and ignorance, and have alienated those they seek to save. Maybe a little humility was in order; maybe they didn't really understand the scripture they employed like a club; maybe we could have been reached. Hubris, I think it's called. And now they (you) have no credibility with us: we either ignore or dismiss your admonitions. Where was your patience, your kindness? Why so rude and self-seeking, using prejudice against gays for political and fund-raising purposes? As ambassadors of Christ to the gay world you are failures.
But, as a sign of peace, I will offer you a prayer of peace from another saint, Francis, I came across in today's meeting, another set of instructions for the would-be minister:
Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
Dare we dissect this?
Why believe the Sermon on the Mount if you can't believe other things recorded about him?
Things like "Love thy neighbor" are more realistic than stopping the sun in the middle of the sky.
"If his followers lied so drastically about his acts, why would they not lie about his words?"
Legends and myths propagate themselves over time until they are "truth" (in quotes). Maybe some didn't lie but distortions were made and some stories changed in the zeitgeist.
"Also, don't you judge a person by the company he keeps. If Jesus was such a good person, why would he keep as his friends/followers people who would lie so blatantly after his death."
Judge Jesus because he was accompanied by Judas? No, that's guilt by association. I don't judge people by the company they keep but by the "content of their character."
"Here's the problem with the comparison, no adult believes in tooth fairies."
And, here's the problem with this entire line of argument. It's demonstrably false. There are thousands of people and countries who believe fairies, tooth fairies, elves, etc. Here is my evidence if interested…
In Iceland, spirits are in the material world
I can provide more news stories like this on request.
We have actual, concrete evidence that tooth fairies don't put money under pillows.
Oh? I say you have no evidence. You only have evidence of the occasions you played the tooth fairy. The supernatural is not subject to experiment like the material world because physical laws don't apply.
"Because you cannot possible know for certain that the supernatural does not exist, then you cannot dismiss out of hand recorded instances of the supernatural as fantasy."
Exactly! That applies to fairies as well, yes?
"We can and should use our common sense and scientific method to investigate those claims."
Then by your own terms, you should be skeptical of the virgin birth, water turning into wine, etc…
How do we know that there aren't forces at work in nature that the human mind interprets as fairies and elves? "Supernatural" is such a vague term. For instance, what is mind? How is it related to the brain? Don't we just assume that rationality, by itself, is the sole measure of reality? We are told that the cosmos is "infinite." Can your mind comprehend that? In order to "do" science, we assume that we can be objective, that the observer does not affect the observed or bring its own viewpoint. However, this has been demonstrated to be false. If so, doesn't that call the entire rationalist venture into question?
note: I'm not arguing for irrationality, just some perspective. I demand humility from relitionists, so I must do the same for rationalists as well.
The scientific method is basically induction. If you call that into question then physical laws have no meaning. Can you clarify a bit more, Louis? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Hi Cin:
I'd say Louis has been spot on. I say this a believer in the supernatural. If you cannot call induction into QUESTION, you cannot think about it at all. All I think Louis is saying is that we human beings need a little humility. Science, faith, knowledge, truth, all of our thinking is an art, not something that can be reduced to clear rules and objective proofs. In the end, all we can do is go with our gut. BTW, did you know that we have more neurons in our gut than in our brain? Stephen Colbert told me that.
your friend
Keith
Louis, Keith,
“If you cannot call induction into QUESTION, you cannot think about it at all.
Induction consists of calling everything and anything into question. Why should it, out of everything around it, be uniquely exempt from scrutiny?”
OK, I think I understand now. At first I thought you were questioning science because scientists have biases that can influence conclusions. I grant you that, they are not robots. They are human: “If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?”
Einstein himself was incredibly biased. He thought everything could be predicted with the right mathematics. But when Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics arrived, Einstein fought it tooth and nail famously saying, “God does not play dice.” He died obsessed trying to craft a grand theory of everything (gravity) that had no uncertainty in it. But science deals with probabilities, not certainties. However, the probabilities are very high (like saying the sun will probably rise tomorrow) and I would never equate it with “going with your gut.”
But you go deeper. You and Keith are talking about induction itself.
There are two modes of logical reasoning that I know of. Induction and deduction. We often use both in conjunction. As far as humility goes, I grant that induction has it’s shortcomings. For example, even if the sun has risen a million times before is not proof that it will rise again. Proofs are for deduction. I know induction is not the end-all and be-all of existence but it’s really darned important. Induction is part of the human condition IMO. If we only had deduction, our brains may as well be binary computers.
“Certainly there are subjects where it fails to satisfy: love for one (how does go about constructing experiments to determine its existence?”
Well, Blake, Wadsworth, Tennyson, etc would hate me for this unromantic devil’s advocate deterministic argument, though Mark Twain would praise it; if love is partly a chemical reaction involving Dopamine and Oxytocin, can we not conduct scientific experiments on love?
“Certainly, I don’t advocate a return to superstition as do the fundamentalists, but neither do I accept the cold logic (and colder world) of the rationalist. “The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.””
My rebuttal would be that it’s not reason at all then. It’s the id and not the ego. I do think that you are being harsh on rationalists by describing their world as “cold” and stripping life of meaning, beauty, and enchantment. Einstein fell in love too.
And, even if the heart does have reasons that reason cannot know, I don’t attribute it’s reasons to anything related to the supernatural. Is that the humility you are talking about and demand?
How could I have forgotten Lord Byron? Jeeez!
Induction is part of the human condition IMO.
I never claimed otherwise: a part
…if love is partly a chemical reaction involving Dopamine and Oxytocin, can we not conduct scientific experiments on love? [emphasis mine]
You anticipated my reply with your qualifier "partly." Of course, love is partly physical, but it's so much more. What you are calling for is reductionism, not reason – and that's the problem with modern rationalism in a nutshell. Terms like "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are merely artificial categories concocted fairly recently in mankind's history and divide our perception of the totality of reality in ways that do damage to our need for a whole and complete humanity. Past (and many present) cultures did not divide reality in this way: spiritual and physical were aspects of the same thing. Certainly, modernism has created a powerful tool in the scientific method, but it has done untold damage as well: "supernatural" and "natural" aspects of reality have been torn asunder and forced into an absurd battle for control. Thus, we have religious fundamentalism on the one hand and soulless scientific materialism on the other – and the planet is dying. No, what I am arguing for is a reintegration of all aspects of human personality, not for one or the other or this nonsensical division.
How could I have forgotten Lord Byron?
Not to mention Shakespeare and just about every other poet one could name (Twain was a proser).
Louis, can one be spiritual and not believe in the supernatural?
Twain a poser? Bite your tongue!
Ha! You fell in my trap. Assignment: reread my statement, especially the part rejecting the division of reality into arbitrary categories and the parenthetical comment re: Twain. Careful reading is required.
I have to say, I agree with Louis. I agree that modern man has 'disintegrated' reality – this error, however, has not only taken the human and spiritual out of science, but out of public life and policy (secularism). I think that this is a mistake as well.
I also think one of the problems with 'soulless materialism' is that it conflates the spiritual/supernatural with the superstitious – the good thing about science and reason is that they have driven superstition out of faith.
The problem is that rationalists think that superstition is the totality of the spiritual/supernatural. I understand why they take such a position, but I think it is presumptuous of them to declare that the material is all that there is.
Gasp! seeker agrees with me?! (quick hand me a xanax)
Still, he can't resist conflating the religious with the political, as a true theocrat. Only a truly secular political system allows for freedom of religion, else we get a conflation of church and state which damages (if not destroys) both. Government should be impartial and secular, allowing a thousand spiritualities to bloom.
>> LOUIS: Still, he can't resist conflating the religious with the political, as a true theocrat.
Actually, I think you are mistaken about my position. I have advocated a less stringent separation of church and state than the extreme secularist position, but a separation none the less. I am not conflating, but actually INTEGRATING with different boundaries than the relatively non-integrated secularist view.
See:
Uneasy Neighbors – Church and State
The Four Historic Models for Church/State Interaction
Far Left, Far Right, and Middle?
Separation of Church and State, but not God and State
Separation of Church and State on NPR
I've been reading you for years and am convinced that you are a conservative theocrat and would welcome, if not a formal church-state combination, then a Christianity-state conflation. And you can't convince me otherwise. Sorry.
>> LOUIS: I've been reading you for years and am convinced that you are a conservative theocrat and would welcome, if not a formal church-state combination, then a Christianity-state conflation. And you can't convince me otherwise. Sorry.
At least you are honest about your lack of critical thinking in this matter. We all make emotional decisions in defiance of the data at times.
Aren't I right that you assume this solely on my opposition to gay marriage, which I see as condoning dysfunction? YOU think that I do this for purely religious reasons, since you (mistakenly) believe that science has proved otherwise. THEREFORE, I am being a theocrat.
But perhaps you think that my rejection of evolution makes me a theocrat too. Who knows. Enjoy your perception – while it may help you cope with those who oppose you, believing lies always ends up badly.
Then your end will be terrible indeed.
You are so judgmental. Good thing you don't have Christian convictions to stop you.
"Assignment: reread my statement, especially the part rejecting the division of reality into arbitrary categories"
…cultures did not divide reality in this way: spiritual and physical were aspects of the same thing.
But that's my question to you. Since spiritual and physical are aspects of the same thing, can't one be spiritual while not believing in the supernatural?
"Twain. Careful reading is required."
Read "The Mysterious Stranger"
You are so judgmental.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"proser" as in one who writes in prose as opposed to poetry. Jeez.
As to your question, I don't know.
– Proser! Doh!
– Louis, do you think one can be spiritual and not be religious?
– Louis, do you think one can be spiritual and not be religious?
That depends on how you define "religious." How do you define it? How do you define "spiritual"?
Well, to me, "religious" means having to do with religion. "Spiritual" is broader for me. When I look at the beauty of a sunset or the awesome vistas the Hubble space telescope beams back, that's a spiritual experience for me. It has nothing to do with the supernatural though. Think Ralph Waldo Emerson or Thoreau. So, now you know how I'd answer my own question, "do you think one can be spiritual and not be religious?" But, talking about what I think is not important. I'm interested in your answer and your thoughts.