Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Thou Shalt not Kill, but Murder is Fine

If human beings were basically good, it wouldn't be necessary to have an injunction against murder. In fact, it is the last thing we would need. People would, as a matter of course, realize how infinitely precious their own life is, and then, through a natural process of empathy, understand that everyone else's life is equally precious, and that would be that. Murder would be inconceivable because it would represent the ultimate injustice: the theft of something of infinite value which can never be replaced.

Therefore, the sixth commandment is there to remind all of us would-be murderers that you shouldn't do that. I don't know when or why it was ever erroneously translated as "thou shalt not kill," since killing has no no intrinsic moral consequence one way or the other. Ironically, leftist nihilists rarely cite the Ten Commandments, but you will often hear them cite "thou shalt not kill" in support of their nihilist policies. Interesting that they misinterpret the one commandment of which they approve.

And the reason they misinterpret this particular commandment is that it dovetails nicely with their deeply nihilistic and pacifist tendencies. For when you conflate murder and killing, you do two things: first, you minimize and even trivialize the horror of murder -- very similar to feminists who trivialize the horror of rape by equating it with any sex a woman regrets on the following day. But secondly, you convert the use of lethal violence against evil, which is a moral necessity, into something bad. Once again, you have overturned the moral order of the world.

Because we are free and we are aware of a transcendent moral order, our life consists (among other things) of choosing between good and evil. Here again, the nihilistic left undermines both poles of this elementary reality. First, they attenuate our ultimate freedom by the doctrine of "victims" and "root causes." Whenever someone chooses evil -- again, so long is he is not a conservative -- it is because they were victimized and oppressed, and were merely reacting to that.

Thus, when an evil murderer is being put to death, you will always see demonstrations and lamentations by the left that the government is murdering a helpless victim. But never once in my life have I ever seen this standard applied to a conservative, or even to a "corporate criminal," for that matter.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the delusional leftist belief that George Bush is an evil murderer who is sending Americans off to die because he wants his friends to have more oil. If this were true, then President Bush would definitely qualify as a psychopath, no question about it. But if he is a psychopath, then he is obviously a victim of mental illness. We cannot be angry with him -- much less hold him responsible or punish him. Rather, we must have compassion for him. We must understand him. What are the root causes of his psychopathy?

This is as fine an example of the incoherence at the heart of leftism that I can think of. It is incoherent because it is nihilistic to the core. It is not rooted in any intellectually or morally defensible first principles, but is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and convenient. For what is the first principle of the secular left? We have been reviewing the deep structure of their ideology in recent days, and it all goes back to there is no God and we are his prophets! But this first principle has many disturbing and dysfunctional ramifications, which include the impossibility of transcendent meaning, the absence of any vertical order in the cosmos, and the devaluation of wisdom embodied in tradition (tradition representing the extension or "prolongation" of the vertical into the horizontal).

Therefore, when a leftist tells you that truth does not exist and that various texts are simply forms of domination rooted in the will to power, believe him, for this is the nature of the dark principality he inhabits. This is why I would never argue with a leftist, because they are so deeply and fundamentally illogical. Why try to reason with someone who has rejected the possibility of objective truth a priori? He is simply going to use whatever strategy or technique at his disposal to win the debate, not to arrive at truth, which isn't possible for him anyway. Imagine "debating" an atheist. You cannot debate an atheist, since debate is not a valid means to know God. However, once you know and accept God, then rational debate is naturally valid within a theocentric reality. This is because things are not true because they are rational, but rational because they are true. Absent God, reason can "prove" most anything.

But man is a proud beast, and one of the reasons he is proud is because he has rejected God and inserted his own ego in God's place. This is a story as old as mankind, being that it is documented in the first few pages of Genesis. Speaking of which, I see that Christopher Hitchens has jumped on the old anti-intellectual atheist blandwagon with both feet. He has a new book entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which only goes to show you how Marxist nihilism poisons an obviosly above average brain. But brains are not intelligent if they do not know truth. Either that, or we have to think of a new word for all the things which intelligent people know, but which cannot possibly be true.

In other words, most of what has filled human heads down through the centuries has consisted of "untrue knowledge." I don't have to read Hitchens' book to know that he has applied this idea to religion, cataloguing all of the kooky and harmful things human beings have believed in the name of religion. But if you were so inclined, you could do the same thing with science, with sexuality, with economics, with medicine, or with anything humans get involved in. Human beings believe untruth because only human beings are able to understand truth, just as they commit evil because only they can do good. One would think that Hitchens -- who is, after all, an avowed misanthrope -- would understand this rudimentary fact. Human beings are not bad because of religion. Rather, religion is bad because of human beings. In an odd way, Hitchens has way too high an opinion of humans.

Hitchens presumably adopts the anti-wisdom and anti-intellectual view that humans are not the problem but the solution (I say "presumably" because that is really your only option: God or man, the latter of which inevitably redounds to nihilism and to the abolition of man, no matter how much glibstick you slather on that metaphysical pig.)

Truly, godlessness poisons everything. Now, when I say this, I am naturally referring to God, not, for example, to the manmade psychotic projection embraced by our enemies. But to conflate these two Gods is no more valid than conflating phrenology and quantum physics. Phrenology was once considered a valid science, just as logical positivism and empiricism were once considered valid philosophies. But they aren't valid, something we can know because it is true. I suppose it doesn't go without saying that knowledge is only possible because we can know it, and that we can know it because truth exists, a priori.

Again, if truth doesn't exist -- as believed by the nihilistic left -- than we are back to power. Therefore, any atheist piggyfesto, no matter how well groomed, represents the exercise of raw power over its dominion of nothing. Behind the intelligence of such a person is simply the fist.

I thank God that America's founders were Christian men guided by transcendent truth, and not Marxist nihilists. Can you imagine? What kind of hell would we be living in today if our founders had been "demonically intelligent" leftists?

Homicide is one thing. But deicide -- that's a game for the few, the proud, the morons. Obviously, none of these deicidal maniacs has ever had a genuine encounter with God, so truly, "they know not what they do."

*****

As I mentioned at the beginning of this series of posts on the ten commandments of nihilism, the first five actual commandments are vertical, in that they address man-to-God relations, while the second five are horizontal, governing man-to-man relations. Thus, there is a parallel between the first and the sixth commandments, as the sixth commandment -- thou shalt not murder -- is the first horizontal commandment. Therefore, there is an implicit resonance between I am your God, and you shall have no other Gods before me, and you shall not murder. But if you jettison the first commandment, you throw out the sixth with it, for then human beings no longer have any ultimate value. They are simply here for the use of more powerful human beings, as leftism teaches. You are not an individual who was created in God's image, and therefore capable of using your intellect to know truth and your liberty to choose good. Rather, you are a slave. You have no intrinsic dignity. You are here to serve the collective.

(Hey, we're almost there: Jonah Goldberg cites a survey from 1987, indicating that 45% of adult respondents thought that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- a quote from Karl Marx -- was in the Constitution.)

And since the leftist lives in an inverted moral and intellectual universe, the horizontal displaces the vertical. Therefore, an inverted understanding of commandments 6 - 10 is at the foundation of leftism, beginning with you shall not kill instead of you shall not murder. Which is why godless regimes are responsible for the deaths of more human beings in the 20th century alone than all the religious wars combined. Abolish God and you abolish man, abolish man and murder is no different than killing. As always, bad religion drives out good, including the bad religion of atheism.

Sowell nails it, as usual.

*****

Here is some of what I wrote about the sixth commandment last summer:

One routinely hears leftists argue that there is no difference between deaths that occur as a deliberate policy of Islamo-nazis vs. those that occur as a result if Israel defending itself from Islamo-nazis. One also routinely hears George Bush described by the left as a terrorist -- indeed, “the world’s biggest terrorist” -- which again simply highlights the broken moral compass that afflicts so much of the left.

The same broken moral compass is present in animal rights activists who equate the killing of animals with the murder of humans. One also hears leftists perversely invoke “thou shalt not kill” in order to try to prevent murderers from being put to death. But again, the commandment specifically forbids the deliberate taking of innocent human life, and no one is less innocent than a murderer. The “golden rule” maintains that we should treat others as we would have them treat us, and it is just so with capital punishment.

As Schuon writes, it is absurd to want to abolish the death penalty "on the grounds that one would not like to be in the condemned man’s place; to be in the place of the condemned man is at the same time to be the murderer; if the condemned man can earn our sympathy it is precisely by being able to recognize his crime and by desiring to pay for it with his life, thereby removing all antagonism between him and us.” In short, a murderer who is truly reformed and understands the infinite gravity of his crime will wish to be put to death. Only then is there even a basis for discussion.

But there are many ways to murder a man without killing the body, and these also fall under the rubric of this commandment. One can even draw out the implications of the commandment, in that, if we are to refrain from the taking of innocent life, we are necessarily enjoined to promote, preserve and protect innocent life in all of its manifestations.

At bottom, what the commandment is emphasizing is that human life is sacred -- it is of infinite value; therefore, do everything you can to honor and protect it. Clearly, not all cultures do so. Some, as in so much of the Muslim world, worship death, not life. And this inversion is reflected throughout these sick cultures, in that they are “fruitless.” That is, they produce nothing but misery, both to themselves and to others. They produce nothing for the body, i.e., no medicines, no new ways to produce food; they produce nothing for the mind, i.e., no science, no translations of books, no freedom of inquiry; and they produce nothing for the spirit, i.e., only the spiritual shackles of their medieval death cult.

Most soul murders are undoubtedly committed by those who are already so spiritually damaged as to be functionally dead. These undead souls such as a Nasrallah, an Arafat, or an Amahdinejad, speak to us from “the other side,” from the shadow world that is created when the soul has been so damaged that it essentially exits the body, leaving only a grotesque human-animal in its place. But other demonic energies rush in to fill the void, so that the individual becomes a sort of “antihuman.” At their core, they are filled with unbearable envy toward the living, and the only way they can assuage this envy is to kill and kill plentifully. Life is a reminder of their own walking death, hence, “death to Israel,” that primordial symbol of life: l’chaim.

The undead also cannot help converting their children to their way of non-being. In ways both subtle and profound, they will interact with their children in a pathological manner, causing the children to internalize the same virus that afflicts their parents. Regardless, the virus always goes by the name of “love,” which simply further confuses the child. In the end, they will not be able to distinguish the difference between love and hate or truth and lies, any more than they can distinguish between life and death.

That depraved Muslim couple that was going to use their baby as a bomb surely love their child, except that the love flows out of death, not life. Likewise, the proud Palestinian parents who raise their children to be mass murderers undoubtedly love their children, as do the Muslim parents who murder their daughters for holding hands with a Christian boy. Death loves, albeit coldly, just as the person who doesn't believe in truth seeks to accumulate “knowledge.” Our universities are filled with lie-roasted academia nuts who know much. They too worship death -- the death of the intellect and its innate spiritual wisdom. Perish and publish is their morbid creed.

Oddly, just as life spreads and propagates, so too does death. In other words, death has a sort of life all its own -- just as disease isn’t the opposite of health, but a pathological form of living. The undead soul attempts to overcome and “transcend” his soul-death by killing, by substitute sacrifices. Human sacrifice is a way to “steal” the life essence of the victim in order to give the undead a spurious sense of life. This is why the hizb'moloch ecstatically scream "allahu ackbar" (the god of death is great!) as they chop off another head.

In this regard, the Izlambies are no different than Jeffrey Dahmer, who would attempt to have an orgasm at the exact moment his victim was dying, the idea being that the victim's life force would somehow pass into him. Islamists believe that by exterminating Israel, the life essence of Israel will pass into and revive their undead souls and cultures, but this is simply the most perverse of unconscious fantasies. If tiny Israel had never existed, the same massive death cult would have simply metastasized into the geographical area now called Israel. After all, Life recently departed from Gaza, but Death merely rushed in to occupy the void created.

Again, the implicit message of the sixth commandment is that we must promote Life in everything we do, not just limiting ourselves to innocent human life, but to the Good, the True and the Beautiful, for these are the principal manifestations of the uncorrupted, living soul. As I wrote in One Cosmos, “There is a culture of Life and a culture of death, and the cultural necropolis can only maintain itself by an increasingly brazen assault on Truth (as well as beauty and decency). It is therefore also a cult of hypnotic enslavement, for only the Truth can liberate us from this zone of illusion. In your day-to-day life, you must refrain from activities that advance the infrahuman tide of ugliness, barbarism, and falsehood in our endarkened world.”

90 Comments:

Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"You cannot debate an atheist, since debate is not a valid means to know God."

God knows I have tried...all for naught.
I'm learning to shake the dust off my sandals...or boots, since I don't have sandals.

4/24/2007 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Oddly, just as life spreads and propagates, so too does death. In other words, death has a sort of life all its own -- just as disease isn’t the opposite of health, but a pathological form of living."

Exactly! A consuming disease that "eats" life, never getting it's fill, never satisfied.
I'm certain many Coons gno that well, physically, mentally and spiritually, death works on the same paradigm.

You can't control it.
You can't reason with it, negotiate with it, or offer a sacrifice, except for your own life, but the "reward" is eternal death.

The only defense is God. Life, and that abundant! To live more everyday!
It's a grueling fight sometimes, but you pick yourself up, grit your teeth, and jump back into the fray.

Outstanding post, Bob!

4/24/2007 08:27:00 AM  
Anonymous exo-man said...

I have been reading this blog daily since it was linked to by Richard Fernandez in Belmont Club. After a few months I bought the book. There is little that I disagree with here; but, I have always felt a bit of discomfort that something wasn’t quite right. How could so much be right yet in the end why am I unsatisfied? What is missing?

Something clicked with me when Bob ruminated on the spiritual education of his son.

Faith and belief is not a solitary activity. It is a family and neighbor activity. Esotericism in all its forms is to a full religious and spiritual life as masturbation is to marriage. Masturbation provides us a glimpse of the marital reward but it lacks all the fruit of relationship. In the end the solitary experience is, while intense and pleasurable, just a shameful and juvenile experience. At best it is a glimpse of possibilities and at its worst it is a fantasy that is unrealizable. So to is esotericism as evidenced by the juvenile comments on this blog.

Not for nothing does God liken his relationship to the church as a marriage. The primary spiritual union is with God and Christ but we must love our wives (and by extension our families) as Christ loved the church and gave his body for it. We know God by loving and serving others and the Church provides us the way to have a community of faith that is elevating and a road to salvation.. .

When you all grow up and decide to get the real thing instead of your solitary vice you’re going to have choose a spouse (Church). Then you’re going to be consumed with deciding what the relationship is to be. Are you going to get a flashy big spender who is all huff and puff but gives little satisfaction? Will it be a big party that is all fun fun fun? Will you be acting is someone else’s fantasy of a Church or will it be real?

Like a marriage you will have to deal with the issues of authority. Are the doctrines from God or are they some philosopher’s or some theologian’s construct. What kind of behavior is tolerated in the body of Christ? Can you cheat on your wife and be in good standing? Can you rob the bank and stay around? Who gets to say and what is their authority for saying.

What about sacraments? Are they real? Do they have meaning? Do they require God’s hand? If salvation is for all does the church have an evangelical mission? Do we only save the thinkers who can understand the inside joke and the clever puns or do we take the gospel to everyone? How do we prepare the soil so they can receive the seed and be fruitful? Is this the job of the Church? Is this the fruit of our marriage?

These are grown up questions that y’all have to contemplate. The rewards of married love far surpass any solitary vice.

4/24/2007 08:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Hitting it out of the ball park as usual!!!!

4/24/2007 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Bob, you did the seven days of creation superimposed on the seven miracles in the book of John, maybe some day you should take a crack at the seven vials/bowls of Revelation? The sevens in revelation - trumps, seals, vials, have some relation - an inverse one being that the represent the retribution of God rather than his grace - to the fruits of leftism and nihilism. Also, there is in Deuteronomy a description of the nastiness that God would visit upon them if they turned away from his Commandments.

I had a brief conception - looking at the days of creation - seven elements there - light, air, earth, fire, water, life, (creative)void. Looking at the seven vials you find (not associated directly with each vial, but present in the calamities) seven antielements - pain, poison, decay, dryness, darkness, confusion and annihilation (the destructive void.)

Anyhow, good stuff.

When you said:
"Human beings believe untruth because only human beings are able to understand truth"
Did you also mean
"Human beings believe untruth only because human beings are able to understand truth" ?

Or am I just confusing myself? How does one say both at the same time?

4/24/2007 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

exo-man: I am an active member of a church myself, as are quite a number of others. If B'ob currently isn't, that is a matter for him to make a decision on when he feels fit to do so. Because many churches have agendas - man-made doctrines - that they foist, making such a decision is hard. I am glad to say that the church which I attend does its best to throw out such constructions.

To mistake the Esoteric as being solitary, which is the same as saying someone who has Esoteric knowledge of scripture rejects the literal words, is a terrible slip-up. The form of Esotericism which is Masturbation is the kind where you only contend with Esoteric meanings, do so alone, and reject the necessary transformative effect of the Word of God in your life.

Like marriages these days take longer to cement and are not 'arranged' neither is each's position in the Body of Christ.

4/24/2007 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Hmm, good question. I guess I meant both.

4/24/2007 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I don't have time to get into a full response, but the the view of exo-man would preclude us from appreciating the precious insights of the many wonderful solitary desert monastics, not to mention incomparable starets such as St. Theophan the, ahem, Recluse. It's not an either-or question.

4/24/2007 08:52:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

I think if the Western political powers were spiritually cognizant, we'd realize that it is absolutely fruitless to diplomatically make nice with the zombie undead, this in the hopes that such diplomacy will create peace-conducing "bridges of understanding', blah blah blah.

The zombie undead - the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Amahdinejads, - have been so magnetized to primal evil, they are naturally, instinctively evil themselves. As such, they are beyond diplomatic "rehabilitation", and will only use diplomacy as a means to further their ends. The failure to recognize evil for what it truly is - this is an evil in itself and perhaps is the most destructive evil, for it enthrones evil and leaves us vulnerable.

That's another Biblical quote the leftists are fond of - "Blessed be the peace-makers", as if leftists like shadow-president Pelosi had a clue as to what "peace" really is. Of course, the lefties overlook Christ's saying", "I come not to bring peace as the world counts peace, but a sword" - meaning choose your side and recognize the other side as the implacable and eventual fight-to-the-death enemy.

4/24/2007 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous felicity said...

In the course of his post, Bob writes of:

"...feminists who trivialize the horror of rape by equating it with any sex a woman regrets on the following day."

I find this fascinating. I have never seen anything like it in the feminist literature I've looked at so far. Can you reccommend a source for further study?

4/24/2007 09:08:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

How about Dworkin & McKinnon, who wrote that all sex is rape.

4/24/2007 09:11:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

True spiritual monasticism is marriage on a larger, more spiritually encompassing scale.

4/24/2007 09:11:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Make that MacKinnon.

4/24/2007 09:12:00 AM  
Anonymous marduk said...

Regarding comments by exo-man:

In yoga, group spiritual activities are called "sadhana peetham" and are given a certain weight in the spiritual life, but not any more than the solitary contact with God.

Rather, God is taken to the world at large through work (karmayoga) done in the correct attitude by the God-lover. All life becomes the yogin's work.

The yogic system is more elegant than the way of the Christian Church, in my opinion, because "evangalism" is effortlessly built into the system.

The yogin merely needs to work and act from yogic (God) consciousness, in a group or alone, and his actions automatically spread light to all receptive beings (even plants I might add).

Masturbation, spiritual or physical, need not be an issue if the entire life is spiritualized and not just the hours spent in the collective at church.

4/24/2007 09:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Anyway, isn't Christ and the "body" of all believers together the Church - and not material buildings and it's parisioners - so that a believer who does not attend at the material building is left out of the Church?

It seems to me that people who think if you are not part of a material church are not a true Christian is not seeing the bigger picture.

4/24/2007 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Exo-man,
I agree with much of what you say -after all, it is scriptural. I don't think anyone views OC as the be-all end-all. There are too many very intelligent, insightful, creative and truly spiritual people here for that. Does what you read here help you think more deeply about your own tradition? If so, mission accomplished. I know it does for me - and I'm definitely on the "fundy" extreme of 'coons.

4/24/2007 09:28:00 AM  
Anonymous exo-man said...

So River on what authority does your church throw out doctrines? Interesting issue -- if joining the body of Christ is sacramental who has the authority to perform these sacraments?

Will, I guess that I don't believe that monasticism is strictly esoteric. On the other hand it could be seen as marriage. I suppose some self-abusers think of the hands as wife.

Bob, my tangents aside, this (and the current series of posts) have really been excellent

4/24/2007 09:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahem, isn't it the Fifth Commandment, and not the Sixth, that prohibits murder?

As to the mistranslation aspect -- you know, only murder and not just any kind of killing being forbidden -- I once upon a time did a little amateurish linguistic research on this.

I have studied some Arabic, and in this context picked up enough about Semitic languages generally to know that the common Semitic triconsonantal root for unspecified "killing" is q-t-l or some easily recognizable variant thereof. In some Ethiopian Semitic languages for instance the root has become g-d-l, whereas in Hebrew it is q-t'-l, with a historical variant of simple "t" (so-called ejective or emphatic t) which in today's pronunciation of Hebrew has merged with simple "t" though, if I remember correctly.

Anyhow, at one point I wondered whether Old Testament Hebrew really employed this semantically unspecific root in the Fifth Commandment. So I availed myself of a Hebrew Bible, looked up Exodus 20 -- and found that it does not.

Unfortunately, as I only read the Hebrew script and know the most basic elements of Old Hebrew grammar, but never really studied it, thereby training my neurons to easily store Hebrew data, I forgot what the verb employed instead was (maybe rats'ach, of the root r-ts'-ch?).

In any case it wasn't q-t'-l. On this basis it seems safe to say that that there is no element of willful interpretation in rejecting the "Thou shalt not kill" translation. Rather philological accuracy actually seems to require the rejection of such a presumably distorting rendering.

Maybe someone with a better knowledge of Hebrew can weigh in on this matter with further information.

Michael (Germany)

4/24/2007 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Jenny - Definitely. Although I haven't attended any formal gathering for some time, I would never discourage others from doing so. Fellowship of the saints ain't confined to some box (although some great teaching can sometiomes be found in there.

wv: dgowalkp (yep, that's pretty much what happens)

4/24/2007 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous exo-man said...

Marduk, That is the ultimate fantasy.

4/24/2007 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger MizzE said...

"In short, a murderer who is truly reformed and understands the infinite gravity of his crime will wish to be put to death. Only then is there even a basis for discussion."

Last week, on the series "Law & Order", this truth was sensitively dramatized. A born again Chrisitan who years earlier had murdered his white sister's black boyfriend, justified by his perception that she needed saving from the negative societal consequences she would have to endure (projected shame), turns himself into the authorites and declines a jury trial. His congregation intervenes with their lawyer who secures him a trial and the discussion begins. Bottomline - they assert he should be set free based on his repentence and years of selfless good works to the community, but the jury rejects the argument and finds him guilty. The defendent humbly accepts that justice was served and surrenders the remainder of his life to prison, where I suspect he'll be one of the freest men on earth.

4/24/2007 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger MizzE said...

"But brains are not intelligent if they do not know truth. Either that, or we have to think of a new word for all the things which intelligent people know, but which cannot possibly be true. "

Bullshit comes to mind.

4/24/2007 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger MizzE said...

"I see that Christopher Hitchens has jumped on the old anti-intellectual atheist blandwagon with both feet. He has a new book entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Only five people lingered at my blog the day I posted this piece of Gossip, and just in case you weren't one of them & for the benefit of coons, I'll post it here as it underscores 'a sign of the times' [again]:

Perhaps we feel that we do not see much to encourage us.

"I do not envy those who have to fight the battle of
Christianity in the twentieth century," wrote Marcus Dods.
"Yes, perhaps I do; but it will be a stiff fight."

Of course, he did, and anybody with his valiant spirit would. There was a day when our Lord passed through cheering streets wildly enthusiastic; and another day when He watched the crowds deserting Him, till even the disciples themselves seemed to be withering, and He looked at them sadly. "Will you also go
away?" He said. And Peter strode across the sudden empty
spaces widening around Him, and put his back to Christ's.
"No," he cried; "there are two of us, at least," and faced the
world - Christ's poor minority of one.

I would rather have been Peter than one of the shouting mob. And today, perhaps, we may get our chance of that.


A. J. Gossip (1873-1954), From the Edge of the Crowd [1924]

4/24/2007 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Anonymous wrote:

Ahem, isn't it the Fifth Commandment, and not the Sixth, that prohibits murder?

Wikipedia claims that the murder commandment is number 5 for Catholics. I didn't even know there were different versions, so lacking is my erudition compared with the others here.

Actually looks like a decent Wikipedia article though.

(BTW, is it just me, or does everyone fail the word verification on the first attempt, every time -- even when it is clearly entered correctly)

4/24/2007 10:03:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

Exo - >>On the other hand it could be seen as marriage. I suppose some self-abusers think of the hands as wife<<

If you know nothing of esotericism, which you clearly don't, not in any "inner knowing" sense, I suggest you refrain from such comments - it just billboards your flaming ignorance.

Re: truly spiritual monastics -the word is "sublimation", sublimation of the base instincts.

4/24/2007 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Tamquam Leo Rugiens said...

It is precisely that connection to the Divine Source, however conceived, that has drawn Homo Sap up from the mire. It is not to be wondered at that repudiation of the Source results in collapse and devolution.

4/24/2007 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Exo - the authorized scriptures themselves are the authority. As our Constitution is the highest material authority of the USA, the bible itself is the highest material authority in the body. (That is our understanding.) Christ himself is above it; but until his return we will place a high level of trust in the scriptures, and thank God for the grace of their arrival despite their star-crossed path.

Your tone suggests you believe strongly in 'the traditions of the fathers' over the scriptures themselves.

I won't accuse, sir, but that was my impression. You may feel free to dispel it.

If you want the real traditions, they have a document - a guidebook of sorts - used by the earliest disciples when building churches. Some of it 'disagrees' with, for instance, certain epistles. It was written earlier than them, however, and is not considered scripture. It is not inspired.

The way you know? This anointing which we were given teaches us of all things...

Spiritual discernment.

As for your rebuke to Marduk, I will respectfully disagree with him on the superiority of Yoga, but also note that old Frank once said, "Preach the Gospel daily, and use words only of you have to" (to paraphrase.)

I sense, however, that Christ had some very esoteric meanings attached alongside, for 'If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.'

Also, we have, "Pure religion, undefiled is feeding the poor and caring for the widows"?

One attends church to gather with other believers, not the other way around.

4/24/2007 10:12:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"...(I say "presumably" because that is really your only option: God or man, the latter of which inevitably redounds to nihilism and to the abolition of man, no matter how much glibstick you slather on that metaphysical pig.)... "

This caused me to pause with a question for Gagdad and all... if someone identifies themself as an athiest, but rejects nihilism and believes in Truth, not many pomofo truths, but Truth, One Truth and so Beauty and the Good; One Universe with self evident truths ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...") derived not from "Man is the measure of all things...", but from the nature of Man as a part of that Universe (yep, got my Objectivist roots in mind here), but still explicitly denies the existence of 'god' - mainly based on shallow "Talking snake?! That's nutty talk!" views, do you think they are in the odd situation of implicitly believing in God, even while having rejected the various "masks of God"?

That's a mouthful. Back to it.

4/24/2007 10:13:00 AM  
Anonymous walt said...

"...a survey from 1987, indicating that 45% of adult respondents thought that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- a quote from Karl Marx -- was in the Constitution."

Why do I think the percentage would be HIGHER than that in 2007?

4/24/2007 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

In the King James the commandments are the following

1. I AM ALLONE your God
2. No idols
3. Respect the Name
4. Keep the Sabbath
5. Honor your Parents
6. No Murder
7. No Adultery
8. No Theft
9. No Lying
10. No Envy

(Exodus 20.)

They aren't 'numbered' at all, the numbering comes from the order, counting from the start, for the 'thou shalt...'s.

I would imagine that prior to the Counter-Reformation the R.Catholic Bible was quite the same. But I may be wrong.

4/24/2007 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Izlambies!

(Sorry. I collect new words and reading this one is like finding a shiny new cat's-eye bummie marble in a color you didn't have before. Neat-"O"!)

Smoov: I thought is was just me. Maybe I'm not as dyslexic as I thnik!

4/24/2007 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

I think it is because the first one's time always expires before you get to it ;)

WV's are time sensitive, you know.

4/24/2007 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous walt said...

Van -

My two cents:

When "God" comes to re-present to me an Assemblage-of-Meaning that no longer contradicts my experiences, and that unifies "coherence and congruence" for me, then I become organized by It (am re-membered by It) and can stop resisting.

As much as anything, for me, it's been a "language" problem. I've said a number of times that Bob, and many Coons, have "given me the words."

4/24/2007 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

While I thought Inte's new mask was fairly decent, the fact that he confuses houses with homes I thought kind of main him stand out. That and his second comment.

Then again, I'm probably just annoyed that his comment got more attention than my question. sniff.

Joan, I had the same reaction to "Izlambies"! Gotta love it. Like you said the other day, we don't pay near enough for this stuff.

Joan & Smoov... I think WordVerif runs a check based on time since the last refresh, comment length, and your current credit rating cross referenced with a recent history list of video rentals and Cholesterol score.

In short: It's just evil.

4/24/2007 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Van: haha!

Think of it this way,

If 'Word Verification' is the Jeopardy answer, the question is:

"What happens when you combine a word that you can't spell, can't read, can't understand and can only be used for a limited time, with the requisite that you must use said word in order to be able to say anything at all?"

4/24/2007 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Will said "...The failure to recognize evil for what it truly is - this is an evil in itself and perhaps is the most destructive evil, for it enthrones evil and leaves us vulnerable..."

As Screwtapes uncle said, their greatest advance was in people believing evil didn't exist.

wv:qedsfuw - no wordverif, it won't help, you're evil.

4/24/2007 11:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Sal said...

River,
you're killin' me, Smalls!

"Sola scriptura" is stealing first base, pure and simple.

4/24/2007 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Fausta said...

Just one small comment,
once you know and accept God, then rational debate is naturally valid within a theocentric reality
Indeed. St Augustine emphasized reason as a means of getting closer to God. As one of my podcast guests explained,
"for Augustine, and for most of the early fathers of the Church, there was no conflict between faith and reason because faith seemed, on the basis of their empirical experience, a reasonable proposition. So, although Augustine would never do what Thomas Aquinas did, which is to sit down and in academic fashion try to prove the existence of God, you find in the Confessions and elsewhere lines of argument that basically are doing the same thing: argument by design."
(with apologies for the shameless self-linking)

4/24/2007 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Walt,
I like that about re-membering. Reminds me of... arggh! (oh, sorry Joan, I didn't mean you) The ol' greymatters lost the target... reminds me of something either Marcus Aurelius or Epictitus said about error and sin severing you from Truth, and reason and virtue re-membering you to it.

I'm probably completely hacking it up again... see if I can find it tonight.

4/24/2007 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

IMO and FWIW, this 10 Commandments series is an extremely effective and accessible way of conveying critical and practical truths that need to be understood by a much greater audience than the coons gathered here around the daily meal. I can envision it expanded into an entire book (easy for me to say). Title suggestions, anyone?

4/24/2007 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger a.k.a. Blandly Urbane said...

Gagdad Bob:

Apologies for not having read this post yet, but I will once I have gotten this comment over.

Please do not take offense, but you have been tagged as a Thinking Blogger and awarded the Thinking Blogger Award.

http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/
2007/04/tagged-by-thinking-blogger.html

4/24/2007 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous exo-man said...

If you know nothing of esotericism, which you clearly don't, not in any "inner knowing" sense, I suggest you refrain from such comments - it just billboards your flaming ignorance.

Will, I gave up "inner-knowing" in my spiritual teenage years.
I can say for sure that you'll never find him in the secret chamber. He is found among "the least of these my brethren."

4/24/2007 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

sal: Does belief that the constitution is the highest law of the land mean that one has to rely first and foremost on the sayings, beliefs, and teachings of the Founding Fathers and those who influenced them, Locke, et al?

I will then, in this case make a pragmatic argument: Documents well kept are less fallible than men.

And Christ less fallible than both.

Sola Scriptura is useless without an understanding of the history of said scripture. Which in a sense no longer makes it sola scriptura.

This is my view, and I'll stick to it. Like Nomo, there's a lil' 'B' buzzing that stands for 'Bible'. Oh well.

My mind is open enough to see the same Truth reflected in other places.

Exo - you seem to be confused. Since when was 'Pure Religion undefiled' ONLY caring for the Widows and Poor?

4/24/2007 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

Slant Six
calling all angels
lily sends an s o s
beauty saves the beast

-------------------------

A hearty amen to:

"Again, the implicit message of the sixth commandment is that we must promote Life in everything we do, not just limiting ourselves to innocent human life, but to the Good, the True and the Beautiful, for these are the principal manifestations of the uncorrupted, living soul."

4/24/2007 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Exo - if I am to make sense of whatever it is your saying - and your statements are almost nonsensically abstract - I take it you find truth only in the exoteric. Bulletin for you: truth is found in both the eso and exo. For the spiritually mature, they're one and the same.

And just who do you think is "the least of these my brethran"?

4/24/2007 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

BTW, interesting stuff here:
The Second Amendment: Arming the Militia

4/24/2007 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous juliec said...

Exo,

First of all, what would you call it when a group of people take time, not just once a week but every day, to stop and contemplate The Word together, and then further discuss The Word together as the days pass? Not a Church, certainly, but it strikes me as a far cry from masturbation. I have learned more here than I ever learned sitting in any church.

Secondly, where exactly does it say in the Bible that you must be a part of a church to know God? I admit my knowledge is limited, since I only really started reading the Bible a month or so ago and I'm reading slowly in order to better digest, but I did notice that Matthew 6:5-6 seems to refute your claim.

Third, if you believe it is important to be a member of a religious organization, then by all means join one. What the rest of us do in that regard is not your concern. While none may get to the Father except through the Son, I suspect that there are quite a lot of ways to get to the Son; perhaps even as many as there are people.

4/24/2007 01:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Well said, Juliec.
*clap* *clap* *clap*

4/24/2007 01:59:00 PM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

"While none may get to the Father except through the Son, I suspect that there are quite a lot of ways to get to the Son; perhaps even as many as there are people."

That's a terrific insight. This isn't any one-size-fits-all faith; the Father knows each one. Each of our journeys to him is tailor made.

4/24/2007 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

From the thief on the cross who believed, to Saul who became Paul, there are indeed as many ways to the Son as there are people.

Well put, Julie (and keep reading...s l o w l y). Strangely, the more times I read the Bible, the slower I go. Meaning unfolds itself at glacial speed.

4/24/2007 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger a.k.a. Blandly Urbane said...

I had made a comment earlier to this post which does not appear to be here anymore...swell

"This is why I would never argue with a leftist, because they are so deeply and fundamentally illogical. Why try to reason with someone who has rejected the possibility of objective truth a priori?"

I found this comforting to read, and very much agree. It is something that I don't bother with. My p.o.v. is that it is pointless, although this puts the truth to the lie.

I don't for the most part comment at the Leftward site on the rare occasion that I visit as there is no point. It will just be a circle that ends with my likely being a nascar fan....

Your quoting of Jonah Goldberg reminded me of yesterday, when in the restroom at work. A co-worker recognized my voice as I spoke to someone at the sink; he said from the stall "I'm just finishing up on a duplication of the intellectual depth of national review." Stepping out he added, "that was worth two mark Steyn's and a Jonah Goldberg."

I laughed as it was funny/amusing/whatever, but was struck later that he is a prime example of the type of Leftist you refer to hear. Nothing, absolutely nothing of any good whatsoever has come from the present administration is his very vocal attitude. It can be pretty irksome to be labeled as one that drinks the cool-aid/guyana punch what have you.

These recent posts have really gone along way to describing the illogic of the Left.

4/24/2007 03:28:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Another little piece of the true America died today:

Wiccan symbol OK for soldiers' graves

4/24/2007 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous walt said...

I agree with what Juliec said, except that she's more polite than I am.

4/24/2007 04:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

Smoov,

Personally, I have no problem at all with someone who died in the service of this country having the symbol of their faith on their tombstone, even a faith as shallow and contrived as Wicca.

4/24/2007 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meanwhile peace loving "christian" USA accounts for 48% of the worlds armaments trade, it has over 700 foreign miltary bases, 13 carrier based nuclear attack fleets and its "culture" is dominated by the "values" and relentless imperative of the military-industrial complex.

It even has a Trident submarine with the name USS City of Corpus Christie. Imagine that, a vehicle capable of vapourising countless millions of people, being called the body of Christ.

The collective psycho-pathology is also helped along by the gun-"culture" promoted by the highly influential NRA.

The "culture" of death rules!

All of which is course part of "god's" plan in using the USA as the vehicle for bringing "jesus" and "freedom" to the rest of the world. One "capitalist" market under "god".

Capitalism, itself being an extreme development of the war of all against all--- and everything.

4/24/2007 04:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Come now, at least make it sporting. Some fruit is just too low-hanging. You don't expect Hoarhey to swing at one in the dirt, do you?

4/24/2007 04:44:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Aquila:

How about Scientology? Voodoo? Satanism?

Do you really want to see this engraved on grave markers at Arlington national cemetary?

I sure don't.

4/24/2007 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger dicentra63 said...

Obviously, none of these deicidal maniacs has ever had a genuine encounter with God, so truly, "they know not what they do."

Unless there are a few who did know God, in which case their fate is awful indeed. The Sin Against the Holy Ghost, if I'm not mistaken.

What would it take to stare at the sun a declare it darkness? What would you prize more than the light?

smoov: The word verification times out after awhile. While you were reading the other comments, I wager.

4/24/2007 05:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

smoov,

No, I wouldn't like seeing a tombstone with Baphomet on it. But I REALLY don't want to see some DoD bureaucrat deciding what is and isn't a "legitimate" religious symbol to mark the individual grave of someone who gave his/her life for our country.

If someone who's made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms wants to memorialize themselves with a tombstone engraving of Baphomet, Papa Legba, or J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, I say, let them do it. They've earned the right, as distasteful as we might find its expression.

4/24/2007 06:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Alan said...

exo: The early Christian church fought many times over the heresy you are unwittingly proclaiming regarding the immanence and transcendence of God. Christianity believes in both and, hence, believes that Christ can be found both outside of you and inside of you. Just look at how many times Paul mentions "Christ in you".

Besides, how can you find Christ in other people if he is not in you too?

4/24/2007 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Hmm... Anonymous like copy-pasted a bunch of Ralph Nader talking points. That was cute, good work. Next, please!

(I'm not above stomping the head of a sssssserpent myself...)

4/24/2007 07:20:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

"Meanwhile peace loving "christian" USA accounts for 48% of the worlds armaments trade, it has over 700 foreign miltary bases, 13 carrier based nuclear attack fleets and its "culture" is dominated by the "values" and relentless imperative of the military-industrial complex."

I know what you mean Anon.. I thank God for these same blessings daily.

Sorry I was late to the party, I was working on a homeland defense/hunting load for my 10mm. :^)

w.v. chvraf yup!

4/24/2007 07:52:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Anninymouse,
That was pretty lame. Had you some semblance of a brain, you might have been able to form your out of context, random assortment of factoids into something at least resembling an argument.

Here, let me help you out. Here's an example of how you might have given it some flow, were you to give it... oh say... about 45 seconds and some smattering of sense:

Capitalism, which you supposed christians seem to support, is an extreme development of the war of all against all. For instance, the USA alone accounts for 48% of the worlds armaments trade, the fruits of which enables it to maintain over 700 foreign miltary bases, 13 carrier based nuclear attack fleets around the world, spanning the globe with a ring of terror.

With such a culture centered around money earned from the markets of death, it's no surprise that the NRA is such an influential part of the culture. A culture which claims to be 'christian', I might add. As a visible banner holder of 'christian values', and how it is insidiously intertwined with death worship, the usa even has a Trident submarine with the name 'USS City of Corpus Christie'.
Imagine that, a vehicle capable of vapourising countless millions of people, named for the body of Christ - that seems indicative of a collective psycho-pathology neatly marketed under the phrase "One capitalist market under God."


See, there you've at least got some intellectual flow that might divert some people (not anyone here of course, only idiots such as yourself) from thinking about the fact that the USA is the only Nation in the world that can provide a credible defense of freedom and liberty, against those that the other 52% of armaments dealers are selling to, you know, fiendish dictators and izlambie thugs seeking weapons in order to kill, not by accident, but as a desirable target, women and children in the most horrific manner possible.

It might even be able to sway some of those same idiots to ignore the fact that organizations such as the NRA who pour their time, effort and money into helping to preserve 2nd ammendment rights, in the process, also help defend the entire constitution, so that, as an unavoidable consequence, idiots such as yourself can be free to say the stupid things you do - and so the rest of us will have the right to shoot you dead should you ever try to smash in the windows of our businesses or homes, during one of your barbaric street demonstrations.

Here's hoping it happens real soon.

4/24/2007 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

I think its exo-dus time.

4/24/2007 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

wow, Cuz. You're the quickest hands in the west. You ever played piano?

4/24/2007 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Ha! Scroll down toward the bottom of the sidebar and find out about Dupree's embarrassing weakness! What a wuss!

4/24/2007 08:48:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Snn-nap!

4/24/2007 08:57:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks Van, for the Anon slaying.
Still in catsup mode and promise to have your back again soon.
I did manage to get something done.

Still in Mexico

Hope all enjoy.
RR

4/24/2007 09:12:00 PM  
Anonymous vinny from jersey said...

I think God is great but really my main concern is getting poontang.

Is there room for me at this blog or am I too shallow?

4/24/2007 10:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can you imagine? What kind of hell would we be living in today if our founders had been "demonically intelligent" leftists?"

One word: France.

4/24/2007 11:10:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Van-
Well said! Skully would be proud!

Anninyscum is a parasite of the lowest order.

Where ia the hot tar and feathers?

4/25/2007 03:57:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Exlax-man:
You need a lot more fiber.

Oh, yeah, you might want to do something about that sequoia in your eye.

4/25/2007 04:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Hoarhey-
10mm is a good caliber.
I have .40 cal rounds which are only slightly bigger than 10mm.
Both rounds have excellent knockdown power.
Good hollow points are a plus! :^)

4/25/2007 04:13:00 AM  
Anonymous USS Ben said...

Will said-
"Of course, the lefties overlook Christ's saying", "I come not to bring peace as the world counts peace, but a sword" - meaning choose your side and recognize the other side as the implacable and eventual fight-to-the-death enemy."

How true. Then we have the so-called pacifist and/or neutral crowd.
In reality it is impossible to be neutral towards evil, without implicitely aiding evil, as leftists like Pelousi prove time and time again.

4/25/2007 04:24:00 AM  
Anonymous walt said...

Wish me well, CoonPeeps! For I am off on a secret Spy Mission to Berkeley, CA, to do the sacral-cranial thing at my friend's Alexander Center.

Perhaps Exo-Man was right, after all: for a Coon to voluntarily enter Berkeley can ONLY be described a "self-abuse!"

Truly, I will miss y'all!

4/25/2007 04:27:00 AM  
Anonymous USS Ben said...

Mizze said-
"Bullshit comes to mind."

Brilliant!

4/25/2007 04:28:00 AM  
Anonymous USS Ben said...

Van said-
"This caused me to pause with a question for Gagdad and all... if someone identifies themself as an athiest, but rejects nihilism and believes in Truth, not many pomofo truths, but Truth, One Truth and so Beauty and the Good; One Universe with self evident truths ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...") derived not from "Man is the measure of all things...", but from the nature of Man as a part of that Universe (yep, got my Objectivist roots in mind here), but still explicitly denies the existence of 'god' - mainly based on shallow "Talking snake?! That's nutty talk!" views, do you think they are in the odd situation of implicitly believing in God, even while having rejected the various "masks of God"?"

To believe in self-evident truth is to implicitely believe in God, despite the denial.

However, vertical growth is very limited until one also surrenders to God/Truth.

4/25/2007 04:41:00 AM  
Anonymous USS Ben said...

Godspeed Walt.
I will pray for your safety.
Hurry back!

4/25/2007 04:44:00 AM  
Anonymous walt said...

Oh, and Hoarhey -

Yes, I DO intend to brown-nose the teacher.



(Thanks, Ben!)

4/25/2007 04:47:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Walt,

Quick! Pick up a PocketPC Phone! Take the waiting out of waiting rooms - bring your fellow coon's with you!

Take care, hope to have you back soon.

(Watch out for the patchouli.)

4/25/2007 05:12:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

USS Ben said "...To believe in self-evident truth is to implicitely believe in God, despite the denial. However, vertical growth is very limited..."

Yeah, that's what I think too. Hard to see how I transitioned from there to here if that's not the case.

But Smoov, I wouldn't recommend nudging any of your friendly neighborhood Objectivists, and whispering "Psst...It's ok... you don't realize it, but you actually DO believe in God."

I'm just saying.

4/25/2007 05:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Sal said...

Van,
thanks for fixing that for him.

River - sorry to be late getting back. The computer was off limits last night: severe T-storms and tornado watches.

That's a good argument. Until you have to ask what gives each of those documents their authority.

4/25/2007 06:15:00 AM  
Anonymous USS Ben said...

Van said-
But Smoov, I wouldn't recommend nudging any of your friendly neighborhood Objectivists, and whispering "Psst...It's ok... you don't realize it, but you actually DO believe in God."

I'm just saying."

Heh! They can be touchy about that.
Probably because they know, without realizing it, where the absolute Truth leads to.
For, as Sal said, (paraphrased) where does the Authority come from?

4/25/2007 06:45:00 AM  
Blogger MizzE said...

Van, Coons:

The latest touchy-feely logorrhea from the friendly neighborhood
Objectivists
.

4/25/2007 06:56:00 AM  
Anonymous exo-man said...

River, An Exo-dus is what I called for -- from juvenile preoccupations and fantasies to spiritual adulthood.

4/25/2007 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

exo-man said..."...An Exo-dus is what I called for -- from juvenile preoccupations and fantasies to spiritual adulthood. "

Yes that is a wise course of action, and good luck with it - it's never too late to try again.

4/25/2007 08:16:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

MizzE,

eh... yup. "However, vertical growth is very limited..."

4/25/2007 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

sal: It all depends on how authoritative you believe the different church fathers to be, and on what. Everything that is said is said at a time, by a real person, and for a reason. Nothing should be believed or taken in without thought, and without considering the motives behind it.

This applies as much to the Apostle Paul as it does the church fathers.

Our disagreement is, then, on whom we regard to be authoritative. My stance is that just being 'in apostolic succession' does not give one authority. If it is claimed, it must be proven.

Otherwise it is as empty as Sola Scriptura without historical context.

Does that help? I argued with a fellow about this for awhile, and the best he could do is deluge me with statements from various church fathers. The question you have to ask yourself is whom you're willing to disagree with. The fathers or the book?

Your call.

4/25/2007 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous snodgrass said...

Walt said:
"...a survey from 1987, indicating that 45% of adult respondents thought that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- a quote from Karl Marx -- was in the Constitution."

Why do I think the percentage would be HIGHER than that in 2007?

Could it be because the government now pays over 50% of Americans? (Servile servants, hand outs, socialist security, etc)

4/25/2007 10:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Susannah said...

I'm late to these comments but...

"...there is no God and we are his prophets!"

What an incredibly pithy way to put it! I'm amazed at how well you peg these dogmatic relativists.

I have found that leftists tend to argue from their "gut" and not from any recognized authority. Furthermore, they are surprisingly dogmatic about what their "gut" tells them. They want to impose the "authority" of their gut feeling on everyone else. As I tried to explain to a friend of mine once: I am basing my p.o.v. (at that time, we were debating homosexual "marriage") on divine revelation and the lessons taught by several thousand years of recorded human history. *You* are asking me to stake the wellbeing of civil society (esp. its children) on your gut. I was dismissed with a wave of the hand and an "oh, it's just an outdated book written by a bunch of old coots." Pretty arrogant, when you get to the root of it. You are so right, the ego always strives to set itself up as God. Her "gut" was enthroned above all other power and dominion and authority. LOL!

Anyway, you made excellent points all the way through, as usual.

4/28/2007 08:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home