Thursday, June 24, 2010

Youthful Reagan and Old Man Obama

Speaks for itself: "By implanting in man the new 'future' of a practically inexhaustible 'not yet,' supernatural hope lays the foundation for a new youthfulness that can be destroyed only if hope is destroyed" (Pieper).

It's not so much that youth is full of hope. Rather, the reverse: hope is the essence of youth. Remama? The present wasn't just the present, but the continuous "harvesting" of an endlessly novel future. I remember always "looking forward" to things, not in the pathological manner that takes one out of the present, but adds to it.

In fact, it is precisely because of this gift or malady, depending upon how you look at it, that I never developed the usual ambitions which the Conspiracy expects one to have. I was already having such an excellent adventure, that I didn't really see how it could get any better. Rather, you'd have to be pretty bored to be enticed by what Conspiracy had to offer in exchange for your Slack.

In other words, I didn't hope for anything fundamentally different, and still don't. In thinking about it for the first time, I think I retained my innocent and youthful hope, and never replaced it with the kinds of artificial and convoluted hopes that haunt most people, i.e., a world-weary hope for some kind of fundamental change, or for some sort of future "excitement" that really just takes one out of one's center and makes it feel like the center for awhile. I knew by the time I was in my late teens that if I couldn't enjoy the present, then I wouldn't be able to enjoy the future, no matter what came along. I knew that fulfillment can only occur now.

This very much reminds me of how there is no such thing as an individual per se. Rather the person is always oriented to the other; he is always in communion, so that the substance of being, if you like, really is threeness: the I, the You, and the link between. There is nothing behind or beyond that, not even -- or especially not -- "in God," who "contains" his own Other, i.e., the Son.

(To be honest -- and with respect -- I don't always like the words "Father" and "Son" as theological placemarkers, since they are so saturated with other meanings and associations, only some of which apply to the interior of O, so to speak. Rather, I find it more helpful to contemplate the astonishing fact that the essence of being is not "one" but communion; or, that there is no One without his Second. It is in the very nature of One to give birth to the Two, which is why Eckhart said that "the essence of God is birthing.")

Just so, it is in the very essence of the now to "point toward" the future. In other words, just as there is no One without the Other, there is no now without the then. If there were no promise of a then, then hopelessness would be the proper orientation to the world. But the future is always flowing into the now, and furthermore, it is not just coming "from nowhere," but from O, precisely (the cosmic telovator or eschalator).

This is why such things as creativity, novelty, evolution and discovery are not just possible, but normative for the human being. It is because of this structure that existence isn't completely ruled by entropy. Obviously if entropy is the irony-clad law of the cosmos, then there is no reason whatsoever for hope. Hope resides in the fact that it transcends entropy, including that annoying state of entropy we call death. Remember: hope is eternal youthfulness (or vice versa), while hopelessness is senility and death.

Which is why America is still the youngest nation in the world, and why everyone wants to get out of their decrepit cultures and come here. America is not just the last, best hope of humanity, but a bulwark against hopelessness. It reminds me of how victims of the soviet Gulag were comforted by the moral clarity of Ronald Reagan, even while it annoyed the hell out of the hopeless and cynical progressives. Conversely, the appeasement of the left only added to their despair.

It is also why progressives may look immature, but they are really bitter old men, as you'll probably see in the comments today, except not now that I've mentioned it. But for Obama to peddle "hope" is like Forest Lawn selling vacation property. No matter how nice it looks, you'll be dead when you get there. And if we ever arrive where progressives want us to go, we'll also be dead, either literally or figuratively.

So as Pieper explains, youthfulness "can be destroyed only if hope is destroyed." But I would add that if one can manage to damage or destroy the state of innocent youthfulness, one can also undermine hope, and create a "hopeless" situation from which only the State can save one.

I don't think I need to chronicle the many ways the left assaults and undermines the innocence of childhood, but I would no more place my child in a public school than I would expose him to pornography or MSNBC. I am charged with protecting his holy innocence, not eliminating it. The point is not to produce a jaded cynic who is wise as a dove and innocent as a serpent.

For only with this reservoir of innocence can one remain an innocent child forever, instead of, say, a childish know-nothing such as Obama. Note how the latter is a corrupt version of the former. To be "innocent" does not mean being innocent of wisdom and self-understanding.

It is critical to bear in mind that there are two forms of hopelessness, despair and presumption. Again, both "collapse" the space between now and then, and now that I think about it, probably collapse the space between I and You as well, in that the I becomes a self-sufficient god, either for better or worse. But in each case, the present moment, which should be oriented toward the future, collapses to nothingness.

As Pieper explains, "the 'infantility' of presumption lies in its perverse anticipation of fulfillment," so that genuine hope "passes into the peaceful certainty of possession." What does this remind me of... Oh yes, "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Really? Yes, he's a buffoon, but why is this so different from, say, the kind of hope promised by Reagan, e.g., "morning in America"?

The difference is that in the real morning that announces the day, it is the person who makes all the difference, not the state, since one man's morning is another man's twilight or Darkness. Remember, it was always morning in the Soviet Union as well, with the announcement of a new Five-Year Plan. When you give up your hope to the State, they just sell it back to you at triple the price.

78 Comments:

Blogger Lynn said...

G-Bob wrote: "...for Obama to peddle "hope" is like Forest Lawn selling vacation property. No matter how nice it looks, you'll be dead when you get there."

Brilliant!

6/24/2010 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

Now is not the time to disparage our President.

You can best serve your country by forgiving the President his defects and praying that he do the best job he is able to.

Now we rally behind our President, even if he is not who you voted for.

By laying aside contempt and harsh words the Lord percieves we nobly front the trials we find ourselves in and do not attack our brothers from behind.

Praise the President even before the fact and he may yet rise to conform to that praise. That is the way of heaven.

This I ask of you for our nation.

6/24/2010 09:31:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Grant, while it is certainly appropriate to pray for the TOTUS (I try to pray that he will see and be guided by Truth; unfortunately, for that to happen he must be willing to see and abide by it), that doesn't mean we don't also recognize the harm he's doing, not just to this country but to the world. To not remark upon his misdeeds would be as egregious as not calling you out on yours.

You may never learn from it, but at least I can say I'm treating you as I'd hope to be treated if I were acting as you do.

Back to the post,
one man's morning is another man's twilight or Darkness.

When one dwells in that supernatural hope, even the twilight and the darkness have their place and can touch on the higher vertical.

6/24/2010 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"...I never developed the usual ambitions which the Conspiracy expects one to have. I was already having such an excellent adventure, that I didn't really see how it could get any better. Rather, you'd have to be pretty bored to be enticed by what Conspiracy had to offer in exchange for your Slack."

I cooncur and resemble that remark.

To the common question of, "Don't you want something more out of life?", my response has usually been, "Well... yeah, which is why I'm so puzzled that your trying so hard to have less... what's up with that?"

6/24/2010 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"The difference is that in the real morning that announces the day, it is the person who makes all the difference, not the state, since one man's morning is another man's twilight or Darkness."

The image which pops into mind, is of a bunch of vampires raising their cape clad elbows to cover their faces, a chorus of "sssSSSsss..." fills the air while they back towards the shadow... exiting stage left.

Eternal youth at the low, low price of all of your life.

Scary.

6/24/2010 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

"I would no more place my child in a public school than I would expose him to pornography..."

Tut-tut!

Public schools simply teach an evidence-based curriculum. Nothing to fret about.

6/24/2010 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Mizz E said...

"I have hope, Doc, because I believe. Thanks for always reminding me why." - From a commenter on Doc Zero's latest, which is a wonderful accompaniment to "Youthful Reagan and Old Man Obama."

6/24/2010 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Grant Maher said...

Julie:

After considering your comment I am inclined to modify my stance. As you suggest, it is not appropriate to overlook egregious behaviors, even from the POTUS.

Attacking Obama's character or general mien, absent a more specific and material charge against conduct, however, I consider counterproductive or even anti-American.

If you read the post, Bob states Obama is both a childish know nothing, and a bitter old man. Bob He suspects him of peddling hope. These charges are not credible; a patrol officer summoned to arrest Obama would be more likely arrest the accuser and charge him with malicious mischief.

This is what I mean when I defend the President. I'm not saying he's great. I'm saying the charges are frivolous, or even ridiculous.

No offence against Bob. It is not easy to be a troll. Bob is essential an anti-Obama uber-troll, and you have to REACH to find ammo sometimes. So its all fair, but he will get rebutted. Its just how the game is played.

He can submit a counter-rebuttal, delete my comment, or respond some other way, or ignore it. Game on, lets rumble.

Van: I like your chilling imagery and sound effect of the vampires. There is no better symbol for a being who puts the fleshly life ahead of the spiritual. I give you kudos for creativity, freshness.

6/24/2010 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

If the public education syndicate were merely a drain on my property tax bill, it would be an outrage. As it is, the indoctrination system is actively and, apparently intentionally, doing its best to destroy our culture.

My parents and older siblings were educated in one-room schools. My father, who had only an 8th-grade education, could have handed Paul Krugman's ass to him in a debate on economics (of course, he would have had to pull Krugman's head out first).

As I drive around the rural areas, the nicest buildings in town are always schools. The brand-new high school in the town nearest us -- which has a population of maybe 2500 -- looks like a high-end resort hotel, complete with state-of-the-art athletic facilities, tennis courts, and a dedicated "dramatic arts" theater complex. At least half the graduates of this beautiful institutional cannot read a Dickens' novel with any comprehension.

6/24/2010 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

That should say "institution" -- or I suppose I could have meant "institutional facility". I probably need to check my meds -- I seem to be going into frothing-at-the-mouth mode.

6/24/2010 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

grunt maker said "If you read the post, Bob states Obama is both a childish know nothing, and a bitter old man."

Hmmm... "I don't know all the facts... but it's obvious the police behaved stupidly"
Aside from mimicking anunce's M.O. for relating his own statements to reality, that seems a decent example of being both childish and bitter, does it not?

"This is what I mean when I defend the President. I'm not saying he's great. I'm saying the charges are frivolous, or even ridiculous."

uh-huh. Tell me, in response to his base's annoyance over his lack of BP engagement, obamao said,

"We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

, perhaps you could make an argument - that actually agrees with reality - explaining how that statement could in no way be called frivolous, ridiculous, childish and/or biter?

The fact is that obamao has made himself into an example of frivolous and ridiculous behavior, courtesy of his own repeated condemnations of Bush’s making time for relaxation, while engaging in more golfing excursions of any President's term in recent history. In his first two years. And I've lost count over how many times he's said "I will not rest until this issue has been resolved..."... and yet while none of those issues which he 'would not rest until' they were resolved, have been resolved, he himself has most definitely rested himself since making each statement. Repeatedly. There are plenty of other such examples of his own ‘presidential’ behavior being at odds with his candidate obamao promises and concerns, so as to make the case against himself being frivolous and ridiculous, all by himself.
"Van: I like your chilling imagery and sound effect of the vampires. There is no better symbol for a being who puts the fleshly life ahead of the spiritual. I give you kudos for creativity, freshness."

Hey, no problem, thanks for posing.

6/24/2010 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Grant, thank you for your perceptive comments. It's funny how "trying to understand the universe" quickly becomes nothing more than nonsensical partisan attacks on our president. At least he manages to do it without invoking Hitler...well, sometimes.

Hey Bob, just for fun, how about some time you write a bunch of absolute crap...make it sound good, but make it things you absolutely don't believe...and see how many of your regulars call you on it. You'll find that they all just "digest" in happily. Then you will experience a newfound freedom, when you realize you can just go through the motions and type whatever you want and it won't make a lick of difference.

6/24/2010 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Van, really, that was weak. Surely you can do better than that. "Obamao" three times? Criticizing the number of times he's golfed...in comparison to Bush's extended vacations while people were advising him 9/11 was coming? Weaksauce, my man.

6/24/2010 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Mushroom,
Thanks for beating me to it, and especially for the,

"of course, he would have had to pull Krugman's head out first"

;-)

6/24/2010 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

Grant: Tis not the season to get thy panties in a bunch!
Carm down take a deep bleath

6/24/2010 02:42:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

jeff said "Grant, thank you for your perceptive comments"

LOL

6/24/2010 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

When Obama Met McCrystal

6/24/2010 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

jest said "Criticizing the number of times he's golfed...in comparison to Bush's extended vacations..."

Way to demo the leftie reading method! Criticize what wasn’t said, and offer no supporting info or reasons for anything you said! I'd be tempted to bet that you paid very close attention during a lifetime of public schooling.

But if you'll take another look, you'll find that I wasn't,

"Criticizing the number of times he's golfed"

, but the fact that obamao himself criticized Bush for taking time out to relax, while obamao has rivaled all of Bush's time taken out to relax, and obamao's not even through his first term. That's one of the ridiculous parts. And Frivolous. And... well... you should be able to get the idea about obamao from that.

"Surely you can do better than that. "Obamao" three times?"

You’re right, there’s four for you! But really, I can only squeeze in so much between compile times, and annoyance, humorous as it is, really isn’t worth the effort.

6/24/2010 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

You are silly little men. I paid enough attention in school to learn all about number-fudging and sophistry, thank you.

6/24/2010 03:20:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"I would no more place my child in a public school than I would expose him to pornography or MSNBC."

I'm always glad to hear people say that, even though it's really none of my business...

Grant, personally, I don't feel much empathy for people who seek fame, attention, or power of any kind. One of the chief purposes of the politician (and lawyers, but so many politicians ARE lawyers) is to serve as a target for public ridicule and scorn. If you don't recognize this before you run for office, you'll either wilt or turn into a crybaby whiner. (Ahem...no comment.)

Families are off-limits, IMO. It ain't the kid's fault his daddy's a lawyer/politician. The spouse is culpable only to a certain degree (statements made on campaign trail or on the record, for instance).

I do feel for people who are involuntarily thrust into the spotlight and never asked to be, and receive public criticism on top of whatever tragedy/humiliation they may have already experienced.

But you're not going to convince me to feel sorry or soft for any politician.

Let him put on his big boy pants, how about that.

6/24/2010 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Hi, Jeff!

"You are silly little men."

I can't argue with that one. Except the men part, in my case. Also, few people would call me little, at least physically. Mentally or spiritually, I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Otherwise, thanks for noticing!

If Bob were to spew crap just for fun, all he'd need to do would be to copy and paste some classic Chopra, maybe Tony Robbins. Adi Da. Some Ghandi, just to shake things up (he could do a post advising the Jews to take Helen Thomas' advice!). I'm pretty sure it would be noticed, though. If we wanted that kind of mental junk food, we'd be over there.

6/24/2010 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Wv advises one more - "tolle"

I'm still pretty sure it would be noticed.

6/24/2010 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"the charges are frivolous, or even ridiculous."

Do you ever even read our links?

6/24/2010 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

I'll start by charging that Obama is federalizing public education as we speak. Yes, "Bush did it too," but that was a small step for the NEA...this is a giant leap.

This is bad news for anyone who wants to opt out. Like Bob, for instance. Or me.

6/24/2010 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Julie, I'd thought that last "Jeff" was a sockpuppet, but now that I re-read, maybe not!

6/24/2010 03:53:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Now ladies, I'm no fan of Chopra et al either (although Ghandi? really?), but don't kid yourselves that Bob wouldn't adore the kind of success those authors have had.

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone except for alias I used to use when you didn't make me log in.

6/24/2010 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Michigan adopts national standards.

Surely, even a lefty can see the danger of uploading institutional failure to every school in every state. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't bode well for we classical educating DIY-ers out there. Hello, Germany; hello Sweden.

6/24/2010 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Okay, "Jeff," but the irony was just too rich.

6/24/2010 04:01:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Then again, the NEA didn't like Bush much, because he was (misguidedly) trying to hold schools accountable. Plus, they're a bunch of moonbats (on the organizational level, I mean).

6/24/2010 04:12:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Gandhi is without a doubt in the running for the Most Overrated Human Being in History.

6/24/2010 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger Sal said...

Too many wonderful quotes to single one out. Thanks, Bob

Free books - I pay the postage:
Rather ya'll have them than Half-Price Books.

Ascent of Mount Carmel (St. JOhn of the Cross) The Image edition, translated by Alison Peers

Serendipities (Umberto Eco) I know when I'm in over my pay grade. It's about linguistics. I think.

The Crisis of Civilization (Belloc) Ordered two by mistake.

Happy Alchemy (Robertson Davies) Writings on theater, but by a Racoon. Everyone here would love him.

Drop me an e-mail:
sbb19@hotmail.com

6/24/2010 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Just wanted Dianne to know we started the Gospel of John tonight. :)

6/24/2010 07:45:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Gandhi the "saint" practiced his saintly self-restraint by cajoling his teen-aged nieces into sleeping naked with his scrawny old self. He was very proud of the fact that he was able to sleep right next to them without... well without what? Raping them? Never could figure that part out.

One of my employees a few years back saw me reading a Wikipedia article on Aurobindo. She (a recent Indian immigrant) was astonished that a Westerner would know who he is. In her region he is adored almost as a saint. She didn't have much to say about Gandhi one way or the other.

Hell, plenty of people revere FDR here. As with Gandhi, there are many things to admire in the man, but just as many on the other side of the ledger, so it would seem.

6/24/2010 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

jest squeaked "I paid enough attention in school to learn all about number-fudging and sophistry"

Yeah... I used a lot of 'numbers' in that... oh wait... no... I didn't use a single number - well, I did say 'two years', but that was the span of time, not the number of 'incidents'... do 'more' and 'lots' count as statistics?

I'm thinking... no... sorry, but thank you for playing.

Again, what Bush did for recreation and how often, or what obamao did, or how often, or whether any President should take time out to relax (personally, I don't see a damn thing wrong with a President, in probably the most stressful job in the world, taking time out to relax and unwind - often - but maybe that's just me).

Perhaps you have difficulty seeing a point stated plainly, so let me restate it again. The issue was not that obamao plays golf or travels here and there, but that obamao, and nearly all the MSM, made a huge deal out of Bush 43 (and even Bush 41, Reagan, etc, for that matter) taking any time out, even mocking them for their interests (biking, clearing brush, boating, horses), and implied or flat out derided them, for 'neglecting the people's work'... and then obamao dives right into his recreations and vacations with an unrestrained passion.

Add to that, that obamao makes ridiculously grand statements about how 'he'll never rest until...!', and then is out on the golf course within the next few days, resting and relaxing, not to mentions stretching his thin skin to the point of tearing with how he's going to 'kick some ass', etc, and in doing so HE makes HIMSELF out to be childish, biter, ridiculous, frivolous hypocrite all by himself.

The only sophistry on display here, is you practicing the art of evasion.

Maybe you and anunce can run away together and pretend you're going somewhere, rather than turning tail and fleeing the point.

Again.

(Ooh... got a 5 on the obamao tally this time! Oh!)

6/24/2010 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Impossible to parody: Elementary School To Make Condoms Available.

6/24/2010 09:50:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Van, careful, he might taunt us again. ;)

Bob, stuff like that seriously damages my hope for the future. Sometimes I wonder where all the grown-ups have gone--the people who used to protect children. Or at least not prevent children's own parents from protecting them. This is literally criminal!

I'm beginning to agree with PJ O'Rourke. Like "Jeff" said, it's all sophistry and numbers-fudging anyway. Not sure he thinks that's what he said, but we can thank the system for that too.

6/24/2010 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Re. elementary condoms,
oh, good grief - life imitates South Park, then takes it a step further.

6/24/2010 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Susannah,

I fully agree with O'Rourke's "End Them, Don’t Mend Them It’s time to shutter America’s bloated schools."

They went beyond the realm of being merely broken, a century ago. They are today explicitly anti-educational institutions.

And for those who argue over 'improving' textbooks... well... such 'victories' are worthy of only as much enthusiasm as you would give to succeeding at changing your mandated poison from cyanide to arsenic.

Woo-hoo.

If it is a 'textbook', in anything other than perhaps mathematics, that your kids are being educated from, it is already a guarantee that any actual education which may take place, will be accidental.

Choosing to use textbooks to teach about history, literature, etc, is itself an admission of not understanding what Man, knowledge, teaching or education are.

They are attempts to put Hume’s admonition into practice,

" "Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it, and endeavour to fix its standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general tastes of mankind, or some such fact, which may be the object of reasoning and enquiry.

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles[meaning skepticism], what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
"

And that is precisely what our new jester jeffery, and anunce too, have in ‘mind’ when they mutter about sophistry – anything having to do with morals, criticism, beauty, metaphysics – in short, Reality and man’s means and ability to grasp it, are to be excised from any and every subject, and whatever slurry of ‘facts’ which might remain, are then plopped between the covers of textbooks, having all the dead weight of a blocks of lead, to be lugged around by our kids as mental and physical implementations of a ball & chain.

Well… my coffee was a bit weak this morning, but that woke me up. Thanks.

6/25/2010 06:10:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

My friend from the NE says re: this condoms-for-little-kids town: "Think Sodom and Gomorrah."

Van, that is why so many homeschoolers turn to the "living books" method and consider history and literature textbook instruction complete twaddle.

Charlotte Mason's methods mesh well with classical education.

http://simplycharlottemason.com/basics/what-is-the-charlotte-mason-method/

6/25/2010 06:29:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

From Susannah’s link,
”...For example, Charlotte’s students used living books rather than dry textbooks. Living books are usually written in story form by one author who has a passion for the subject. A living book makes the subject “come alive.”
She taught spelling by using passages from great books that communicate great ideas rather than just a list of words...


Yep. A materialist’s goal, as Hume said, is to remove all signs of life from learning, anything smacking of the poetic fire, leaving behind only irrelevant, unintegrated, uninteresting dross behind them – see the dulled, inked and pierced faces of the mass of students in any public school for the entirely predictable result.

Several years ago, when Ryan was probably 14, 15 yrs old, I was driving him and a teammate to their football game with a team in another town. These kids who dread the sight of their 10lb ‘Social Studies’ books, were absolutely riveted to an audio of one of Jeff Shaara’s books, I think it was “RISE TO REBELLION”, we were at the Battle of Bunker Hill leading up to where Dr. Warren makes his stand and is killed... they didn’t want to leave the van until that portion concluded... they’d rather risk running gasser’s up & down the track for being late, than not hear what happened to him, and more importantly, they grasped, understood and felt the enormity of what he did, why, and what was lost with his death, and were moved by it.

Had Dr. Warren even been included in their ‘social studies’ book, the ‘details of his life’ would have had all the interest, meaning and impact of a description of the average size and weight of a walnut.

6/25/2010 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger anon said...

This very much reminds me of how there is no such thing as an individual per se. Rather the person is always oriented to the other; he is always in communion...

Wow, does Van approve of the above? It sounds almost communist (in the pre-marxist sense).

I know, I know, you are talking about real communion, rather than the false communion of the left, just as Obama's version of hope is false while Reagan's fake-cowboy charisma somehow represents something real (to idiots). Must be tough to be having your values constantly misinterpreted and misappropriated.

Nontheless it's pretty hard to square your remark above with the devotion to radical American individualism that is also expressed here often enough.

6/25/2010 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

"Nontheless it's pretty hard to square your remark above with the devotion to radical American individualism that is also expressed here often enough."

Not at all. If you actually grasped the distinction between communism and Communion, you'd find that it makes perfect nonsense. But for it to work, you have to be able to see in three dimensions, not just two.

6/25/2010 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

That's a tough challenge. Let's see. Communion is the essence of freedom and love. Communism is the essence of coercion and slavery. Aside from that, they're identical. It's spooky!

6/25/2010 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger anon said...

I was thinking more of the many Christian communists like John Wycliffe, John Ball, the Taborites, the Hutterites, etc. But as far as I know (not very far, to be sure) none of them ever went so far as to say that there is no such thing as an individual, so you sound more extreme than them.

6/25/2010 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

For the benefit of later readers who might be tempted to assume that this moron has actually understood my point, the individual surely exists, but in communion; individual and communion co-arise. This is a subject we will be discussing in much more detail in forthcoming posts.

6/25/2010 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not different...Man, much as he may therefore be a particular individual (and it is precisely his particularity which makes him an individual, and a real individual social being), is just as much the totality – the ideal totality – the subjective existence of imagined and experienced society for itself...

-- Marx, Private Property and Communism

It's quite astonishing how many similarities can be found between Marxist and (early) Christian thought. I say this as a nonbeliever in both. From your perspective I suppose Marixsm is a perversion of Christianity -- if you try to have communion without God, you end up creating the totalitarian state. That's bad, of course, but why do you think people were looking for that in the first place?

6/25/2010 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Any apparent similarities between materialism and Christianity are entirely accidental, being that the metaphysical principles animating them are 180 degrees apart. And as for the question of what motivates people to chase after such materialistic illusions, I would not expect you of all people to ever understand that.

6/25/2010 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's quite astonishing how many similarities can be found between rape and lovemaking. Weird!

6/25/2010 02:51:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It is astonishing how my family is just like a communist state, in that I make all the money, and yet, I share it equally with my wife and child. Weird!

6/25/2010 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Great analogies, Bob.

Anon, what you describe among Christians is not "communism," but this:

"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

And this:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.... For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit."

This (the Church, the body of Christ, the house of "living stones") is a spiritual reality that no outside force can bring about.

Only the power of God can knit hearts together like that. Human government has no jurisdiction when it comes to the heart.

6/25/2010 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anunce said "Wow, does Van approve of the above? It sounds almost communist (in the pre-marxist sense)."

That you could confuse what Gagdad has described with the undifferentiated, borderless mush of the ideas you profess, yet read nothing of and know nothing about... not surprising, but I can't help you out there. Don't need to either. There are mucho hundreds of posts here stating the difference quite clearly.

But... lets give you another opportunity to run away.

The Free Market is a communion of choices freely made by individuals, it integrates the actions and desires of everyone in short order, each complementing the other, mostly unintentionally, but unavoidably, and spectacularly. It was that living integration which produced the explosion of wealth that has been America, the handiwork of the "Invisible Hand" of the market place in free market economics... that terrifying threat to proponents of consolidated power such as was marx, in the marxist sense, who derided it as 'Capitalism' - "Pshawww! As if little insignificant people can be trusted with their own lives! They must be forced to be free!"

Leftists, they are always so quick with a word which misrepresents and distorts. Free market economics is not about capital, that's merely the tool of portability, it is about freedom and liberty being exercised by individuals seeking their own lives, and with true synchronicity the freely made choices anonymously contribute to the benefit of the whole.

Marx sought to distort and hide that by referring to it by it's tool, capital, because he knew he could easily misrepresent and demonize something named after money.

Ignorant scumbag. Oh well.

As I've noted often before, far from separating men, recognizing the inviolate right of individuals to make their own choices, knits them together in a vibrant community which they could no more separate themselves from than stop breathing. No person in such a community could be considered to exist separately from the whole of the community, anymore than even a Pencil could be possibly be produced in it by one person or company.

The person living in a free society is in true communion with everyone else in that society - whether they know it or not.

Only a devotee to ThracyMarxicus could confuse such an integration of liberty, with that of marxist statists who assert that no individual should be trusted to make their own choices, that no one can be trusted to be responsible for their errors, that all must be forced to do what the ones with the power tell them they must do for the benefit of the communistic collective.

What results from your ideals is the grey, zombieish living death of east berlin and north korea, hell holes where people are so withdrawn and separated from each other in the midst of their communist utopias, that they must be fenced in for the collective to have even a chance of retaining it's people.

America was the result of the free market. The USSR, Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, the result of marxism and socialism.

Only anunce like you could possibly choose the later over the former.

6/25/2010 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Speaking of which, putting anunces ideals in action, Chavez deals with the obvious,

"CARACAS, June 18 (Reuters) - Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution.

Venezuelan army soldiers swept through the working class, pro-Chavez neighborhood of Catia in Caracas last week, seizing 120 tonnes of rice along with coffee and powdered milk that officials said was to be sold above regulated prices.

"The battle for food is a matter of national security," said a red-shirted official from the Food Ministry, resting his arm on a pallet laden with bags of coffee...."

6/25/2010 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Van is sputtering again. I find it entertaining but the spittle probably isn't good for your keyboard.

I am interested in the specifically communist strains in Christian history. I mentioned a few; here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Taborites:

The Taborites (Czech Táborité, singular Táborita) were members of a religious community considered heretical by the Catholic Church. The Taborites were centered on the Bohemian city of Tábor during the Hussite Wars in the 15th century. The religious reform movement in Bohemia splintered into various religious sects. Beginning with the most radical,[citation needed] the various sects that existed were the: Adamites, Taborites, Orebites (Orphans), Utraquists and Praguers. Because the revolution's impetus came from the burning of Jan Hus, for the purpose of simplicity, many writers have put most of these sects under one umbrella term calling them the "Hussites".

Economically supported by Tabor's control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communist-like society. Taborites announced the Millennium of Christ and declared there would be no more servants and masters. They promised people would return to a state of pristine innocence.


Some of these sects based their beliefs on explicitly communist passages in the Bible, such as Acts 2:44-45: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

The principles of modern communism are very similar.

The idea that government should be separate from religion, and allow a free market not just in trade but in beliefs, is of course a relatively modern idea dating back to the enlightenment. It's a grand idea, but extremists of one type or another are always trying to subvert it, with Christianity and Marxism being two noted strands of illiberalism that the liberal state has to contain. As a more or less liberal person, I see them both as dangers, although in present US politics the would-be Christian theocrats pose a far greater danger than the essentially nonexistant Marxists.

6/25/2010 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

If you are truly an anti-left liberal, then we have no quarrel.

6/25/2010 06:17:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anunce said "Van is sputtering again. I find it entertaining but the spittle probably isn't good for your keyboard."

While it is fun watching you try to dodge and then turn tail and run for the hills, I gotta say, the belly laughs you occasionally provide, such as,

"As a more or less liberal person,"

, are well worth the price of admonition.

6/25/2010 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"the would-be Christian theocrats pose a far greater danger than the essentially nonexistant Marxists."

What theocrats? And how so?

6/25/2010 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I believe he's referring to the advocates of liberation theology, such as Obama, Reverend Wright, Jim Wallis, et al. They are a clear and present danger to our God-given liberty. Reminds me of Father Coughlin, who attacked FDR from the fascist left by proposing 'work and income guarantees, nationalizing "necessary" industry, wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy, federal protection of worker's unions, and decreasing property rights in favor of the government controlling the country's assets for "public good."' Not to mention Jew hatred.

6/25/2010 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

BTW anunce, you don't need to go that far back, or that far away, you can start right here with the Pilgrims. They attempted to establish a society in Christian communism, which failed right away, being at odds with both Christianity and (your favorite subject) Reality - there were no established social buffers or tenured wackademics to protect them from reality, and without useful idiots like yourself, reality couldn't be dodged. The Pilgrims failed miserably, in every sense, and only after Bradford established assigned property and property rights among them, did they succeed.

There's also the Labadists in the late 1680's,"Women in the Wilderness", the Ephrata Society, the Harmonists, New Harmony, Icarians, Oneida, and many, many more. America was large enough and free enough to attract dozens and dozens of communistic societies filled with people who wanted to establish 'new worlds' filled with communities of people as stupid as they were.

It also was still free enough to not spare them the whip of reality, which soon brought ruin to them all. If you want to see how miserably foolish and failed your notions are, you don't need to look to Marx, or eastern EUrope, look to American history... examples abound - looong before Marx came along.

6/25/2010 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, the identical thing happened with the kibutzim in Israel when leftist ideology crashed into reality. I think it's one reason why the left hates Israel, because they transitioned from a leftist fantasy land to a capitalist dynamo.

6/25/2010 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

You people sure have trouble following a line of thought. My point was not "communism is great!" but that the roots of communism may be found in Christianity, indeed right there in the New Testament. Obviously you aren't obligated to to follow any particular tenet of your ostensible religion, but what other aspects do you reject? I recall you had some problems with the sermon on the mount as well. Not being a Christian I don't really understand what is left of Christianity after you gut it of Jesus' very radical moral teachings.

Maybe you follow this guy? "Shouldn't you feed the lepers, Supply Side Jesus?" "No Thomas, that would just make them lazy" "Then shouldn't you at least heal them?" "No James, leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy!"

You are right that voluntary communism (like kibbutzim) have problems maintaining themselves under conditions of surrounding capitalit economies. The exceptions are religious communities.

6/26/2010 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

anunce said "You people sure have trouble following a line of thought. My point was not "communism is great!" but that the roots of communism may be found in Christianity, indeed right there in the New Testament."

Let me guess... Thucydides, Aristotle and Plato are also among the books you've never read?

Every tradition has examples of stupid people, or people who take things out of context and interpret them stupidly, the left just likes to pretend that when they do it it should be considered new and different. Doesn't mean they actually had any roots to follow.

Stupidity doesn't need any particular roots, like lichen, it's happy growing on stones.

Lichen must be trollistan's national flower.

6/26/2010 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"I don't really understand what is left of Christianity after you gut it of Jesus' very radical moral teachings."

You completely misunderstand the gospel, anon. Your leftist Christian bedfellows are the ones who gut it of its true efficacy, by pridefully eradicating any need at all for Christ.

I'll give you a radical teaching. Read carefully; it's long. If you want context, read the entire chapter (John 6). It might clue you in to Jesus' *self-confessed* purpose in pouring himself out for us in life, and in death:

“Truly, truly, [Jesus said to those he had just miraculously fed] I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. [Free food! Woohoo!]

"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” [Pay attention, anon. Here comes the heart of the gospel.]

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” [They sound a bit like liberal constituents, don't they? Out with the goodies, already!]

Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” [What were they asking for, anon? The kind of "bread" Jesus knew they needed?]

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life;"

[Pause here and just allow this to sink in a moment.]

"...whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

"For this is the will of my Father, ****that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.****”

[What is the will of the Father, anon?]

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

"I am the bread of life."

[In case you missed it the first time.]

"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died." [Contemplate this...]

"This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [Are you, too, offended yet? Just wait...]

6/26/2010 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

I'm sure all this is lost on you, anon; but hopefully you can at least see that Jesus wouldn't necessarily underwrite leftist social programs, and that your lefty pals who mock the gospel are the ones who co-opt it for cynical political ends.

Finally, in His name, most Christians would gladly lay hands on any "leper" and pray for his healing. Your government programs cannot do that. Only He can, through His people.

6/26/2010 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Here's a little salient bit that anon will miss if he declines to read for context. After Jesus feeds the five thousand, they realize this kind of power could be, well, quite useful. However:

"Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself."

No leftist worth his salt would pass up an opportunity like that.

6/26/2010 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger anon said...

Van: yes, I am fully aware that communal organization of society is older than christianity (if that is what you are implying by your latest ill-tempered, juvenile, and poorly written chunk of spew).

Susannah: If I interpret correctly, you are trying to say that the message of Christianity is Jesus himself, no more, no less, that we are to cleave to him, drink his blood and eat his bread, and we are thus saved, even if we completely ignore his teachings and words, all that inconvenient stuff about turning the other cheek and abandoning your family and whatnot. Well, maybe, I won't argue what Christianity is with a Christian, but if you view that from the outside, it's just a very long-lived personality cult. I should cleave to Jesus because he said so and lots of other people have too. Forgive me if I'm not the least bit interested.

A word of advice -- if you want to convert people or just preach your beliefs, try doing it without larding them up with childish snide remarks. It doesn't help.

And I know that around here Christianity and the left are considered polar opposites, but how do you explain the many Christian leftists that have existed? Martin Luther King Jr being the most recent prominent one, but also churchmen like the Berrigan brothers, Archbishop Romero and the American nuns that were murdered in El Salvador, Dorothy Day, even Tolstoy. I won't argue what Christianity is with you, but what do you say to them?

6/26/2010 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Anon: "what I'm trying to say"? Seriously?

This is what the Founder of Christianity has to say about himself. Your response is to call it a "personality cult." And you claim to comprehend his moral teachings. Why not just go ahead call us Zombie worshipers, since you're so determined to remain at that level of understanding?

Then, shifty as you are, you try once again to make it about us--a motley crew hanging out at a metaphysics blog you love to hate.

Your shifty response to Jesus' testimony about himself proves to me with finality you are disingenuous, which is what makes you a troll, even more so than your cowardly nickname.

My "snide remarks" were not intended to be snide. I was quite serious and sincere about each one. I wish you would answer each in turn, but you haven't got the courage.

Jesus--if you accept his testimony about himself (and I realize you don't, but just grant him that for a second, since you're willing to go so far as to *pretend* you consider him a wise moral teacher)--had every opportunity to take the reigns of human power and "do good in the world." Instead he chose an agonizing, ignominous, criminal's death. To what end? Why go through that (I mean from his perspective, lunatic though you might consider him) if the work of God was to be merely implementing taxpayer-funded government social programs, and regulating speech until it's all perfectly PC, and imposing hiring quotas to eliminate institutional racism and sexism, and so on?

Never mind the total disconnect in the minds of lefty Christians. I'm not the one to answer for that--it's a total mystery to me, frankly.

I'd like to know how all your lefty Christians answer *that* question. What the heck is the point of the cross? (And the resurrection, but that's getting ahead.) It's not clear to me why leftists even need Christ. Branding? Maybe *you* could speculate on that for *me.*

In case you hadn't noticed, this matters to some of us, and I'm sick and tired of people like you playing cheap political shots with something you really despise and mock. However dreadful you consider us, you are ten times the hypocrite for pretending to believe any such things as morality and righteousness even exist.

Please, convince me of the moral superiority and righteousness of your political perspective. Teach me how to speak to trolls just as you speak to Van.

Perhaps I can become just like the wonderful golden rule followers who question the legitimacy and parentage of Sarah Palin's "retard" child, and accuse ChimpHitlerBurtonwhatever of orchestrating 9-11, and call people "fascist" and "racist" when they disagree, and advocate wiping Israel off the map and returning Jews to Europe, and protest over owls but celebrate the dismemberment of unborn children (especially if they're "undesirables"), and wish our health system could be just-like-Castro's, and use every political protest as an opportunity inflate unmentionable body parts in view of children, and offer condoms to 8 year olds without their parents' permission, and love all victims, unless of course they are crime victims because crime victims should "turn the other cheek" to the criminal who is a victim of his own upbringing and circumstances, and consider "fisting" instructions part of a well-rounded education, and would be perfectly happy if Saddam Hussein and his hideous sons were still shredding Iraqis alive and raping their daughters, because eeevil, eeeeevil HALLIBURTON!!!

(Ad nauseum)

Please, elucidate for me the superior morality of the left. Explain to me why I should convert to this perspective on life, and how it reflects Jesus' teachings far better than my silly little "personality cult."

6/26/2010 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anunce whined “(if that is what you are implying by your latest ill-tempered, juvenile, and poorly written chunk of spew).”

I do admire a carefully reasoned, meticulously supported mature rebuttals… it’d be nice if for once you paused long enough to give one, rather than turning tail and running away from the argument, but trolls will be trolls.

6/26/2010 07:47:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"if you want to convert people or just preach your beliefs,"

We're not here to convert you. You came to us, remember? You're not here as a sincere seeker, but as a heckler.

I took all that trouble to demonstrate for you why leftists cannot use Jesus as their puppet to mouth their political goals (see your link above). His words refute them.

They are being deceitful and manipulative. Hardly Christ-like.

6/26/2010 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Susannah: not sure what I said to raise your hostility to a new level.

Your response is to call it a "personality cult." And you claim to comprehend his moral teachings.

I don't necessarily comprehend his moral teachings, certainly not all of them, but I comprehend them a lot better than the mystic I-am-the-way stuff. "Love thine enemies" is very clear, and it's also something that may be found in many other religious traditions such as Buddhism.

As for the other stuff, imagine if some guy come up to you and says, we worship Frank! Frank says he's the son of god, none shall be saved except through Frank, etc. I know this because Frank said so. You see the problem?

The "snide remarks" were the stuff like [They sound a bit like liberal constituents, don't they? Out with the goodies, already!] Is that sort of thing likely to make me pay more attention to your message?

However dreadful you consider us, you are ten times the hypocrite for pretending to believe any such things as morality and righteousness even exist.

Really? What makes you say that?

Perhaps I can become just like the wonderful golden rule followers who question the legitimacy and parentage of Sarah Palin's "retard" child...

The main person questioning the parentage of Palin's child was conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan.

and accuse ChimpHitlerBurtonwhatever of orchestrating 9-11, and call people "fascist" and "racist" when they disagree...

Yes, many people on the left have said or done intemperate things at one point or another. That's politics for you. I'm sure nobody on the right has ever compared Obama to Hitler, or published a major book calling liberals fascists, or no right-wing blog has ever declared " I really can't recommend Liberal Fascism highly enough; I think it's actually much, much deeper than generally understood by both critics and fan". And while the left may have a few jerks who carried Bush=Hitler posters at rallies, the right has entire cable show on a major network devoted to showing that Obama is really Hitler.

Too late in the day for more, we must continue these pleasantries tomorrow.

6/27/2010 01:11:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"... I comprehend them a lot better than the mystic I-am-the-way stuff."

I can sympathize with that.

However, the incontrovertible fact is that he said them, and furthermore made them central to his mission and message. In fact, he called his miracles "signs." Not ends in themselves--though mercy and lovingkindness indeed motivate all his doings--but signs of something even greater.

"'Love thine enemies' is very clear, and it's also something that may be found in many other religious traditions such as Buddhism."

Clear and simple, yes, but not easy. Not easy to accomplish without the indwelling Spirit of Christ, hence the heart of the gospel. And not a stand-alone. There's an even greater commandment than that, and it comes before all. The contingent teachings are going to be very difficult to carry out without the operating system of the greatest commandment already in place.

"conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan."

You're the second liberal I've talked with this week to call him a conservative with a straight face.

"published a major book calling liberals fascists,"

You have no excuse for saying this; clearly you haven't read the book or any fair criticism of it.

"The 'snide remarks' were the stuff like [They sound a bit like liberal constituents, don't they? Out with the goodies, already!] Is that sort of thing likely to make me pay more attention to your message? "

It's a straightforward remark, quite true, and I stand by it. It's illustrative of the "what's in it for me" aspect of human nature that the left capitalizes on.

No, I don't expect you to pay attention, I'm just working out my ongoing frustrations with you and various other people who imply or outright claim "Jesus, if anything, is a progressive." I'm going to get it said and provide evidence for once. No, he's not.

"You see the problem?"

Yes, I do. What's clear is that you don't, or pretend not to.

Your problem is the age old: is he Lord, liar or lunatic? But again, that's your problem, not mine. A guy declares he is THE truth (not merely a conduit of the truth), well you have to find out for yourself if he lives up to his claims. If you don't want to bother, fine. But I'd recommend not applying things to others you don't want to bother to understand yourself.

I can't answer your video links, as I don't have sound. Looks like Stewart...isn't he a comedian? I wouldn't think he'd be a go-to guy for principled critique. He's going for laughs, and sometimes that involves exaggeration. Of course, I can't judge because I don't watch any programming at all. We don't have television.

"Yes, many people on the left have said or done intemperate things at one point or another. That's politics for you."

You know quite well I could provide links and quotes to back up each one of these issues. The perversion represented on the left is disgusting, though, and not always easy to read. Remember the "safe schools" czar, Mr. Jennings? Jesus-approved? Didn't he once say something about millstones around the necks of those who lead young ones astray?

6/27/2010 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6/27/2010 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Hey, Susannah - you know what baffles me? Why is it that people think "Love thy neighbor" somehow means that we have to tolerate all their BS and just be as nice as pie to everyone, and never ever hurt their poor wittle feewings. That's not love, and it goes way beyond tolerance.

When my little guy gets older, it won't be even remotely loving if I allow him to do everything he feels like and give him everything he wants. And if he doesn't bellow "I hate you" while throwing a royal fit at least a few times after being thwarted from doing something harmful by the time he's talking and getting into mischief, I will probably have fallen down on the job.

Love and niceness are two very different things.

Anyway, I'll duck back out of this conversation now :)

6/27/2010 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"Why is it that people think "Love thy neighbor" somehow means that we have to tolerate all their BS and just be as nice as pie to everyone, and never ever hurt their poor wittle feewings."

Yes, and somehow not knuckling under to their legislative B.S. is "hateful" and "unChristian" too (a la Jim Wallis). Racist, even!

This kind of deceptive manipulation just sets me off. And dragging the name of Christ into their manipulation game is the worse offense of all.

I wouldn't want to be standing next to 'em in a lightning storm, is all. ;)

6/27/2010 11:43:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"worst"

6/27/2010 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Susannah:

I feel constrained to point out that you're trying to milk a bull.

6/27/2010 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Time to flush, I guess.

6/27/2010 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Since you asked: the video link is to comedian Lewis Black doing a bit on the Daily Show where he shows Glen Beck invoking Hitler to smear everything from Obama to the EPA to the Peace Corps. Pretty funny. Here's a similar survey done in text. My favorite one is how he is alarmed at Obama's call for empathy, because you know who else had empathy? Hitler, that's who! Ah, and of course your local guru chimed in on this: Or more recently, think of the supremely feminized Obama saying that he wanted justices with "empathy." I think you can see why that leads directly to the unraveling of civilization at its very foundation, for it is a passive aggressive attack on masculinity. Judicial tyranny is the result.

See, this confuses me, because I thought compassion was one of the key Christian virtues, but here is a very loudmouthed Christian (of some sort) calling it a feminizing attack on the foundations of civilization. Well, OK, that's sort of what Nietzche thought (to reference today's discussion), but then he didn't claim to be a Christian -- quite the opposite.

Furthermore:

You said: "However dreadful you consider us, you are ten times the hypocrite for pretending to believe any such things as morality and righteousness even exist." So I asked you why you would believe something like that. Your answer didn't address the question.

Re Sullivan, his Wikipedia page says: "Sullivan describes himself as a libertarian conservative who has argued that the Republican Party has abandoned true conservative principles.[17] He views true conservatism as classical libertarian conservatism, where economic control of a citizen's daily life by the government is very limited." Sounds like your kind of gy. I'm not a big fan, so you can have him.

Re Goldberg's lousy book, I've read quite enough of it to not fall for your lame defense.

6/27/2010 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anunce said "Re Goldberg's lousy book, I've read quite enough of it to not fall for your lame defense"

Translation: "I once clicked preview on Amazon and ran away screaming."

6/27/2010 07:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home