tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post467647537253532666..comments2024-03-27T11:16:36.951-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Saving the World, One Assoul at a TimeGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19642666795088734762009-07-10T22:11:48.727-07:002009-07-10T22:11:48.727-07:00"Let's return to the principles enunciate..."Let's return to the principles enunciated in the first paragraph before this post spins out of control."<br /><br />Or becomes a book discussing a new American renaissance, tracing its source back to the founding Springs. ;*)hoarheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85406890129154548822009-07-10T21:12:38.400-07:002009-07-10T21:12:38.400-07:00Bob, your views on the world situation seem solid....Bob, your views on the world situation seem solid. I doubt few would contest them.<br /><br />On the detail level, what constitutes an "assoul" that has been saved? What saved it? What were the consequences of being saved? What kind of changes were wrought? Then what happened?<br /><br />I would like to hear testimony in that vein.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76929997164614264172009-07-10T20:41:19.761-07:002009-07-10T20:41:19.761-07:00A wee bit OT, but irt the AI idiots out there, we ...A wee bit OT, but irt the AI idiots out there, we do in fact have AI.<br />We call them lefties, demorats, rinos, anarchasses, socialists, commies, fascists, tyrants, bureaurats, and any assorted <br />ass ho's I might've missed.<br /><br />Of course, listing the disasterous results of what these AI-ho's have done (and wanna do) would be tedious. <br />It's no wonder that they wanna create robots n' 'puters that are just like them. They wanna justify their eekgo's and bring "meanin'" to their miserable lives.<br />Kinda funny, 'cause they are clueless as to what justice n' meanin' is, and yet they are determined to have it.<br /><br />Don't try to sail without a sail.<br />Skully wizdum #42.Skullynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-33541441873303917772009-07-10T20:30:57.808-07:002009-07-10T20:30:57.808-07:00Wow. Whatta great feast for all us hungry assouls,...Wow. Whatta great feast for all us hungry assouls, Bob!<br />Thanks!<br /><br />Van-<br />Excellent suggestion! I put your comment and a link to Bob's post on my sidebar, 'cause well, I'm an assoul, and you assouls relly nailed it! Well said! :^)USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84452777771218361482009-07-10T18:16:27.649-07:002009-07-10T18:16:27.649-07:00And to wrap that up a bit, Atlas has a link well s...And to wrap that up a bit, Atlas has a link well suited for Gagdad, <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/a-wise-open-thread.html" rel="nofollow">Coltrane: Wise One.</a><br /><br />mmmmmmaaaAhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmoOo.......Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30866525139266437612009-07-10T18:03:21.965-07:002009-07-10T18:03:21.965-07:00(Keep in mind the name "The Founder's Con...(Keep in mind the name "The Founder's Constitution", it only covers up to the first 12 amendments.)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-13757276352558177992009-07-10T17:39:54.060-07:002009-07-10T17:39:54.060-07:00Bob F. said "Law school is a trade school; la...Bob F. said "Law school is a trade school; lawyers do not learn what the Constitution says; they learn what the Supremes say it says."<br /><br />Friends, racoon's, countremen, lend me your ears:<br />I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you want to know and/or defend your constitution, your nation, your liberty, follow these links and pass them on!<br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html" rel="nofollow">The Founders Constitution</a>, hosted by the by The University of Chicago and the <a href="http://www.libertyfund.org/" rel="nofollow">Liberty Fund</a> (which includes <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/" rel="nofollow">the Online Library of Liberty</a>, one of the greatest free libraries, online or otherwise), and if you want to see the constitution for the first time or in a new light, I'm telling ya'll, <b><i>read it <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/" rel="nofollow">here</a></i></b>. <br /><br />For instance, if you scroll down that contents page a bit, to the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html" rel="nofollow">Preamble,</a> there are 21 links there, from snippets to full documents, that give the background information and perspective that the Founding Fathers had in <i>their minds</i> regarding the Preamble when they debated, wrote, ratified (usually including the relevant Federalist <b>and</b> anti-Federalist papers, as here, Madison, Brutus & Patrick Henry) and later applied by early presidents and re-examined and explained how it was being implemented and interpreted by those who still understood it (Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on teh constitution are <i>outstanding</i>).<br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/indexes.html" rel="nofollow">Indexes</a> contains several ways of slicing and dicing the site, such as <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/author_document_index.html" rel="nofollow">Index of Authors and Documents</a>, which links or lists key documents by key figures of the times, <br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/cases_index.html" rel="nofollow">Index of Cases</a>, which links to passages of key court cases that either established precedents, or from historic judgments which influenced how the first cases were judged<br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/constitutional_provisions_index.html" rel="nofollow">Index of Constitutional Provisions</a><br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_6.html" rel="nofollow">Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6</a> which seems to be on Bob F.'s mind, dealing with Counterfeiting coins and securities.<br /><br /><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_citizenship.html" rel="nofollow">Aliens & Citizenship</a>... it is and incredibly valuable resource.<br /><br />Those of you with your own blogs, or email lists, please, especially with the situation we are in today, publish this one, promote it. If We The People, don't understand what we have, and why... there will be no improvement, as a people, or a nation and I'll garauntee you, reading the linked information will help you to 'Know thyself', because as the Founders knew, to govern at all, you had to first be capable of governing yourself.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22280394278617938372009-07-10T16:32:02.700-07:002009-07-10T16:32:02.700-07:00It's not really so passive. The traditionalis...It's not really so passive. The traditionalists can be quite totalitarian, not to mention cultish.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15758158533036783602009-07-10T16:23:48.487-07:002009-07-10T16:23:48.487-07:00Bob's the shrink here, but even I can see the ...Bob's the shrink here, but even I can see the thick passive-aggressive branch in this tree.Northern Banditnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22113060283215917972009-07-10T15:07:12.210-07:002009-07-10T15:07:12.210-07:00"And in opposition to that understanding we&#..."And in opposition to that understanding we've got goons, claiming to be defending "America" and its sole founding document, the "Constitution", which is somehow thought to be whole, complete and capable of being understood and applied with nothing more than a Websters dictionary."<br />Thus spake Van<br /><br />There is a lot to be gotten from reading the Constitution many times, and checking that dictionary once in a while. Law school is a trade school; lawyers do not learn what the Constitution says; they learn what the Supremes say it says. Been there, done that, boring. So a few years ago I decided to just read the document and see what happened; sitting zen with the Constitution.<br />I still didn't have a good sense of what the document was and what it meant after reading it many times (just the important parts, like Art. I, Sect. 8)...until I read the Preamble.<br />The federal govt has only those powers granted to it by the people, who are the only source of all goverment power; therefore, if we do not possess a power as individuals, the government cannot possess it, which is why most of what the govt does is illegal, i.e., not granted by the Constitution.<br />Let me point out a couple of oddities I found by just reading the document. <br />First, it grants to the fed power of naturalization of immigrants, but says nothing about immigration. Therefore immigration is reserved to the States (see Amendment 10).<br />Second, the document enumerates three criminal powers granted to Congress, counterfeiting, felonies and piracies committed on the high seas, and treason. <br />Given the express grant of three criminal powers, there cannot be any others within the original document.<br />Nothing practical in these, but they do indicate how far we've come from the original vision.<br />The Supreme Court is the Papacy of the Constitution; consider adopting sola scriptura as your guide.bob f.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-42069346187704748342009-07-10T14:07:47.237-07:002009-07-10T14:07:47.237-07:00Just want to clear up a few possible misunderstand...Just want to clear up a few possible misunderstandings promulgated by LT. First, not all traditionalists vomit at the thought of Aurobindo, e.g., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Returning-Essential-Selected-Perennial-Philosophy/dp/0941532631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247259604&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Jean Biès</a>; second, that many of my favorite Christians have kind words for Aurobindo, including Valentin Tomberg, Swami Abhishiktananda, and Beatrice Bruteau; and third, that I consider myself more Christian than Aurobindean, although still hard at work on the Bridge, a la Abhishiktananda. The book I recently completed on Gregory Palamas elaborates many possible points of contact that I have discussed in the past.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-67281773002237359812009-07-10T13:42:45.948-07:002009-07-10T13:42:45.948-07:00Obtuse?!
How would you like to spend a month in th...Obtuse?!<br />How would you like to spend a month in the hole?Lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79931101154769438032009-07-10T13:36:47.367-07:002009-07-10T13:36:47.367-07:00Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I nev...Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I never said that America would save Christianity, but the precise opposite. But I'll let you have the last word.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85833640058663635182009-07-10T13:32:43.008-07:002009-07-10T13:32:43.008-07:00Finally got these damn comments up beyond 5.Finally got these damn comments up beyond 5.lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-6657768891663693702009-07-10T13:32:13.917-07:002009-07-10T13:32:13.917-07:00I would wager you could not find the word "eq...I would wager you could not find the word "equality" regarding religions in the writings of Schuon and Guenon.<br /><br />Nonetheless, if you must, yes, it is ignorance. To be ignorant and not know it is no crime, however, and no traditionalist would criticize that. To persist in ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence, is, however, a sin.lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1619346372362547642009-07-10T13:28:58.747-07:002009-07-10T13:28:58.747-07:00So American to rush to her defense when no one is ...So American to rush to her defense when no one is even criticizing. And, of course, to end by saying, those who don't agree are crazy!<br /><br />No one is arguing against the benign effects on the world of America, but simply Christianity's absolute need for it. God will find a way. Clearly, based on the morality of America's people, it's legacy is ambiguous to say the least.lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-42860626177155665942009-07-10T13:28:43.620-07:002009-07-10T13:28:43.620-07:00“None of them even believed that the US could poss...“None of them even believed that the US could possibly survive.”<br /><br />I would add that “The Founders” (who?) had no idea, no guarantee; that they could do what they did. Everything told them, all of history: this. will. not. work. Even if it had been done before, the odds were shockingly against them based on their resources compared to their oppressor's.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-74713236484001766012009-07-10T13:26:56.781-07:002009-07-10T13:26:56.781-07:00Yes, Christians just don't understand that Isl...Yes, Christians just don't understand that Islam and Christianity are of equal value. How ignorant of them!Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30669256485576879062009-07-10T13:22:34.504-07:002009-07-10T13:22:34.504-07:00Christian's not approving Traditionalists is f...Christian's not approving Traditionalists is from want of understanding. Traditionalists not approving Godwin is from deep understanding.<br />Sherrard, is, however, a different point of view, still. He is not strictly a traditionalist, but an Orthodox Christian with traditionalist leanings. He and Balthasar would likely approve of each other.lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-10003163038211955472009-07-10T13:19:03.548-07:002009-07-10T13:19:03.548-07:00I agree with Scipio
'The most earth shaking e...I agree with <a href="http://www.thereturnofscipio.com/?p=2391" rel="nofollow">Scipio</a><br /><br />'The most earth shaking event in secular world history was the creation of the United States of America. It was quite literally “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Nothing like it had ever come about. From the start she presented to the world a frightening thing, the possibility that the citizens of a nation might actually control the levers of power in a state. If she succeeded she would become a “dangerous nation” and a threat to tyranny around the world. Thus the hatred that European nations had for the new nation. None of them even believed that the US could possibly survive. It was a good thing for them that she did.<br /><br />'The United States did indeed become a dangerous nation—dangerous to tyrants, that is. Here is a list of nations freed by her—and some of these were freed more than once: France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Tunisia, Ukraine, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, Korea, Japan, Italy.<br /><br />'As a comparison, take a look at some of the players upon the stage of the world who are in the news today -- China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. How many nations have they freed? None. And why should they free any nations? They are not in the business of freedom. They are in the business of slavery.'<br /><br />*****<br /><br />Bottom line -- there are really only two kinds of countries in the world: those whose asses we saved, and those whose asses we kicked. And two kinds of people: those who know it, and those who deny it for whatever crazy reason.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1706884695499281662009-07-10T13:18:20.459-07:002009-07-10T13:18:20.459-07:00Van,
I nearly spilled my tea. Hopefully I’ll recov...Van,<br />I nearly spilled my tea. Hopefully I’ll recover.<br />But before I do, how does <i>he</i> know they weren’t there?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-81010979606331540112009-07-10T13:11:41.535-07:002009-07-10T13:11:41.535-07:00Warren,
So true. I think in part, though, most no...Warren,<br />So true. I think in part, though, most non-Western Christians don't have the problem of equating their political fundaments with their religious ones, whereas, in America, you find people saying things like, the only hope for the world is the United States, and such nonsensical claims.<br />This isn't to malign the United States--quite the contrary--but simply to point out that the Christian tradition has no absolute need for it, nor do its adherants. Obviously, it can serve its purposes, as can any country/political realm. <br />Indeed, the whole notion of "saving the world" is folly at its starting point. Reminds one of Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, actually, making the world safe for democracy, and taking democracy to the world, etc--folly indeed!lending treenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45375188937923057712009-07-10T13:08:41.564-07:002009-07-10T13:08:41.564-07:00Lending Tree:
I've written many times of ho...Lending Tree: <br /><br />I've written many times of how the traditionalists would not approve of my use of their ideas, any more than the vast majority of Christians approve of the traditionalists' use of theirs. For example, I wouldn't say that Balthasar would vomit at Guenon or Schuon -- he wasn't so brittle as that -- but he would unambiguously reject their interpretations of Christianity.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50400170567287427162009-07-10T13:03:11.100-07:002009-07-10T13:03:11.100-07:00>> it seems that Christianity is as much in ...>> it seems that Christianity is as much in need of salvation as its adherents<br /><br />This is very true, but only of Christianity in the modern West. The Faith is quite healthy in places like South America, Africa, China, etc. If the Spirit wills, I hope that someday they will come and re-convert us to Christianity (already starting to happen, actually).Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623170987747998335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-53110676243101187782009-07-10T12:52:58.536-07:002009-07-10T12:52:58.536-07:00Bob said: "The main point I would emphasize i...Bob said: "The main point I would emphasize is that all religions, in my view, must be reconsidered in light of the sort of cosmic evolutionary paradigm outlined in my book or by people like Ken Wilber. With regard to the East, this has been most ably and exhaustively enunciated by Sri Aurobindo, who had the benefit of a Cambridge education and integrated Vedanta with the modern world. In the West, virtually the identical task was achieved by Teilhard de Chardin, whose Phenomenon of Man situated Christianity within a cosmic evolutionary scheme."<br /><br />Suffice it to say, Sherrard would vomit at these notions. Check.Lending tree--no bailoutnoreply@blogger.com