I found this article here.
-------
The famous hymn of the church “And Can it Be?” contains a line that asks a very poignant question : “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?
This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there’s a way to give an indulgence for it.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.
God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.
Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.
We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Universal Morality: A Proposition - by Stefan Molyneux
January 26, 2007
Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled "Proving Libertarian Morality," which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for some people, all because of one single word.
I wrote this article in the first place because it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. If pressed, we appeal to "the greatest good for the greatest number," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or state that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, violence is wrong, government power corrupts and so on.
Without strict ethical reasoning, however, these statements remain fundamentally as baseless as "government is good," "social programs help the poor," and "unicorns are pretty." To really change the world, we must present more than just opinions, more than mere assertions. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically expands the principles they already accept. Newton didn’t change people’s minds about their everyday experiences of the tangible world – he just extended those everyday principles to the universal. The force that drops the apple also moves the moon.
The same is true when debating morality. Have you ever met anyone who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? Of course not. Most people already consider violence and theft to be morally wrong. However, as morality gets more abstract, it gets harder and harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that "theft is wrong," but who then instantly become baffled when I reply "therefore taxation is wrong." It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable, however, and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit]um,national hero?
Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.
For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:
Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled "Proving Libertarian Morality," which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for some people, all because of one single word.
I wrote this article in the first place because it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. If pressed, we appeal to "the greatest good for the greatest number," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or state that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, violence is wrong, government power corrupts and so on.
Without strict ethical reasoning, however, these statements remain fundamentally as baseless as "government is good," "social programs help the poor," and "unicorns are pretty." To really change the world, we must present more than just opinions, more than mere assertions. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically expands the principles they already accept. Newton didn’t change people’s minds about their everyday experiences of the tangible world – he just extended those everyday principles to the universal. The force that drops the apple also moves the moon.
The same is true when debating morality. Have you ever met anyone who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? Of course not. Most people already consider violence and theft to be morally wrong. However, as morality gets more abstract, it gets harder and harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that "theft is wrong," but who then instantly become baffled when I reply "therefore taxation is wrong." It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable, however, and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit]um,national hero?
Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.
For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:
Is Wal-Mart Good for America? - editorial
(Old Belgrade News editorial, June 11, 2004)
That was the headline on a recent New York Times story. Government officials and others continue to wring their hands regarding the impact of Wal-Mart and other box stores have on our community.
And they think government should do something about it.
However, to suggest that government should evaluate the legal activities of a business and implement policy designed to impact the free market against some businesses and in favor of others is not only incredibly arrogant, it violates the very foundation of our culture and society.
It is those who shop at Wal-Mart who will decide if it’s good for them or not. But those who would legislate peoples’ choice are worried about Wal-Mart’s power. Wal-Mart sells a lot of product, at a price that people are willing to pay.
Apparently, this makes Wal-Mart too powerful.
But what power does market share represent? I am sure that not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I’ve shopped at Wal-Mart myself, and without exception, everything in my shopping cart was put there by me.
Therefore, Wal-Mart has no power at all.
Consumers, exercising their power and right to choose, make choices that some people don’t like.
I have also shopped at another box store, Home Depot, and they have a lot of good products. But Home Depot does not have everything I want, so I went to Kenyon Noble, Zig’s, and other local building supply stores. All of these businesses offered me something I needed, and I entered into a voluntary exchange with each one.
I valued the products they offered more than my fist full of dollars. They valued my dollars more than the stuff on their shelves. So we entered into an informal contract known as a “purchase,” and exchanged the things we valued less for the things we valued more.
This transaction is not the business of government. It is no concern of mine that some government official doesn’t like my choice.
Another complaint with the box stores is that their prices supposedly put competing stores out of business.
Granting that this is true for a moment, is it any surprise that people shop price?
People also value convenience, selection, service, and their long-standing relationships with the places where they shop. They make choices based on what they value.
A clever business owner knows that he must offer something that people want. A clever business owner also knows that he is not entitled to his customers.
But those who know more than the rest of us regard this as a problem they must solve. The free market is not a problem to be solved, it is the solution to problems.
History is replete with government “solutions” increasing the problems they set out to fix. But the forces of the free market are invariably self-correcting and fluid.
And there are always winners and losers.
This is the way it should be, because no one is guaranteed success.
That was the headline on a recent New York Times story. Government officials and others continue to wring their hands regarding the impact of Wal-Mart and other box stores have on our community.
And they think government should do something about it.
However, to suggest that government should evaluate the legal activities of a business and implement policy designed to impact the free market against some businesses and in favor of others is not only incredibly arrogant, it violates the very foundation of our culture and society.
It is those who shop at Wal-Mart who will decide if it’s good for them or not. But those who would legislate peoples’ choice are worried about Wal-Mart’s power. Wal-Mart sells a lot of product, at a price that people are willing to pay.
Apparently, this makes Wal-Mart too powerful.
But what power does market share represent? I am sure that not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I’ve shopped at Wal-Mart myself, and without exception, everything in my shopping cart was put there by me.
Therefore, Wal-Mart has no power at all.
Consumers, exercising their power and right to choose, make choices that some people don’t like.
I have also shopped at another box store, Home Depot, and they have a lot of good products. But Home Depot does not have everything I want, so I went to Kenyon Noble, Zig’s, and other local building supply stores. All of these businesses offered me something I needed, and I entered into a voluntary exchange with each one.
I valued the products they offered more than my fist full of dollars. They valued my dollars more than the stuff on their shelves. So we entered into an informal contract known as a “purchase,” and exchanged the things we valued less for the things we valued more.
This transaction is not the business of government. It is no concern of mine that some government official doesn’t like my choice.
Another complaint with the box stores is that their prices supposedly put competing stores out of business.
Granting that this is true for a moment, is it any surprise that people shop price?
People also value convenience, selection, service, and their long-standing relationships with the places where they shop. They make choices based on what they value.
A clever business owner knows that he must offer something that people want. A clever business owner also knows that he is not entitled to his customers.
But those who know more than the rest of us regard this as a problem they must solve. The free market is not a problem to be solved, it is the solution to problems.
History is replete with government “solutions” increasing the problems they set out to fix. But the forces of the free market are invariably self-correcting and fluid.
And there are always winners and losers.
This is the way it should be, because no one is guaranteed success.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
How many apostles were there?
This may surprise some of you, but there were more than 12 apostles in the Bible. Yes of course, there were the original 12:
Why would Peter use the phrase "your apostles," rather than "the apostles?" We would like to suggest that there were apostles in every church, ministering to the local body as builders and encouragers. They might not even have been identified as such, but that was the role they played.
"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him." Mt. 10:2-4
Then Judas committed suicide and was replaced by Mathias (#13). Then according to the below verses, there were others:
Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas (#14) and Paul (#15) heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: `Men, why are you doing this?"'
Romans 16:7 "Greet Andranicus #16) and Junias (#17), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."But there's more!
Ph. 2:25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus (#18), my brother, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, who is also your messenger (apostolos), whom you sent to take care of my needs.
Ga. 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles — only James (#19), the Lord’s brother.
In addition, due to their prominent mention, we might suppose that others, unnamed, might have been apostles.
2Co. 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow-worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives (apostolos) of the churches and an honor to Christ.
2Pe. 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles (apostolos).
And Jesus Himself is identified as an Apostle:
"Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Heb 3:1
It seems that there is evidence that apostleship was (and is} a broader category than we might think. The foundational Twelve, mentioned (though not by name) in Revelation as the pillars of the faith, are unique in stature, chosen by Jesus Himself.
But clearly other men were also apostles, and they were leaders and builders within the church. Though not specifically identified as apostles, we could assume by their prominent mention that these might have been apostles. Notably,
But clearly other men were also apostles, and they were leaders and builders within the church. Though not specifically identified as apostles, we could assume by their prominent mention that these might have been apostles. Notably,
Apollos (1Co. 1:12);In addition, we might add
Priscilla and Aquila (Ro. 16:3);
Titus (Tit. 1:4);
Epaphras (Phile. 23);
Silas (1Pe. 5:12); and
Demetrius (3Jn. 12).
many, if not all, the people listed in Romans 16;So, it it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been many more apostles, named and unnamed, with various levels of authority, which means that we don’t necessarily have to conclude that there are no apostles today. In fact, we would assert that there are apostles today:
Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1Co. 16:17);
Tychicus (Col. 4:7) as well as many of the others listed in Galatians 4; and
Artemas (Tit. 3:12), as well as the others listed in Titus 3.
1 Cor 12:28-29 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
Eph 4:11-13 "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
The Prophetic Power Of Music - by Rick Joyner
Music is accurately called "the universal language." It is a communication media that can cross almost any geographical, ideological or racial barrier. Music has a unique ability to touch the heart, not just the mind. It is therefore a language of the spirit. Those who know this language and can use it effectively have been entrusted with a potent weapon in the battle for the hearts of men. Anointed music will be one of the church's biggest guns in the battle of the last days.
It is important that we comprehend just how powerful music is as a spiritual force. However, like "the force" in the Star Wars movies, it can be used for both good and evil. As witnessed during the 1960's and 70's, music can prophesy and sustain major sociological shifts. It can also fuel revivals and spiritual awakenings such as it did for the great Salvation Army movement, and the Welsh Revival. The Lord is raising up a host of warriors who are now fighting to seize this music battleground from the enemy and use it for the kingdom. These prophetic minstrels will arrest the world's attention, and communicate powerful truths through song that will help set the course for the last day ministry.
Artists and musicians usually foresee and foretell the social direction of civilization. Likewise, Christian artists and musicians often have the prophetic insight to be in touch with the trends and forces that are impacting the course of the world. Many Christian musicians are finding the courage to press beyond the present limits of their time to help prepare the way for a great spiritual advance.
Music has a significant place in both heaven and in hell. Music has been one of the great spiritual battlegrounds of this century and the battle is increasing in intensity. Many men and women in this ministry are now being given a divine strategy and wisdom for the battle. These are also being used to mobilize those who are willing to fight this battle, and it will be one of the most important spiritual battlefields over the next few years.
The Lord is now placing chosen vessels in strategic positions of visibility from which they will be able to prophesy and help steer this generation toward its ultimate destiny. The ultimate position of the prophetic minstrels is not to just copy the world's style of music and try to do it better while adding Christian lyrics, but to capture the music that the Father loves, which is played in heaven, and transfer it to the earth. This music will be loved by the young and the old alike. It will be so compelling that those of every other musical persuasion will be drawn to it, and every other style of music, from country to the classics, will be impacted by it.
Music was created as a media for expressing our worship to God. Worship can be motivated by either adoration or fear, but all worship is basically a focus of our attention upon the object of worship. It is this power to focus men that has made music such a force in directing even basic cultural changes. If we do not learn to utilize music properly; the enemy will continue to fill the vacuum and use it against us.
The Power Of Worship
Along with capturing the attention and arresting the hearts of men, the coming anointing on music will propel the church to higher realms of worship, which will cause the entire church to more fully abide in the Lord. When the church enters into the higher realms of worship, the result will be a focus and a power that releases extraordinary spiritual advances. The Lord is going to use music to help take all of the light we have been given and focus it like a laser. The more focused it is the more power it will have to cut through any barrier or darkness.
The vision and strategies that the Lord is now giving His church will be put into songs that will help to seal the hearts of the people with those visions. This will not be accomplished just with catchy tunes or lyrics, but with a powerful anointing that will come from the heart of the Lord to grip the innermost being of His people. The sound is important because the harmony of musical sound is meant to be concordant with the tone of the message the Holy Spirit is seeking to convey; but the true power is not in the sound, but the anointing.
This music that the Lord is about to release to His people will be of such power that it cannot be trusted to those who are stilt in the snare of idol, or self, worship. To receive the highest anointing, minstrels must he healed of the spiritual wounds and insecurities that cause them to fall into the idolatry of self-centeredness. This great power can be perverted, which would only result in a greater depravity and corruption of soul. For our own safety, major changes must be made in the way the church is now stewarding her music ministries before the Lord can give this greater anointing-for our own safety.
As a part of the preparation for this great battle, the Christian music ministry will come under a severe discipline from the Lord. We are now in a period of time that the Lord has given to allow all of those who are presently committed to Christian music to repent for allowing the ways of the world to take dominion over their ministries. Those who refuse to repent, or correct their course, will pay a terrible price. The most terrible discipline of all will be to miss being a part of the great thing that the Lord is about to do.
What Propels Us?
Isaiah 33:21 reads, "But there the Lord in His glory will be to us a place of broad rivers and streams, upon which no boat with oars, nor large ships shall pass." "Boats with oars" represent ministries that are propelled by human power. "Large ships" represent what we might call "mega ministries." Neither of these will be allowed when the River of Life begins to flow in these last days.
During the time in which Isaiah wrote, the only other form of propulsion except for oars was the wind. Wind often represents the Spirit in Scripture (see John 3:8). Oars were put on ships and boats because when the wind did not blow, or did not blow from the desired direction, they did not want to wait for it. That may be fine for commerce or warships, but for those who serve the Lord, when the Spirit is not moving, we must not move.
When we do move, we only want to move in the direction that the Spirit is moving. This requires great faith and patience. If we want to inherit the promises. of God; and not just waste our lives on what may be good works, but not His works, we must learn to sail with the wind and be completely dependent upon the Spirit to move us.
If our goal is to be big, or to have great influence, we can achieve that goal and completely miss the will of the Lord. "Large ships" can be useful on the ocean, but the River of Life is a river, not an ocean. In the day of the Lord's glory He will be a broad river, but not one on which "large ships" will be allowed. Even on the broadest rivers, large ships endanger all of the other vessels, and/or block their free movement.
We have been through a period in Western Christianity when we have perceived that the blessings of God upon a ministry were evidenced by size and fast growth. The Lord has blessed many of these, and blessed the church and the world through them as much as He could. However, the day is now upon us when being too large can disqualify us from being able to continue moving with the Lord in His present purposes.
Because the Lord truly desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, He does love numbers. However, there is a limit to the size where churches and ministries can maintain the maneuverability that will be required for following the Lord in the coming times. To have a hundred churches of a thousand people will be better than having a single church of a hundred thousand. We must learn to grow in ways that enable us to maintain our flexibility, or we will grow right out of the will of the Lord. Small “ships” and "boats" that are reproducing others are much to be preferred over large.
Anytime we use such general terms as "large" and "small" we must understand that this definition can change with times and places. What might be considered an excessively large church or ministry in one nation may be small in another. The key words here are "flexible" and "maneuverable." Can we navigate the course we have been given easily, and without endangering others?
What Is Success?
Ministries must maintain the prophetic sensitivity to perceive even the smallest change of direction by the Holy Spirit. The business aspects of being in a "successful" ministry and other such trappings can be such a consuming distraction that we lose the sensitivity that we must have to Holy Spirit. Now is the time to get rid of excess baggage, trim down, and learn not to measure success by how many records or books are being sold, but by how much closer our fellowship is with the Lord.
There is a temporary success available to those who try to build according to the ways of the world. The enemy continues to offer every anointed vessel the world if they will just bow to his ways. This is the way that many do gain the whole world, or the attention of the world, but it will always be short lived, and it will ultimately end in destruction.
This is not at all to imply that all large and visible ministries have grown this way. John the Baptist did not have all Israel coming out to him because of his promotions, neither did Jesus. Neither did the apostle Paul become known throughout the world by self-promotion. Some do gain such visibility in the world because they are anointed, but we do want to be sure that this is how we are doing it. As the Lord stated it, "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). Those who promote themselves, seeking quick success, God will not promote; but those who humble themselves and walk the way of patience will be anointed. "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper. time" (I Peter 5:6).
The music and the anointing that the Lord is about to share with those who can receive can have unprecedented commercial value, but He will not allow it to be prostituted. Therefore He is not going to trust us with it until we get the process right. The first step toward a repentance that will result in the Lord's endorsement is to return to our first love-worshiping Him. Because all music promotes worship in some form, if our hearts are not right we will pervert the power of this anointing. Our music must promote the worship of the Father, obedience to the Spirit, and the witness of Jesus.
The Church's Responsibility To Minstrels
The church has a responsibility to steward the anointing, and to protect the anointed. Christian musicians must be recognized as true ministers and be spiritually equipped and supported as such. When they go out to minister they should be sent out with prayer and sustained with continual intercession just as any other missionary would be sent out. There is a mighty army of music ministers who are about to given the prophetic power to capture the attention of a generation. A great opportunity is about to present itself to those who have the foresight and courage to recognize it, and steward it faithfully.
It is important that we comprehend just how powerful music is as a spiritual force. However, like "the force" in the Star Wars movies, it can be used for both good and evil. As witnessed during the 1960's and 70's, music can prophesy and sustain major sociological shifts. It can also fuel revivals and spiritual awakenings such as it did for the great Salvation Army movement, and the Welsh Revival. The Lord is raising up a host of warriors who are now fighting to seize this music battleground from the enemy and use it for the kingdom. These prophetic minstrels will arrest the world's attention, and communicate powerful truths through song that will help set the course for the last day ministry.
Artists and musicians usually foresee and foretell the social direction of civilization. Likewise, Christian artists and musicians often have the prophetic insight to be in touch with the trends and forces that are impacting the course of the world. Many Christian musicians are finding the courage to press beyond the present limits of their time to help prepare the way for a great spiritual advance.
Music has a significant place in both heaven and in hell. Music has been one of the great spiritual battlegrounds of this century and the battle is increasing in intensity. Many men and women in this ministry are now being given a divine strategy and wisdom for the battle. These are also being used to mobilize those who are willing to fight this battle, and it will be one of the most important spiritual battlefields over the next few years.
The Lord is now placing chosen vessels in strategic positions of visibility from which they will be able to prophesy and help steer this generation toward its ultimate destiny. The ultimate position of the prophetic minstrels is not to just copy the world's style of music and try to do it better while adding Christian lyrics, but to capture the music that the Father loves, which is played in heaven, and transfer it to the earth. This music will be loved by the young and the old alike. It will be so compelling that those of every other musical persuasion will be drawn to it, and every other style of music, from country to the classics, will be impacted by it.
Music was created as a media for expressing our worship to God. Worship can be motivated by either adoration or fear, but all worship is basically a focus of our attention upon the object of worship. It is this power to focus men that has made music such a force in directing even basic cultural changes. If we do not learn to utilize music properly; the enemy will continue to fill the vacuum and use it against us.
The Power Of Worship
Along with capturing the attention and arresting the hearts of men, the coming anointing on music will propel the church to higher realms of worship, which will cause the entire church to more fully abide in the Lord. When the church enters into the higher realms of worship, the result will be a focus and a power that releases extraordinary spiritual advances. The Lord is going to use music to help take all of the light we have been given and focus it like a laser. The more focused it is the more power it will have to cut through any barrier or darkness.
The vision and strategies that the Lord is now giving His church will be put into songs that will help to seal the hearts of the people with those visions. This will not be accomplished just with catchy tunes or lyrics, but with a powerful anointing that will come from the heart of the Lord to grip the innermost being of His people. The sound is important because the harmony of musical sound is meant to be concordant with the tone of the message the Holy Spirit is seeking to convey; but the true power is not in the sound, but the anointing.
This music that the Lord is about to release to His people will be of such power that it cannot be trusted to those who are stilt in the snare of idol, or self, worship. To receive the highest anointing, minstrels must he healed of the spiritual wounds and insecurities that cause them to fall into the idolatry of self-centeredness. This great power can be perverted, which would only result in a greater depravity and corruption of soul. For our own safety, major changes must be made in the way the church is now stewarding her music ministries before the Lord can give this greater anointing-for our own safety.
As a part of the preparation for this great battle, the Christian music ministry will come under a severe discipline from the Lord. We are now in a period of time that the Lord has given to allow all of those who are presently committed to Christian music to repent for allowing the ways of the world to take dominion over their ministries. Those who refuse to repent, or correct their course, will pay a terrible price. The most terrible discipline of all will be to miss being a part of the great thing that the Lord is about to do.
What Propels Us?
Isaiah 33:21 reads, "But there the Lord in His glory will be to us a place of broad rivers and streams, upon which no boat with oars, nor large ships shall pass." "Boats with oars" represent ministries that are propelled by human power. "Large ships" represent what we might call "mega ministries." Neither of these will be allowed when the River of Life begins to flow in these last days.
During the time in which Isaiah wrote, the only other form of propulsion except for oars was the wind. Wind often represents the Spirit in Scripture (see John 3:8). Oars were put on ships and boats because when the wind did not blow, or did not blow from the desired direction, they did not want to wait for it. That may be fine for commerce or warships, but for those who serve the Lord, when the Spirit is not moving, we must not move.
When we do move, we only want to move in the direction that the Spirit is moving. This requires great faith and patience. If we want to inherit the promises. of God; and not just waste our lives on what may be good works, but not His works, we must learn to sail with the wind and be completely dependent upon the Spirit to move us.
If our goal is to be big, or to have great influence, we can achieve that goal and completely miss the will of the Lord. "Large ships" can be useful on the ocean, but the River of Life is a river, not an ocean. In the day of the Lord's glory He will be a broad river, but not one on which "large ships" will be allowed. Even on the broadest rivers, large ships endanger all of the other vessels, and/or block their free movement.
We have been through a period in Western Christianity when we have perceived that the blessings of God upon a ministry were evidenced by size and fast growth. The Lord has blessed many of these, and blessed the church and the world through them as much as He could. However, the day is now upon us when being too large can disqualify us from being able to continue moving with the Lord in His present purposes.
Because the Lord truly desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, He does love numbers. However, there is a limit to the size where churches and ministries can maintain the maneuverability that will be required for following the Lord in the coming times. To have a hundred churches of a thousand people will be better than having a single church of a hundred thousand. We must learn to grow in ways that enable us to maintain our flexibility, or we will grow right out of the will of the Lord. Small “ships” and "boats" that are reproducing others are much to be preferred over large.
Anytime we use such general terms as "large" and "small" we must understand that this definition can change with times and places. What might be considered an excessively large church or ministry in one nation may be small in another. The key words here are "flexible" and "maneuverable." Can we navigate the course we have been given easily, and without endangering others?
What Is Success?
Ministries must maintain the prophetic sensitivity to perceive even the smallest change of direction by the Holy Spirit. The business aspects of being in a "successful" ministry and other such trappings can be such a consuming distraction that we lose the sensitivity that we must have to Holy Spirit. Now is the time to get rid of excess baggage, trim down, and learn not to measure success by how many records or books are being sold, but by how much closer our fellowship is with the Lord.
There is a temporary success available to those who try to build according to the ways of the world. The enemy continues to offer every anointed vessel the world if they will just bow to his ways. This is the way that many do gain the whole world, or the attention of the world, but it will always be short lived, and it will ultimately end in destruction.
This is not at all to imply that all large and visible ministries have grown this way. John the Baptist did not have all Israel coming out to him because of his promotions, neither did Jesus. Neither did the apostle Paul become known throughout the world by self-promotion. Some do gain such visibility in the world because they are anointed, but we do want to be sure that this is how we are doing it. As the Lord stated it, "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). Those who promote themselves, seeking quick success, God will not promote; but those who humble themselves and walk the way of patience will be anointed. "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper. time" (I Peter 5:6).
The music and the anointing that the Lord is about to share with those who can receive can have unprecedented commercial value, but He will not allow it to be prostituted. Therefore He is not going to trust us with it until we get the process right. The first step toward a repentance that will result in the Lord's endorsement is to return to our first love-worshiping Him. Because all music promotes worship in some form, if our hearts are not right we will pervert the power of this anointing. Our music must promote the worship of the Father, obedience to the Spirit, and the witness of Jesus.
The Church's Responsibility To Minstrels
The church has a responsibility to steward the anointing, and to protect the anointed. Christian musicians must be recognized as true ministers and be spiritually equipped and supported as such. When they go out to minister they should be sent out with prayer and sustained with continual intercession just as any other missionary would be sent out. There is a mighty army of music ministers who are about to given the prophetic power to capture the attention of a generation. A great opportunity is about to present itself to those who have the foresight and courage to recognize it, and steward it faithfully.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The Sad Road to Socialism - John Loeffler
Posted: 07/18/2008
The Sad
Road to Socialism
What
happens When Private Property is No Longer a Right
“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise
wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may
be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all
unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend
interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if .... ‘The state
considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to
strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ -- and if
the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that
after every government failure -- which, alas! is more than probable -- there
will be an equally inevitable revolution?”- Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June, 1850
It’s been more than 150 years since Frederic Bastiat wrote
his treatise, The Law, a small work, challenging the ravages of failing
socialism thrust upon France
In that unique pamphlet, Bastiat points out that when the
law of any country supports the moral belief systems of a people, defends the
rights of said people and their property, the law is perceived as being moral;
a defense against evil and those who flaunt it as being immoral. Payment of
taxes and civic obligations are perceived as a virtue and those who flout this
as criminals.
However, when the law becomes a source of plunder or pits
itself in opposition to the morals of the people, the people perceive the law
to be immoral and widely despise it. Indeed, in those times, flouting the law
is extolled as virtue.
Another book by contemporary author Hernando Desoto, The
Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere
Else, points out much the same thing, that the security of ownership of private
property guaranteed by law for the lower and middle classes has been the
essential ingredient resulting in the prosperity enjoyed by many western
countries. Without this security, where the state becomes an impediment to
commerce or property ownership, the people are forced to operate their
economies outside of law, which is once again perceived as evil, rather than a
force for good.
In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of
private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos,
economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction.
The Three
Steps of Socialism
Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from
its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since the citizens of our
fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we
should examine the territory through which these three sad steps lead. The core
result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.
The events described in this piece are a composite of the
ravages of socialism experienced in other countries. While each country does
experience all the events portrayed, all socialist countries follow the same
miserable path. The U.S.
We’re Off
to See the Wizard
One of the
great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their
politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust. Their first
experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social
programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving
some current crisis. Who could oppose that? “After all,” it will be argued,
“don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the
environment?”
The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible
from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik
revolutions to Socialist Parties (D) and (R) in the USA
Step One -
The Moral Argument: A Promise of Something for Nothing
The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain,
sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true. It
usually is but it sells to the public. To fund these allegedly moral programs,
the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the
public good.
Only a few wise and isolated voices warn that this baby
dragon they have just hatched will grow up to be a fire-breathing monster. But
not to fear, the wise voices are generally shouted down by the gentle
politicians, who fiercely demonize protestors as selfish “whabbledygots”
blocking the road to the perfect society. After all, how could something so
noble do anything bad to the country?
At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of
their “fair share.” In the U.S.
Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people
dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government
programs. Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell
their programs.
As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large
bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and
corruption, consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less
to the originally intended recipients. In order to control the chaos of a large
group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws
and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when
and who the givers and who the takers are. Now, the bureaucrats who administer
these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods. This
entrenches the program and assures its progression to Stage Two.
The Magic
Dragon Isn’t Cute Anymore
Somewhere
along the line, the gentle legislators discover that their baby dragon has
grown and it’s snarling at them a lot. It wants much food. They’re not
controlling it; it’s controlling them. However, in order to retain their
prestigious position, ever-increasing sources must be found to feed their
growing rapacious raptor.
The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into
the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being
soaked. Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden
taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more
and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct
taxation will allow.
This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of
the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and
faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant
rise of prices. It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential
path. Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.
Additional reptilian food sources called “revenue streams”
are created. More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required
to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards. Coupled
with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of
life more and more difficult to accomplish. Big businesses can absorb this but
the middle class ultimately buckles under the strain. The dragon is never
satisfied.
Stage 2:
Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens
At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians
aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent. This is where a silent war
between government and people erupts. It’s a blurry transition through
never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people
sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private
property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.
The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but,
one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and
getting no where. What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in
inflation. They have little left over and their life’s savings are being
destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive
dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the
politicians promise.
But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist the
dragon’s intentions are moral, even if its methods are not. As tax rates push
ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people
take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but
legally-sanctioned plunder. They do this at the same time they pretend the
gentle politicians are correct even though they know better.
The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and
sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate. They have
the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth.
Besides, the politicians are frequently among this class so they aren’t about
to let the dragon loose on themselves.
Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so
it fights the dragon by engaging in evasive maneuvers. Citizens cheat on taxes,
and seek to conceal taxable assets. Whenever possible transactions are shielded
from the ever-prying eyes of the hungry dragon.
As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle
class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter,
cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable
activity. Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get
away with.” Often times this underground economy has an organized crime
component vis a vis the former Soviet Union .
The second half of Stage Two of the war kicks into gear as
the dragon responds to the rising opposition and imposes a growing panoply of
laws and regulations with increasing fines, penalties and prison sentences. To
block the rampant flouting of law, the dragon wants to monitor everything the
citizens do in order to assure that plunder shall be paid, all in the name of
the rule of law, public order and morality. Civil rights break down, all in the
name of morality and public security.
Every once in a while the beleaguered middle class pleads
with the gentle politicians to fix the problem, unaware that it was the gentle
politicians, who created it all in the first place. But politicians are more
than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for
the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of
programs to supposedly fix the problem. In reality, they just delay the pain,
put the dragon on steroids and making the problem far worse.
The war is not without casualties. As it becomes ever more
difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes,
fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up
its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor. Small
business goes out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours life
savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as
their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides
inexorably down the slope into poverty.
There is a moral consequence as scandals erupt in the
politico and monied classes. Disrespect of law is common. In the free-for-all,
everyone is in it for himself and no one can afford to obey the law. Jails
swell with those unfortunate enough to get caught. As more complex laws are
steadily passed, finally all citizens become law-breakers.
This enables the dragon to seek pretexts for seizing the
assets of citizens. Businesses are nationalized. Wage and price controls are
instituted. Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose
the dragon to those who support it. Retirement plans are brought under the
“protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs.
Assets are seized on the mere allegation of criminal activity. Indeed, law
enforcement agencies encourage their members to plunder. They even make
arrangements with organized crime at times. The list of plunder-and-defend
possibilities is astounding.
In an effort to stem the hemorrhage, the middle class starts
throwing out the rascal politicians, only to elect another group of rascals.
This has little effect, since the dragon is now a self-existing monster that
doesn’t require gentle politicians. By this stage it’s clear: Small and middle
class businesses, ranchers and farmers all know who the enemy is: the dragon.
There is no illusion that the politicians are gentle or acting in their best interests.
As the security of property ownership declines, investments
flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest
where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct
confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable,
unobservable laws. Doing business is just too dangerous.
As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs
go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle
classes. Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is
the most abused. In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is
destroyed and the poor discover that there is no free lunch.
Stage
Three: Dies Irae: A Day of Wrath and Mourning
Ultimately the dragon cannot keep its promises. This last
stage is where events turn nasty and chaotic. It is a dangerous time. It is a
time no country should ever wish to reach.
Politicians are perceived as ravenous wolves. Blame and
finger-pointing frenzies among politicians erupt to deflect responsibility for
the chaos they have caused as they attempt to hold onto their privileged
status.
Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the
currency. Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit. If it
gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic
economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.
By this time there are several violently outraged groups of
people: the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the dragon
for their free programs, and once the dragon reneges on its promises to provide
these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free
lunch. This group can include pensioners who paid the dragon money but discover
the dragon spent it all before they retired.
The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten
to death to feed the dragon and his cronies. They have lost all their
livelihood and property. This is the point where many revolutions occur.
Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths;
sometimes they are bloody and violent. It is a dangerous time because the chaos
caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the
collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute
force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.
One of the great ironies of history is that those who
started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay
for the crimes and carnage they caused.
Finally the dragon dies.
Conclusion
No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events
described above, which is a composite of past histories. It can turn itself at
any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain
required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction. Few
societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all three
stages. And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the
pain becomes.
From currency, to energy to property rights, issues today
are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person
has little real comprehension of what is happening. Frequently Democrats and
Republicans blame each other when often they’re both responsible and fiddle
while Rome
Thus it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary
to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest. But as a ray of
hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves
most noble.
Requiring the silence of government - editorial
(Posting my old editorials from the Belgrade News, 10/1/04)
One of my favorite subjects is the Bill of Rights. The sheer genius of the men who wrote this document, the simple elegance of the language, and the timelessness of the concepts, combine to make it as fresh today as it was back when it was written.
Too many people do not understand the purpose or the scope of the Bill of Rights. One might wonder if some of them have even read it. Or perhaps the meaning and intent of the Founders has been so clouded by interpretations, court decisions, and Ill-conceived laws that the plain meaning of the words are now difficult to discern.
Even so, it remains our primary duty as citizens to understand our heritage, the limits of government, the liberty which descends from our Creator, and to hold government accountable when it oversteps its authority.
There is one primary premise that must be established in order to understand the intent of the Founders: the Constitution and Bill of Rights are about the limits of government, not about the limits of citizens. The Founders‚ greatest concern was government tyranny. They wanted to establish a government that was severely limited in its power, a government that was answerable to the people by being made up of citizens who faced elections, and a government that was decentralized in power, with each branch having clearly defined and highly limited authority.
Amendment 10 is clear about the limits of government: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This brief statement is simple: if it isn’t in the Constitution, government has no authority. Government is excluded. Government is silent. Authority rests with the people, apart from government.
Let’s look at the First Amendment in the context of constitutionally limited government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is quite clear that this amendment isn’t about citizens; it is about government. The first word is “Congress.” It is an amendment to tell us what government cannot do. Here is the crucial point, ignored by so many people: Constitutionally, government is required to have nothing to say about religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, or the right to petition the government. I’ll repeat. The First Amendment requires the government to be silent in these matters.
This means the Supreme Court does not have the authority to decide whether the Ten Commandments can appear on government buildings. It means that Congress cannot consider laws that limit speech, even “hate” speech, offensive speech, or unpopular speech. It means that government cannot give preferential tax treatment for churches who toe the line, or codify limits to the speech of pastors in the pulpit. It means that government cannot limit political speech before an election, regardless of who is funding it.
The Boy Scouts must be allowed to use a public facility to have their gatherings. A little girl in a public school is not Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, so she is free to write a book report about Jesus and keep a Bible on her desk.
Those who wish to demonstrate outside the Democratic National Convention in Boston cannot be herded into a fenced area several blocks away. These are all unconstitutional intrusions of government into areas in which it is constitutionally excluded from intervening.
Since this is an election season, we ought to seek out and vote for candidates who are committed to upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written, not as interpreted and reinterpreted by government. This is a great challenge, but we must make government yield to the document which created it. We can settle for no less.
Too many people do not understand the purpose or the scope of the Bill of Rights. One might wonder if some of them have even read it. Or perhaps the meaning and intent of the Founders has been so clouded by interpretations, court decisions, and Ill-conceived laws that the plain meaning of the words are now difficult to discern.
Even so, it remains our primary duty as citizens to understand our heritage, the limits of government, the liberty which descends from our Creator, and to hold government accountable when it oversteps its authority.
There is one primary premise that must be established in order to understand the intent of the Founders: the Constitution and Bill of Rights are about the limits of government, not about the limits of citizens. The Founders‚ greatest concern was government tyranny. They wanted to establish a government that was severely limited in its power, a government that was answerable to the people by being made up of citizens who faced elections, and a government that was decentralized in power, with each branch having clearly defined and highly limited authority.
Amendment 10 is clear about the limits of government: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This brief statement is simple: if it isn’t in the Constitution, government has no authority. Government is excluded. Government is silent. Authority rests with the people, apart from government.
Let’s look at the First Amendment in the context of constitutionally limited government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is quite clear that this amendment isn’t about citizens; it is about government. The first word is “Congress.” It is an amendment to tell us what government cannot do. Here is the crucial point, ignored by so many people: Constitutionally, government is required to have nothing to say about religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, or the right to petition the government. I’ll repeat. The First Amendment requires the government to be silent in these matters.
This means the Supreme Court does not have the authority to decide whether the Ten Commandments can appear on government buildings. It means that Congress cannot consider laws that limit speech, even “hate” speech, offensive speech, or unpopular speech. It means that government cannot give preferential tax treatment for churches who toe the line, or codify limits to the speech of pastors in the pulpit. It means that government cannot limit political speech before an election, regardless of who is funding it.
The Boy Scouts must be allowed to use a public facility to have their gatherings. A little girl in a public school is not Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, so she is free to write a book report about Jesus and keep a Bible on her desk.
Those who wish to demonstrate outside the Democratic National Convention in Boston cannot be herded into a fenced area several blocks away. These are all unconstitutional intrusions of government into areas in which it is constitutionally excluded from intervening.
Since this is an election season, we ought to seek out and vote for candidates who are committed to upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written, not as interpreted and reinterpreted by government. This is a great challenge, but we must make government yield to the document which created it. We can settle for no less.
Monday, August 6, 2012
I'm getting more and more respect for my pastor
Me: Maybe I'm wasting your time, since you never respond to me, but I thought this was an interesting survey of elder elder requirements.
B.S.: Rich, not wasting my time at all. I think this is a great list, and have challenged our eldership with this already. As far as not responding, I have been left not sure what to think. I don't want to offend you but I don't know what you want from this church. You say we needed to have prayer and worship nights, but when we have them you don't come. You talk about the value of corporate prayer, but on Sunday mornings you don't pray with us. I love your insight, but would also love to see you show some support for what we are doing, and take action on your own ideas. I am left constantly wondering what you do support in the church other than worship team, and sometimes I wonder about that. This church is very young and still has many faults, but is still being used by God for His glory in so many ways. What we need know more than anything else is those who have such experience to lead by example to give all our new people an example to follow. Just some thoughts, hopefully not a waste if your time.
Me: No offense taken. But questions? Yes.
So you're not sure about me. This saddens me, but I'm glad you said something. Do you think "support" is how often I participate in church happenings? Hmm, well, we have been at the church for more than two years. We aren't leaving in a huff because of some imagined deficiency. Our continuing presence should say something.
You know, I'm not the enemy. And I am not a "yes" man. You won't find me toeing the line. I'm not interested in agendas. I came to the church to serve in very specific ways, according to what I believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to me. I can almost guarantee that it won't look like what you think support should look like.
I've emailed you in the past because I'm hoping I have something of value to offer. That's it. It seems like you take this input very personally, like I'm attacking you somehow. I'm not. But if what I write happens to be at odds with your understanding, well, I guess that happens.
Really, I'm no one particularly special or gifted. So my opinion shouldn't count for so much anyway. You are not my hero, and I don't want to be yours. You have your own ideas about things, and I have always said that I am not trying to change your mind. And frankly, what I think about the church is not terribly important.
So, despite what you might think, I am with you. I doubt it will ever be in the way you expect. But I'd rather see us expand our vision and our stretch our preconceptions as a result.
May I point out that the prayer nights have been scheduled for Wednesdays, a night for which I have a long-standing prior commitment? Thursday night is worship practice, so no bible study. And I have been at nearly every worship time. And the worship rehearsal is still going on when the pre-service prayer is happening.
I hope my directness is not interpreted as hostility.
B.S.: Rich, really glad to hear your thoughts. First off we do value all that you guys are already doing at church. All I was trying to say is that I know you have so much more to offer, and have heard your heart to see our local expression of the body of Christ increase. With all our changes and transitions you and your wife are about the most seasoned people at church which does say a lot. I would really like to be able to direct people of like nature in your direction, but have yet to see that put on the table. Just to be clear I love all that you already put on the table, and everything you bring to this body, I just see more in you that is not being let out. Thanks for being a voice, it seems that itself its being lost, I fear for our future generations that seem so caught up in their own world they are missing all that is going on around them. I feel revival is rising up in the hearts and minds of this church and pray it didn't stop, but spreads. Continue to challenge me and speak out when you see wrong, or right. Thanks for all that you do.
Me: I think we all are trying to live according to the calling we have received. You are diligently doing that, and I am blessed by it. However, I am increasingly convinced that our means to accomplish this is changing and will not look like the way we have been doing it.These are "out of the box" times we are entering into.
So, I want to discern what God is doing now, and I don't want to simply cram it into my old paradigms. Maybe that's why I tend to be less than enthusiastic about "joining up" with the various church stuff. What is the Spirit saying to the church has become of paramount importance to me. I've wasted years if not decades trying to fit into the Church, but now my passion is to help the Church fit into the Spirit. I really feel called to be an agent of change according to what He wants changed.
I know you have your own ideas and experiences. My ideas are not better than yours. I really don't know what this will look like. But I've been a ways down the path before, and I know I want to go again, because I saw a little further down the path, and it's a good land, flowing with milk and honey.
That's why I'm at the church. Not to make things the way I want them, or to criticize or complain, but to walk according to the Spirit wherever He takes me. I'm hoping that a lot of others will want this too. And, I am happy to participate in how to make this happen. I don't quite know what you mean by people of my nature, but if you mean people who are hungry for the presence of God, by all means, I make myself available for you to use.
B.S.: Rich, not wasting my time at all. I think this is a great list, and have challenged our eldership with this already. As far as not responding, I have been left not sure what to think. I don't want to offend you but I don't know what you want from this church. You say we needed to have prayer and worship nights, but when we have them you don't come. You talk about the value of corporate prayer, but on Sunday mornings you don't pray with us. I love your insight, but would also love to see you show some support for what we are doing, and take action on your own ideas. I am left constantly wondering what you do support in the church other than worship team, and sometimes I wonder about that. This church is very young and still has many faults, but is still being used by God for His glory in so many ways. What we need know more than anything else is those who have such experience to lead by example to give all our new people an example to follow. Just some thoughts, hopefully not a waste if your time.
Me: No offense taken. But questions? Yes.
So you're not sure about me. This saddens me, but I'm glad you said something. Do you think "support" is how often I participate in church happenings? Hmm, well, we have been at the church for more than two years. We aren't leaving in a huff because of some imagined deficiency. Our continuing presence should say something.
You know, I'm not the enemy. And I am not a "yes" man. You won't find me toeing the line. I'm not interested in agendas. I came to the church to serve in very specific ways, according to what I believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to me. I can almost guarantee that it won't look like what you think support should look like.
I've emailed you in the past because I'm hoping I have something of value to offer. That's it. It seems like you take this input very personally, like I'm attacking you somehow. I'm not. But if what I write happens to be at odds with your understanding, well, I guess that happens.
Really, I'm no one particularly special or gifted. So my opinion shouldn't count for so much anyway. You are not my hero, and I don't want to be yours. You have your own ideas about things, and I have always said that I am not trying to change your mind. And frankly, what I think about the church is not terribly important.
So, despite what you might think, I am with you. I doubt it will ever be in the way you expect. But I'd rather see us expand our vision and our stretch our preconceptions as a result.
May I point out that the prayer nights have been scheduled for Wednesdays, a night for which I have a long-standing prior commitment? Thursday night is worship practice, so no bible study. And I have been at nearly every worship time. And the worship rehearsal is still going on when the pre-service prayer is happening.
I hope my directness is not interpreted as hostility.
B.S.: Rich, really glad to hear your thoughts. First off we do value all that you guys are already doing at church. All I was trying to say is that I know you have so much more to offer, and have heard your heart to see our local expression of the body of Christ increase. With all our changes and transitions you and your wife are about the most seasoned people at church which does say a lot. I would really like to be able to direct people of like nature in your direction, but have yet to see that put on the table. Just to be clear I love all that you already put on the table, and everything you bring to this body, I just see more in you that is not being let out. Thanks for being a voice, it seems that itself its being lost, I fear for our future generations that seem so caught up in their own world they are missing all that is going on around them. I feel revival is rising up in the hearts and minds of this church and pray it didn't stop, but spreads. Continue to challenge me and speak out when you see wrong, or right. Thanks for all that you do.
Me: I think we all are trying to live according to the calling we have received. You are diligently doing that, and I am blessed by it. However, I am increasingly convinced that our means to accomplish this is changing and will not look like the way we have been doing it.These are "out of the box" times we are entering into.
So, I want to discern what God is doing now, and I don't want to simply cram it into my old paradigms. Maybe that's why I tend to be less than enthusiastic about "joining up" with the various church stuff. What is the Spirit saying to the church has become of paramount importance to me. I've wasted years if not decades trying to fit into the Church, but now my passion is to help the Church fit into the Spirit. I really feel called to be an agent of change according to what He wants changed.
I know you have your own ideas and experiences. My ideas are not better than yours. I really don't know what this will look like. But I've been a ways down the path before, and I know I want to go again, because I saw a little further down the path, and it's a good land, flowing with milk and honey.
That's why I'm at the church. Not to make things the way I want them, or to criticize or complain, but to walk according to the Spirit wherever He takes me. I'm hoping that a lot of others will want this too. And, I am happy to participate in how to make this happen. I don't quite know what you mean by people of my nature, but if you mean people who are hungry for the presence of God, by all means, I make myself available for you to use.
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
Sourced from here. My responses are interlaced in bold.
------------
This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I’m going to point people here.
My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It’s not to ridicule or to best.
So, in the interest of common ground, let’s start here: I acknowledge the absurdity of all this debate.
It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.
Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.
Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of things. Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue.
So here goes:
1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:
- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together. I guess I can only say is that I don't believe him without seeing sources. At the very least, I suspect the situation is being misrepresented. In many states, a person can be fired for any reason. To single out gayness is hyperbolic.
- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed. What other countries do is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Not to mention that most of these countries are heavily Islam, which is ironic considering that the Left's favored religion is Islam.
- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations. Here is a link to the Family Research Council position papers on homosexuality. I could find no reference to any desire to criminalize homosexuality. Regarding "missionary work" abroad, this assertion is also false.
- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.
- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.
2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him. "Full member of society?" I though he just said this isn't about rights? More hyperbole. A lot of people cannot get married. Close relatives. People that are too young. People that are already married. Similarly, a lot of people are denied the privilege to drive, based on age, intoxication, prior driving record, etc. None of this has anything to do with being a full member of society.
Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back. Can the author name any law under consideration anywhere in the country that intends to make gay sex illegal? As noted above, gays are not second class citizens, and no one is trying to kill the author. This sounds like paranoia.
All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.” Even more hyperbole. Who is telling the author that he is intolerant, who is being bullied and where, who is kicking his ass?
But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.
3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both. This is a bunch of assertions that amount to a religious position. He's making statements about doctrine, when it simply means that other people have different doctrines. Indeed, traditional christian teaching says we are all sinners and that Christ died on the cross to wash away those sins. We don't get to stay the same. We have to change into what God wants us to be. So it is "impossible to do both," whatever the "both" happens to be when it disagrees with God.
If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder? All irrelevant. The only way he knows that Christians are living up to a standard of righteousness is because there IS a standard of righteousness. None of this, however, has anything to do with the issue at hand. All he succeeds in establishing is that being gay is no worse than drug addict Christians.
Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. The author seems intent on justifying his position with religious posturing. This statement is false:
Mt. 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mt. 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress...
Mt. 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean’. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Jn. 8:10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?” “No-one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. This also is false, but since he really doesn't believe the Bible anyway, except to the extent it is useful in order to further his agenda, there is little profit in quoting more Scripture. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the second favorite Scripture of the irreligious, right after "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and is never used except to bludgeon Christians. Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that: If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.
Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Race is not the same thing as who you like to boink. I mean really. That is what he's trying to do is to equate slavery with who he chooses to penetrate.
Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.
You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen. Except there is a massive effort to shut up and marginalize religious people in society today. So at least he gets one right.
Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.
Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. Hyperbole appears to be the author's default technique. Who is trying to harm you by disagreeing with you? How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?
Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? What has Chick-Fil-A done TO you, except express an opinion? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?
Well, it makes me a Chikin.
Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not. Anger, or rage? Because it appears to be rather perilous to disagree with the author.
But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.
Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?
That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.
So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.
This is all I have to say. If you’d like to debate the issue further, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to go around and around on the same points. If you’re just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time. If you haven’t taken the time to actually read this carefully and actually consider carefully what I’ve said, then I see no reason to waste further words.
The ball is in your court. Again, I urge you to do the right thing.
- Wayne Self
------------
This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I’m going to point people here.
My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It’s not to ridicule or to best.
So, in the interest of common ground, let’s start here: I acknowledge the absurdity of all this debate.
It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.
Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.
Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of things. Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue.
So here goes:
1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:
- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together. I guess I can only say is that I don't believe him without seeing sources. At the very least, I suspect the situation is being misrepresented. In many states, a person can be fired for any reason. To single out gayness is hyperbolic.
- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed. What other countries do is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Not to mention that most of these countries are heavily Islam, which is ironic considering that the Left's favored religion is Islam.
- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations. Here is a link to the Family Research Council position papers on homosexuality. I could find no reference to any desire to criminalize homosexuality. Regarding "missionary work" abroad, this assertion is also false.
- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.
- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.
2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him. "Full member of society?" I though he just said this isn't about rights? More hyperbole. A lot of people cannot get married. Close relatives. People that are too young. People that are already married. Similarly, a lot of people are denied the privilege to drive, based on age, intoxication, prior driving record, etc. None of this has anything to do with being a full member of society.
Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back. Can the author name any law under consideration anywhere in the country that intends to make gay sex illegal? As noted above, gays are not second class citizens, and no one is trying to kill the author. This sounds like paranoia.
All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.” Even more hyperbole. Who is telling the author that he is intolerant, who is being bullied and where, who is kicking his ass?
But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.
3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both. This is a bunch of assertions that amount to a religious position. He's making statements about doctrine, when it simply means that other people have different doctrines. Indeed, traditional christian teaching says we are all sinners and that Christ died on the cross to wash away those sins. We don't get to stay the same. We have to change into what God wants us to be. So it is "impossible to do both," whatever the "both" happens to be when it disagrees with God.
If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder? All irrelevant. The only way he knows that Christians are living up to a standard of righteousness is because there IS a standard of righteousness. None of this, however, has anything to do with the issue at hand. All he succeeds in establishing is that being gay is no worse than drug addict Christians.
Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. The author seems intent on justifying his position with religious posturing. This statement is false:
Mt. 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mt. 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress...
Mt. 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean’. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Jn. 8:10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?” “No-one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. This also is false, but since he really doesn't believe the Bible anyway, except to the extent it is useful in order to further his agenda, there is little profit in quoting more Scripture. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the second favorite Scripture of the irreligious, right after "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and is never used except to bludgeon Christians. Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that: If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.
Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Race is not the same thing as who you like to boink. I mean really. That is what he's trying to do is to equate slavery with who he chooses to penetrate.
Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.
You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen. Except there is a massive effort to shut up and marginalize religious people in society today. So at least he gets one right.
Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.
Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. Hyperbole appears to be the author's default technique. Who is trying to harm you by disagreeing with you? How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?
Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? What has Chick-Fil-A done TO you, except express an opinion? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?
Well, it makes me a Chikin.
Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not. Anger, or rage? Because it appears to be rather perilous to disagree with the author.
But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.
Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?
That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.
So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.
This is all I have to say. If you’d like to debate the issue further, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to go around and around on the same points. If you’re just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time. If you haven’t taken the time to actually read this carefully and actually consider carefully what I’ve said, then I see no reason to waste further words.
The ball is in your court. Again, I urge you to do the right thing.
- Wayne Self
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Chick-Fil-A is against equal rights - FB conversation
FB friend R.W. posted this:
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views." -William F Buckley
So true
R.W.: "The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate it's importance in our lives." -Ronald Reagan.
B.R.: Yes, amazing quotes and quite accurate, but this controversy isn't just about belief or opinion, it's also about drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens we claim to think are our equals. To ignore that vital element on either an intellectual or emotional level, is to be willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans.
R.W.: It just about belief and opinion.
R.W.: Should we make political contributions illegal ? Shall we just do away with the first amendment? Maybe only liberal companies should be allowed to contribute since only they know what's best for everyone. They are, after all, much mote enlightened than the rest of us. Companies like Ben and jerrys should be run out of all the red states since they don't share the same standards as the local community.
Me: It ain't about equality.
S.H.: As I posted on another friend's comment thread: "Everyone has the right to spend their money as they choose. The owner of Chick-fil-A has the right to give his money to organizations that oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage. Gays (and others) have the right to not eat in his restaurants if they don't like it. Others have the right to patronize his restaurants if they do like it. (And, judging from the reported success of "Support Chick-fil-A Day," it sounds like there's a lot of the latter.) None of those behaviors equate to "hate" in my opinion. They are all the choices of free people in a free market society. I'm getting really tired of hearing people brand as "hate" any behavior or expression of political opinion they don't happen to agree with.
"I *do* have a problem when government officials decide they're going to deliberately try to damage a business because of its owner's personal moral views, or the political causes he chooses to support."
As R.W. points out, liberals would be screaming from the housetops if conservative government officials were trying to penalize Ben and Jerry's because of their support of liberal causes, or Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos announced he was giving $2.5 million to *support* Washington's gay marriage law.
R.W.: Who says the NEXT generation has all the answers? Why is it if we disagree with our children WE are the ones who are ignorant ? Why don't you go ask a child of the sixties, who is now driving a BMW and ask them how their idyllic vision turned out for them.
R.W.: Let us March on Amazon! We can't tolerate his religious bigotry against people whoes traditions go back thousands of years. If the Republicans win the governorship, we can have him exercise his constitutional right to run them out of town. (a right Ben believes he has) Jeff Bezos has no right to drown the political system with Millions of dollars. (a right B.R.does Not believe a person has)
B.R.: Fair points, all. But who cares about liberal vs conservative? I don't. If we're really talking about people's rights, let's focus on the basic human rights that are being denied. The victims in this situation are not Chick-Fil-A or the people of Boston or anyone who feels punished by the tide turning on their ability to have a say in others' love lives. RELIGION IS NOT UNDER ATTACK. Millions of people can't love the way you can. How would you feel?
Me: it ain't about rights.
B.R.: What's it about, Rich?
Me: There is no right to marriage. It's a privilege granted by law, and the law defines those who qualify.
S.H.: B.R., I have to take issue with the statement "Millions of people can't love the way you can." They absolutely can. I do not care what people do in their bedrooms, or with whom. We're talking about the definition of marriage. If you actually research Washington's domestic partner law, for example, you'll find that it really is, as the nickname implies, "everything but marriage." And that's fine with me. I believe domestic partners *should* be able to share medical information, have inheritance rights, participate in survivors' benefits and retirement plans, etc.
But "everything but marriage" is not enough for the gay community. They are saying to the rest of society, in effect, "We insist that you agree with us that our relationships are equivalent to yours in every way and of equal value to society. And if you refuse to agree with us, you're a hater, and we will force you to concede the point through the court system, or any other means available to us."
But the relationships are *not* equivalent, in two very obvious ways: (1) they cannot produce society's next generation, and (2) they cannot provide both male and female role models to that next generation. We may not agree on the importance of those differences, but it cannot be denied that they exist. And, given that they exist, I believe it's appropriate for society as a whole - which has an obvious vested interest in the well-being of its next generation - to decide how important they are. A majority of Americans still believe that they are important enough that the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman should be granted special recognition.
R.W.: B.R., hey I got to help you out. You will not win any arguments talking in these sweeping Armageddon type terms. You say thinks like "Millions of people can't love the way you can" knowing full well that no one can regulate love. You bemoan someone "drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens" when you know that YOUR side ALSO gives millions. You say that anyone who does not agree with is "willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans" as if your opinion is the ONLY opinion, and even this arrogant statement that the "NEXT GENREATION OF AMERICANS" all must think like YOU do. Well maybe most of the theatre set in Seattle does, maybe the local college students do, but that is a far cry from including the entire next generation. I don't think I can jelp you with this other than to point it out. But I can help you with statements that you have made concerning peoples "RIGHTS" in which you have misspoke several times. (Not just in this thread but in others on the same topic.) Here is a link that will teach you free of charge about the constitution. It took place live last year but all the lessons are archived. When you get done with the Constitution 101, there is another more in depth course which is also free of charge:
Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the U.S. Constitution - Hillsdale College www.hillsdale.edu
B.R.: Your gifts are appreciated, but you must agree on one thing: stop viewing me as just a liberal or a lefty or a Dem or an Obama voter, and I'll stop viewing you as strictly conservative, republican, right wing, and a Mitt Romney voter. I'm tired of important debates coming down to accusations of the general specter of the other side. I want compromise between the two halves of America above all else. Though our words get heated and sloppy, I want us to try this out. You've changed my mind about a few things thus far, but I get the strong feeling you haven't reevaluated your ideas regardless of what I say. First question: is there anything Obama has done that you like or think is good?
R.W.: Actually I have answered that before. Obama, made the right call and invaded a foreign land and killed Osama. Yes it is the call I think any president would have made but still he made it. I heard that not everyone in his administration backed that call and I'm glad he didn't listen to them. He kept many of GW's plans in place concerining the protection of this country. I'm not always please HOW he is doing things, like broadcasting our withdrawl date from Iraq and Afghanistan but still. But economincally he has done nothing I can think of that would warrant praise. In fact, the very same things he ran on, and said about GW, he has done EXACTLY the same thing. I get tired of him SAYING one thing and doing another, but let me get back to what he has done that I like. I can't think of much. Maybe you can suggest some things and I can tell you if I agree. Healthcare, no. Stimulous, no. Making enemies of American business's like Wall street, big oil, banks, Pharmeceuticals, Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. He pits blacks against whites, Rich against poor. Man against Woman. He has divided this nation like no other. But I'm still trying to think what I like. Help me out. What do you think I SHOULD like?
B.R.: I'll continue the Obama chat soon, on the post I made on your wall. I read something just now about the Chick-Fil-A controversy that represents the way I feel about it, and is more eloquent and passionate than my attempts. It's also very fair and well-thought out. It also seeks to compromise, not pit anyone against anyone else. I really hope you and all the other people on this thread will read it:
The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw www.owldolatrous.com
Me: R.W., dammit, COMPLIMENT Obama to prove that you're fair!
Me: B.R., your link is the worst kind of misrepresentation, stereotypes, and strawmen, all dressed up in "let's all be reasonable" garb. Rather than analyze it on FB, I'll copy it to my blog and supply a link later.
R.W.: The title alone is offensive
Me: I didn't take a lot of time, but here it is:
Mountain Man Trails: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
B.R.: Thanks Rich, I genuinely accept and appreciate the falsities that you've pointed out, and I'll bring them into my collective understanding of this issue. It saddens me that neither of you have seemed to grasp or welcome ANY of this man's perspective into your heart, however - or if you have, you may be keeping it to yourself for some unknown reason. I guess I'm just sick of the desire to win arguments being more important than the desire to enlarge one's personal world. Nevertheless, be assured that your words have changed me, and helped me create a more accurate and relevant case for what I believe.
B.R.: And I'm not asking R.W. to compliment Obama to prove that he's fair. I'm asking him to search for things he likes about the side he hates, because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers. Thankfully, he does like at least a few things.
Me: No haters here, sorry. What we are talking about is opposing concepts. Ideas, not personalities. There is no obligation for anyone to point out nice things about ideas that are disagreed with. No kumbaya is required. This is nothing other than a simple debate. People have opinions, and debate them.
I systematically evaluated this man's perspective, and found it to be flawed at its most basic level. He initially made some good points, but then essentially backtracked on them later on. So, I respectfully responded to those things. In my opinion, he's wrong. Period. No hate, no sadness, no malice. His IDEAS are flawed. That's it.
Again, this is a debate about ideas. Bad ideas do not expand perspective. Bad ideas need to be rejected.
B.R.: Can you tell me which points he made that you thought were good? I prefer conversation to debate, and conversation requires both insistence and concession.
Me: With the unfortunate exception of a couple of weeks ago, B.R., I generally find that you are willing to debate ideas. Most people who lean Left that I have conversed with have a veneer of tolerance and civility that quickly disappears once someone disagrees with them. That's why I tend to persist in engaging you.
Me: "My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue..." I agree, but it turns out to be only so much noise.
B.R.: Here's the thing: a debate has an outcome. There is a winner or loser to a debate, or to the contest that the debate is part of. That's why there's no concessions or compromise in a debate. We don't have an outcome on Facebook, we simply talk, and post, and talk, and post. This is a better forum for conversation than it is for debate. And for us to continue talking about this, it'd be great to know that a) you guys want to know where I stand just like I want to know where you stand, and b) my words are actually affecting you, rather than just slamming against a wall and falling into nothing. Does that makes sense?
Me: It's not my job to affirm you, Ben. For all you know, it might indeed fall on deaf ears. Or maybe it revolutionized me. Doesn't matter.
I am not referring to a debate as in an official event that is judged, with an outcome pronounced. The debate I refer to is the exchange of ideas where concepts are developed or rejected.
Lastly, you are not as guilty of this, but frequently what is presented to me is simply regurgitated nonsense that someone read somewhere. For example, the article you linked to where the author writes, "Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind." I see this kind of assertion made frequently. I would call things like this "liberal's urban legends," because they so frequently resurface.
But it is the Left that accuses people like me of not thinking. It's irritating, and that's why I oppose it wherever I find it.
B.R.: Well, I'm not accusing you of not thinking; I'm accusing you of not changing.
Me: So if I think but then do not change, is it possible that my thought process led me to the conclusion that I should not change?
B.R.: For that to happen 100% of the time would build a pretty good case for rigidity of opinion. Why should we debate if neither of us is going to evolve? I don't mean you need to become liberal or I become conservative. But it's like World War I out here - there's liberals on one edge, and conservatives the other, and a giant chasm of no-man's-land between, where neither party wants to concede or compromise or admit that the other one has changed their point of view. Do you like how polarized our nation is? Does that make you happy, or do you wish it was different?
R.W.: In order to affect us Ben, you have to use less sweeping language. (for me anyway.) Things like "because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers." That statement can only come from someone who doesn't know that much about our founding fathers who often bitterly opposed each other. To think, if I don't say anything nice about someone, I am disrespecting the very men who founded this nation seems to me absurd.
B.R.: I don't need personal affirmation that my opinion is correct or better than anything. But if I'm going to keep talking to you guys, I'd like to know if and when I'm actually affecting your point of view, even if it's rare. Deal?
R.W.: sure.
Me: Polarization is a good thing. Uniformity would indicate lack of independent thought.
Me: When I was younger I was extremely Left. I have changed considerably, to conservative for a number of years, and now I'm leaning libertarian these days. So I'm moving farther to personal liberty, and farther from big government control.
So, if you're trying to suggest that a person who is persuaded of a particular position is inflexible, you are barking up the wrong tree.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views." -William F Buckley
So true
R.W.: "The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate it's importance in our lives." -Ronald Reagan.
B.R.: Yes, amazing quotes and quite accurate, but this controversy isn't just about belief or opinion, it's also about drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens we claim to think are our equals. To ignore that vital element on either an intellectual or emotional level, is to be willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans.
R.W.: It just about belief and opinion.
R.W.: Should we make political contributions illegal ? Shall we just do away with the first amendment? Maybe only liberal companies should be allowed to contribute since only they know what's best for everyone. They are, after all, much mote enlightened than the rest of us. Companies like Ben and jerrys should be run out of all the red states since they don't share the same standards as the local community.
Me: It ain't about equality.
S.H.: As I posted on another friend's comment thread: "Everyone has the right to spend their money as they choose. The owner of Chick-fil-A has the right to give his money to organizations that oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage. Gays (and others) have the right to not eat in his restaurants if they don't like it. Others have the right to patronize his restaurants if they do like it. (And, judging from the reported success of "Support Chick-fil-A Day," it sounds like there's a lot of the latter.) None of those behaviors equate to "hate" in my opinion. They are all the choices of free people in a free market society. I'm getting really tired of hearing people brand as "hate" any behavior or expression of political opinion they don't happen to agree with.
"I *do* have a problem when government officials decide they're going to deliberately try to damage a business because of its owner's personal moral views, or the political causes he chooses to support."
As R.W. points out, liberals would be screaming from the housetops if conservative government officials were trying to penalize Ben and Jerry's because of their support of liberal causes, or Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos announced he was giving $2.5 million to *support* Washington's gay marriage law.
R.W.: Who says the NEXT generation has all the answers? Why is it if we disagree with our children WE are the ones who are ignorant ? Why don't you go ask a child of the sixties, who is now driving a BMW and ask them how their idyllic vision turned out for them.
R.W.: Let us March on Amazon! We can't tolerate his religious bigotry against people whoes traditions go back thousands of years. If the Republicans win the governorship, we can have him exercise his constitutional right to run them out of town. (a right Ben believes he has) Jeff Bezos has no right to drown the political system with Millions of dollars. (a right B.R.does Not believe a person has)
B.R.: Fair points, all. But who cares about liberal vs conservative? I don't. If we're really talking about people's rights, let's focus on the basic human rights that are being denied. The victims in this situation are not Chick-Fil-A or the people of Boston or anyone who feels punished by the tide turning on their ability to have a say in others' love lives. RELIGION IS NOT UNDER ATTACK. Millions of people can't love the way you can. How would you feel?
Me: it ain't about rights.
B.R.: What's it about, Rich?
Me: There is no right to marriage. It's a privilege granted by law, and the law defines those who qualify.
S.H.: B.R., I have to take issue with the statement "Millions of people can't love the way you can." They absolutely can. I do not care what people do in their bedrooms, or with whom. We're talking about the definition of marriage. If you actually research Washington's domestic partner law, for example, you'll find that it really is, as the nickname implies, "everything but marriage." And that's fine with me. I believe domestic partners *should* be able to share medical information, have inheritance rights, participate in survivors' benefits and retirement plans, etc.
But "everything but marriage" is not enough for the gay community. They are saying to the rest of society, in effect, "We insist that you agree with us that our relationships are equivalent to yours in every way and of equal value to society. And if you refuse to agree with us, you're a hater, and we will force you to concede the point through the court system, or any other means available to us."
But the relationships are *not* equivalent, in two very obvious ways: (1) they cannot produce society's next generation, and (2) they cannot provide both male and female role models to that next generation. We may not agree on the importance of those differences, but it cannot be denied that they exist. And, given that they exist, I believe it's appropriate for society as a whole - which has an obvious vested interest in the well-being of its next generation - to decide how important they are. A majority of Americans still believe that they are important enough that the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman should be granted special recognition.
R.W.: B.R., hey I got to help you out. You will not win any arguments talking in these sweeping Armageddon type terms. You say thinks like "Millions of people can't love the way you can" knowing full well that no one can regulate love. You bemoan someone "drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens" when you know that YOUR side ALSO gives millions. You say that anyone who does not agree with is "willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans" as if your opinion is the ONLY opinion, and even this arrogant statement that the "NEXT GENREATION OF AMERICANS" all must think like YOU do. Well maybe most of the theatre set in Seattle does, maybe the local college students do, but that is a far cry from including the entire next generation. I don't think I can jelp you with this other than to point it out. But I can help you with statements that you have made concerning peoples "RIGHTS" in which you have misspoke several times. (Not just in this thread but in others on the same topic.) Here is a link that will teach you free of charge about the constitution. It took place live last year but all the lessons are archived. When you get done with the Constitution 101, there is another more in depth course which is also free of charge:
Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the U.S. Constitution - Hillsdale College www.hillsdale.edu
B.R.: Your gifts are appreciated, but you must agree on one thing: stop viewing me as just a liberal or a lefty or a Dem or an Obama voter, and I'll stop viewing you as strictly conservative, republican, right wing, and a Mitt Romney voter. I'm tired of important debates coming down to accusations of the general specter of the other side. I want compromise between the two halves of America above all else. Though our words get heated and sloppy, I want us to try this out. You've changed my mind about a few things thus far, but I get the strong feeling you haven't reevaluated your ideas regardless of what I say. First question: is there anything Obama has done that you like or think is good?
R.W.: Actually I have answered that before. Obama, made the right call and invaded a foreign land and killed Osama. Yes it is the call I think any president would have made but still he made it. I heard that not everyone in his administration backed that call and I'm glad he didn't listen to them. He kept many of GW's plans in place concerining the protection of this country. I'm not always please HOW he is doing things, like broadcasting our withdrawl date from Iraq and Afghanistan but still. But economincally he has done nothing I can think of that would warrant praise. In fact, the very same things he ran on, and said about GW, he has done EXACTLY the same thing. I get tired of him SAYING one thing and doing another, but let me get back to what he has done that I like. I can't think of much. Maybe you can suggest some things and I can tell you if I agree. Healthcare, no. Stimulous, no. Making enemies of American business's like Wall street, big oil, banks, Pharmeceuticals, Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. He pits blacks against whites, Rich against poor. Man against Woman. He has divided this nation like no other. But I'm still trying to think what I like. Help me out. What do you think I SHOULD like?
B.R.: I'll continue the Obama chat soon, on the post I made on your wall. I read something just now about the Chick-Fil-A controversy that represents the way I feel about it, and is more eloquent and passionate than my attempts. It's also very fair and well-thought out. It also seeks to compromise, not pit anyone against anyone else. I really hope you and all the other people on this thread will read it:
The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw www.owldolatrous.com
Me: R.W., dammit, COMPLIMENT Obama to prove that you're fair!
Me: B.R., your link is the worst kind of misrepresentation, stereotypes, and strawmen, all dressed up in "let's all be reasonable" garb. Rather than analyze it on FB, I'll copy it to my blog and supply a link later.
R.W.: The title alone is offensive
Me: I didn't take a lot of time, but here it is:
Mountain Man Trails: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
B.R.: Thanks Rich, I genuinely accept and appreciate the falsities that you've pointed out, and I'll bring them into my collective understanding of this issue. It saddens me that neither of you have seemed to grasp or welcome ANY of this man's perspective into your heart, however - or if you have, you may be keeping it to yourself for some unknown reason. I guess I'm just sick of the desire to win arguments being more important than the desire to enlarge one's personal world. Nevertheless, be assured that your words have changed me, and helped me create a more accurate and relevant case for what I believe.
B.R.: And I'm not asking R.W. to compliment Obama to prove that he's fair. I'm asking him to search for things he likes about the side he hates, because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers. Thankfully, he does like at least a few things.
Me: No haters here, sorry. What we are talking about is opposing concepts. Ideas, not personalities. There is no obligation for anyone to point out nice things about ideas that are disagreed with. No kumbaya is required. This is nothing other than a simple debate. People have opinions, and debate them.
I systematically evaluated this man's perspective, and found it to be flawed at its most basic level. He initially made some good points, but then essentially backtracked on them later on. So, I respectfully responded to those things. In my opinion, he's wrong. Period. No hate, no sadness, no malice. His IDEAS are flawed. That's it.
Again, this is a debate about ideas. Bad ideas do not expand perspective. Bad ideas need to be rejected.
B.R.: Can you tell me which points he made that you thought were good? I prefer conversation to debate, and conversation requires both insistence and concession.
Me: With the unfortunate exception of a couple of weeks ago, B.R., I generally find that you are willing to debate ideas. Most people who lean Left that I have conversed with have a veneer of tolerance and civility that quickly disappears once someone disagrees with them. That's why I tend to persist in engaging you.
Me: "My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue..." I agree, but it turns out to be only so much noise.
B.R.: Here's the thing: a debate has an outcome. There is a winner or loser to a debate, or to the contest that the debate is part of. That's why there's no concessions or compromise in a debate. We don't have an outcome on Facebook, we simply talk, and post, and talk, and post. This is a better forum for conversation than it is for debate. And for us to continue talking about this, it'd be great to know that a) you guys want to know where I stand just like I want to know where you stand, and b) my words are actually affecting you, rather than just slamming against a wall and falling into nothing. Does that makes sense?
Me: It's not my job to affirm you, Ben. For all you know, it might indeed fall on deaf ears. Or maybe it revolutionized me. Doesn't matter.
I am not referring to a debate as in an official event that is judged, with an outcome pronounced. The debate I refer to is the exchange of ideas where concepts are developed or rejected.
Lastly, you are not as guilty of this, but frequently what is presented to me is simply regurgitated nonsense that someone read somewhere. For example, the article you linked to where the author writes, "Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind." I see this kind of assertion made frequently. I would call things like this "liberal's urban legends," because they so frequently resurface.
But it is the Left that accuses people like me of not thinking. It's irritating, and that's why I oppose it wherever I find it.
B.R.: Well, I'm not accusing you of not thinking; I'm accusing you of not changing.
Me: So if I think but then do not change, is it possible that my thought process led me to the conclusion that I should not change?
B.R.: For that to happen 100% of the time would build a pretty good case for rigidity of opinion. Why should we debate if neither of us is going to evolve? I don't mean you need to become liberal or I become conservative. But it's like World War I out here - there's liberals on one edge, and conservatives the other, and a giant chasm of no-man's-land between, where neither party wants to concede or compromise or admit that the other one has changed their point of view. Do you like how polarized our nation is? Does that make you happy, or do you wish it was different?
R.W.: In order to affect us Ben, you have to use less sweeping language. (for me anyway.) Things like "because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers." That statement can only come from someone who doesn't know that much about our founding fathers who often bitterly opposed each other. To think, if I don't say anything nice about someone, I am disrespecting the very men who founded this nation seems to me absurd.
B.R.: I don't need personal affirmation that my opinion is correct or better than anything. But if I'm going to keep talking to you guys, I'd like to know if and when I'm actually affecting your point of view, even if it's rare. Deal?
R.W.: sure.
Me: Polarization is a good thing. Uniformity would indicate lack of independent thought.
Me: When I was younger I was extremely Left. I have changed considerably, to conservative for a number of years, and now I'm leaning libertarian these days. So I'm moving farther to personal liberty, and farther from big government control.
So, if you're trying to suggest that a person who is persuaded of a particular position is inflexible, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)