Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Weighing in on Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson

Phil Robertson quoted St. Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Paul’s list of the unrighteous includes the Greek word for men bedding men.

I will confess
that though I have spent my entire adult life studying the Scriptures, including a seminary degree, I still do not know what Paul was saying here. But because Phil has shoved the Scripture out there into the public eye, I will share some random thoughts explaining my confusion.

1. I always  keep  the main thing the main thing. The main thing for Paul is  Soteria (deliverance from the molestation of enemies) by Chiros (Yahweh’s loving kindness); and, above all not by Nomas (The Law--a working principle that regulates conduct).  Paul's place in Christianity, not to mention in human history, is  his contribution that Soteria is not based on right behavior but by the acceptance of  Yahweh's gift --the atonement. 

2. The second problem I have is with the statement  "shall not inherit the kingdom." First a quick background about the importance of kingdom of God: In Genesis 1, Yahweh creates humankind in His own image and gives him dominion over everything. But a Nahcash (a fallen Eloheem, a spiritual being), takes the dominion away, becoming the god of this world–Google ‘god of this world.’  In Matt 4:7 the nahcash (New Testament diabolos) even offers to give dominion over the whole world to Jesus if Jesus will worship him instead of Yahweh. Note, Jesus does not deny the nahcash has that authority, even acknowledging a nahcash as archon ("ruler of this world." John 12:31.)

4. Thus Jesus declared His main purpose coming here is to establish the Basileia (the kingdom of Heaven, the rulership of God, Sovereignty of God which includes the realm over which the reign is exercised) over the nacash/diabolos Hebrew/Greek).

5. Jesus cast out the daimonion (divine beings inferior to Yahweh), saying that to do so is the visible evidence that the sovereignty of Yahweh (Kingdom of God) was now being established (Matt 12:28) over the sovereignty of the nachash.

So where does all this discussion take me about the Phil Robertson uproar?  From my understanding of the Scriptures and my own personal experience,  Jesus’ casting out the daimonion  of the nahcash is the visible evidence of establishing  the Kingdom of God.  Thus the evidence that the Kingdom or Sovereignty of God is being established is a demonstrable, empirical activity, not some "I wonder if " pie in the sky out there in the future. So, because I know some well known homosexuals who can demonstrate this power, then where does that leave them when it comes to not inheriting the kingdom of God?

Above all, I just wish high profile people who can grab the microphone and suck out all the oxygen, would stay away from Scriptures which have never been settled by Biblical scholars, in this case Romans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1Tim 1:10, obviously problematical in that they contradict St. Paul’s major raison d’etre.

Doing so makes it hard on those of us who try to keep the main thing the main thing


guy faulkes said...

Blogger, with all due respect,Phil Robertson may have been keeping the main thing the main thing as per his beliefs. He talks like he is doing just that.

However, I also know some homosexuals that I consider good Christians (as they profess to be). This is confusing, indeed, if you believe this section of the Bible is to be taken literally.

I do not have a seminary degree, but I have taken classes. I have also studied other religions. My personal opinion is that the majority of them are trying to say the same thing. The problem is that all of them consider themselves to be the true and only word of God.

They were all written by man, who is imperfect. I know that the premise of God not allowing any mistakes in the Bible or any other Holy Book being used is s corner stone of most religions. The problem with this premise, in my opinion, is that it runs contrary to the premise that we have free will. Again, confusion.

While I am impressed with your knowledge of the meanings and history of the Bible, it is still a work of man. While your interpretation of what the Bible says is probably spot on, man (Paul, for instance) may have made mistakes back then.

This leads me to my belief that everyone has an individual relationship with God that does not necessarily need organized religion for support, other than organized religion gives you data to help you in forming your beliefs. As with any data, it has to be studied and thoughtfully considered in order to decide on it relevance.

In my mind, this individual relationship with the All Mighty is the main thing. As I said once before, the main thing is different for everyone.

Not having a relationship at all is, to me, the ultimate tragedy. An individual's relationship does not have to agree with mine, nor does mine have to agree with his, but one not having a relationship makes me pity him. I know this is not logical, but religion is a matter of faith, not logic.

I seriously doubt that either Robertson or you would agree with me. The difference with me and a lot of other people (including atheists) is that this disagreement is perfectly fine with me. I do not require their approval nor do I think they need mine.

It is my opinion that the controversy over Robertson's comments is not a religious factor, but one of free speech. He has as much right to his opinion and to voice it as does anyone.

Blogger said...

Guy, while you are thinking about how the Bible was the work of humans you might want to meditate on the fact that scholars believe that the 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 39 authors over a period of 1,500 years. And if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, you would be awed that they all stayed on message from Genesis through Revelation. Try to wrap your mind around that thought. The Koran on the other hand I believe was the work of one man as perhaps were the teachings of Buddha and Lao Tzu and Confucius.

guy faulkes said...

Excellent points, Blogger. Let me make some others.

Every religious work you mention has been translated into various languages and dialects. Every time a translation or "modernization" takes place subtle changes occur.

You can test this for yourself as we did when we discussed this in a religion class. Get ten or fifteen people together in one room. Go into another room with one person, whisper a short paragraph to him and tell him to repeat it to the nest person to come into the room, and then go into a third room after telling them to do the same. As each person comes into the room, repeats the paragraph, and leaves the room before the next person comes in, the paragraph gets changed slightly. When the last person goes into the third room, have him repeat the paragraph to the group. The difference in vocabulary and sometimes meaning is astounding in some cases.

However, this does not address the various authors of the books of the Bible being in agreement. At first glance this is a telling argument. However, several books were left out of the Bible. I beleive this was called The Apocrypha. If I am correct these books were removed by the Catholic Church, but other entities may have also had a hand in choosing what is contained in the accepted versions of the Bible today.

Books that differ in content and ideology were not included int the present Bible. I would refer you to the Gospel of Mary as an example. If the books of the Bible were indeed censored as to content, then the argument of divine purpose to the self supporting content of the Bible is somewhat lessened because men decided which to keep and which to discard. Was God behind this editing? Maybe or maybe not.

Add to this the fact that all denominations or religions have preachers, priests, rabbis, imam, or shaman telling you his opinion is better than yours,

As with anything else, the more information you have, the better decision you can make in developing your relationship with the Almighty. In my case, the more I studied and was convinced that if you read between the lines of what was included and what was left out; and the other religious texts, you will come to the realization there is a Supreme Being and that it does not really matter what organized religion says about him. You need YOUR RELATIONSHIP to make sense to you, no matter what others have to say about it. They are not God. They are no closer to God than you are.

I would venture to say the last three sentences are about as libertarian as you can get. I also think this discussion is going to be fun.

The problems with religion do not come from the Almighty. They come form men wanting to control other men, sometimes with the best of intent.

Celtive said...

I agree with guy on two points in his comments. 1) That this discussion (though somewhat lapsed) will be fun,and 2) that Phil Robertson's statements are relevant to freedom of speech, particularly when he was ASKED the question, and he provided his answer..although it wasn't (gasp) the politically correct one.

With regards to guy's remarks concerning the books of the Bible & it's translation. As a practicing Catholic I would like to answer & maybe correct a couple things. The Apocrypha of which you speak are actually INCLUDED in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, and have always been considered part of the Catholic Canon. These seven additional books, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, I & II Machabees & parts of Esther & Daniel, were part of the Hebrew Bible, when it was translated into the Greek version for the Hellenist Jews. It being called the Septaugint. I make this correction to address the fact that the formation of the Biblical Canon speaks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to His Disciples & to assist them in spreading the gospel. In this way, the formation of the New Testament in complement to the Old Testament, was accomplished through the EXPERIENCE of the Christian communities in relationship to the Risen Christ & the practice of their Christian values in a Pagan world. The setting aside of the myriad of other writings of the so called Gnostic gospels, by the different Church Councils, was truly nothing more than what the Church Fathers brought from their own Communities & what was the focal resonance constant in all of them. This was the foundational aspect of the four gospels.

In regarding the translations of the parchments, documents, writings…their is good evidence that many translations & copying were done with great care. St. Jerome took great care in translating the older Hebrew & Greek manuscripts into Latin. Later, as the Catholic Church helped fill the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, the copying of manuscripts, both religious & secular, were left to monks & scribes. One bit of evidence of the importance of this task is left by one scholar Cassiodorus, who was in service to kings in the sixth century. He says, "lest in performing this great service copyists introduce faulty words with letters changed, or lest an uttered corrector fail to know how to correct mistakes, let them read the works of ANCIENT authors on orthography." My emphasis, so as to point to the fact that such was the level of importance to these endeavors, that it was not something new.

Blogger said...

Celtive, I am very grateful to your scholarly contribution to the blog. Such contributions keep us elevated and are very important. At the same time, I have to get back to Guy who is trying to pull me off message. My original post is not about the Bible. It is about the damage done by high profile people who muddle the message. Guy challenged me by saying that I do not know what the unmuddled message is. Then he tries to befuddle me with an off-message about the Bible itself. He and I go around and around like this. I once wrote what I thought was the true conservative is. Then I challenged him to do the same. I am still waiting. You do need to know that even in combat, the two of us have a high regard for one another. Again thanks. I hope you will continue to keep those cards and letters coming.

guy faulkes said...

Blogger, rest assured that I was not trying to pull you off your message.

You brought up the proposition that the Bible supports itself through the continuity of its contents. I brought up the proposition that yes it does, because it was edited by men to make it do so.

This, at least to me, makes it very difficult to make a charge that Robertson was trying to muddle the "message" contained in the Bible.

I am willing to admit the editing of the Bible was done with great care, as Celtive indicates. However, it was edited. This means that one does not have the entire document to review in order to form an opinion. Doing this forces people to the conclusions favored by those that did the editing, even if they did it with the best of intentions.

My point is that Robertson is a believer in the Bible as it was edited. He is maintaining his opinion of what the main thing is. His opinion is different than yours, or mine, for that matter. The point is that we all have our relationship with the Almighty. These relationships are personal and when looked at objectively, one is no better than another.

This is what makes religion so interesting. It is a matter of faith. I recognize others have faith in things that I do not. Atheists are one example. Islamic jihadists are another. The concept that any man is closer to God than any other is a third. He speaks to all of us. Some of us listen, some do not. All I can do is to live my beliefs and tolerate the belies of others as long as they do not harm people. This is all I ask from other people who do not agree with me as to what the main thing is.

Celtive, with all due respect, you cannot correct me as the correction is to your opinion. My opinion is different than yours. This does not make either of us right or wrong, so neither can correct the other. The translations maybe correct as you believe or they may not as I suspect.

The editing may have been made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or they may not. People do not all believe the same thing or there would not be the many denominations that exist in Christianity. If you believe the divine guidance theory to be true, then by all means, be assured I support your right to this belief. I just do not happen to share it.

However, you argue your case very well. I am going to have to get a Catholic Bible. This is the first time I have been told it contains some of the missing books of the Bible. I knew the Koran contains some of them. If I remember correctly there are many more books than seven.

I do not remember your post on the definition of a true conservative, Blogger. I will be happy to tell you mine. Perhaps you will post yours again. My apologies if I did not answer. Could it be that I did, but not in the way you desired?

A true conservative believes that when you have a right, you also have a responsibility. He believes he is responsible for himself and that the government is not there to take care of his every need. He believes that other people have the same rights and responsibilities as he does, including unborn babies right to life. He opposes over regulation, including that which allows unborn babies to be murdered legally. He believes the prime functions of the federal government is to protect your civil rights on the national level and to provide for the national defense. He believes that the proper terminology is "the United States are" rather than "the United States is". He believes that when he earns money, it is his and should not be taken from him and redistributed to others without his approval. Charity is one thing,theft is another. The most important thing is he does not initiate violence towards others, and does not allow others to initiate it towards him.

There are many other traits for a true conservatives.

Reader said...

"Because I know some well known homosexuals who can demonstrate this power then where does that leave them in relationship to inheriting the kingdom of God?"

Repentance is the only answer to all sins.

Blogger said...

Guy I responded to your last comment on the Vent Page.

Celtive said...

Blogger..I appreciate your kind words and welcome. I've not been able to respond in a timely fashion as I was not able to lift my swollen head off the floor when being referred to as scholarly. But I will admit to a certain inquisitiveness of faith, history, politics, economics, science & music….& the interchange of each.

Guy…you are certainly correct that in the face of opinion, one cannot be corrected about holding that view….unless presented with fact to help inform the opinion, thus the dialogue. I suppose my correction went more to the reference of what you termed the Apocrypha.

Within the realm of the initial post though, I can certainly understand Bloggers view of the celebrity infusing views that muddle the message. However, that again is the meaning of free speech & allowing diverse views to again, inform the dialogue & the message. For me, it is refreshing to hear a celebrity (so called) to offer his clear opinion that is obviously soooo UN - P.C. I have had to raise the issue many times, when people talk of faith or religious views being "forced", they seem to mean they don't want to….HEAR it. Well la..dee..da, how about a little lesson in the first amendment, that says that religion has every RIGHT to be heard in the public domain.

Sarkazein said...

Celtive you wrote- " I have had to raise the issue many times, when people talk of faith or religious views being "forced", they seem to mean they don't want to….HEAR it."

Well said. It is usually the open-minded liberal wanting to silence the religious views of others.

guy faulkes said...

Celtive, what makes you think I that hold the reference that helped form your opinion to be a fact? Note that you use this same process when you say "of what you termed the Apocrypha." Apparently we do not agree on what is a fact on this issue.

This is why I feel that you should gather as much data as possible and make your own decision.

As I said before, religion is a matter of faith. As long as others do not try to force their beliefs on me, I am perfectly happy that they are happy.

Democratus Rex said...

"Paul’s list of the unrighteous includes the Greek word for men bedding men."

Did Paul's list of the unrighteous include the Greek word for women bedding women?

Democratus Rex said...

Sark: "It is usually the open-minded liberal wanting to silence the religious views of others."

It is usually the closed-minded conservative that shreiks when their myth is challenged.

Sarkazein said...

DRex- Just a guess, but the men bedding men probably had to do more with some of the rich men having young boy slaves who were used for sodomy and other homosexual acts.
Also the term "man" is often used to define humans including male and female.

To a liberal "shrieks" are anything you/they hear that differs from their/your own opinions.
Example: prayer in school is a "shriek" to a liberal. Anything a liberal doesn't want to "hear" is a shriek".

Democratus Rex said...

Sark, the church and scripture have very defined gender roles and never go the inclusive generic. Whenever they say "man", they mean "man".

As a liberal, I don't want to hear any religious indoctrination in school, unless you are willing to allow all religious indoctrination...including and not limited to christianity, Islam, Wiccan, Satanism, etc.

Celtive said...

Guy ~ I based my reference on what you believed at the time "may" have been true. I did not infer you believed it to be actual fact.

"However, several books were left out of the Bible. I beleive this was called The Apocrypha. If I am correct these books were removed by the Catholic Church…."

What is it that you believe is the fact that we do not agree on?

"It is usually the closed-minded conservative that shreiks when their myth is challenged."

D. Rex….I'm sorry. In my experience, that is the pot calling the kettle black. (Please don't mis-interpret that as a racist statement…it is in the form of an idiom).

Sarkazein said...

DRex- Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Democratus Rex said...

Sark, macht nichts.

Sarkazein said...

DRex- You are right, I rarely quote bible passages because I can't be certain what they mean exactly.
But #10 of the Ten Suggestions would disqualify women as they use the male gender and refers to male homosexuality only... I think.

Blogger said...

Just so you guys don't wander too far away, I'll try again to bottom line it. Because of his high profile, I don't want Phil Robertson's theology to become the face of the faith, just as I argued earlier that personally, I don't want homosexuality and abortion to become the face of the Republican Party. In both cases, we are all diminished.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger- With Phil's high profile, I thinks he puts out a message saying it is no longer "uncool" to be religious and conservative and independent. The long hair, beard, and obvious independence appeals to many. Throw in the Conservatism and it ties two or three things together that are typically not seen in the MSM. All these wild looking men sitting at the family table, in prayer, give many permission/new found courage to not buckle under to political correctness. They may already believe as Phil, and are more apt to express it and live it now. There are more conservatives in the US than liberals. Let Phil bring it into the mainstream media.

Democratus Rex said...

Hey, if you guys want to align yourself with this christian, bigoted, racist, my guest. He may very well be the conservative standard that is representative of your ideology.

Sarkazein said...

And there it is... "homophobe". A politically correct made-up word used to suppress debate. Unfortunately it works, but not on Phil. Bigot because Phil tells of his experience... racist bigot because you don't like Obama's actions or you notice the extreme damage done to many by liberalism including to many in the Black community as Black on Black murder escalates and a huge percentage of Blacks are imprisoned for crimes.
Does anyone think if Phil hadn't said those things that people of DRex's ilk would embrace Republicans or vote for them? Would the liberal elites in the MSM finally move to the right? Not a chance.

guy faulkes said...

", I don't want homosexuality and abortion to become the face of the Republican Party. In both cases, we are all diminished."

Interesting opinion, Blogger. I am not aware of homosexuality being an issue with the Republican party as per either the conservative or liberal wing.

Phil Robertson is one man voicing his religious opinion. Is he a Republican and does he speak for the party?

On the other hand, the murder of unborn babies is rightly a very important issue fir conservatives of any party,

Could you explain your statement, including why you singled out Republicans?

guy faulkes said...

NewGuy, I had a pretty lengthy post to Celtive that has never appeared. Did the spam monster get it?

NewGuy said...

Guy lengthy response anywhere that I can find. Nothing in the spam folder (althought it has recently been cleaned out)...Both blogger and I check the spam folder from time to time and delete what is there. I always check to make sure that there are no posts from 'regulars' that are in there in error, but I don't read every post from every "anonymous" poster. If you posted something over your usual signature, I, almost certainly would have caught it in "spam' and posted it.

Hope you can reconstruct it.


Blogger said...

Ditto for me Guy

Blogger said...

Guy, always keep in mind that I have high regard for anyone who can keep the main thing the main thing. When people hear the word “Republican”, I want them to think: “defenders of the Constitution”, “power to the individual,” “the best government is that closest to the people.” I don’t want the first metonym to be “gay marriage,” “abortion.” By the way, I am only saying what the new Pope is saying. He also is saying it for the same reason I am. We can keep our values. But, let’s make the up-front optics reflect who we really are. Is that so difficult to grasp?

guy faulkes said...

Bloggger, the problem is that we do not agree on who we really are when it comes to the Republican party. I agree with most of what you say you want people to think of when they hear the word Republican as these are conservative ideas. Unfortunately many people, including me, do not think of conservatives any more when they hear the word Republican.

Celtive said...

Guy....So sorry your post got eaten. Awaiting a word.

D.Rex I am certainly impressed. You have ALL of the politically correct words memorized....& use them so effectively in rapid fire succession. Alinsky would be very proud.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger you wrote- " When people hear the word “Republican”, I want them to think: “defenders of the Constitution”, “power to the individual,” “the best government is that closest to the people.”

That is the face of the Republican Party liberals see and hate. Those words offend Liberal Democrats more than anything Phil Robertson could say.

guy faulkes said...

NewGuy, I may have had a error message on that post. It was probably lost. Thank you and Blogger for looking.

Celtive, I will try to rebuild my previous post.

"Guy ~ I based my reference on what you believed at the time "may" have been true."

One of my failings is that I freely admit I might be wrong concerning my religious opinions. I usually phrase my comments in a manner that reflects this. This causes people to say that I make circular arguments, when I am merely abiding by my belief that no man can know the mind of God and that no man is closer to god than another man. This of course, includes me.

This usually results in a lot of anger as many people do not like to be told they might be right even more than being told they are Wong. I think this is because it is harder to discount the statement that you do not agree with if the possibility you are correct is still in-play.

"What is it that you believe is the fact that we do not agree on?"

There are a lot of things that we do not agree on. One is that as a Catholic, you probably do not agree with my belief that no man is closer to the Almighty than I am or you are. Another is that you apparently believe there were seven books left out of the Bible. If I remember correctly there were about 22. (By the way, thank you for the information about the Catholic Bible. I am going to get one.)

In any case, the question was rhetorical. My point was that as religion is a matter of faith, then the documents that we use to support our opinions are also matters of faith. Therefor, what one person believes to be a fact is only an opinion to another person.

Religion calls for a priori reasoning. This is difficult for me as I lean toward a posteriori reasoning.

You make excellent comments in order to present and support your position. You also do this without the usual displays of anger over differences of opinion. My compliments, sir.

Democratus Rex said...

Celtive, "D.Rex I am certainly impressed. You have ALL of the politically correct words memorized....& use them so effectively in rapid fire succession."

I can use the politically incorrect terms if that would make you feel more at home.

guy faulkes said...

Drex, This thread's discussion about religion instead of free speech has at least allowed me to investigate other possibilities and opinions in a civil manner with Celtive. If only one could do that with you.

guy faulkes said...

NewGuy and Blogger, am I in the running for an award for the most typo's in a single post for my performance in the post to Celtive?

My apologies to the blog. I was enjoying the discussion so much that I failed to proof the post.

Democratus Rex said...

Guy, when was I not civil? Perhaps it's my exercise of free speech that is unsettling to you.

guy faulkes said...

"Guy, when was I not civil?"

"I can use the politically incorrect terms if that would make you feel more at home."

Enough said.

Sarkazein said...

"Hey, if you guys want to align yourself with this christian, bigoted, racist, my guest."

Too funny.

Blogger said...

Guy "religion is a matter of faith" and so is your apparent faith that the cognitive process you may be using is capable for direct contact with God. Mystics say no. That it requires faith that you have a different apperception process than a discursive one.

guy faulkes said...

Blogger, you are correct.

Everyone speaks with God, in my opinion. We all have feelings that are much stronger than the usual decisions about something being right or wrong. This is communicating with the Almighty.

As i have said before, I am more comfortable with a posteriori reasoning. This is reasoning based on experience rather than knowing something because you just know it. My faith is the result of my experiences with the outcome of these feelings in relation to events in my life. I freely admit this makes my version of faith different that that of many others.

An example: I do not see how anyone can look at his babies or grandbabies and not realize God is talking to him. Of course, the are those that would abort their offspring, so either I am wrong or something besides God is talking to those people.

It is interesting that the Christian faith matches my beliefs so well.

Sarkazein said...

This thread has caused me to do research of the Bible. It has been a long long time since I have done this. Perhaps decades. This coming from a then 4 or 5 year old who preached sermons, Bible in hand, from the front porch of my grandmother's row house in Alexandria Virginia to a crowd of neighborhood kids. That was still allowed back in the Fifties.
So thank you Blogger for the inspiration.

Blogger said...

I suggest to anyone now picking up their Bible that they start with the Book of Acts. That is when the Christian church began at Pentecost. Every thing before that is just God setting up the stage.

Democratus Rex said...

"I suggest to anyone now picking up their Bible...". It's only relevant if you believe in that sort of thing.

guy faulkes said...

Exactly right, Drex. It is a matter of faith. it will do you no good if you do not beleive.

Celtive said...

Just wanted to say thanks for this interesting thread.

In response to DRex's,"I can use the politically incorrect terms if that would make you feel more at home."
I would actually prefer that as opposed to the Lame stream media talking points spewed by most nauseum.

Guy, I believe that there is probably more that we agree on than disagree.
"... you probably do not agree with my belief that no man is closer to the Almighty than I am or you are."
I would propose that it may be more a perspective of responsibility. To the extent that we cannot begin to fathom the love that God Almighty has for us, my faith tradition holds that a primary essence of the Love of God is the truth of "relationship" which is borne through the Mystery of the Trinity. It would seem that our reponse to this love is what brings us to a greater or lesser connection.

In addition, we agree on being more inclined to an a posteriori manner of reasoning. Blogger mentioned, in a reponse to you," (That) it requires faith that you have a different apperception process than a discursive one.", referring to the mystical tradition. It made me wonder if there is such a thing as a truly a priori sense of reasoning, other than through Divine Intervention. Paricularly drawing on Jeramiah 32:33 & Romans 2:15..THIS being to me the purest form of KNOWING. From the small amount of insight I have on the mystical tradition...even when one begins the discipline & the exercises inherent in this tradition, it is initially more discursive & therefore, I would assume a more a posteriori manner of knowing. You all may have a better handle on this topic than I.

In the end analysis though, isn't that what Phil Robertson is witnessing to in his own way, the experiences he has had that have helped FORM his conscience?

guy faulkes said...

Celtive, you make a very telling point in your comment on a priori reasoning being a consequence of Divine intervention. In fact, it was this kind of situation that occurred when I was "saved". However, a posteriori reasoning let me know it happened and that other things can only happen with the same kind of intervention. I would venture to guess this kind of thing happened to a lot of people.

I would agree that you have a responsibility in your relationship with the Almighty, more so than even the responsibility you have with even the relationship with your wife. Where I differ from most is that it is my firm belief that He does not care what name you call Him by as long as you have this relationship. I also believe that my relationship is different than yours, Blogger's,or that of anyone else. It is for this reason I am not a fan of organized religion to a large degree. Religion to me is personal, not one size fits all.

We agree exactly on Phil Robertson's witness. This is why the controversy is about free speech, not religion.

I am well aware that the legal aspect of free speech concerns the government, not the private sector, but the moral aspect concerns them both.

This is why I argued to keep LPOV on the blog long after almost everyone else realized his only purpose was to act as a troll in order to try to discourage people from posting. I should have listened. His consistent repetitious La La La La La posts were made to try to kill the blog. If he ever said anything relevant to the topic being discussed, he would still be here.

Democratus Rex said...

Celtive, "In response to DRex's,"I can use the politically incorrect terms if that would make you feel more at home."
I would actually prefer that as opposed to the Lame stream media talking points spewed by most nauseum.". No liberal on this site is forbidding you from using the language and terms that the"lame stream media" that you abhor uses. Please, have the courage of your convictions to use the strong, caustic adjectives that "political correctness" and "lame stream media" deny you...especially on this forum of like-minded folk.

Sarkazein said...

DRex- In reading your last comment, I don't think you know what political correctness is or you have been so brainwashed by PC you no longer recognize truth or reality. "strong, caustic adjectives" Whaaat?

Celtive said...

I have not felt any denial.

Ditto to what Sark said.

Celtive said...

Guy...Thumbs up to your post brother!

Democratus Rex said...

Celtive, you would prefer use of "politically incorrect" terms. Don't be a coward, use them.

Sark,"I don't think you know what political correctness is or you have been so brainwashed by PC you no longer recognize truth or reality". Set me straight. Don't cower behind ad hominem.

guy faulkes said...

Celtive, I cannot help but notice Drex has ignored your abatement that you would prefer he use his own verbiage instead of politically correct talking points and has instead tried to make the same challenge to you. I have not noticed your use of any PC talking points. I also notice he has not been able to quote you having made any PC statements.

As I said before, you are very good at getting your point across. You do not need to be insulting to do so. Poor Drex did not comprehend the purpose of your statement was to try to get him to put forth his own ideas in his own words.

I knew this thread was going to be fun and I think it has been for everyone except maybe Drex. A snowball fight is not much fun when someone else has to make your snowballs.

guy faulkes said...

Statement, not abatement. I am getting to shaky to use spell check.

Sarkazein said...

DREX- Catch up on your own. You might comprehend it (PC) with a more open-mind if you research it yourself. Start with PC's Communist roots and go from there to present.

Celtive said...

Hey Sark….BAM!!! Excellent.

DRex, what…….are you saying you can't understand my comments? It may be because I try to avoid the Lame Stream thought police.

Democratus Rex said...

Duck Dynasty. Yuppies turned rednecks.
You think they are regular gun nuts like you