BIBLE STUDY
Origin of Political Left & Right…
I have
often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the “right”
and
Liberals are called the “left.”
By chance I stumbled upon this verse in
the Bible:
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to
the left.” Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Thus sayeth the Lord.
Amen.
Can’t get any simpler than that.
And now for a Spelling
Lesson…
The last four letters in American……….I Can The last four
letters in
Republican…….I Can The last four letters in
Democrats……..Rats
End of lesson. Test to follow in November,
2012.
Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent removal month.
Careful, Dusty. I know you would like to make the connection here, but this is not what this piece of scripture means. If I may, I’d like to offer a friendly word of caution about this passage.
The terms Left/Right as we know it started in France during the enlightenment. Later, it came to hold an entirely different meaning in America, where Left = total govt. and Right=no govt.
However, what this scripture refers to is not a political Left/Right, but an admonishment not to stray from the narrow path that leads to salvation. There are related verses, some of them physically close to this one, that make the same point using words to the effect of not straying off the path. Read the whole passage in context, my friend. Do not twist scripture to meet man’s desires.
Ecclesiastes 10
New International Version (NIV)
10 As dead flies give perfume a bad smell,
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.
3 Even as fools walk along the road,
they lack sense
and show everyone how stupid they are.
4 If a ruler’s anger rises against you,
do not leave your post;
calmness can lay great offenses to rest.
5 There is an evil I have seen under the sun,
the sort of error that arises from a ruler:
6 Fools are put in many high positions,
while the rich occupy the low ones.
7 I have seen slaves on horseback,
while princes go on foot like slaves.
read the rest
Oh, brother! Here you go again! Let me give your quote: “what this scripture refers to is not a political Left/Right, but an admonishment not to stray from the narrow path that leads to salvation.”
Please think within the within. I’ll give you a hint: It’s something you preach here on a daily basis….need another clue?
Go ahead, Kells, as a person who has demonstrated she does not read the Bible, tell us how and why I am wrong – but be sure to use scripture in doing so, please.
No need. I was speaking on Natural Law. (Ring-a-ding-ding? Sound familiar?) But I’m in the giving vain: Here’s a verse for you, luv: 2 Corinthians12:2-10.
Your original comment was referring to Natural Law? English: do you speak it? (look that clip up on youtube).
As for your scripture passage: are you telling me you are my thorn, my messenger from Satan? Because, if you are, THAT may be the first thing you’ve said I agree with 100% in a long, LONG time.
No, you are the thorn in my side because you cannot see, and it is incredibly frustrating! Must I do a step-by-step for you? Dusty’s post is great, and I can and will prove it if you’d like……………..Mr. Smarty Pants.
His post is not scriptural. I have yet to find ANYTHING in scripture that argues about left/right, democrat/republican. The closest we come is in Romans where the Apostle Paul tells us to obey the govt. we have — so long as it is in line with God’s teachings.
But, if you think you can use SCRIPTURE to show me where I am wrong, go for it. But either back it up, or shut it up, pal tootsie.
Pal Tootsie? I tend to delve deeper into meanings. Time to do a step-by-step. Let’s go………………. pal Joey.
Back to the origination of the argument:
Step 1) The quote: “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to
the left.” Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Step 2) The basis for my argument: “For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law at Question 94 of the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae. The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.”
Step 3) Delving deeper within the within: “While our main focus will be on the status of the natural law as constituting the principles of practical rationality, we should consider for a moment at least the importance within Aquinas’s view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine providence. The fundamental thesis affirmed here by Aquinas is that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered (ST IaIIae 91, 1); the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). While nonrational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it — their action nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures the existence of which results from God’s will in accordance with God’s eternal plan — rational beings like us are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it (ST IaIIae 91, 2). It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on Aquinas’s view, our calling the natural law ‘law.’ For law, as Aquinas defines it (ST IaIIae 90, 4), is a rule of action put into place by one who has care of the community; and as God has care of the entire universe, God’s choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of reason as law.”
I’m sorry, but I find this to be blatantly obvious. I even put it in English for you to understand.
“Pal Tootsie? I tend to delve deeper into meanings. Time to do a step-by-step. Let’s go………………. pal Joey.”
Oh, Kells. Do you have a problem with pet names all sudden like?
Tootsie was a man dressed as a woman! ………….. angel baby. (Had to throw that pet name in for you.)
Ah, the term goes back a LOT farther than that — toots!
Toots and tootsie are two different words. Ding! I win the prize.
Funny, I understood it as they are different forms of the same root word: like babe and baby.
No. I’m a babe; you’re a baby. See the difference?
1st — If you are going to use another person’s work, please site it (This doesn’t sound like ANYTHING you have EVER written, so I’m “ivory sure” you didn’t write it).
2nd — This has NOTHING to do with my comment to Dusty.
3rd — I happen to prefer Locke’s take on natural law and derived from Romans. But, either way, your assumption that I am unaware of ANYTHING you just posted…well, let’s just say you might want to stop calling me presumptuous in the future
I can’t recall where I read it, but I will make sure to post a link for you next time.
How you interpret scripture and how I interpret scripture are obviously completely misaligned.
You were the one who stated I speak in English. You are a presumtuous, pestiferous, painfully pompous poky. Now I’ve called you that.
No, I actually agree: we read scripture VERY differently. I have noted that, myself. I also understand what the difference is and where it came from. What’s more, I know which one of us is closer to where Christ would have us stand. That’s why you are NEVER going to convince me to move very far from where I am.
I’m not trying to move you anywhere. Furthermore, you do not know my heart.
Pingback: BIBLE STUDY | The Rio Norte Line | Church Leadership