Clearing the Air

OK, so, treating you, the RNL reader, as though we are all part of a family, I am calling a family meeting.  The issue is the on-going feud between Kells and I.  In the interest of full disclosure, there is an off-line history here.  I am telling you now that I allowed myself to get caught up in a conversation with her in which I said some things I should have NEVER said – PERIOD!  EVER!  I was wrong.  I was entirely out of line.  And, if it became common knowledge, it would probably hurt people I care about.  But I wasn’t the only one in this conversation, Kells was, too.  However, we seem to have handled it very differently.

 

All I can tell you is I am willing to take full responsibility for what was said.  I don’t care about blame, I should have known better, so I accept it.  At the same time, even though it wasn’t something that will cause the end of the world, I will tell you that I am very, VERY sorry for what I said.  I was wrong; I didn’t mean it and I said it without giving it a lick of thought.  I wish I could go back in time and change things.  If I could, I would.  I have certainly tried to apologize – many times.  Still, it has taught me a lesson about thinking before I speak because it is being used to threaten me.

In the comment section on one of the posts about Lovegrove, Kells posted an open threat where she told me “she knows things about me” and was ready to post them if I didn’t shut up.  Well, I’ve had enough of the threats.  When it gets to the point where one RNL reader is using a threat to censor another simply because they do not like what is being said, then things have gone too far. So, Kells, if you want to post what was said between us for the whole world to see, GO FOR IT!  If you think you are that innocent, if you are more concerned with controlling what I say that you would harm people you care about and people you don’t even know, then do what you feel you have to do. Just make sure you post the ENTIRE record – from the first invite to have our chat to the very end.  If you do not, I WILL.  Otherwise, put it behind you and forget it – and stop trying to use it to control what I say and how I say it.

 

Now, if you follow the RNL, you have seen that I go through cycles with Kells.  She will start some line of questioning in which she claims not to understand something.  If I treat her as though she can think things through and I do NOT provide an exhaustive explanation of everything being discussed, she often misses my point.  If I point out that she missed my point and suggest she isn’t thinking things through, I am accused of being arrogant.  HOWEVER, if I DO provide a point-by-point explanation of what I am trying to say, I am then accused of treating her as though she is stupid.

 

Regrettably, this almost always leads to a public dispute between Kells and I, and I absolutely hate this.  I am a guest on Utah’s blog, a blog that is starting to gain national attention.  I would like to behave as a respectful guest and to do whatever small part I can to help him grow the readership.  So, experience having taught me that further exchanges with Kells will seldom be fruitful, I have tried to simply ignore her.  But every time I have done this, Kells has seen it as an opportunity to attack me – feeling secure that I will not reply.  Among other things, she has used these periods where I try to ignore her to make personal attacks, even going so far as to call me a coward.  I’m not the type to tolerate personal attacks like that, not for long anyway.  Nor am I prone to allow people who treat me in such manner to then claim they are victims when I defend myself.

 

Admittedly, Kells is not the only one who seems to have these issues with me.  There are readers here who openly state they do not read my posts, yet they feel they can then comment on them with relevance.  I’m sorry, but this is getting ridiculous.  I know I am not the most personable person in the world – especially on a computer.  I have a background that taught me to write in a manner that – if the reader doesn’t grant me the benefit of the doubt – it can easily be misconstrued as arrogant, even abusive.  I accept this, though those who know me personally will generally tell you that this is not who I am.  Still, the writer is responsible for making himself understood, and if I convey the impression that I am arrogant, then this is usually going to be my fault.  But what I do not understand is this: if I am that disagreeable, why do people keep reading and commenting on my posts?  If you do not like me, or you disagree with my positions this much, then do yourself and the RNL a favor and STOP READING MY POSTS!  Please, please, p-l-e-a-s-e, just don’t read what I write (if you doubt me, this is as sincere a plea as I know how to make or feel, so if you reject my sincerity, this time, it’s on you).

 

Now, let me try to provide an example by addressing the rest of this post directly to Kells:

 

Kells, you have posted this comment in another post:

 

Oh, brother! Here you go again! Let’s take this step by step.

A) If it is a fallacy to quote what you actually wrote, well, then, sue me! You’re the one who is so particular about the written word.

B) My example was an honest reply to that of which I know, therefore NOT a fallacy. I was simply trying to get you to explain how Progressivism has infiltrated the church. I’ve been to other churches and did not see politics on display. So once again, I was not trying to speak for all denominations, I was just stating what I have witnessed.

C) You, sir, no nothing of my faith. But you may go ahead and make your assumptions. Just remember you’re making an ass out of you and umtion.
I find it incredibly amazing that someone who “thinks” differently than you should not be taken seriously. Perhaps you’ll open your mind up and view a person’s train of thought in a different light. But I, like you, am not holding my breath.

 

First, why say “Here you go again?”  Why do you excuse your own involvement in our misunderstandings/disputes?  Didn’t you recently say it takes two to tango?  And how is it you can defend Lovegrove when he comes to the RNL and blatantly uses profanity for no purpose but to antagonize Utah in the very thread in which Utah was asking the RNL reader not to do so, yet you will throw me under the bus for simply trying to explain what I was saying in a post/comment?  How is it you even believe you have no part in our disputes?

 

A) Next, it is not a fallacy to quote me, but that is not what you have done.  However, it is a fallacy to put words in another person’s mouth.  It’s called straw man.  So, unless you are absolutely sure you understand what I mean, don’t make a claim on my behalf or using my words.  If you do have doubts, ask.  When was the last time you saw me refuse to answer a question or to respond rudely to an honest question?  In this case, you have made many assumptions about what I am saying and why.  I have no idea why you do this, but I do believe it would help if you actually read my original post and considered what I said there – NOT what I said in reply to an off-topic comment.

 

B) Your reply may have been an honest reply to what you know, but it is still a fallacy to argue from one specific example to the general whole.  It is called composition.  That you seem to think my objection to your comment about your church and pastor was a personal attack is a clear example of the difference between us.  It is not an insult or an attack to point out that someone is using a fallacy.  In fact, unless I give you some indication that I am intentionally being insulting, pointing out a fallacy in your reasoning is nothing more than a clinical critique of what you are saying (i.e. your argument/position).

 

As for the rest, how is it you have read so many of my posts but you still have no idea how politics can infiltrate a church?  Do you read what I write?  Do you remember it?  Have you ever followed up on anything I have suggested people read?  See, here is where I am treating you like you have done your homework, have a solid understanding of the issue and are capable of making the connections.  So what am I to do now?  If I take your hand and walk you through it, you will turn and accuse me of being condescending (I know, because you have done so in the past).  But if I don’t do so, you will start making all sorts of wild accusations in my name and thoroughly muddle the issue because you do not understand the problem because you have not done your homework.  And no matter what I do, you will play the victim and put it all on me.  Still, I have tried to answer you, and to treat you with respect in the process.  Have you missed every time I have suggested (not told) you read something, especially scripture?  What do you think that was if not an attempt to answer your question while trusting you are smart enough to connect things for yourself?  And how could I possibly treat you with more respect than to assume you are my equal in this regard?

 

C) Oh, on the contrary, I know quite a bit about your faith – I know by the way you act.  I have repeatedly admitted I am a flawed person, but I have also said I do my best to worry about the forest in my own eye.  Do I fail at this?  YES!  All the time.  But I have yet to see you demonstrate through actions that you even see a speck in your own eye.  Now, you may disagree, but my reading of the plain words and meaning of Scripture tells me I will be known by my works, and the fruit of my tree.  I also know what Scripture tells me about the role we are all supposed to play in society, and about certain personal behaviors.  I admit, I struggle with trying to live according to what Scripture tells me in a world that has become so Godless that it now sees my attempts to do so as “intolerant.”  I have also noted your acceptance of the world’s position, right down to you accusing me of being chauvinist.  So my impression of your faith is formed by accepting you at your word and noting how you treat others.  I mean, when was the last time I called you an “ass?”

 

As for me not accepting the opinion or logic of others: you might want to ask Melfamy and others on the old PCNHRefugee forum whether or not I reject their opinions and arguments.  I have managed to find a great deal of common ground with people with whom I have had bitter, public disputes.  So you’ll have to excuse me if I do not accept your “opinion” of me, or your conclusion that this makes me “close-minded.”  In fact – were I you – I would take your implication that I have to accept your opinions to be considered “open-minded” as self-condeming.  That you don’t seem to understand this not explains how progressivism has infiltrated every aspect of our society – including religion.  It also speaks to your willingness to try living your faith.  But, for the record, I have never made the case that a person is not entitled to their opinion, but neither do I accept an opinion as “fact” or “sound” unless and until a rational case to do so has been made.  Do that and you will find me an entirely different person (but then, if you find me different just because I agree with you, that starts us at the top of my commentary all over again – as would having to explain to you why this is true).

53 thoughts on “Clearing the Air

  1. You know, I read this and started crying (maybe it’s cause I got bad news last night and this only compounded it)

    And then I got mad. First off, I’ve never threatened you. (or our conversation, which, by the by, you were far more congenial to me then)

    I tell you what, Pal Joey, what say you we have other people weigh in, huh? I think that I will be the victor, er, victoria. Let’s start with ….

    A) I’m putting words in your mouth? Let me hunt down your quote again…here we go. And my reply. I thought it was innocent enough. But let’s see what everybody else thinks.: Here is B.’s opening statement:

    “Mr. G,

    Good points, and ALL true. But then, Woodrow Wilson (among others) sought first to attach his Progressivism to religion, so this is nothing new.”

    My reply:

    “I really don’t get what you boys are getting at. My pastor’s sermons center around the Gospel, but also include modern-day struggles and issues, which in return spring back to the Gospel. I would not call that Progressive in nature.”

    Call me a crackhead or Eugene, but I think it’s very clear as to why I included this in my article. You infer that Progressives have infiltrated the church. But let’s just let others weigh in on how poorly (or not) my interpretation skills are….

  2. My post wasn’t meant as an attack. I regret that it made you cry. Getting mad at me: now THAT I expected.

    Kells,

    It is a fallacy to omit that the comment you just quoted was in reply to another member of the RNL (omission), or that I had mentioned it was part of an off-topic discussion that had nothing to do with the original point of my post (omission and red herring, as well as an implied straw man). Yet, you make it sound like my post was about political infiltration of the church. And here, even after I have addressed the issue in THIS post (see above), you are telling me I have not answered your question. Maybe so, but I darn sure gave you a map and pointed you in the right direction, so go – follow the map: Google “progressive infiltration church” and see what pops up. Heck, heaven knows you won’t take anything I tell you as the truth anyway, so why keep asking me in the first place?

    Also, you most certainly did threaten me, but then, it is more than convenient that you did so in the post you deleted…isn’t it?

    • The post says Mr. G. ……Ding!

      Omission, red herring, straw man, B.S. Actually, that has me thinking of something funny…I’m off on a tangent now…. “You must cut down the mightiest tree in the forrest with…… A HERRING!”

      I deleted the post cause you were cryin a river after I spanked your a$$. You know, I’m actually a kind soul and I will show pity every now and again.

      • “The post says Mr. G. ……Ding!”

        But that doesn’t tell anyone that we were in the comments, what Mr. G’s comment was or that I said it was off topic from my original post.

        And this is why I never take you seriously:

        Omission, red herring, straw man, B.S. Actually, that has me thinking of something funny…I’m off on a tangent now…. “You must cut down the mightiest tree in the forrest with…… A HERRING!”

        because YOU never take you seriously.

        And here is why I can never tell if you are trying to be serious:

        I deleted the post cause you were cryin a river after I spanked your a$$. You know, I’m actually a kind soul and I will show pity every now and again.

        Kells,

        Just don’t read or reply to anything I post. I’ll do the same with you and the RNL will be the better for it on all counts.

        • Boy, oh boy, you truly have no sense of humour. My comments completely elude you which is so depressing to me. I’ll post why I’m depressed….maybe.

          Oh, and I’ll read and reply to whatever I please, thank you; whether it be you or the man on the moon.

          And here I was being just as pleasant as you please to you. Thanks for the remonstration. Nice.

          • I guess it’s my fault for not understanding that calling me an a$$ is meant to be a term of endearment. My bad – again. Apparently, it’s ALL my fault – every time. No worries, I’ll take it.

  3. Jimminey Christmas…what did I start?

    B3a made a very well written post about Scriptures and the Gospels and how they relate to what’s happening in our world today. I made a comment trying to explain why maybe some people don’t hold those same views and that it had to do with our churches having been subverted by Fabian Socialists and Communists starting at the turn of the twentieth century. Now, perhaps those forces have been excommunicated from our churches, but I don’t think so.

    So I offer my humblest apologies to all for getting off topic in the previous post.

    Mike G.

    • You can do that if you so desire. I’m always willing to learn something new.

      As far as Progressive thought in the church, some examples from today would be Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Obama’s former church with his Liberation Theology. Another example would be Rick Warren. Both of these ministers have great influence over their flocks.

      As far as translating scripture from the ancient Hebrew or Greek, I’d take the literal translations of the fifteenth and sixteenth century scholars before taking the more modern translations of today’s scholars. Sometimes when you try to re-translate certain passages, they lose their meaning in the translation.

      As Christians, the bible is supposed to be our “owner’s manual”, but it seems like some folks just ignore it all together, or at least the parts they don’t agree with. 😉

      • G,

        I would agree with you if by “loses its meaning” you mean “loses a certain nuance.” But don’t you find it amazing that, even after all this time and countless translations, the basic meaning of the text has remained true to the oldest known copies of scripture? Back in a time before printing presses, when it was transmitted by word of mouth and then by repetitive copying, it would be natural to assume the text would become distorted. Yet it is surprising how consistent the Bible has remained, in whatever translation.

        Still, there are problems, such as some versions saying thou shalt not kill when the Hebrew says thou shalt not do murder. And the oldest copies of Revelations suggest that the number of the beast is not 666 but possibly 616, or maybe even something entirely different (you’ll have to look up a picture of the scrap where the number is NOT 666 to see the evidence).

        But these are not the fault of God, they are the work of men. When the Dead Sea scrolls were found, they confirmed much of the Bible we have today, as did the ancient scribing that was found on the metal plate a few years back, and I think there was something found inked on a clay tablet (not sure which was older). Personally, I find it fascinating – more so when you think about how a simple thing can get messed up in a child’s game of whisper circle.

        But I digress…

  4. Kells,

    ENOUGH! I have tried to hint at some answers for you, but you don’t seem to ever take hints (which leads me to question these claims about you not being “as think as you dumb I am.”) You want answers? OK, I’ll give them to you – even though you won’t be able to handle them.

    How does the Progressive movement influence the Church? (WARNING: this is NOT going to be PC).

    By convincing you that tolerance for gays is better than accepting what SCRIPTURE teaches us about homosexuality.

    By teaching you that women should have a larger role in society and leadership within the Church than SCRIPTURE says they should have.

    By convincing you to accept that the child in its mother’s womb is “her body” when SCRIPTURE says “I knew you before I knit you in your mother’s womb.”

    I can go on, but do I really need to? You have demonstrated that you have fallen for these worldly views and oppose SCRIPTURE, yet you never take my suggestions to go read SCRIPTURE. And even now, you will assume this is me attacking you and consider this a personal affront when all I am trying to do – however imperfectly I may manage – is to follow SCRIPTURE, and to do so without twisting it to mean what I wish it said. But in these and many other cases, the New Testament is VERY clear: this is not my “interpretation.”

    THAT – that and more – is how Progressivism infiltrates and attacks the Church. It does so by convincing you to replace God’s word with man’s; to supersede God’s wisdom with mans; and by seducing you into unknowingly worshiping false gods. And, Lord help me I have tried, but I have UTTERLY FAILED to get you to see ANYTHING I have tried to tell you. So, please, blame this on me too as I apparently deserve it.

    Kells, I apologize to you, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. I have failed to help you see what I have been trying to say to you, and for that, I am truly sorry. 😦

    • By convincing you that tolerance for gays is better than accepting what SCRIPTURE teaches us about homosexuality.

      Whatever the Bible tells us about homosexuality, I am certain that it teaches we should be tolerant of the individual.

      And how that relates to politics is beyond me. Next I suppose you’ll think that we should pass a constitutional amendment saying that we can’t take the Lord’s Name in Vein?*

      By teaching you that women should have a larger role in society and leadership within the Church than SCRIPTURE says they should have.

      Again, I think that you miss the point. Our laws protect us against this type of reading of religion. Even IF you are right, there is nothing that would allow you to impose that religion on other people.

      this is not my “interpretation.”

      Might you be wrong?

      I suspect that because this is a political blog people are seeing issues through politics and law. As such, even if the Commandments say that we shall not covet thy neighbors wife, legally, I can.

      And perhaps it’s legit to acknowledge said distinction

      *There goes that dang “a” and “e”.

      • Pino,

        To love the individual, YES. To tolerate the behavior, NO. I said nothing to the contrary. As for how it relates to politics: really? You do not understand how the gay agenda relates to politics? I find that difficult to accept, but OK.

        Even IF I am right? Have you read the Scriptures concerning women in society and the Church? It’s just a question. There is no “this sort of reading,” it is VERY clear, and it was intended to protect all of society – women included. There is a VERY high bar set for the proper treatment of women in the New Testament. I doubt many are even aware of just how well men are commanded to treat them. At the same time, scripture warns against the “feminization” of society. Again, you may not see the effect or the political connections, but they are everywhere around you. And the notion that women would be mistreated if we all lived according to scripture is part of that result.

        Might I be wrong? When the scripture says “YOU ARE NOT TO…” or “DO NOT…” I suppose I could be – IF the English language has been changed.

        But you’re correct, our law has come to the point where we allow things that Scripture forbids. When this nation was founded and while it was still strong, this was NOT the case. I happen to see a correlation, you may not. But you should note that I have not tried to force my views on anyone. I have stated my positions, but have never said anyone else MUST accept and follow them. The most you will hear or read me saying is that to ignore Scripture is to invite the ruin of our society and nation because, when we live by OUR desires, we violate Natural Law (God’s Law), and that violates Natural Rights and the Social Compact. In other words, you turn your back on God and Lock and welcome Hobbs and Man. Now, when was the last time Man created ANYTHING approaching utopia?

        • You do not understand how the gay agenda relates to politics? I find that difficult to accept, but OK.

          I only mean to say that you may be right when it comes to various theology interpretations. And in a theological debate, that is very interesting. However, on a political blog, the fact that our Bible says we cannot take the name of the Lord in vain does NOT give us the ability to legislate that in our laws.

          You may or may not be right about what the bible says about homosexuality, but the point is this – It doesn’t matter when it comes to civil law. This nation was founded on Liberty and the freedom of the State imposing its religion. Because the contract of marriage is civil as far as the state is concerned, there is no argument based on Liberty that is valid to deny marriage to gay folks.

          Even IF I am right?

          Yes. I suspect that you allow for the fact that you may be incorrect.

          But you’re correct, our law has come to the point where we allow things that Scripture forbids.

          Right. In the same way I don’t was our laws to insist on literal Islamic law I don’t want our laws to insist on literal Christian law. Again, you agree that we cannot legislate the 10 Commandments, right?

          I have stated my positions, but have never said anyone else MUST accept and follow them.

          Some insight. When I mention that you may be right and you answer me with “IF” you are implying that I must accept what you say without debate. You may not mean that as you type. However, the typed word is a very difficult form of communication. Most communication is non-verbal. But even when two people speak on the phone, they have the benefit of inflection, of tone, of volume and pauses. Typing is very difficult.

          to ignore Scripture is to invite the ruin of our society and nation because, when we live by OUR desires, we violate Natural Law (God’s Law), and that violates Natural Rights and the Social Compact.

          This is true. I would offer this advice to anyone. But I would never consider passing it into law.

          • This is true. I would offer this advice to anyone. But I would never consider passing it into law.

            At the time of our founding, and for the majority of the time this nation was thriving, our laws WERE based on Scripture. The beauty of what our founders did was to base our civil law on Scriptural PRINCIPLES without letting the teachings of any one “sect” (denomination) dictate the specifics.

            Now, I know, I will be attacked for saying this on the grounds that it is my “opinion.” Very well, but I would like people to understand my opinion was formed by repeatedly reading our founders saying words such as these:

            “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

            –Samuel Adams, (father of the revolution, as the Declaration was being signed)

            “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering.”

            –Daniel Webster (the great defender of the Constitution)

            “The only foundation for… a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

            –Dr. Benjamin Rush (1 of the 3 most well known “founders” at the time of our founding)

            I think what many miss is that I am NOT advocating for a Christian theocracy. Our society has conditioned us to see such in my words, but you will not find that anywhere in my writing – not if you take me at my word and consider what I actually say. All I am advocating is this: our nation has succeeded so well and for so long because our govt. was laid upon the principles set forth in Scripture and, as such, our Constitution was designed to work along the lines of Natural Law. Our Declaration even declares this to be true. Having studied the past, I was won to the idea that this is an eternal truth, and that the source of the majority of our social and political problems today can be traced to our having abandoned these principles. Return to them and we will resolve many of our troubles; keep trying to insist on doing it our own way and those troubles will only multiply until – inevitably – this nation falls into the ashes of history. That one can agree with me and NOT believe in the Christianity is also found in our founders, as not all of them were Christian, yet they still found agreement with the PRINCIPLES in the Bible.

            I hope I was able to put a point on things this time, as you are correct: without writing a book, it is EXTREMELY difficult to convey such complex ideas.

  5. Oh, please tell me you didn’t just go there.(Voice in head: Sorry, Kells,yes, he did)

    Okay so now we are to persecute the gays because they were born that way?

    Moving right along to abortion. No excuses, eh? Guess a dead fetus inside a woman is healthy, huh?

    What you fail to see is that you are determining God’s will by man’s written word via God. Could something have been lost in translation? (Definitely could’ve happened if you and I were chatting)
    Do you realise how many translations of the Bible exist? Have you read the lost Books of the Bible? Have you interpreted the text in Greek or Hebrew? As for me, I’ll not persecute (unless you’re wearing bell bottoms) someone else.

  6. wow. more personal BS. jersey shore called, they want their manuscript back.

    in a time when a country is as divided as we are, and a presidential nominee is (one we hope will embody our beliefs) on the cusp, our bloggers have turned this into a pissing match. if kells had a penis, i would say lets lay’em on the table and get this over with.

    this TRNL is bigger than the both of you. i have tried to invite several people to come here and read and post. people who have similar views and people who are not like minded yet are intelligent. i have been getting the same responses……basically ‘MEH’

    readers and posters are being driven away from this site because of this SHIT. and when posts like this are made, it kills the credibility and the integrity of both the writer and the commentors involved.

    let bloggs and peoples comments speak for themselves. intelligent….hell, half retarded readers will understand and comprehend without all the rhetoric of ‘clearing the air’ and threats of posting what people have said.

    its starting to smell funny in the kitchen, im gonna take out the garbage.

    • I’m sorry, Tony. I don’t understand how it is that I can understand/interpret you, Guy, and Pino on this thread and not understand B.
      I’ll try harder for you to rise above this.

      That said, I will not concede to agree to a point to which I disagree.

    • “wow. more personal BS. jersey shore called, they want their manuscript back.”

      Tony,

      DON’T READ IT!

      And don’t come on here complaining about something that you when you then turn around and – essential – DO THE SAME THING! (i.e. complain about me mentioning Kells threatening me over what I was saying, then YOU saying I am chasing away readers and you can’t invite people here because of it.)

      • you invited me here.

        “OK, so, treating you, the RNL reader, as though we are all part of a family, I am calling a family meeting. ”

        so, dont invite me to a meeting and then tell me not to be attentive, and involved. when you act like a child, i will talk to you like a child. and clearly you brought me down to your level and whipped me with experience. lesson learned on my end.

        • What you see as me acting like a child is anything but. You are assuming a tone of voice and an intention on my part that is inaccurate. I am sincere in this thread, as I am in most my posts and comments on the RNL. So to come here and tell me I am being childish when I am honestly trying to resolve what I see to be a real problem – much the same problem you see (i.e. the negative effect this has on the RNL readership) is – to me – out of place and uncalled for.

          What I find amusing is that I am constantly told how I should deal with things, but when I try to follow this advice, I then get attacked for being childish and chasing people off. If what you really mean is to “shut up,” then say so. If what you mean is “Kells keep talking, B3A shut up,” then say that (as I notice the criticism here tends to be one-sided). Otherwise, help me figure out how to resolve this rather than throwing fuel on the fire. How mature is that?

          Also, just for a moment, try to assume that I am not upset, that I hold no malice or ill will and that I am sincere. You can still call me arrogant, I don’t care. But grant me these other things and ask yourself whether or not it changes the tone of this post and these comments any in your mind. And while you’re at it, ask yourself why someone like me – the person you just described as so logical and rational – would bother to spend so much time on something he KNOWS is causing damage to a friends’ blog if he did not genuinely care about fixing the problem? Wouldn’t an arrogant but rational SOB like me have simply left by now? So why am I still here. still making people like me even less, if I didn’t care about trying to do some good?

          😦

  7. kells, i understand B. he is arrogant and does not like to be contradicted. BUT the guy is intelligent and does alot of the leg work you and i are either to lazy or dont have the free time to do. he spends copious amounts of time in literature(dont know where he finds the hours in a day) and it aggravates him to no end when people argue his points whimsically. when you disagree with what he posts, take your time and back up your argument with something that isnt flimsy and be as objective as possible. substantiate yourself with solid evidence.

    i do not think B wants you to interpret what he writes, but i believe he wants you to buy into the principles of the founding fathers, the bible, and firm economic principle. he lacks tact…greatly. but he more than makes up for it in logic and reference.

    i will calmly step off of my soapbox now.

    • I guess I just have trouble being so serious. It’s not my nature. But I’ll try. It’s always so interesting to read humourless posts.
      Sorry that I like spice, Tony. But I’ll dump em. Everyone of em.
      Can I keep my garlic, though? M. warned of vampires on a different post….

        • Swatted by Kells, but I recognized it for what it was. Now, if only there were a way to convince you that, if people were to approach me the way you just described, they would find I am not as rigid and “arrogant” as you seem to believe. Maybe Melfamy can vouch for me as, the moment he actually started giving me REASONS to consider his positions, we found that we actually agreed. Either way, Kells just doesn’t like me – period. And that’s OK. 🙂

          (btw: I stay up late reading – A LOT! And I do so because it is just in my nature to know and understand WHY, not to just accept on blind faith – even when it comes to my Faith.)

      • he spends copious amounts of time in literature(don’t know where he finds the hours in a day) and it aggravates him to no end when people argue his points whimsically.

        Kells,

        You might not understand this, and Tony might think it proof of my arrogance, but you should REALLY take what he just said here to heart. And understand WHY I get aggravated with people who make flippant remarks without thinking. The only point Tony gets wrong is why I get upset over such things. It is not that I am arrogant (at least, not in the way he seems to think), but it is truly because I think it beneath EVERY human being to do so. We have been given a brain and the ability to reason, yet we live strictly by emotion. If we are going to live by emotion and instinct, we are animals. I REFUSE to see you, Tony or ANYONE as just an “animal.”

        Now, Kells (Tony, others),

        I’m not sure if that makes sense to you guys, but I hope so. I do not so much see myself as arrogant as much as prideful. Of that, I am guilty and truly trying to work on it. And I have never known how to be “tactful,” it is in my nature to be totally honest – a quality that is not well received in a world that runs on deceit. I also envy those of you who can so easily deal tactfully with and feel so deeply for others. I wish I knew how to do that – BELIEVE ME I DO! But I do love my fellow man, and I feel that love passionately. I just don’t do well with loving the individual – especially when they do not credit themselves by using the gifts we were given by our Creator (i.e. our ability to reason).

        OK, off MY soap box. I’m going to do my best to leave this thread alone now (though I expect I’ll fail, as I fail most times I try to do what I ought to – like shut up).

  8. At the same time, scripture warns against the “feminization” of society

    An interesting irony.

    The Rio Norte Line is the name given to the railroad started by a woman in a man’s world some 55 years ago. It represented the break-out of normal thought and could be considered a cry of freedom in the classical liberal sense of the term. Of course the story is fiction, but it was written by a woman who broke into a man’s world. Additionally, Ms. Rand was an atheist and an illegal immigrant.

    I happen to think she was one of the great thinkers of her time.

      • Pino, will you be my new boyfriend?

        Well, do you cook barefoot?

        Oh, and do you mind being Mormon? Hmm, then I’d have to convert to Mormonism as well. And then, my wife.

        Maybe just BFF’s? 😉

        • I’m thinkin your wife and I can get barefoot and crush grapes. Lucy and Ethel did….
          Now I’m breaking out into that song I Believe from The Book of Mormon.

          Pino, did you notice how Dougindeap does the sidestep? It’s like the song from Best Little Whorehouse in Texas….. “oooh, I love to dance the little sidestep. Now you see me, now you don’t, I’ve come and gone.” Wish he’d hang around and play….interesting character.

          Gotta leave you with a song (my dedication to dugindeap for ignoring me on your site, http://www.tarheelred.com)

          • Oh, dear. I feel terrible. Doug did reply. I always seem to be a day late and a dollar short. Now I must check M’s article as I believe that is what he also replied to….

    • 🙂 Have you read “Atlas Shrugged?” I wouldn’t exactly call Rand a “feminist” – at least, not in the sense the majority of us understand by the term “feminism.” I actually suspect Rand would have fit in just nicely with “the boys.”

      At the same time, you have not heard me explain what I read in scripture, so please, do not assume I am claiming scripture would keep women “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.” It doesn’t. My wife is named after one of the most famous judges of Israel, Deborah. I also know that scripture tells me that I am to treat my wife as Christ treats His bride (the Church). I wonder how many of us truly understand just how high a bar that sets for the Christian male? But the Bible tells us that women are NOT to be put in the position of having to be the providers, as we see happening in our society today. Why? The best answer I can come up with is found in looking at what is happening to men today: they are becoming children and animals. How does society survive that way?

      I do my best to understand what the Bible teaches me regarding women and society, and why. So I’d like people to understand I am not trying to bend Scripture to my will, but my will to God’s.

          • Actually, FC is on to the point: I am arguing from a scriptural perspective right now, not our from that of our current society or even my own positions. So your argument shouldn’t be with me, you need to take it up with God (unless you can show me scripture that clearly states I am wrong. If you can, then – BY ALL MEANS – please show me as I WANT to be on His side on all things).

  9. B. I can’t see that God would have a problem if the roles were reversed. If God want what is best for us, and that situation is best for the family, then how can it be wrong?

    • Individually, I wouldn’t argue with you. But applied on a societal level? Look what it has already done to our society.

      Please try to look at things they way I am trying to discuss them. I have been doing my best to explain that I am talking more about society than any one individual. So look at this on the macro level instead of the micro level and see if you can make out the differences. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.