[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
It’s not like “rightists” on this very board have told me I am not a “real” christian or claimed all economics and social sciences to be “not real” and “snakeoil,” right? 
This would be me.
Did you tell me I wasn’t a real christian as well? [/quote]
Hmm. Did I? I don’t remember THAT part now that you’re asking. I kind of focused in on the snake oil bit.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
“The right” or at least “the GOP” has been mocking elitism for some time now. It was a major effort in the last presidential campaign. And not one that I think is a positive.
[/quote]
I disagree. Elitism is a terrible thing and something that should be killed if possible. Of course it won’t be possible, but I wish it were. Mocking is the next best thing.
This is something that I have noticed–people seem to think that your “intellectual” status is given by social station these days, not by the cogency of your reasoning. I hate this. I validate things based on argumentation, not based on social station. I have also, as I think Stronghold mentioned something similar before, seen professors in the political realm schooled by students who are not “intellectuals”. This idea that only “experts” can be intellectuals is damaging to independent thinking, and is something that BOTH parties rely on to some extent, but that I have seen far more prevalent in the Left.
The reason I hate ivory tower bullshit so much is that often it is divorced from the real world to such an extent that it is useless for any practical application. Not always, but often. The more specialized you become in an area, the more time you spend studying that very specific thing, and the less time you have to keep everything else up to date. It leads very easily to a form of proximity bias on the “intellectual’s” part.
Now, I do entirely disagree with using Palin as a flagship example of how bad intelligentsia is. And W as well.
Further, I would posit that this tendency that I hate is not a movement of the Right, but simply a function of our increasing media culture and constant inundation with TV. The Right seized on it, and has polarized it, yes. But fundamentally this issue is not a creation of the Right. Buckley et al. were intellectuals in the popular sense after all as well, and received accolades from the right.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
“The right” or at least “the GOP” has been mocking elitism for some time now. It was a major effort in the last presidential campaign. And not one that I think is a positive.
I feel the opposite.
And let’s make sure we understand the distinctions between elitism and intellectualism.
Great point.
Lefists tend to erect a false dichotomy between their world view and thinking at all. In other words anybody who calls them on their academic elitist snobbery is by definition an unthinking individual. Put yet another way, they define “intellectual” itself as their world view, achieved in the sparkling classrooms of high academia and hence any challenge to their enlightened (and expensive) education simply must be anti intellectual as well as just plain wrong or they wasted their time and money.
Great point.
Rightists tend to erect a false dichotomy between their world view and thinking at all. In other words anybody who calls them on their purist “real vs fake” elitist snobbery is by definition an unthinking individual. Put yet another way, they define “what is ‘real’” itself as their world view, achieved in the megachurches and religous schools of the rural countryside and hence any challenge to their enlightened education simply must be intellectual snobbery as well as just plain wrong or they wasted their time and money.
It’s not like “rightists” on this very board have told me I am not a “real” christian or claimed all economics and social sciences to be “not real” and “snakeoil,” right?
[/quote]
“Christian” and “American” (and Muslim for that matter) both have definitions that vastly predate my existence. If I am to take those seriously certain unavoidable even if unpleasant conclusions follow.
You are as usual completely lost.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree with the body of Beck’s analysis. Indeed it’s about 95% of what I’ve been saying for over 20 years, I couldn’t care less what label he conforms to or not.[/quote]
That’s a good attitude to take in politics. Focus on the substance, ignore the labels (or create your own).
Right above this text you’ll find the picture of a right-wing intellectual.
He’s one of the best we’ve still got.
Buchanan is right on on some things, but a complete nut on others.
BTW, Beck’s show was really good today. I’ll have it up a little later.
As promised. I have to edit out the commercials and reencode these down from mpeg2 to divx to remove the interlacing an then to flv for streaming.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,102.new.html#new
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Buchanan is right on on some things, but a complete nut on others.[/quote]
So either he is TOTALLY WRONG on some issues… or you are.
[quote]orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Buchanan is right on on some things, but a complete nut on others.
So either he is TOTALLY WRONG on some issues… or you are.
[/quote]
He is
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
“The right” or at least “the GOP” has been mocking elitism for some time now. It was a major effort in the last presidential campaign. And not one that I think is a positive.
I feel the opposite.
And let’s make sure we understand the distinctions between elitism and intellectualism.
Great point.
Lefists tend to erect a false dichotomy between their world view and thinking at all. In other words anybody who calls them on their academic elitist snobbery is by definition an unthinking individual. Put yet another way, they define “intellectual” itself as their world view, achieved in the sparkling classrooms of high academia and hence any challenge to their enlightened (and expensive) education simply must be anti intellectual as well as just plain wrong or they wasted their time and money.
Great point.
Rightists tend to erect a false dichotomy between their world view and thinking at all. In other words anybody who calls them on their purist “real vs fake” elitist snobbery is by definition an unthinking individual. Put yet another way, they define “what is ‘real’” itself as their world view, achieved in the megachurches and religous schools of the rural countryside and hence any challenge to their enlightened education simply must be intellectual snobbery as well as just plain wrong or they wasted their time and money.
It’s not like “rightists” on this very board have told me I am not a “real” christian or claimed all economics and social sciences to be “not real” and “snakeoil,” right?
“Christian” and “American” (and Muslim for that matter) both have definitions that vastly predate my existence. If I am to take those seriously certain unavoidable even if unpleasant conclusions follow.
You are as usual completely lost.[/quote]
I know, I am lost. I blame it on not being raised “right.” But I’m begging, begging for help. Please, fill us all on on these infinite definitions that pre-date your existence. I really want to learn what it is about me that you have learned from some internet postings that allows you to tell me I’m not a “real” Christian.
I would also like to know what it is to be a Muslim. And of course, I’d like to know what it is to be an American too. BTW, by this infinite definition, and given you already know I’m not real christian, am I a “real” American?
Look dude, it is not possible to take any historical orthodox understanding of the biblical Christian gospel seriously and also subscribe to the ideology of modern western liberalism. It is also not possible to take the DEFINING founding principles of this nation seriously and subscribe to modern western liberalism.
A comprehensive exegetical exposition of systematic theology along with it’s moral/social imperatives and the universal manner with which these stand in stark contrast to the ideology of the left is far beyond the scope of an internet forum. You asked me a question and I gave you my answer.
Sorry I’m late =] Here is Beck on the debt from yesterday:
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,103.new.html#new
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Look dude, it is not possible to take any historical orthodox understanding of the biblical Christian gospel seriously and also subscribe to the ideology of modern western liberalism. It is also not possible to take the DEFINING founding principles of this nation seriously and subscribe to modern western liberalism.
A comprehensive exegetical exposition of systematic theology along with it’s moral/social imperatives and the universal manner with which these stand in stark contrast to the ideology of the left is far beyond the scope of an internet forum. You asked me a question and I gave you my answer.[/quote]
Boy trib, on the other thread you were telling me that one need not be an expert to know this. Here you’re saying that one needs to describe a comprehensive exegetical exposition of systematic theology…" and that it is impossible to describe on an internet board. That sounds kinda like one might need to study. But when one is advocating (or just supporting) mass deportations based upon religion, or claiming that people “aren’t real” Americans, Christians, or Muslims, why would one really need to figure these things out? I think your “thinking” is much better: just grab onto those extremes (in the 1980s) and hold on tight!
'Course this kind of “thinking” is exactly what I love about this board. Please elaborate!
These things really are this tough for you aren’t they.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
These things really are this tough for you aren’t they. [/quote]
Tough for you, apparently. You’re the one claiming you’re incapable of answering the questions “in this medium.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
These things really are this tough for you aren’t they.
Tough for you, apparently. You’re the one claiming you’re incapable of answering the questions “in this medium.”
[/quote]
The central message of the Bible is that there is one all holy and eternal almighty God existing in 3 equally divine persons whose immutable law was violated by a literal first man thus condemning him and all of his descendants into a state of irreconcilable guilt before this God. The entire earthly history of the nation of Israel, beginning with the covenant with Abraham is a custodial one in which they are the keepers of the promise of a redeemer who would right the relationship between this God and those he would save from the spiritual death bequeathed to all mankind by the first man Adam.
That redeemer was born of a virgin, fully man and fully second person of the above mentioned God as the infant Jesus of Nazareth whose divinely empowered sinless human life, took the punishment for sin suffering humiliation and brutal death at the hands of the very humanity he would redeem by conquering their death in his resurrection. That resurrected life is given as a free gift of grace as the indwelling presence of the third person of the above mentioned God thus fulfilling the eternal covenant of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world for the forgiveness of sins. Conceived by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit.
Those promised to the Son in this eternal covenant of which he would be the firstborn among many brethren are born again from spiritual death to life when drawn by grace through faith absolutely devoid of any merit in themselves. They are then spiritual descendants of the last Adam, Jesus Christ as they are earthly descendants of the first Adam and those 2 natures remain during which time they are in warring conflict one against the other until the final judgment and resurrection when the mortal shall put on immortal and all remaining sin is expunged from the redeemed.
The God/man Jesus Christ is the living word of God and the 66 books of the Bible alone and in their entirety are the written word of God both being infallible Divine revelations manward.
The indwelling presence of this God answers to both his living and written word thus inducing this new creature in Christ to strive to live his life accordingly though he falls short due to remaining sin until the final judgment and resurrection as already mentioned.
Regardless of whether this sounds like an utterly preposterous bad anime series, which according to that Bible it will to those still under death and sin, THAT in a very abbreviated nutshell is the Christian gospel. Some fine particulars have been debated forever, but for the last 2000 years the core of what I’ve just said would not be denied by any serious Bible believing Christian.
No person who actually believes this can possibly find reconciliation between that and any approximation of modern social, economic or political liberalism.
Ya happy now? In this post is positively endless discussion and debate which I am not capable of having on an internet forum, but I did my best to answer more fully just for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
These things really are this tough for you aren’t they.
Tough for you, apparently. You’re the one claiming you’re incapable of answering the questions “in this medium.”
The central message of the Bible is that there is one all holy and eternal almighty God existing in 3 equally divine persons whose immutable law was violated by a literal first man thus condemning him and all of his descendants into a state of irreconcilable guilt before this God. The entire earthly history of the nation of Israel, beginning with the covenant with Abraham is a custodial one in which they are the keepers of the promise of a redeemer who would right the relationship between this God and those he would save from the spiritual death bequeathed to all mankind by the first man Adam.
That redeemer was born of a virgin, fully man and fully second person of the above mentioned God as the infant Jesus of Nazareth whose divinely empowered sinless human life, took the punishment for sin suffering humiliation and brutal death at the hands of the very humanity he would redeem by conquering their death in his resurrection. That resurrected life is given as a free gift of grace as the indwelling presence of the third person of the above mentioned God thus fulfilling the eternal covenant of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world for the forgiveness of sins. Conceived by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit.
Those promised to the Son in this eternal covenant of which he would be the firstborn among many brethren are born again from spiritual death to life when drawn by grace through faith absolutely devoid of any merit in themselves. They are then spiritual descendants of the last Adam, Jesus Christ as they are earthly descendants of the first Adam and those 2 natures remain during which time they are in warring conflict one against the other until the final judgment and resurrection when the mortal shall put on immortal and all remaining sin is expunged from the redeemed.
The God/man Jesus Christ is the living word of God and the 66 books of the Bible alone and in their entirety are the written word of God both being infallible Divine revelations manward.
The indwelling presence of this God answers to both his living and written word thus inducing this new creature in Christ to strive to live his life accordingly though he falls short due to remaining sin until the final judgment and resurrection as already mentioned.
Regardless of whether this sounds like an utterly preposterous bad anime series, which according to that Bible it will to those still under death and sin, THAT in a very abbreviated nutshell is the Christian gospel. Some fine particulars have been debated forever, but for the last 2000 years the core of what I’ve just said would not be denied by any serious Bible believing Christian.
No person who actually believes this can possibly find reconciliation between that and any approximation of modern social, economic or political liberalism.
Ya happy now? In this post is positively endless discussion and debate which I am not capable of having on an internet forum, but I did my best to answer more fully just for you.[/quote]
That’s the thing, trib, you didn’t try to answer it. You gave a synopsis of the gospel and then said, “No person who believes this can think that way” with no evidence or explanation whatsoever. Nor, for that matter, did you even come close to connecting any of this to your argument that I’m not a “real” American or Christian. I’m not really surprised you think this is answering the question, though. That’s just the kinda guy you are.
What is it that makes “liberalism” irreconcilable with Christianity, Trib? What is it that makes you think you can define me as not being a Christian? And I would love to hear how you are going to connect a economic system to this.
Instead of doing this “just for me,” why don’t you try thinking, just once, just for yourself?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have a hunch this ^^^ won’t mean anything to young, scornful GL.[/quote]
“Scornful?” Shiiiiiiiiiit, this guy just told me I’m not a real Christian or a real American in one breath, and said he agreed with mass deportations of people based upon religion in the next. I’m not sure there is enough scorn in the whole damn world for this type.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
That’s the thing, trib, you didn’t try to answer it. You gave a synopsis of the gospel and then said, “No person who believes this can think that way” with no evidence or explanation whatsoever. Nor, for that matter, did you even come close to connecting any of this to your argument that I’m not a “real” American or Christian. I’m not really surprised you think this is answering the question, though. That’s just the kinda guy you are.
What is it that makes “liberalism” irreconcilable with Christianity, Trib? What is it that makes you think you can define me as not being a Christian? And I would love to hear how you are going to connect a economic system to this.
Instead of doing this “just for me,” why don’t you try thinking, just once, just for yourself?
[/quote]
I’ve a few questions, because I can’t remember seeing your feelings ever expressed on these matters. Do you believe the killing of an unborn child to be a “right?” How do you feel about Christian clergy marrying homosexuals?