Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Indeed. Though they would probably bristle at the term “preach” even though it fits since a sermon is a “talk on a religious or moral subject” according to the Oxford dictionary.
Actually everyone is a preacher.. People preach more loudly by what they DO and Don’t Do than what they say.. What you Do preaches a message.. as well as what you Do Not Do..
Parents preach daily to their kids.. neighbors to all watching, workers to all co-workers, on this thread all are preaching something..
WHat you DO preaches much more loudly than any words you utter..
Words are indeed a homily(message) on something but what you Do removes all doubt..
What you Do is really what you believe...
God knows it, I know it, all that watch you know it.. it’s no mystery.....
Your activities prove who you are and what you believe..
Without a word spoken..
When your words match your deeds well thats special..
But few humans know that much about anybody..
Unless your stalking someone..
The 19th century Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was one of the most systematically and clear-eyed enemies of natural science. His assertion that the sophistical naturalist mind is in fact the inability of spiritually dead natural man to transcend the natural dimension is an abbreviated and precise definition of natural science.
In “The Present Age,” Kierkegaard’s cutting satire aimed at natural science, he connects sophistry and natural science which he scornfully describes as, “the increasing mass of drivel which is called science….” Invoking the authority of Socrates he writes:
“If the natural sciences had been developed in Socrates day as they are now, all the sophists would have been scientists. One would have hung a microscope outside his shop in order to attract custom, and then would have had a sign painted saying, ‘Learn and see through a giant microscope how a man thinks’ (and on reading the advertisement Socrates would have said: ‘that is how men who do not think behave.’) (The Restitution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, Aeschliman, p. 30, 31)
Who just tried to take control of that list of terms and re-define them all as "sophistry"?
I don't recall ever reading any accont of John Adams telling Thomas Paine "We don't want or need your kind, here. Shut up and get out.", so if it's following a political tradition, it's not ours.
I understand your concern here, but in fact philosophy and theology are all about how we can arrive at higher truths and Truths.
Science, in effect, says: that's not our concern, all we really care about is: natural explanations for natural processes.
We'll leave "truth" or "Truth" to other disciplines.
Now, when people use their understandings of truth/Truth to "prove" that science is not only wrong, but wicked, then science can only suffer such crucifixions in silence, and hope that the future will treat them better.
Science itself has no defense against such "truths" except, well, more & better science.
Well, I'm not "science". I don't have to quietly accept that those tactics and that level of discourse must be allowed to stand, and go unchallenged.
Despite your gaggle of sycophants here, it's pretty obvious to me that yours is the polluted and depraved conscience of a committed sophist, intent on destroying all philosophical connections between your personal theology and any other discipline -- i.e., science.
And despite your gaggle of sycophants here, the apparent fact -- revealed only by you -- that the Free Republic religious community cannot tolerate your nonsense, tells me there is a huge group of others who share my feelings.
On this non-religious thread, the flaws in your logic & intent should be readily apparent: 1) you consistently lump together both the guilty (i.e., Marxists) and the innocent (anyone else who disagrees with you), and 2) You falsely accuse the innocent of whatever sin you yourself fervently practice. 3) You consistently fail to answer simple questions about your own assertions.
These practices fail to work on non-religious forums, just as they do on religious ones.
Got to run, out of time, more later...
Think about it, FRiend.
;-)
LOLOL! And so true, dear hosepipe!
Interesting. Thank you for those insights, dear spirited irish!
For example, we have often wrestled for control of the term "Creationist" because some of our correspondents would like to paint everyone who believes in God the Creator as a Young Earth Creationist by attaching the meaning, YEC to the term "Creationist."
I also wrestle for control of certain terms which have strict meaning in mathematics but would be misappropriated applied to physical nature.
For instance, a person cannot say something is random in a system when he doesn't know what the system "is." A series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear random but are in fact, highly determined. Using the term to describe a physical phenomena without the qualifier, i.e. "physical randomnness" - suggests that all that physically exists is both known and knowable to science. That is of course impossible since science cannot say that fields, particles and dimensions which have no measurable direct or indirect effect must therefore not exist.
Of course the stakes are very high indeed when the debate is political and the consequences, bloody. "Untermenschen" or 'under men' was the term the Nazis used to describe Jews, Gypsies, etc. and as a result the people who put them to death in great numbers could believe they were not actually killing humans. Ditto for mainstream media, liberals and Democrats relentlessly referring to the unborn human as a fetus.
I defer on the "isms" to betty boop and spirited irish. Just one battle on a crevo thread over the terms "realism" "idealism" and "nominalism" convinced me to take the back seat. LOLOL!
I defer on the "isms" to betty boop and spirited irish.
So you understand the consequences of one side having control of the terms, and you've willing to let one side have it?
I don’t recall ever reading any account of John Adams telling Thomas Paine “We don’t want or need your kind, here.
Shut up and get out.”, so if it’s following a political tradition, it’s not ours.
So..... why mention it?...
Because political tradition is what defines conservativism.
It's what you're trying to conserve.
ping
tacticalogic: I don’t recall ever reading any account of John Adams telling Thomas Paine “We don’t want or need your kind, here. Shut up and get out.”, so if it’s following a political tradition, it’s not ours.
Spirited: You’re wrong. Paine advocated a New Pantheist spirituality grounded in natural science in opposition to the Christian consensus held by the Founders. As a result they rejected Paine. He became an outcast.
Whether the Founders were individually Christian or not, there was among them a general Christian consensus that finds some of its greatest expression in the scholarly works of Samuel Rutherford in his “Lex Rex” (1644) and in the writings of the 18th century jurist William Blackstone.
Blackstone greatly influenced early American understanding of God, the Bible and nature. He taught that since the transcendent living, personal God is the omnipotent Creator who works and governs the affairs of men then all law should be consistent with His Revelation in the Bible. No law should be passed that is contrary to the higher law of God.
Rutherford reasoned that despite being God’s spiritual image bearers, all men are sinners, therefore no man-—whether king, prime minister or president is superior to any other man. This meant that no man is above the law; all are subject to the law without exception, thus all men must recognize that they are under the transcendent Law of God.
Furthermore, as all men are created equal in the eyes of God, then worth, dignity and the right to life are conferred upon each human being at creation. Thus all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable spiritual property. In other words, the ground of our Constitutional rights is spiritual property. Spirit precedes temporal. In this light the Constitution is a great spiritual document.
In James Madison’s essay “Property,” published in The National Gazette on March 29, 1792, he clearly defines the meaning of a person’s God-given spiritual property, some of its’ temporal manifestations and the meaning and intent of just government as opposed to unjust government:
“He has a property....in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.” (Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex; lexrex.com)
“He has a property...in his opinions and the free communication of them.”
“He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”
“He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”
Property is “a man’s land, or merchandize, or money...”
“...as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”
“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.” (ibid)
Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s foremost Christian scholar observes that the unique concept of man as God’s spiritual image-bearer gave birth to the “belief in the unique dignity of human beings,” and this is,
“...the force that created Western civilization, where citizens do not exist for the state but the state exists for the individuals. Even kings, presidents, prime ministers, and army generals cannot be allowed to trample upon an individual and his or her rights.” (Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations, pp. 12-13)
Over and against America’s Christian foundations Paine proposed pantheism, or collectivism-—statism
Paine saw natural science as an enlightened pathway to a ‘new’ spirituality, one that would replace the outdated and unscientific Revealed Word perspective. For Paine, the Deists veneration of natural science and man’s Omniscient Reason was the only true religion.
Paine provided Americans in the 1790s with what Deists of the 1730s provided England: a reason for rejecting the Revealed Word in favor of natural science and Reason (the mind of man).
Undermining the Revealed Word through corrosive criticism, ruthless ridicule, scoffing and mocking was the first goal of Deists. The second was to advance an alternative religion based on natural science, one that prefigured and paved the way for the occult New Age evolutionary pantheism overtaking America today and advocated by neo-pantheist Christians such as Teilhard de Chardin, Michael Dowd, and John Polkinghorne with his sophisticated two-aspect monism conception.
“All the corruptions that have taken place in theology and in religion,” said Paine, “have been produced by admitting what man calls revealed religion.” Rational religion, on the other hand, derives from an “examination of nature, especially the careful study of celestial bodies.” (The Making of the New Spirituality, James A. Herrick, p 101)
In a section of “The Age of Reason” entitled “Comparing Christianism with Pantheism,” Paine recommends a scientific alternative to Christianity. Though he labels this new scientific faith Deism, it is a brand of pantheism that redistributes the Divine Substance of God within nature, thereby endowing men with divine sparks-—men can be as God in other words.
Paine compared natural science as the study of the “structure of the heavens” with various non-Christian “systems of religion.” In this light, natural science is “the progression of knowledge” and the one true source of natural religion.
In another section entitled “Advantages of Life in a Plurality of Worlds,” Paine explains that the pantheist conception of an infinite space filled with divine life led him, as it had Giordano Bruno, to speculate that other intelligent species exist in the cosmos, which through contemplation, can provide a sense of wonder lending itself to worship. (ibid)
For Paine and other Deists, natural science was the basis for a new pantheist spirituality and self-divination.
ONCE property was allowed to be taxed.. the government owned everything..
You paid rent to the givernment.. first on a few items then on more and more items..
Any that miss this... are delusional...
Because political tradition is what defines conservativism.
NOT true(True).... the liberals invented the term conservative to offset their new term progressive..
WHats not progressive is conservative.. i.e. same old, same old..
Its a word game(gambit) that the republicans bought by hook and line..
AND the progessives reel them in.. like a fish....
Happening TODAY in Congress... and in State capitals..
Republicans are HOOKED FISH.. writhing for freedom...
And the liberals laugh... knowing the “true” situation..
obviously YOU do not..
to wit; conservatives are really RADICALS in a socialist system and sub-culture..
AND do not know who they are.....
JUST the way liberals want it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.