Posted on 01/07/2002 10:57:05 AM PST by Clinton's a liar
I agree with you.
If I wanted to pick nits with Dr. Keyes as he picked them with the President, I might accuse him of being a Docetist - the sect that taught that Christ was not really human but only God. But I wouldn't do that, because it would be ridiculous and if I did it, I could legitimately be called a Keyes Basher. But if making that accusation against Dr. Keyes would make me a Keyes Basher, does his theologically ill-informed condescension to the President make him a Bush Basher?
Keyes knows a lot and many of his principles are sound. If he can control his egotism instead of putting it on continual display, I will welcome his television show. But he does have an attitude problem, and if it isn't kept in check he could end up by doing the things he believes in a lot of harm.
ROFLMAO!
BUMP!
Of course, that applies equally to all of us. ;-)
Dan clearly slimed Keyesters as cultists. Why can't you understand simple English?
There it is again. I guess I know your M.O. Since Dan didn't use the word "cult" and has explained that was not his intent, it seems to me my reading comprehension is just fine. (You seem to like slapping people around as much as the next guy, all in the name of Christ. That's your business, of course, but is that cool, while you're admonishing others?)
ETERNALVIGILANCE: ..."I agree with you"...
MY QUESTION: How can you even suggest this? We have been told time and time again that he says what he means and means what he says. Now you two are trying to say that he doesn't really mean what he actually said but that what he actually says means something different than what he actually meant to say.
Right? Well, I'm going to watch this argument--gonna go make the popcorn. Be back shortly. Can't wait for the reasons why Jesus Christ really is a philosopher, rather than TRUTH itself.
When he said that during the debates, I slumped back on the sofa thinking, OMG, he's given the Jesus Seminar freaks ammo!
Well stated. And absolutely correct.
LOL!
;-)
KFP (though fearing a hyperdetailed, almost pecksniffian response ["Well no, Dan didn't say the word 'cult'..."], rather than candid acknowledgment of facts obvious to others)
My M.O. is to defend my friends from unjust and untrue accusations.
Since Dan didn't use the word "cult"...
Oh, but he did.
...and has explained that was not his intent.
His intent is very clear...it's right there on the thread for all to see.
...it seems to me my reading comprehension is just fine.
What's the old saying? 'None are so blind as those who will not see'??
(You seem to like slapping people around as much as the next guy, all in the name of Christ. That's your business, of course, but is that cool, while you're admonishing others?)
You are pretty new to this fight. If I seem harsh, I apologize. But I have put up with this and alot more for a long, long time...and I refuse to let this type of thing just pass.
Regards...EV
What's the old saying? 'None are so blind as those who will not see'??
I believe that's it, EV. If you're aiming that at me (and I believe you are), just be careful the boomerang doesn't come back around and slap you in the noggin. Heads up, buddy.
This may provide an answer to some of the problems experienced around FR.
What I thought Dan meant was that some people (a lot of people, actually) seem to have a glassy-eyed inability to see flaws in Alan Keyes. Now - you may disagree with his premise, but that's not a cult in the strict, religious sense of the word, is it? (Maybe I'm wrong.) His reference to "God", I thought, was just hyperbole to illustrate his point. I don't think he meant it literally, and if he says he didn't mean "cult", I see no reason to doubt him. OK?
I really don't know how you're missing my obvious, bite-you-on-the-nose point, but here it is ONE MORE TIME: Keyes acts in a manner that shows him to be a full-of-himself, implacable, unpleasable purist who CANNOT form coalitions because ANYONE who is not in 101% agreement with him MUST be criticized at GREAT LENGTH and with FIERCE PASSION. (His stupid, stupid, stupid criticism of Bush's confession of faith which you recalled is a perfect example.) The effect he has on those most devoted to him (observable in this thread, as in all Keyes threads) is that they become Keyes Kultists. NOBODY is pure enough for them, NO compromise is really acceptable, NOTHING that varies from their Prophet's dicta can be acceptable. And variances are NEVER honest differences of opinion -- they are heresies! (Witness Keyes and Krew's total botching and almost slanderous misrepresentation of Bush on the "stem cell research" issue, to which I devoted a lengthy essay [where were you??].)
And so, proving my point, if any Keyester comments on this posting, it will be ponderous and humorless and painfully detailed (I've touched The Lord's Anointed, after all). No Keyester can say, "You know, you have a point. The guy has great points, but ruins his own case by being way too full of himself and Unable To Play Well With Others" -- any more than a Christian can say that Christ takes Himself too seriously. The difference being, of course, that Christ really is God.
Dan
556 posted on 1/9/02 11:51 AM Central by BibChr
There it is...one last time. Added to 'the word' itself is the heavy inference throughout the rest of the post that anyone foolish enough to agree with Keyes is a cultist.
My apologies for the digression with our fellow FReeper...I really wanted to discuss it with you, not her.
I have other obligations that necessitate my departure now, but any response you see fit to give will have to wait for the morrow.
EV
Exactly! Actually I think it's funny! You wouldn't cut me any slack and wouldn't accept my assurance of my intent.
(BTW, I acknowledged that it was a reference to Bush)
Now don't get offended--I'm not. I sincerely got a chuckle out of this. that's why I posted the winking smily face.
On the nose!
:-D
But you admitted ("secret societies" is pretty much a dead giveaway, so there was no point in protesting) you were insincere in your initial ("Wha...? Bush?? Who said Bush?") denial.
There are a couple of interpretations of the word "cult". One is nothing to be terribly offended about - just a descriptive term but not intended in the true religious sense (I don't believe Dan thinks Christians will really leave Christ to follow Alan Keyes, to illustrate). The other is the true, religious sense. I can believe Dan meant the former. See the difference? You were talking about Bush, but you played innocent about it, then admitted it. Dan, I think, was (deliberately) misinterpreted.
And for the record, I'm not mad either!
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.