The Time Online | Gerard Baker | October 17, 2007
Anti-Americanism is on the wane at last. All over the world, Americans are being feted once again as farsighted, liberating heroes.
Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar and an Emmy, the triple crown of recognition from the self-adoring keepers of bien-pensant, elite liberal, global orthodoxy. Michael Moore is treated like a prophet in Cannes and Venice, as he peddles his tales of an America that poisons its poor, sends its blacks off to war and shoots itself. Whenever a loquacious Dixie Chick or a contumacious Sean Penn utters some excoriating remark about the depravity of his or her own country, audiences around the world nod their heads in sympathetic agreement. Bill Clinton, of course, is a god. Though protocol dictates that he may not say things that are too unkind about the country he once led, a nod and a wink will suffice.
It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves.
It has always been this way. The fiercest and most effective opponents of US foreign policy in the 1960s were not the students in Paris or the Politburo in North Vietnam. They were Jane Fonda, Bobby Kennedy and Marvin Gaye.
Today I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes.
. . . more
In America, a democracy, someone who criticizes his government is not anti-American, but pro-American. That is because in a democracy it is a citizen’s duty to be aware, informed, involved and engaged. Questioning our government when it’s policies seem wrong is an essential and appropriate element of civic participation.
Only in totalitarian states is political dissent considered a form of treason.
Thank you Al Gore, Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks for exemplifying Pro-American virtue!
Mr. Scourtes,
You crack me up! So utterly predictable, LOL! Just remember that to complain for change is one thing, but to complain so you can make OTHERS change (as well as profit handsomely) is entirely different. The 3 you listed seem quite exceptional at self promotion.
Best regards friend (even though you swing so far left you meet yourself the other way I have become attached to your incessant ramblings),
CP
Dean Scourtes, Michael Moore only cares about himself, he is without public virtue, in fact he is the epitome of the heartless captialist you elsewhere criticize. The Dixie Chicks are singers who have neither the background nor the knowledge to offer relevant comments, just emotional hyperbole.
Al Gore is relatively sincere, but his policies do not promote freedom and democracy, rather they promote demogogery and tyranny.
There actions are certainly well within the mainstream of American social and polticical actions, but to lionize them as good for America is foolish.
Once again you show your servitude to ideology. It is no longer amusing to me as it is to Cepik.
Michael: How am I any more guilty of servtude to an ideology than you? My comments are usually in response to articles posted or comments made by others. If people think those topics are too “ideological”, maybe they shouldn’t raise them in the first place. Otherwise, they are fair game.
In fact most of my comments have been motivated by pragmatism, not ideology. I opposed the war in Iraq because it seemed ill-conceived and poorly managed; and look what a mess it became.
I have criticized our nation’s expensive and disgraceful health care system; public opinion surveys show that most American families share those concerns.
Wide disparities in wealth and income, such as the those growing in the United States today, usually precede social unrest and political upheaval. Check your history books; there would have been no Lenin or Hitler without widespread economic disatisfaction for them to exploit.
Environmental degradation has the potential to bring down whole societies. This is the theme of Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30EASTERB.html
Are you really claiming that the hope that our grandchildren don’t have to grow up on a planet in the midst of environmental collapse makes one an ideologue?
Dean Scourtes, No topic is, in and of itself, ideological, only thought and action are ideological.
I am less in servitude to ideology because the truth of the Church is not an ideology. IMO you have sacrificed the goodness and wisdom of the Church for chimera’s and erstatz imitations produced by the mind of man immersed in the world. While I am without doubt effected by much of the same crap. I give no allegiance to it, whatever form it takes. You do.
That government, even one as perverted as Saddam’s, is formed by the will of the people not the other way around. When our will is perverted and sinful, so our government will be. If outrage is committed as it always will be, I must first be outraged at myself for partaking in the sin that gave the outrage birth and address that in my own heart. For if any change is to occur it has to happen in my heart first. Political solutions are at best temporary stop gaps.
That what is not true cannot produce truth and the rationalistic dualism that serves as the foundation for science, cultural thought and politics is profoundly untrue.
That the only real community is formed by voluntary submission to the love of God (which is a real energy that can be identified and is not just what anybody claims it is). That the most complete expression of His love is in the Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. The way of power and especially the way of fear is not God’s way. That community and the “greater good” are not at all the same. Government tends to destroy community and is incapable of creating it.
I realize that none of my answers are satisfactory because the expression of the real answer is not possible in cyberspace. The best I can say is that it comes down to Christ in His Church, and Him crucified or nothing. If you think of Christ and His Church as ideology for even a fleeting instant, you have proved my point.
Until we can say with gladness “submit yourselves all ye nations for God is with us” we dwell in the darkness and hubris of our own diseased imaginations. (Note to JamesK, et. al. I am NOT talking about theocracy here so put the pacifiers back in your brains and chill).
Michael writes: “I am less in servitude to ideology because the truth of the Church is not an ideology.”
In addition, you can afford to be less in servitude to ideology because the ideological end of things is already taken care of by the articles that are posted.
A large number of the articles here are nothing but ideological. Look at this article. All the usual suspects are there — Gore, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Dixie Chicks, universities, hollywood, and so on. Even Bill Clinton, a former president, is included, who is supposedly anti-American with a “wink and a nod.” And there is not even a hint that anyone has anything to be concerned about. No, in the land of optional wars, rampant governmental secrecy, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, and torture that is not “really” torture, all is well.
Of course, the pervasive ideological slant of the articles passes by without comment, perhaps even without notice. And that’s fine with me. Every blog has a theme and a purpose, and this blog is no exception.
But — I do find it odd that, in a blog awash in ideology, Dean is singled out for being ideological.
Michael B – I suspected I might have been in trouble with you when I used the phrase “save the planet” in the context of the global warming debate several months ago
If you look at the earth from a spiritual point of view, why God created humanity and the future of our eternal souls, Jesus Christ has already “saved the planet”. Christ triumphed over death, and taught us how to overcome sin and become more perfect agents and vessels of God’s love in order to assure ourselves a place in His everlasting Kingdom.
So let me make it clear that by using the phrase “save the planet” in the context of the global warming debate I was not denying that Christ has already saved the world in a spiritual sense, but was only referring to the physical earth and how physically hospitable it may continue to be for human habitation. I was not promoting an alternate panthiestic Gaia-worshiping spiritual view-point.
Additionally, by pointing out the need to attend to the physical needs of human beings, through a fair economic system and universal access to health care, etc. I am not promoting a “materialistic” ideology that seeks to substitute itself for Christianity or or deny that spiritual needs are the highest needs of hiuman beings.
Rather I am trying to convey what Abraham Maslow describes as a human heirarchy of needs. In Maslow’s heirarchy of needs you have to satisfy the lower needs first, (shelter, food and security), in order to enable people to focus on their higher needs, self-actualization, or as you say, “voluntary submission to the love of God.” I am merely trying to point out that it is easier for someone to begin concentrating on voluntary submission to the love of God with a full stomach, then it is when they are hungry, frightened, sick or cold.
So your frequent suggestion that I am not a real Christian, but some sort of panthiest or materialist or left-wing agent provocateur because I care about the environment and people suffering in poverty is incorrect. I am certainly a very imperfect Christian, but hopefully not because have argued against the teachings of my faith.
I ask you then, why was Peter able to preach the Gospel when he was often sick, hungry, and homeless?
I would say that enough food for sustenance is important, but earthly pleasures can become an obstacle. Trying to make utopias only causes anti-utopias to be made.
Dean Scourtes you say “Additionally, by pointing out the need to attend to the physical needs of human beings, through a fair economic system and universal access to health care, etc.”
Can you not see that your identification of what are appropriate methods of attending to the physical needs of human beings is so charged with specific, emotionally charged, political ideology that the statement amounts to nothing more than a sophisticated “when did you stop beating your wife”?
You seem to identify what is “fair” in economics with an egalitarian equilibrium which must be enforced by the state. Anyone who disagrees with you becomes a “hater of the poor”.
The phrase “universal access to health care” is nothing more than a ideological talking point that presupposes that if I do not agree with a specific political method for implementing such “universal access” I am an uncaring, unfeeling tool of greed and rapacity. Your continued and constant use of such ideological terms in practically every post makes any real discussion of genuine human needs impossible.
Further you fail to understand the inverted and rootless assumptions upon which modern scientific metaphysics, and therefore all of modern scientific thought, is founded. These assumptions are consciously and specifically anti-Christian. The foundational principals of modern political theory and philosophy (all across the spectrum) stem from the self same ideas. We have all imbibed such anti-Christian assmumptions from our conception, but that does not mean we have to remain captive to them. Indeed, working to free our reason from captivity to such assumptions is a big part of the spiritual warfare of our time.
One such assumption: DeCartes said, “I think, therefore I am” His contentin is upside down and backwards–blasphemy really. The reality is that “I am, therefore I think”.
Maslow’s hierarchy suffers from a similar inversion that makes even his “spiritual needs” firmly material realities and the fulfillment of them merely a satisfaction of desire. In fact, his hierarchy is firmly rooted in a philosophical perception of man that can accurately, if broadly, be described as materialism. It is the opposite of Christ’s command to “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all these things will be added unto you.”
As Christians, the battle is, in a general sense, not only anthropological, but also epistimological. IMO you argue from both an anthropology and an epistomology that is antithetical to traditional Orthodox understanding and teaching while maintaining that you are Orthodox. Such a divide in thought cannot be maintained without consequences.
The un-holy trinity of this site (Jim, Phil and JamesK) do not have to trouble themselves with such a problem as they make no bones about their unbelief in traditional Christianity and all that it reveals about the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. That is their choice and they will continue to reap the consequences of such denial (the most minor of which is that I am unable to communicate with them at all). You, on the other hand, are my brother in Christ. (Yes, Christopher, I take his assertion that he is formally Orthodox and in communion at face value). I have a greater responsibility to you and a greater opportunity with you than with those who do not share that communion. I fear for you as I do for myself that we eat and drink of the Lord unworthily.
That I call your attention to such a danger presupposes that I believe you are a real Christian, i.e., one who seeks to deepen his union with Christ within the Church.
Note 9: I see no opportunity is wasted here in applying pejoratives to myself and others here. I didn’t even post anything!
But back to this universal health care thing: several Orthodox posters here have suggested several books in order to get a proper understanding of Orthodox anthropology. The problem is these books never mention universal health care (at least I couldn’t find anything on “Hillary-care” in St. Athanasius). They don’t mention explicitly why a woman speaking from a pulpit is wrong but why Margaret Thatcher being involved in military decisions and affairs of state is not.
Instead, one must draw conclusions and infer various doctrines from this anthropology what the proper path is in all of these worldly affairs, right? So, we ask: “How do we get from point ‘a’ (the anthropology) to point ‘b’?” How do you get from an Orthodox understanding of man to policies on women or health care or any of these other things? The Orthodox here will not answer. Instead, it’s taken as a given that their beliefs are automatically grounded in this anthropology while anyone who diverges from that belief is labeled ‘unholy’ (thanks again!).
So, practical definitions are out because that’s a “materialist” rationalization. However, when the Orthodox cannot even coherently explain how some of their political and social beliefs are derived from their own theology, it’s difficult to take their opinions very seriously.
Personally, I’m uncertain about uhc. I’d like to see what happens in the areas they’re attempting a small-scale implementation of it first. However, it would be nice for the more conservative Orthodox here to explain how the entire concept of universal health care necessarily contradicts their worldview.
Dean writes: “I ask you then, why was Peter able to preach the Gospel when he was often sick, hungry, and homeless?”
Michael writes: “Maslow’s hierarchy suffers from a similar inversion that makes even his “spiritual needs” firmly material realities and the fulfillment of them merely a satisfaction of desire. In fact, his hierarchy is firmly rooted in a philosophical perception of man that can accurately, if broadly, be described as materialism. It is the opposite of Christ’s command to “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all these things will be added unto you.”
This is the problem I have with the concept of “materialism.” We live in a country that is not Orthodox, and not, in a significant sense, even Christian. Most people, even Christians, have a fundamentally “materialistic” and modern worldview. That is simply the lay of the land, the reality down on the ground.
In that context, to address any problem necessarily involves thinking that is to some extent “materialistic” under your definition. Most people are not saints. Maybe they should be, but they aren’t. When families are bankrupted by medical expenses, they don’t respond with “oh well, blessed are the poor.” When they are laid off at work, broke, and lose their houses they don’t think “no problem, because the Son of Man had not where to lay his head.” When there’s no food in the house, nobody says “so what, Peter preached the gospel when he was hungry.”
And they certainly aren’t going to say that when the top 1 percent of the population has over one-third of the income and an even larger percent of the wealth.
Such a situation would be unsustainable, and if too many people fell into the abyss, would result in revolution. This is why the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno states that governmental programs do not attack private property — they actually protect it:
Concerning Dean S., I don’t think he’s a materialist on social issues. I think he’s a Catholic. And that’s a good thing. The Catholic church has a far more developed teaching on social issues, and when it comes to issues of healthcare, wealth, and poverty, I think there is no comparison between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. At least, in my reading, I have seen nothing comparable in Orthodoxy.
In response to the writings of athiests like Richard Dawkin’s, we have discussed how Christianity has been the most positive revolutionary force in history. All of the great social movements of history were, in one form or another, inspired by Saint Paul’s declaration that:
Galatians 3:28
That all human beings have equal value in the eyes of God, free and slave, man and woman, lord and serf, rich and poor, owner and worker, born and unborn, is the most momentous idea, and the greatest impetus for positive change in history.
At the beginning of the twentieth century it was the secular world, the world that had rejected religion and embraced Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest”, that argued on behalf of the inevitability of social and economic inequality. It was the Christian world that struggled so passionately for social justice and on behalf of the poor.
The Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum, issued by Pope Leo XIII on May 15, 1891 affirmed the rights and dignity of workers and labor and the sinfulness of th abuse and exploitation of workers by owners.
Walter Rauschenbusch, published “Christianity and the Social Crisis,” in 1907. Rauschenbusch wrote that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/books/review/Wolfe2-t.html?8bu&emc=bu
Let us as Christians never trade places with the Social Darwinists, forget our brilliant legacy as agents for positive change or become apologists for a corrupt and unjust status quo.
JamesK, since you have repeatedly and specifically denied the metaphysical reality of Christian holiness and there happen to be three of you on this site, I consider the phrase “un-holy trinity” a somewhat hyperbolic, but generally accurate description and not pejoritive. In a certain sense the un-holy part actually applies to all of us since all unholiness is a failure of obedience and all of us are disobedient.
All thought has a metaphyscial foundation not subject to empirical proof. Therefore to properly assess the validity of any conclusion drawn from a particular type of thought one must examine the metaphysical foundation.
All thought is a series of inferences and interpretations built, more or less logically, upon a chosen metaphysical foundation. Legalism of all types attempts to give a false sense of certainity by making it appear that metaphysics is unimportant. Legalism is a lazy as it is unfruitful. Christian metaphysics rests upon the loving community of the Triune God, the undivided Holy Trinity who has saved us.
James, your questions on how to get from point a to point b have been answered repeatly. However, since you specifically reject the validity of point a you fail to understand the connection and reject the answers. I conclude that you are not asking your questions in good faith, but merely as a way to flail your cudgel once again. Perhaps though, it is simply that I do not have the skills to communicate with you in a manner which you will understand, at least not in this medium. Since my attempts only lead to frustration and misunderstanding, I see no further point in attempting to respond to your “questions”, if they really are questions, here.
I will make an offer however. Be my guest some weekend at St. George in Wichita and in my home. If Wichita is too far away, I’ll be glad to do my best to find someone near your home who will extend you the same type of hospitality. If you come with an open heart and mind, you will leave with a better understanding. You can get my e-mail from Fr. Hans.
Michael writes: “The un-holy trinity of this site (Jim, Phil and JamesK) . . . ”
In other words, people not unlike those you will encounter in the larger world. Orthodox church members make up — what it is now — something less than one percent of the population of the U.S.? If the unholy trinity is hard to deal with here, good luck dealing with the rest of the unholy three hundred million in the larger world.
Michael,
Give it up, or rather stop explaining yourself over and over and over and over! Be patient and either let Fr. Jacobse do something about this infestation or let it go (let God). It’s too bad once you have a domain name (like “OrthodoxyToday”) you pretty much always have it unless one can prove copyright infringement.
I call on Fr. Jacobse to do the right thing and release the domain name! Nothing (absolutely nothing) in the Gospel or Tradition supports what you have set up here – a free for all “roundtable discussion” at it’s best, which is only maybe 10% of the time, 90% it’s simple blasphemy. Either deal with the Trolls, or shut this blog down. If Orthodoxy in america was robust I would complain to your (and mine) Bishop. This blog is a scandal and since it’s yours, you are responsible. What are you going to do with your responsibility? How about you JBL or Mr. Banescu since you two have posting privileges what are you going to do??
Note 15. Christopher, sorry, but I have not checked in for about a week. In Phoenix last week, Miami on Saturday, Tampa yesterday, in addition to the normal responsibilities. (When things stack up, I have to let some things go.)
In any case, a paragraph of bold-face type looks serious.
I’m still not clear on why I should shut down discussion however. Granted, I have not read most the recent posts. Anything I need to know?
Back to the issue of what makes someone “anti-American”, consider this passage:
Bush’s Amazing Achievement, NY Review of Books June 14, 2007
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251
So my question is what makes Michael Moore’s criticism of the Iraq war more “anti-American, that that of James Baker? Isn’t it more likely that the “Anti-American” label just a cheap way to throw the President’s critics off balance?
Note 16:
Anything I need to know?
What I already said…
Note 17. Dean asks:
Moore is a propagandist. Baker is not.
I wouldn’t hitch your wagon to Moore.
Christopher, I’m not going to move based on charges of “blasphemy” “trolls” etc. And I’ve said before open discussion is the format of the site.
Now, look at the numbers. Since April, 2006 (about a year and a half), the blog has received 877,787 visitors — very respectable numbers for a small blog like this. Obviously a lot of lurkers hang about too.
If you want the site to have a different format, why not start your own blog? You could control the contributors. I don’t mean this flippantly.
And why is the blog a “scandal”?
Note 10. James, the only time I see certainty from you is when you defend your uncertainty.
Oops. Spoke too soon.
Good to know though that you lay standards for others before you make up your own mind.
Note 15: Here it comes … the threats and attempted intimidation against a member of the Orthodox clergy. I knew it would come but I was waiting to see if Christopher was actually going to do it … and lo and behold … why am I not surprised?
I’m going to break with tradition and state something with UTTER certainty, Christopher: what you’re doing is unjust and your accusations are unfounded. If you think you are fooling anyone here (Orthodox or not) about your own moral superiority, you are sadly mistaken.
James, let me lay it out a bit clearer. Points like “However, it would be nice for the more conservative Orthodox here to explain how the entire concept of universal health care necessarily contradicts their worldview” don’t make much sense. It’s way too flaccid, especially terms like “entire concept”, etc.
Put another way, you aren’t really asking a question but making a rhetorical point. The problem is that the point doesn’t really have a point, except that you either 1) disagree with criticism of universal health care; or 2) you disagree with the point that one’s view of universal health care has dependencies on how one sees the world.
Is this what are you trying to say?
Note 1. Dean writes:
Not true. Not all criticism is “aware, informed, involved, and engaged.” Qualifying all criticism under this rubric ignores the fact that some of America’s internal critics want to shut down debate altogether (Sharia law advocates, “fairness doctrine” advocates, etc.).
It’s naive to conclude that criticism should be evaluated by its contrarion spirit alone. Ideas — the content of the criticism — matter as well.
Christopher, I’m not going to move based on charges of “blasphemy” “trolls”
Too bad you are hardened – these are accurate terms, for all the reasons myself and others have said. I am not going to hash it out yet again.
Now, look at the numbers. Since April, 2006 (about a year and a half), the blog has received 877,787 visitors — very respectable numbers for a small blog like this. Obviously a lot of lurkers hang about too.
Not sure what the numbers have to do with the un kept house you are maintaining here. And what of these lurkers? What of their impressions? I won’t say you are unconcerned with the hearts of the Trolls and of these lurkers, but for some reason you refuse to even acknowledge what myself (and others have said in their own way) about the affect the “free for all” here has on folks. You are hell bent on maintaining the status quo apparently (who knows, you never say).
And why is the blog a “scandal”?
Because you have chosen to attach “Orthodoxy” to it, and then don’t even maintain a minimum set of standards and civility. It is one thing to allow non and anti-Christians to have their say, it is another thing to allow them to set the entire tone for the blog. I am not the only one saying this, but you are impervious to this criticism – always coming from Orthodox or obviously traditional Christians. It is contrary to the Gospel to make a spectacle of the Gospel. These Trolls are NOT here for “open discussion” (at least not how you appear to be defining it – not that you ever do), even IF they are genuine in their stated beliefs. It is contrary to the Gospel because it hardens EVERYONES hearts who are part of said spectacle. Do you believe yourself to be above this very real temptation somehow? If so, what about the thos 800,000 other folks?
IF this blog is a “conservative” oriented round table discussing cultural and political issues in a non Christ centered way, fine – change the name or separate it out from your home page. IF this blog is supposed to be about something that has something to do with Orthodoxy, the Gospel of Christ, then keep the name and enforce lay down a minimum set of standards. Don’t allow anti-Christians to set the tone of the 90 + % of the supposedly “Orthodox” or “Christian” informed discussions. Having them rule the roost may be interesting in some ways, but it does not help them, or any lurkers, or anyone. Why? Because their hearts are hardened, and that has consequences. THAT is a scandal
OR, if you want it to be simply you and the gentiles, so to speak – then tell us Christians to bug off, there is nothing for us here and nothing for us to contribute,; this is your own personal little ministry to the pagans. Is that what you are doing here? Is this blog a honey pot? Will you ever say?
Note 24: “To start the cruel hostility and dissension which cut off at the root the peaceful course of parish life and break up and destroy the parish it is sufficient for just one such person to appear in a parish—a person who imagines that he is the “hub of the universe,” that everyone should take account only of him and obey him in everything, that all his judgements and evaluations are infallible and without error… For people of this sort it is as if the voice of conscience does not exist and they do not recognize the Law of God: they are capable of eery sort of tendentious distortion of the truth, of any sort of lie and malicious slander against those people who do not agree with their conceited inclinations, who do not approve of their attitude of self-satisfaction and their unrestrained desire the play the leading role everywhere, even if those people by lawfully appointed and truly good pastors and men of prayer, of whome there are fewer and fewer nowadays, and who ought to be valued, not persecuted with lies and slander for purely personal, conceited reasons, which is a foul and repulsive sin in the eyes of God.
It is just such people, possessed by the mad passion of self-love, who are being used by the powers of darkness, the servants of the coming Antichrist, to disrupt and destroy the Church, starting with its individual parishes… They are genuinely living without a conscience!”
– Seraphim Rose
Christopher, I’ve been involved in discussions on the internet, back before there was a “web,” back when you had to memorize a number of obscure unix commands in order to do anything. During that time, probably 20 years or more, I have never seen anyone so interested in dictating to someone else how he should run his own site, even to the point of insisting that he abandon a domain name.
What you want this blog to be — there are already blogs like that, with highly moderated discussions. It is obvious that the blog owner wants to do something different. As has been suggested a number of times, you could start your own blog or web site. You can create a free Yahoo discussion group, completely with a restricted membership list, in about five minutes. If you want something more sophisticated, for five bucks a month you can set up a Typepad blog, completely with links to to other sites and photos, in about an hour. In other words, in the amount of time that it took to type your boldfaced “demand,” you could have set up your own group.
You say “Because you have chosen to attach “Orthodoxy” to it, and then don’t even maintain a minimum set of standards and civility.”
It is ironic to me that you complain about “civility” even as you are the most uncivil of all the participants, Orthodox or otherwise. Your continual name-calling, intentional disruption of discussions, nonsensical posts, and repeated harangues and well known. In other words, it is the very “lack of civility” here that permits your continued participation here.
The people you accuse of a lack of civility are often the most civil. No one is calling other people names. No one is insulting other participants. No one is insulting Orthodox clergy or authors.
You say “It is one thing to allow non and anti-Christians to have their say, it is another thing to allow them to set the entire tone for the blog.”
The tone for the blog is set up by articles selected by Fr. Hans, JBL, and others who have the ability to post articles. There are all sorts of articles I would like to see posted here, articles that are consistent with my point of view. But that’s not how it works, and that’s something I can accept.
You say that people such as me set the entire tone for the blog. How exactly does that happen? No one is under any obligation to reply to anything I post. Those who do seem to manage just fine. For example, Tom C often takes me on. He gives as good as he gets. Sometimes he prevails. Overall he does not seem damaged by the experience.
In the course of the discussions, real differences, important differences, between the Orthodox and other worldviews are revealed and explored. Without contrary points of view that would never happen.
You write “These Trolls are NOT here for “open discussion” (at least not how you appear to be defining it – not that you ever do), even IF they are genuine in their stated beliefs.”
And you continue to insist that only YOUR interpretation of what goes on here is the correct interpretation. No other interpretations or understandings have any validity. You demand that things here have to operate according to your liking. You dictate to the blog owner how things should be. You try to rally others to your cause.
Overall, your whole approach to this just seems weird to me, bordering on the bizarre, perhaps even the pathological. I’ve been on other discussion groups that I eventually didn’t like, so I just stopped going there. You act almost like you are imprisoned here, unable to leave, making demands on the “warden,” and trying to enlist the other prisoners in your cause. If this is such a thoroughly unpleasant experience for you, why don’t you just leave? There is no barbed wire, no locked gate, no guard dogs, and other venues where you would probably be more comfortable.
Christopher –
As Orthodox, our beliefs are expressed by (and protected by) the liturgy and by the teachings of the Fathers. We don’t have a Magesterium, and we don’t get together each year to vote on what is and isn’t a sin. That is what gives Orthodoxy its timeless character and its everlasting relevance. We, by and large, do not get sucked into whatever cultural fad comes along.
But, as with all things, this strength is also a weakness, especially when it comes to how we both respond to and impact the culture in which we are immersed. Not having a Magesterium, we don’t have a handy answer to questions about economics, global warming, or anything else. It is not easy for the average believer to translate the Deposit of Faith into opinions about these issues. This is what frustrates JamesK.
Fr. Hans recognizes this situation, and he presents his view of how the Faith should be “translated”. His view is reflected by the articles posted on the homepage. What he posts on the blog page is (I think) of lower quality, and is meant to stimulate town hall discussions. These proceed in the messy way that any town hall discussion would, and in the way that, for example, St. Paul probably had to deal with.
I think you are a smart guy and have a lot to offer. Do your best to “translate” the Deposit of Faith into a position on this or that issue. If you do it well and in concord with the Faith, there will be readers who are persuaded. You might even influence Jim, Phil, etc. Stranger things have happened – even Anthony Flew is coming around.
#26 Jim
Are you kidding? There is a reason I am on blood pressure meds!
Tom – How do we know that our “translation” of our religious and spiritual guidelines into positions on political, economic and social issues do not reflect our own shifting political and cultural biases rather than the imperatives of faith.
For example, before the civil war the Abolitionist movement in the North was driven by Christian religious fervor while Christians in the South found bible passages which they used to justify and defend slavery with equal intensity.
One hundered years ago it was the secular world, enthralled by Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, that argued in favor of the inevitability of economic inequality, while Christians struggled for social justice and against rapacious capitalism. Today, conservative Christians and secularists seem to have changed places, with conservative Christians defending the economic inequality and secularists and the small Christian left fighting for social justice.
Also isn’t it true that while the application of the dicates of faith to moral or social problems, are more clearcut and straightforward for some issues that other? Abortions of social convenience, for example, are clearly sinful than while abortions to save the life of a mother may be more morally ambiguous. In fact some moral issues, such as stem cell research, force us to consider and weigh countervailing moral priorities, such as relieving suffering or protecting human life in it’s earliest stages..
Lastly, the church is not always correct on every issue and religious leaders themselves often have difficulty coming to consensus. I would say that the authority of the Catholic Church has been diminished by the protection it has provided to pedophile Priests. Even now Cardinal Bernard Law, who knowingly assigned sexual predators who raped children to different parishes, over and over again, enjoys sanctuary in the Vatican, beyond the reach of extradition and criminal prosecution.
I klnow that in early 2003 the late Metropolitan Anthony of San Francisoc and my Parish priest had strikingly different views on the approaching war with Iraq. Metropolitan Anthony released a statement condemning and deploring an unprovoked attack on Iraq, while my Priest gave a Sermon stating that people who refused to support a President during wartime were traitors and “appeasers of the next Hitler”. Who was right? Should the church even have had a position on this issue?
In conclusion I think it is the job of the Church to clearly and fully communicate the broad moral teachings of our faith to its members. However, the Church should then trust its members to understand those dictates and apply them on their own.
JamesK
Thanks for the reminder in #25. I hope you will read more of Fr. Seraphim. A little context though, Fr. Seraphim was speaking primarly in regard to the troubles endured by Bp. John Maximovitch, now St. John Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, but of course it applies to all parish life. It is too bad that the vast majority of your own thoughts are so totally at odds with the life Fr. Seraphim lived and that you seem to reject without exploration the core of experience from which Fr. Seraphim wrote.
It is worth noting that Fr.Seraphim was frequently in trouble with his own bishops because he would not be silent when he felt they were out of line despite his monastic vow of obedience.
Part of the Orthodox Tradition is that every member of the Church is responsible for upholding the Tradition. Even though we are a hierarchical Church, we are not a clerical only Church.
Christopher is not doing what you are implying. In any case, you have no foundation from which to discern if he is acting appropriately or not. It is merely another example of an attack.
Jim, I don’t agree that Christopher is the most uncivil of participants. Part of civility is being honest about your intentions. You are not, because you have no intention of engaging in honest communication, you are only trolling for information that you can use as assualt tools. That you don’t raise your voice as much as Christopher does not make your behavior any less uncivil and insulting. The combined uncivility of the three unbelievers (hey, maybe you guys should get together and market recordings on late night TV) amounts to a cacophany.
What he posts on the blog page is (I think) of lower quality, and is meant to stimulate town hall discussions. These proceed in the messy way that any town hall discussion would, and in the way that, for example, St. Paul probably had to deal with.
Nope, the Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and Fathers, never would have dreamed of a “town hall discussion”, let alone the free-for-all that goes on here. They explicitly said they preached, and those who had ears to hear heard, and that was it. They did not subject themselves to purposeful dis-honest communication – that is contrary to everything we know about human nature. It is sowing along the heavily traveled way – we know what happens to those seeds.
Do your best to “translate” the Deposit of Faith into a position on this or that issue. If you do it well and in concord with the Faith, there will be readers who are persuaded.
My best, our best, is not here at this blog – by design! Fr. Jacobse is a mountain of silence on the issue (that is NOT a compliment) but it is clear to me that this blog is not even supposed to serve a noble purpose. It is his equivalent of “sharpen the saw” – it is a honey pot used to attract flies with which to “debate”. Any damage done along the way, well, there will be sacrifices (this is where the ignobility comes in – what is contrary to the Gospel). A physician’s first rule is “do no harm”. This blog as ran violates that principle
Heck, even us Christian’s are flies, used to study this or that reaction to this or that argument – and to see what we come up with on our own that can be used. Talk about “loving your neighbor”!! I am all used up, and am dirtier than a Tijuana whore.
Dean S.
re:
That is one whopper of a generalization and absolutely false! Just more dogma and ideology without much substance.
#31 Christopher
I guess it comes down to whether this is a site for discussion or debate, and whether debate is something Christians should do. I think there is ample precedent to answer yes.
Acts 17
While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him.
Acts 15
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
(This also involved debate within the church)
Acts 9
He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.
Fr. Hans – you should really say explicitly whether your intent is to allow debate or not, and why.
Michael writes: “James, your questions on how to get from point a to point b have been answered repeatly. However, since you specifically reject the validity of point a you fail to understand the connection and reject the answers.”
So Christopher bellowing “Don’t answer that!” qualifies as an answer? Interesting. So “pleading the 5th” is evidently a useful tactic here.
So let’s take a step back and talk in the simplest terms possible. Let’s also assume I do accept your Orthodox anthropology (point a) about what man is and what woman is.
So … explain to me again: how is a woman preaching from a pulpit a rejection of that anthropology while a woman having legions of men under her authority acceptable in an Orthodox world, especially since both are explicitly rejected in Scripture by St. Paul?
Don’t cheat in your explanation by suggesting that the anthropology clearly defines all of this. You’ve admitted it does not (that would be legalism).
What I’m looking for is: “man is a, woman is b and we believe c in terms of Scripture which is why women can do p but not z”.
Chris B – I would loved to be proved wrong on that one. Maybe I will be if the Republicans nominate Mike Huckabee. He certainly received strong ratings at the Values convention last weekend.
Calling him the “least bad Republican”, The American Prospect says of Huckabee:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=in_tempered_defense_of_huck#022609
Prove me wrong. Support Huckabee.
Note # 33
Tom, this has all been gone over many times – perhaps you missed it::
There is debate, and then there is debate. In the positive connotation of the term, both sides are in it honestly – both sides have some ground in which to discuss, and are honest about their own position and intentions. In the negative connotation one or both sides are dishonest. They are not there to discuss or “debate”, but to wreck, deconstruct, obstruct, and the like. St. Paul, Jesus, and the Fathers do not continue to “debate” ad nauseam with someone who has no ears to hear, whose purpose is to disrupt and deconstruct. A Troll is not interested in honest debate, he is interested in dishonest “debate” that serves his disrupting purposes. That is why the tone here is so bad compared with other blogs that have much larger diverse posters and readership – they are about honest debate and discussion.
But all this is like that movie groundhog day – we go over the same thing over and over and over and over and over because of the Trolls. Now I am explaining once again the same distinctions and differences. That stink you are getting is from the dirty Tijuana streets just outside your door…
Michael writes: “Jim, I don’t agree that Christopher is the most uncivil of participants. Part of civility is being honest about your intentions. You are not, because you have no intention of engaging in honest communication, you are only trolling for information that you can use as assualt tools. That you don’t raise your voice as much as Christopher does not make your behavior any less uncivil and insulting.”
It’s interesting that words have to be redefined in order to find ways of categorizing the “unholy trinity.” First, “troll” was redefined so as to include virtually any fundamental disagreement with the standard position. Now, “civility” has to be redefined so as to include some nefarious intention or other.
I think I’ve been clear about my intentions all along. I’ve been involved in religion in one way or another for almost 40 years. I have done extensive reading in Christianity, Judaism, and a couple flavors of Buddhism. I’ve studied Greek and Hebrew (and forgotten most of it.) In college I was a philosophy major with a concentration in philosophy of religion.
I find Orthodoxy interesting because not everything is figured out and codified. I also find it maddening for that reason, because it seems that in some cases the “Orthodox position” is whatever someone says it is, or defined on the fly, or some secret that can’t be disclosed to outsiders.
I also like discussing religious issues as a way of providing a balance against my own beliefs. I like it when people analyze my positions, because it helps me to sharpen my thinking and deepen my understanding. (In many venues this would be seen as a good thing; here, it is seen as suspect.)
Part of discussion involves picking apart the other person’s position. If that’s seen as an “attack,” well, I suppose it is. But it’s not a personal attack. Inasmuch as I “attack” other positions I expect mine to be attacked.
Contrast that with Christopher’s personal attacks, his language, his name-calling, his attempt to control the content of the discussions, etc., and I think who is civil and who is uncivil will be very clear.
Christopher,
I think what you’re asking for is some blog parameters and “substantive” debate guidelines to be established to promote engaged discussions and rational argumentation, and minimize ideological blanket pronouncements and comments that get dropped into topic threads that add little, if anything, to the debate and topic at hand. I’m not sure how that can be implemented, but I have been talking to Fr. Hans about the future of this blog and there may be some developments coming in the near future. I can’t discuss any specifics since Fr. Hans is currently evaluating options and looking for a reasonable solution for the future.
There may be some administrative approaches that can be used to strike a better balance between open, intelligent, and constructive discussions, and vigorous debates from various points of view and perspectives. I agree with Fr. Hans that as long as posts are well reasoned, properly supported, and well-argued, they should be heard, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. It’s by confronting issues and challenging our own perspectives that we do indeed sharpen the saw and strengthen our own positions and arguments. However, there are some comments like those of Dean S: “Today, conservative Christians and secularists seem to have changed places, with conservative Christians defending the economic inequality and secularists and the small Christian left fighting for social justice.” are just ideological garbage and intellectually dishonest. Such statements lack any substantive content, disrupt the dialogue, raise tempers unnecessarily, and distract the participants from the important issues we’re here to debate and discuss.
My intent is to allow debate. I don’t mind dealing with positions contrary to mine. I’m not a relativist so I do not hold that all ideas are equal. This conviction is drawn from my observation that a hierarchy of value is written into the fabric of the creation itself, although discerning these values and applying them in the rough and tumble of everyday life is not always easy. Sharp debate can clarify the contours, even the edges, which is why I welcome the challenges.
Christopher claims this is a “honey-pot” strategy, but in fact its the way I work best. I do better in adversity, even though it can be wearing. It shows me what I don’t know, what I need to study, why people think the way they do, etc. etc. Call this a personal predilection if you want but it is one reason why the blog has taken the shape it has.
I’m not an Orthodox triumphalist. I believe (know, actually) the power of the Gospel, and am not interested in promoting “Orthodoxy”. The Church is as strong as the measure to which it members abide in Christ, and frankly we could be doing a much better job than we are. Having said that, I believe that the Gospel is best comprehended and articulated in our Orthodox Tradition, but all too often this claim degenerates into a triumphalism instead of serving as an exhortation to faithfulness to Christ in the ways that the Fathers taught. Nothing can contain the Gospel. And when any ideology or structure presumes to contain it, the Gospel itself will obliterate it. This might be one reason for our present weakness.
I try to respect the people who disagree with me. A person can respect another person even when disagreeing with their ideas. I don’t really care however, if someone dislikes me because of the ideas I hold. I will change and refine ideas if they are wrong or need refinement, but moral appeals (or attacks) don’t hold much authority if they aren’t substantiated with clear thinking.
That’s basically how I view it. And, I’ve discovered that other people welcome it (and often bright and engaged people too). That’s how the site was designed, and that is how it grew. There really is not much more than this.
So the reason I allow debate is that it sharpens me, but it appears to sharpen other people as well. I see by the response to OrthodoxToday (which has grown to be the most read Orthodox site on the web I think), as well as this blog that other people welcome this kind of engagement.
I need to let everyone know however that OrthodoxyToday will be changing a bit. I will have more details on this later, maybe tonight or tomorrow.
How are we defining debate here? Is it not a discussion over disagreements? Let’s remember the many discussions that have occurred within Christianity.
Then there’s Luther and Erasmus, of course, and Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho, a debate with a Jewish rabbi in which Justin tries to prove that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah and also the Logos of God, and that there is a new covenant that supercedes the old.
There was the Arianism vs. Trinitarianism debate, as well, in addition to the debates over the canonicity of the New Testament.
To suggest that these positions formulated themselves without discussion or even heated debate is laughable.
Chris Banescu writes: “I agree with Fr. Hans that as long as posts are well reasoned, properly supported, and well-argued, they should be heard, regardless of whether we agree with it or not.”
If under the new administration I am still allowed to post here, I would ask only one thing. Whatever the standard is, apply it equally to all participants, regardless of religious or political orientation. Otherwise the standard will be a source of confusion rather than of clarity.
Best wishes to you in your new role.
Don’t worry Jim, I’m not one to make sudden changes when transitioning into a new role or into a new area. Besides missing Fr. Hans wise and insightul commentaries, things should not be that much different for a while.
Mr. Banescu (& Fr. Jacobse if he is still reading):
Yes, I would agree that “some blog parameters and “substantive” debate guidelines to be established to promote engaged discussions and rational argumentation, and minimize ideological blanket pronouncements and comments that get dropped into topic threads that add little, if anything, to the debate and topic at hand.”
That said, while I understand Fr. Jacobse position as stated, I obviously disagree with it. This disagreement is not a “intellectual” disagreement per se, but flows from my understanding (and here if someone wants to correct my understanding I certainly would be open to it) of the Gospel. Specifically, what it means to relate to our neighbor. Obviously, we have certain commandments we have to follow. If follows that those same commandments (of Love) effect most everything we do.
What I think is missing from Fr. Jacobse position (as least as stated) is the realization that it takes people to debate:
“Sharp debate can clarify the contours, even the edges, which is why I welcome the challenges.”
I agree, but it must be remembered that at the other end of this “challenge” is a person – whom we are to love.
Mr. Banescu says that:
” I agree with Fr. Hans that as long as posts are well reasoned, properly supported, and well-argued, they should be heard, regardless of whether we agree with it or not.”
But of course, if I laid out a well reasoned, properly supported, and well-argued case for, I don’t know, say sex with children, surely that is not really acceptable here. Even in the “town hall” metaphor, we forget that the town itself has a culture, a set of laws, and a set of customs that define and limit what can go on there.
Perhaps what I am saying is that surely Fr. Jacobse does not support a Kantian, abstract, anything-goes-as-long-as-it’s-in-an-good-arguement-bause-it-does-not-affect-real-people philosophy of bloging (or debating, or engaging other Christians and non-Christians).
SO, what does it mean to “engage the culture” or even “sharp debate” from a specifically Christian context? I don’t think we can take an unqualified “anything goes” or “round table” perspective. I don’t even think we can take an unqualified Socratic dialogue position. The reason is that it’s not just about us, or the philosophy, or the arguments, or whatever. Above all that it is two people (or more) RELATING, and God is always among them.
I said earlier that if anything truly goes, then “Orthodoxy” should be removed from the name. I did not mean this in a “triuphalistic” sort of way. I meant it from the fact that “Orthodoxy” always has a Christian meaning, rather we are talking about the specific Churches that go by the name of “Orthodox” or using the term in a more general, “right praise” connotation.
How this relates to the “Trolls”, some of whom are explicit anti-Christians, is an important question. Obviously, I don’t think the “anything goes”, even if well argued/supported/stated is the right way to think about them. I had a tape in the nineties of a Fr. Hopko talk (don’t even have a cassette tape player anymore) where he argued along these lines – that Christianly, we should NOT engage in open “debate” with everyone, and that the Gospel should NOT be preached in certain circumstances. He said that we should talk (he is even a supporter of the modern ecumenical movement – something I am not) but that we have to consider our audience, and where they are at spiritually, vis-à-vis the Gospel. The reason was the one I have given, that you can hardened someone to the Gospel. So while we are ‘sharpening the saw’, if we are at the same time hardening someone else’s heart, Is THAT not a problem? Of course it is.
There is also St. Paul’s admonition not to engage in doubtful disputation. It is obvious that we have often done that here. Of course, I control me. If I choose to comment, I should comment once as clearly and precisely as I can, respond to any genuine questions, perhaps, and let it go. I should definitly not post the same thing in slightly different words over and over again simply because others disagree with me. I should not continues to ask the same questions repeatedly, hectoring my “opponent”. I should not make the same accusations to which I will accept no rebutal. It is not up to me to convice anyone, it is up to me to witness to the truth as best I can and let it go.
My own personality and a blog without a high level of moderation works against such discipline. Of course, if everyone followed such disicpline, the threads would be far shorter, no more than 8 to 10 posts, certainly not the 100 to 125 or more that have occured. Many would not find such a blog interesting or “fun”. Does that not speak to how much passions enter into such an enterprise? Do we not, as Orthodox Christians have the responsibilty to avoid the passions in our own life and not place temptation in the paths of others?
Adversarial debate is never about finding truth, it is about winning. Christians don’t have to worry about winning, the victory has already been achieved–Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life. It is up to people to make their choice if they want to participate in that victory or not; to decide if they want to become fully human or not.
I will do everything in my power to make my decisions with the context of the revealed truth of the Church. Jim, JamesK, Phil and some others who post here will not. Case closed. What is there to talk about after we come to that understanding? Each of us feels the other is basing their decisions on whim and fantasy in a philosophy without real foundation. Why should any of us waste time and energy any longer on the details. Yet we do, sacrificing civility, honesty, and positive human interaction in the process. Not only are the hearts of unbelievers hardened against the Gospel, but so are ours.
On a blog with the name Orthodoxy Today, it is not good when the dominate point of view being expressed is non- and anti-Christian as has occured here. You have the numbers Chris, but the last time I saw them Jim was the most frrequent poster by far. If one were to combine his posts with JamesK, and Phil, I suspect they would out number the combined posts from say Christopher, Mrs. Missourian (including all aliases) and me.
The blog should reflect a point of view that is in consonance with its mission and title. Currently, I do not believe it does. Maybe it should be called Blood Sport: Believers and un-believers in the steel cage now on pay-per-view for only $29.95. or something like that.
Well stated Michael.
By the way, I think it has mentioned it before that I am a competitive (well, as competitive as one can be at 38) Jiu-Jitsu player (Brazilian to be exact). So if we are going to be walking into the octagon, don’t say I did not warn you…but of course, it won’t matter because the un-believers will just bring a gun…always bring a gun to a knife fight…or a howitzer to a gun fight…;)
Yeah, but Christopher, no matter what earthly weapons they might bring, we could walk in naked and in bonds and still by the grace of our Lord, be victorious. It is in our weakness that we triumph. I can’t really do that very well yet, but that is the goal the Gospel points us toward, if I am not mistaken. Christianity is the way of the Cross.
I’d like to see them in the octagon–our baptismal font is an octagon representing the 8th day of creation and be resurrected into eternal life.
Christopher writes: “How this relates to the “Trolls” . . . we have to consider our audience, and where they are at spiritually, vis-à-vis the Gospel. The reason was the one I have given, that you can hardened someone to the Gospel. So while we are ’sharpening the saw’, if we are at the same time hardening someone else’s heart, Is THAT not a problem? Of course it is.”
But this is a kind of pastoral concern that presumes either that one is in a pastoral relationship with the people in question, or that somehow through the impersonal medium of the internet one is able to peer into the heart of another and perceive relative “hardness” or “softness.” I don’t believe that either condition exists.
It is interesting to me that the original argument was that the “trolls” ruin the discussion. Now with the coming of new administration the argument is that the discussion ruins the trolls.
It’s also interesting to me that people here see the discussions in terms of damage and danger, loss and victory, weapons and combat. In reality, in the context of the internet, this is a very calm and placid venue. Sure, some of the articles are controversial, sometimes people get a little heated, but in general people are relatively polite. I wouldn’t say that I come here to relax, but it certainly is far from being a knife fight.
But this is a kind of pastoral concern that presumes either that one is in a pastoral relationship with the people in question
Here you yet again reveal a strange ignorance of Christianity for someone who allegedly is honest about his participation at a Christian blog for several years now.
Basic Christian dogma and teaching 101: All Christians, all Orthodox, are pastors (i.e. priests) by virtue of their baptism.
somehow through the impersonal medium of the internet one is able to peer into the heart of another and perceive relative “hardness” or “softness.”
Another strange thing coming from one who allegedly is quite concerned about ‘evidence’. The evidence of your words, your explicit relationship to Christianity (you explicit rejection of it and your stated reasons why) reveals your hardness of heart, as if your outright rejection of humanity (Terri’s, unborn children, etc.) do not also.
It is interesting to me that the original argument was that the “trolls” ruin the discussion. Now with the coming of new administration the argument is that the discussion ruins the trolls.
Yes, it goes both ways. Trolls ruin the argument, and indulging Trolls simply allows Trollish behavior to continue (sort of like not correcting a child).
It’s also interesting to me that people here see the discussions in terms of damage and danger, loss and victory, weapons and combat
That’s interesting! REALLY?? Again, your profound ignorance of Christianity reveals exactly why you are a Troll. Your not the least interested in Christianity. Someone who has been posting on a Christian blog for literally years finds very basic Christian language “interesting”, as if he is encountering it for the first time?? Do we need any more evidence than that that your participation here is fundamentally dishonest?
This is the first post of yours I have read in days (I often take some time off) and it yet I am always surprised when I read them again – why anyone, anyone takes you seriously is hard to understand. But look, I just responded. This blog needs some structure, some basic standards. Trolls are a good place to start IMO…