More on "Woke"

You know how it is: the  '"woke" are a pack of spoiled infants. Their entire "thought" and actions show this. And  they especially show this  when disagreed with in any kind of spirited manner. And in their  fevered and  bigoted minds that is hate.

They have nothing else and certainly not the intellectual equipment to consider anything else. So they are in their own imagination but nowhere else, heroes. Their hatred is righteous, they think, and anyone who disputes them is demonized as the forces of pure evil

And of course as they respond to anything they dislike  with HATE and hate only, enough to show that by this  they are in fact a hate movement. Their accusations against classical liberals moderates and conservatives is of course Projection

The behaviour and ideation ( how can i really call it thought) of  the "woke ' leads me to define their movement as 

"Social justice and equity etc 

AS CONCEIVED and PRACTISED BY CHILDREN."

because that is what "woke" is: the most pampered and spoiled generation in history. coming from the most prosperous culture in history yet in their continuing discontent  (that is life itself)  they have to hate something rather thanface their own  internal moral weaknesses.

so they HATE  the culture that gave them EVERYTHING

Truth or Honesty?

This is in reply to a poll post on youtube. the question we were to vote on was "salvation can NEVER be bought by our obedience. 

This is a christian channel

My reply follows:

 I could say the right words (after all I CAN read, you know), and the right words  are  indeed as the question puts, that  obedience can NEVER buy salvation.

OR 

I could speak honestly.

WHICH DO YOU WANT???

For it can't be both, for I am not spiritual enough to believe true doctrine honestly and show  it by living by it in love liberty and peace

BTW i am not the only legalist in the church who thinks he can and must buy salvation: i see it everywhere.

IOW i am largely convinced that if everyone here were honest they would  almost all disagree with the statement given.

Why?

If we are carnal in fruit we are carnal in mind and if carnal in mind then,  as the carnal mind regards the things of God as foolish, and free grace properly viewed  is the core of all spiritual truth, therefore  we WILL regard it as foolish. So  we are trying to buy our salvation with our "obedience, " and this for all our passion and words to the  contrary which God is not impressed by if he sees our hearts (ie what we REALLY think). And our hearts are  given away by  our spontaneous words and reactions

Thoughts on foot washing

The classic Biblical account of foot washing, the one appealed to to justify it in modern times is in John chapter 13:1-14.

I invite you to look it up now, befoer continuing

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples as a sign of service and commanded each to to this to the other, also as a sign of service.

The point was that each should serve each other and, though not explicitly mentioned in this incident, to not lord it over the other as the pagans do

BUT, and I think this important 

foot washing was a relevant cultural practice back in the days of 1st century Israel and the Middle East.

The  culture of bible times in the Ancient Near East is completely foreign to ours, vastly different

people walked everywhere on dusty roads in sandles. Their feet got very dirty, and in arriving at one's destination having them washed would be a relief.

it is no longer so  at least in the urbanized west, not when we drive in an air conditioned cars, alight from the vehicle onto a clean pavement in our  leather shoes. No feet need washing by someone who has never done so in his life 

for us to take foot washing  on is a slavish legalism that has totally lost the significance  of the thing.

Put it this way,  if some legalist  wanted to wash my feet i would regard him as a foot fetishist and get out of there quick!!  The issue is service in a manner  that the person you would serve would find helpful relevant and  not indecent and intrusive, like suddenly wanting to wash his feet "just because they did it in the bible" 

it would be as indecent as putting your hand under the thigh of a person you were making a promise to would be these days but which was a ritual  of promise making in the days of Abraham  and the patriarchs  Genesis 24:2ff  and GEnesis 47:29.

cultural context and appropriateness for these times is UTTERLY RELEVANT .

the point of foot washing is SERVICE, not the culturally relevant form of a time long past  if it is not culturaly relevant now, and  indeed may be seen as either indecent or absurd.

this is something the slavish legalist, ever obsessed with the appearance and never the substance, miises completely

if i were a church member and needed help putting up a fence or some such, and asked for help to receive it, they that helped me would have  done the proper equivalent of washing my feet, something real and practical where the slavish rite of foot washing nowadays is not

A Definition of "Woke"

 I have come up with a defintion of :"woke" for some "woke" are trying to tell us we, the non "woke" can't define it

here goes "soclal justice as conceived and pursued by immature minds". Their minds have been infantilized by post modernism, the re emergence of the cult of feeling which itself is a sub genre in the classical period (late 18th century), and cradle to grave welfarism coupled with a rejection of proper discilpine for children let me give some examples it is immature to think that only the white male is the cause of all evil; and it is immature to maintain that such a view is not racist it is immature to reject truth and exalt feelings in their place - every small child does this and if permited to continue in it becomes a spoiled brat it is immature to think that justice is a zero sum game, that therrefore to free some others must be bullied it is immature to think that their violence, exaltation of looting and murder ( the 2020 riots in the USA ) is a righteous expression of righteous anger it is immature to demand free stuff and REFUSE to even consider that maybe they could and should work for it it is immature to divide all of humanity into victim and oppressors and then lable all victims - real or imagined - as innocent i could go on but you get my point, I hope :)

A Quip by an Atheist

 A video about the historical evidence that Jesus existed had this quip by the fictional character  Dr Greg House come up  in the comment section:

"You talk to God, you’re religious; God talks to you, you’re psychotic.” - House MD

 . .To which I replied . . .

This is very  elegant, but it argues in a logical circle. This is  the fallacy of begging the question,  in latin petitio principii - to petition the principle  ie appealing to what you re trying to prove.

For to have any currency this quip  has to presume that God does not exist  or that such a being does not communicate. Because ONLY THEN is any claim of receiving direct   communication from the Divinity psychotic

And that is a circle, proving nothing

That is to say this is elegant but of no logical value whatsoever.

And of course the dictum, "abusus non tollit usum" also applies  here.

This is the Latin expression of the fact that abusing something  ( abusus) does not detract ( non tollit ) from proper use  (usum.

After all does any one reject food outright because of the abuse gluttons put it to?

 That some deluded people claim hearing from God when He has not spoken, thus abusing the reality of the thing,  in NO WAY detracts from the possibility of Him deigning to do so.

So i have no real interest in House's preference on this matter, for preference is all this is.

He is a fictional character  i found entertaining.  But i watched the entire show for entertainment, NOT wisdon

Who Rejects Christ the Most

 I just saw a video in which a famous apologist was debating with Ben Shapiro, well known conservative commentator and religious Jew.

The  one who posted this  video asked we pray for Shapiro.

One of my replies (I made three) was as follows:

It must be understood that the ones who reject Jesus most are the Christians. and no i am not going the cultist who says that all the professed doctrines of the churches are false. THat was Joseph Smith et al and not myself. They, church doctrines that is, ARE mostly true, but simply not believed as is seen by our lives .

To put it simply if we ignore the Holy Spirit we ignore Jesus for the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ

For we prefer the doctrinal construct, the mental image, the sacrament, the church tradition (oh yes we ALL have them not just those catholics we despise); we all prefer our own human forced effort which we call obedience (it is not) and the forced emotion called faith, or the emotional repression we also call faith (it depends on what emotion we are talking about as to whether it be forced or crushed) . . we christians seek ANYTHING but one on one with the life giving Sprit who is Christ IN PERSON. for Him we cannot control and our own control of things is that which we will never give up, unless we give it to the wrong person, ie a church leader. so you will pardon me for not being impressed by the empty albeit true words of an apologist "empty but true"?? that is my point.

just as faith without works is empty, so assent to truth without faith (ie personal trust in a living Being encountered and responded t personally, is also empty. ESPECIALLY, I must add, when the propositons we tout are objectively TRUE

in this instance our commitmtent to propositional truth (not the same thing as believing them, not by a longshot, is acutally a snare for it conceals our real unbelief and thus we are never cleansed of it.

and if we reject Him, prefering the Law to Him in person , which as a rule we do, as we attempt to keep the Law of God we will hate Him all themore.

more than any atheist

On the rise of "Free Speech Absolutism"

 That some "woke," like spoiled infants , get very nasty when disagreed with and want to curtail free speech in the name of protecting their feelings has, in my opnion encouraged a reaction that is extreme and myopic, the opposite error, if you will, which is the usual response to error in this fallen world.

Those reacting to "woke" censoriousness and oftime actual censorship  call themselves free speech purist or free speech absolutists.

But i submit that there is no such thing as total free speeech and neither should there be in a free society.

Does free speech permit libel and slander whereby  a reputation and thus a life can be destroyed by lies? I am not talking about "hurt feelings" here, but deliberate and malicious  character assassination.  So I would say to the so called self styled free speech purist that  if you are prepared to have your life wrecked by malicious lies, permitting it with good heart for it was  free speech, a fundamental principle your would die for, even if you suffered from it then you may  indeed be  a free speech purist. 

But if you have forgotten the distinction between hurting feelings and wrecking lives as explained above maybe your purism is based on ignorance.

And maybe you have simply reacted, not rationally responded,  to those "woke" babies  who themselves cannot tell the difference.

Let me give an example of what i mean.

So someone calls you an *sshole in debate. Fine!  Just brush it off. Only a spoiled brat like a "woke" would get petulant and want to destroy you because it hurt their feelings.

But what  if someone simply took a dislike to you? Assume   you were a tradesman or business owner, and this person destroyed your reputaiton, and your wife believed the lies, and you had a mortgage.

And you lost ALL OF THESE because no one would use your professional service nor buy your wares, your wife left you and the bank  foreclosed after you could no longer keep up the mortgage payments

and in the name of total free speech, being a free speech purist or free speech absolutist  you would be quite happy  with this?

there is far to much myopic ultra narrow focus in this issue.

total licentiousness of speech, a term i coin myself for i am not aware of it being used elsewhere, is no more permissiable  in this instance than when a person shouts "fire!!" in a crowded theatre

free speech has never been an absolute