[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source: Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 41026
Comments: 199

The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that.

There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy.

The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure.

A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies.

But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride.

Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state.

And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything.

The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due.

You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad.

Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other.

We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America.

People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down.

The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way.

Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war.

Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy.

That's the hard truth.

There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing.

You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican.

The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones.

There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out.

A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues.

You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all.

The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms.

The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything.

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in.

The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island.

Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward.

To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide.

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

Money quote:

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 168.

#1. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Well, if that's the agenda, then you cannot win as the right.

Pro-life is a moral necessity. Right now there is no pro-life party either. Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie. That means that there cannot be a RAPE EXCEPTION. To abort the baby born of rape is to commit premeditated murder. That's just a fact, and there can be no compromise on it.

Now, if you take that correct and true stance, you have to abandon fiscal conservatism, and here is why: 2 million babies, 75-80% of them poor, are aborted in America every year. Rape accounts for practically none of them. Good old red-blooded recreational sex is the cause. And you cannot legislate against THAT or make it stop. People are gonna do it, sin or not, and contraception is gonna fail. Right now, it fails (or is ignored) about 2 million times every year, and about 1.6 million of those times, the baby that is conceived is conceived in the womb of a woman who will most certainly need social welfare to raise that child. So, if we do the right thing on abortion, we will increase the social welfare state by 1.6 million souls per year, year after years. The school systems will have to get bigger, the housing projects will have to get bigger.

You have a choice: be pro-life, and accept a LARGER social welfare state, or be pro-choice (which is to say, a murderer) and keep costs down. The choice that does not exist is the make-believe of the right: no abortion AND smaller social expenditures. That is ABSURD. it's ridiculous. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. And it will never happen.

Pro-business is fine, BUT AGAIN if you are pro-life, that MEANS a LARGER social welfare state, so UNLESS you CUT SOMETHING ELSE (namely, the military) you are going to have to increase taxes. And that's not business friendly.

A large military and military intervention plus pro-life plus lower expenditures is fantasy land stuff. It is impossible.

Which brings is to the "pro-Israel" part. 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel. Why, exactly, is it in the US national interest to pour such money into a white colony in the Middle East? How is that in any way in AMERICAN national interest? It certainly isn't CHRISTIAN. Jesus doomed ancient Israel and God destroyed it for good. This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II. It would have made a great deal more sense to give the Jews Bavaria and deport all of the Germans from that province, expropriating everything as punishment, and then requiring every European state that shipped Jews to the camps to provide financial aid for a generation. That would have been justice. Creating a European colony in the Middle East that has to be propped up forever by American taxpayers and American armies is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous that Americans permit it.

If you're going to be pro-life and stop abortion, you cannot pay for the large expansion of social welfare that will be required and ALSO maintain a world military empire with half of the foreign aid budget going to Israel. if you're going to be pro-life, you are going to have to cut off Israel.

The article concludes that the Left has to be fought totally, or not at all. The problem is that if you're going to be pro-life, you cannot simultaneously be fiscally conservative.

Pro-life is by its nature socially conservative. And if you are going to take the proper stance on life, that means that you have to start formally teaching sexual morality. So, you have to be socially conservative or you will break the bank.

But that will not be enough, because you cannot impose harsh punishment for sexual liberty - the nation will never allow it. Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state.

To be socially conservative, if pro-life is to be included in that, you have to be fiscally liberal when it comes to the social welfare state - because all of those babies have to eat - and even then the military empire cannot be sustained with a full-on pro-life agenda. For American babies to live, the American empire, and huge American aid to Israel, has to die.

Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and pacificistic is the only thing that will actually WORK, if pro- life is part of the socially conservative aspect.

And if pro-life is not part of social conservatism, then that form of social conservatism is an evil sham that should lose anyway.

These are hard truths. American conservatives have to face them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-27   23:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie.

Bullshit!

Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-28   7:56:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#12)

"Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie."

Bullshit!

Nothing but pure religious dogma

Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception.

You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul.

Dogmatically this question is tricky. I can speak from the Orthodox perspective; Fathers of the Church had different opinion, some of them thought that ensoulment happens in moment of conception, others at 40 days after,others at the moment of quickening (first independent movements), others when body is perfectly formed, etc ...

But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.

Personally I tend to think that soul finds its fleshly home in the nervous system, so when nervous system appears and shows any activity before neuronal - when glial cells start to function as a network. (BTW, I suspect that glial cells are seat of consciousness/psyche as neurons are more like fast computer circuits under glial control.

Still it is only my uncertain opinion so I would support most cautious assumption - moment of conception.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   8:49:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A Pole (#17)

But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.

To me, God is clear in Scripture.

Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says.

It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat.

The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization.

The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth.

Scripturally, life begins at conception.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   9:19:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

You pervert the Bible.

The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.

Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit.

Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-28   10:18:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)

The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.

You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes?

How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat?

I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   10:49:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: TooConservative (#34)

God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.

He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people.

The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.

It is the parents job to take care of their kids.

The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old.

When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people.

We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-28   10:54:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)

God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.

He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people.

The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period.

Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   11:03:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#38)

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Here's the entire passage with several commentaries if you guys are interested.

BIBLEHUB.COM

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-09-28   11:20:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)

I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.

And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era.

Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   12:02:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TooConservative (#44)

I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.

And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era.

Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.

I agree with all of this.

"All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that.

But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS.

After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list.

The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians.

The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon.

There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.

St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon.

Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it.

I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus.

So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name.

I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then.

Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it.

But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other!

(If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   13:42:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Vicomte13 (#48)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.

St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon.

It is interesting once you learn a bit about it. Certainly, there is much to interest even lay people in the history of the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Orthos, as a club, are certainly the most conservative of churches. They just don't change. Or ever throw anything away.     : )

I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism.

It's no great reason to feel compelled to embrace the Ethiopic either. Even so, it does have a certain historical interest, regardless of which canon of scripture you prefer. As I said before, Gill is the only writer I've ever read who even mentioned it as a canon and as manuscript evidence for particular readings of a verse.

As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic. So there are some doctrinal differences. Also, the Ethiopian church was established in very ancient times when Christianity spread across regions of Africa. Over the centuries, Ethiopian Christianity became geographically isolated for many centuries. So many of the issues that became quite important in the West or in Byzantium never penetrated some of the remote churches of the Copts or the Ethiopian Orthos or the Syrian or Mesopotamian churches.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   16:04:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: TooConservative (#73)

The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself.

Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.

The whole argument about what IS canon is interesting to me, because men place such very heavy authority on Scripture, but then Scripture never defines what Scripture is. Where Scripture QUOTES Scripture, that's a pretty good indication of what IS Scripture, and where God Himself, in personam Jesus, AND the head of the Church, AND the brother of God - two Apostles and the Christ - are all using a book - well, the only Old Testament book that has THAT much cross usage is the Torah itself. Jesus quoted Isaiah quite a bit, but the Apostles didn't. There's a line or two from Daniel, but that's it.

Also, both Peter and Jude make specific theological ARGUMENTS from Enoch, and there isn't any OTHER text in the Old Testament, at all, that ever gives the data about the fallen angels leaving their stations and their motivations. Enoch is the ONLY Biblical source for that. Obviously it should be in the Bible.

Just as obviously, the Jews have been celebrating Hannukka as a high holy day for millennia, and yet the only place to read about it is in the books of the Maccabbees, which are part of the Jewish LXX but which were eliminated from the Jewish canon a generation or more after the destruction of the Temple, by very xenophobic and racist Jews, BECAUSE Maccabbees is written in Greek.

Obviously the Maccabbean account of the first Hannukka is properly in the Jewish canon, as it was at the time of Christ.

If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration.

To my eyes, whatever any of the Orthodox call Canon, is properly included in the Canon, and that brings in a few extra sources.

It doesn't really change anything Jesus said, which is the law for us, but it gives the information necessary to evaluate.

The issues that became important in the West and Byzantium are all post Biblical, and have to be interpreted in light of the Bible.

I will avoid all discussion of the Reformation Era canon choices, because it doesn't lead anywhere good when Catholics and Protestants are speaking with each other.

Essentially, the canon of Scripture is the Ethiopic Canon, plus the additional book in the Slavic Canon, but it is not as easy to rely on the Ethiopic canon because it has not been mechanically translated, and when you've only got one or two translations, you may be getting some wrong things.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   16:22:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.

Because canon is a measure or standard set by the Ecumenical Councils for practical pastoral reason. There are many good and inspired texts that were not included.

Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   16:42:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: A Pole (#79)

Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.

Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books.

If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   16:46:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.

Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   17:32:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: A Pole (#83)

Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"

Yes it does, because Jude is making a theological point.

In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   17:42:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Vicomte13 (#85)

In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.

You've sunk your teeth into this one. LOL

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   20:36:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: TooConservative (#94)

I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude.

And happily, the Ethiopian Orthodox agree, for those documents are also part of the Tewahedo canon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   20:41:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Vicomte13 (#95)

I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude.

We might make this claim. But when the canon was established, those books were rejected as they did not provide a reliable testimony or teach vital doctrine or they contained passages that contradicted other fundamental texts. Frankly, I've never understood exactly how Jude passed muster in those deliberations.

We also have to recognize that for most of the books of the canon, they confirmed those that were widely in circulation. A few others, like Clement's epistles, were in circulation and were considered of great interest to readers but that they did not contain direct testimony or vital doctrine from the time of Jesus and the earliest churches.

There was a certain minimalism used to screen unsuitable or dubious books out of the canon.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   21:03:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#98)

Always thought Clement was a the third bishop of Rome and considered post apostolic. So given the apostolic criteria I can see why his works were not included in the NT canon. Only exceptions would be Mark and Luke. Mark writing Peter's gospel account and Luke the close companion and fellow traveler with Paul.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-28   23:01:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: redleghunter (#106)

So given the apostolic criteria

Which are arbitrary and not accepted by the entire Church.

There is no reason to privilege that Latin Church's decision, or the Greek Church's decision, over the Ethiopian Church's. The Ethiopian Church is older than the Latin Church, and as old as the Greek Church. They always used the holiest apostolic writings, and some of the writings of the Church fathers.

Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did. And given that the Ethiopian Church's actual BEHAVIOR was exemplary, when compared to the Latins and the Greeks, and also given the fact that God stripped the Greeks and the Latins of many faithful, but Ethiopia stood as a rock in a flood of Islam all around, the fact of victory demonstrates a divine favor that has an authority that exceeds that of Churches that were defeated by hostile religions and lost 90% of their adherents, forever.

Should, therefore, the Latin Church or Greek or Russian Church of today "change their canon"? Why bother. The Ethiopians preserved certain parts of Scripture, and we can get it from them, and if the Greeks and Latins and Russians don't want to admit that those writings were inspired by God, and therefore have authority, well, they're no different from the Baptists then, are they?

One reads more of God's inspiration in a Catholic Bible than a Protestant, because there are more inspired books in it, and more still in a Greek Orthodox Bible than a Catholic one. There's an additional book in the Russian Bible that the Greeks don't have. And finally the Ethiopians, who have the Old Testament books that are referred to in the Old Testament, but that the other Christians don't have (the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Jasher), and of course Enoch, the Didache, the Letters of Clement, etc.

There is a reason to privilege the Ethiopian canon: it's the most complete.

And there is a reason to dismiss the superiority of wisdom in the choices made by the Greek Orthodox and the Latin Catholics - the Greeks lost to Islam; the Russians lost to the Mongols. And the Latins? Well, look at how corrupt and barbaric they became.

The Ethiopians had the favor of God: they did not succumb to Islam. They didn't have to have a Reformation. And they were founded IN ISRAEL by an Apostle speaking to a high official - meaning that whereas Greek and Roman officials rejected Christianity and tormented it, but the Ethiopians understood all the way to the top, from the start. And they preserved everything to now.

Which means that the moral claim to superior wisdom clearly rests with Ethiopia, and their choice of the fullest canon is the most logically sustainable.

If one wants to stick to the Catholic argument: "Only apostolic writing in the Scripture", that is fine as a limiter, unless one also adds to that an arbitrary "Only Scripture" tradition on top of that which treats something like the Didache as less authoritative than, say, a letter of Paul. There is no basis other than stubborn traditional prejudice for that.

Enoch is Scripture. The Didache is Scripture. Clementine Letters are Scripture. So are Jubilees and Jasher.

Why would they not be? Why are the opinions of corrupt, fighting, ultimately weakened and failed Greeks or ultimately violent and barbaric Latins better witnesses than a church older than either that neither fell nor failed nor went barbaric?

Cultural prejudice? An error, then.

It's Scripture.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   1:04:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#110)

Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did.

I understand your approach on this and have to say you are consistent.

However, I do not dismiss the scholarship of the time in which the canon was debated.

I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity.

However, I believe the largest factor the church fathers considered was authorship. No one knows if Enoch actually wrote Enoch and no one knows the original scribe.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   8:54:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: redleghunter (#123)

I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity.

What you read, of course, was an English translation of a Geez/Amharic text. There are not many bilingual scholars of these things.

When I read Proverbs, I do not find it to be choppy, but I do find many of the attitudes in several of the parables to be inconsistent with the messages of God that preceded it and of Jesus that came afterwards. Some of it sounds like God, and a lot of it sounds like men writing their own practical, but somewhat ungodly, traditions in there.

With several parts of Scripture, I come to places where what is being said doesn't feel like God at all. It feels like men asserting what they think.

I find, throughout the corpus of Scripture, that it is very inconsistent point to point, with lots of conflict in it.

This is why I narrow my view to the parts that say "God said..." or "Jesus said..." It is not that I reject everything else. Rather, it's a winnowing process that uses the simply logic of the Scripture itself.

I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura, which, of course, I do not accept as a valid way to look at God. But I do accept that it is a good way to impose discipline on theological discussions.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   11:26:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#129)

I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura,

Could be for many, long after the first three to four centuries. Can't believe I am making a case for Latins and Greeks in this discussion:) Funnier things have happened here on LF in the past:)

However, I don't get that 'choppy' feel when reading the TaNaKh and NT. I do with Enoch and as you explained it could be translation related.

Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   14:07:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#133)

Could be for many, long after the first three to four centuries. Can't believe I am making a case for Latins and Greeks in this discussion:)

I think any extended examination of the canon and the process and the history of some of the near-misses tends to soften you up. Or reinforce a determination to read the Latin canon only.

I'm not sure I want to read the apocryphal books but I think knowing about them isn't a bad bible study. It at least keeps you from laying awake nights worrying about blood moons.

Even in astronomy, Enoch does offer its own solar calendar:

Four fragmentary editions of the Astronomical Book were found at Qumran, 4Q208-211.[82] 4Q208 and 4Q209 have been dated to the beginning of the 2nd century BC, providing a terminus ante quem for the Astronomical Book of the 3rd century BC.[83] The fragments found in Qumran also include material not contained in the later versions of the Book of Enoch.[81][83][84]

This book contains descriptions of the movement of heavenly bodies and of the firmament, as a knowledge revealed to Enoch in his trips to Heaven guided by Uriel, and it describes a Solar calendar that was later described also in the Book of Jubilees which was used by the Dead Sea sect. The use of this calendar made it impossible to celebrate the festivals simultaneously with the Temple of Jerusalem.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-29   14:18:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: TooConservative (#137)

Even in astronomy, Enoch does offer its own solar calendar:

Solar calendar? Wow. Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes. No wonder the books of Enoch got a bad rap...solar.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   14:36:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#139)

Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes.

As you know, the temple followed a complex lunar calendar. So Enoch's calendar was not compatible with celebrating Jewish holy days as Jerusalem did. It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers.     : )

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-29   17:13:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: TooConservative (#143)

It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers. : )

Scoffers!?

Well there are some. I found this from the Chick.com questions and answers site. It just would not be a theological discussion without finding out what Jack's staff is thinking:

Question: I have been reading lately about how the Bible contains quotes from extracanonical texts as in Acts 17:28. Even the Old Testament quotes from rabbinical texts, right? Do you feel that these texts should have been omitted from the canon? Why would Jude quote from "The Assumption of Moses" in Jude 9 and then "The Book of Enoch" in Jude 14 if they are now considered 'apocryphal'?

Answer: I have a fundamental faith regarding the scriptures: God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't. That means that if God through Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12, and summarizes the writing of Aratus and Cleanthes in Acts 17:28, it's only there because the quote itself states what the Biblical author wanted to say. It does not validate the entire writings of non-inspired authors. The same is true with the apocryphal (kept out of the Canon by God) Assumption of Moses and 2 Enoch. Those words say what the Bible author wanted to say. It does not say that the entire writings are therefore God's words.

May God bless you as you read His preserved words in English, the King James Bible, exactly what God wanted to say.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   17:53:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: redleghunter (#146)

God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't.

So all needed is in Koran, if it is not there it is not needed.

Following Muslim/Calvinist dogma of TULIP you deny human role. Muslims deny also that human nature could cooperate freely with Divine, especially in God-Man Jesus Christ.

You treat Holy Scripture as if God dictated it to the human robots.

But if you read the Holy Books with open heart, you see human authors, who were inspired but who retained their individuality and freedom.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-29   18:19:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: A Pole, liberator, GarySpFc, CZ82 (#150)

I didn't say any of those things you accuse me of. I quoted a hard line view which was discussed earlier.

I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that.

So no, the Bible did not fall out of the sky and land in our laps. Just as the Mona Lisa did not magically appear in the Louvre. Some good art critics and curators put the Mona Lisa with other wonderful collections of art. They knew it was worthy art by looking at it and knowing who the artist was.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-30   1:34:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: redleghunter (#158)

I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that.

Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork.

He is not a "user" but the Father.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-30   4:47:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: A Pole (#160)

Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork.

He is not a "user" but the Father.

Yes your language, the way you describe it above is more accurate IMO. But I would add that what 'handiwork' one may do should Glorify God...Meaning God gets the Glory even for our own good actions.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-30   9:45:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 168.

        There are no replies to Comment # 168.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 168.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com