OK, this is a major shakeup of all my web space. I’ve been breaking up erictb.info, realizing that the clusters of articles on the main pages there is basically too cluttered, so I had begin by making separate pages for major essays, and now, I decided to drop a bunch of them here, and list everything to date, by category.
Entertainment and media
- Division between man’s soul and spirit
- Definitions of “Fortune/Luck” and “Money”, and the New Century
- Alternate Hex Codes
- Forgotten 4D object: The duo-cone
- Illustrating Little Girl Lost and the Langoliers
- NON-COMMUTATIVE SPACE
- Why is the “powers of ten” line asymmetrical? and the grownup name of “googol”
- How many sides does a circle have?
- “Great Zero” and the alternative negative number system
- Monochrome yellow vs. filtered or red+green mixing on
- Metric Time
Travel and Transit
RELIGION AND POLITICS
I recently saw a blog post arguing that anything not 100% certain be true, may, in fact, be false, and allows only for “uncertain confidence” and conclusions. But because One who does know all things has personally revealed truth to us, then we can have absolute certainty.
This is an attempt to establish an absolute argumentative “proof” of God.
This leads to a citation of late Reconstructionist leader Greg L. Bahnsen
“. . . the apologetic task will consist, not of externally verifying the Christian presupposition but, of applying it by (1) bringing God’s truth and commands to bear upon the lives of unbelievers, appealing to the image of God in them (distinguishing between present remnants of man’s original nature and the ever-present nature of fallen man), pointing out that every fact of the world bears witness to God, and (2) doing an internal critique of the non-Christian’s system, calling down its idols, and pointing out the absolute necessity of Christian presuppositions if logic, factuality, history, science, and morality are to have any meaning, validity, and application at all. The Christian apologetic will not concede intellectual ground to Christianity’s cultured despisers or allow them to exploit theoretical foundations to which they have no legitimate claim without depending on the Christian faith. Thus, part of the Christian’s reasoned defense of the faith will be an aggressive offense.”
This is the basis of the argumentative tactics of presuppositionalism, as outlined as one of the pillars of the movement known as Reconstructionism, founded by a guy named Rousas Rushdoony, with other notable leaders as Gary North and the late David Chilton (the one who kept trolling Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in An Age of Hunger with a frequently updated Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators).*
The centerpiece of this whole system is Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools…
And the rest of the chapter goes on to describe all the sinful actions these ‘blinded’ people would increasingly fall into. Of course, this is plugged right into the “moral decline” of America (and perhaps some other Western nations) Christians have long decried.
Based on this, all the doubts about God and the (understandably hard to verify invisible) spiritual world that people struggle with, are dismissed as a sort of lie we tell ourselves; “holding the truth in unrighteoueness”. Everybody really “knows the truth”, and thus has the ‘duty’ to “respond” in order to be covered by the Gospel’s means of forgiveness!
On one hand, this ideology is Calvinist (which is another of the pillars of this view, as Rushdoony, et al. claim). Yet it outdoes Pelagianism in its legalism. It’s essentially all about what we give to God, in “making” Him Lord.
So this even extends over to politics. In fact, this camp tells us to “make” Christ “Lord” over the nation, and more moderate forms of faith, even conservative variations, are criticized for letting down the guard, and thus being the real cause of the moral slide.
So you see articles saying a lot of the stuff I would agree with, and have cited leaders like Horton on, regarding how the Church has often slipped on doctrine, making it more man-centered, and thus led to the shallowess in the Church today, and a watered down gospel that has no effect. You’ll even see criticism of Republicans as no better than Democrats, and that Christians worship America too much.
Yet, then, they are focusing a lot on the evils of “socialism”, but simply accusing the Right as being bad simply for having compromised with it, and thus taking a side in the issue (unlike Horton who points out that communism and capitalism are “both twin sisters of modernity” and “equally destructive to the soul if not the pocketbook”). Also, familiar sounding mention of “generations of abandonment of Scripture as our true guide in detail in every realm of life” (and this on a national level, apparently not just the church), as if some previous generations once had it all right and truly followed scripture in all areas.
Hence, there’s an obvious [ultra-right] political agenda behind the nice sounding “neutral” (critical of both sides) position.
So along with the political views comes the notion that no proofs are needed for God.
Not sure of all their views on all of the other doctrines, but the way this could be used, is, if a young-earth Creation position is absolutely necessary for God’s Word to be true [as many radical conservatives argue], but the scientific evidence doesn’t line up? That’s just an excuse; you know it’s true, for God has shown it to you in your heart, but you suppress this, in order to hold on to your sin and have no “accountability”.
You think the nation founded itself by evil? (Slavery and conquest)? They were blessed by God, who gave those heathens into their hand, and the righteousness of the Puritans, and the great civilization they built up are evidence of God’s Providence, and you know it. You should be “thankful”, instead of critical (though it’s OK for them to be critical of the “evils” they see, today).
Of course, the flipside of that is that all the sin they are in the same breath complaining about had to have come from someone else; everyone else. Hence, they are the only ones qualified to rule the nation, and they will keep badgering the political debate until the sinners of the world give them their rightful rule.
Continuing from today’s previous article (Rob Bell Controversy and the search for alternatives to Hell, link at bottom), from
Emergent teachers have been chipping away at the bible for a long time. They twist the meaning of scripture and offer “alternative” interpretations of what the Word of God clearly states. It is a continuation of satan’s original temptation in the Garden of Eden: “Did God Really Say…?”
This repeats a common misreading of that passage, based on the assumption that their traditions (or readings of scripture) are as clearly “God’s word” as what He spoke to Adam. Everyone loves to refer to Satan in the Garden saying “Has God said…?” anytime a cherished doctrine is disputed, but they all forget about him also tempting Jesus with “Has NOT God said…?” (not in these exact words, but nevertheless, complete with a scripture quote!)
So that means you cannot take a proof-text for a given teaching and hold it up as a definite statement from God, like His face to face instruction in the Garden. So questioning “did God really say that” is not only not wrong in this age, it is necessary by Biblical mandate (Acts 17:11, 1 Thess.5:21).
Because we are not receiving direct revelations from God, like Adam and Eve in the Garden, and we are millennia removed from the last such direct revelation. We receive the truth from equally fallen men, and they do not always present it perfectly. Even God’s written Word can be twisted in meaning (2 Pet. 3:16) to teach all sorts of things, taken out of its context; in which case, it is something He did NOT say! (And isn’t this exactly what they’re right here accusing others of?) The originally intended ‘truth” will then seem like an “alternative interpretation”. This has happened before; as Catholicism (whether Roman or the undivided Rome and East) once defined “historic orthodoxy”, yet Prostestants broke away from them, with what they even called “private interpretations” (which would seem to be what one scripture was warning specifically against, but we had to come up with a different understanding of).
So we had better question whether God had said something when people come speaking in His name!
The entire problem is, that the Church often said “God DID say that!”, and not only was it something God actually didn’t say, it was an unnatural lie. (Sexual repression even in marriage, sexism, racism, world is flat, at center of universe, etc. —all taught as Biblical truth, or “God’s Word”! Let alone the stuff Protestants reject especially salvation by works).
This is what everyone is reacting against, but fundamentalists don’t understand, and only tell us to go back to the old ways.
So Satan was the just as much the author of putting words in God’s mouth, as he is of questioning what God has said. (See Prov.30:6, Rev.22:18)
Primary proof-text examined
But the whole context of Romans is actually ISRAEL, whom God “showed” Himself to, by special revelation (from the burning bush to the appearance of Christ Himself), through the Law and the Temple system (referred to as “the world”); not “general revelation”, as is being assumed. v.19 says “…that which may be known of God”. It was people who ONCE KNEW Him, and THEN lost that knowldge, not people who were never aware of “knowing” Him (except in some deep “subconscious” sense as they are suggesting).
This is evident from the start of chapter 2, where he shows that he is addressing people who follow “the Law”, and thus “judge” with it. This is not describing everyone.
(And note, verses 7 and 13, where salvation ⦅justification/”eternal life”⦆ is clearly placed on works; “doing good” itself; “doing” the Law; with no mention of “faith” or even “repentance” of any previous sins, “unto remission”; directly contradicting what most would believe, and acknowledge as Paul’s central teaching.
There must be a particular context here that is being missed for this to harmonize with the rest of his writings).
I’ve seen an argument that the chapter is describing something universal, because it refers to and parallels the original “Creation” in Genesis. (“likeness/image”, relation to the animal kingdom, male/female difference. This is called the “intertextual echoes”). But scripture is often like that, with parallels, and it stands, if God is creator of the whole globe (and universe), then He is also creator or Israel, and Israel is the nation He chose to reveal Himself, and enact His plan through. So it’s like a microcosm of the creation of the universe.
That’s the context of this chapter, and in fact the whole book of Romans.
(It’s also key to understanding a lot of the prophetic ⦅apocalyptic⦆ terms, such as “world/earth”, and even “heavens”, that the escalatalogical system of “futurism” has taken, and used to change the meaning of a “soon” return of Jesus that some first century readers would live to experience, and stretch a 70th prophetic “week” into centuries, resulting in a tumultuous Church history full of corruption and schism premising itself on a “future” Kingdom of Christ to be established, while “the world” is presumed still “lost” and “hellbound” the whole time ⦅yet, “shown” the truth from God in all of this; and God is supposedly also made known in the life of the Church⦆.
Regular so-called “full preterism”, which many of the Reformed-based presuppositionalists such as the Reconstructionists hold, fares little better, taking the “time statements” of scripture ⦅”soon”, etc⦆ literally, and understanding “world/earth” properly as far as the time scope, but not as far as judgment and redemption. Hence, the “kingdom” seen in terms of a “dominion” mindset, rather than Grace).
The fruits of this mindset
Presupposionalism is the reason why we have so many different, adamant groups all claiming absolute truth; all “one-upping” each other (“emulation”; Gal 5:20-21) as “compromisers” or “rebellious” or even “false converts”, but all saying vastly different things. (Which rather than making God more clear and their beliefs more absolute, further waters down and clouds the truth, and makes it all look all the more relative).
But armed with the Romans 1 citation, they still charge “no excuse”, and everyone else’s lack of excuse becomes their excuse to continue in their sinful “emulations”.
It has influenced even many who are otherwise nowhere near the movement of Reconstructionism. I’ve run across people like this in the KJVO movement, and they’re not even Calvinist! (Like Terry Watkin’s “We do not argue; we do not debate, any mail not agreeing with our ‘scriptural’ position on ‘godly’ music will be promptly canned”; etc. to paraphrase).
So you just come up to people saying “this is true; I’m not going to debate with you, but you either accept it or you’re blind and on your way to Hell”.
It also brings to mind, the earlier point, people arriving on other’s shores to colonize them, saying “God told us to take your land, so just give it up, or we’ll kill you”. (And yet there was always a proof-text for these things).
So should everyone just accept what people like that say is the truth (and with the whole political agenda that accompanies it)?
I could imagine tying to reason with Muslim extremists, as we hear about a lot in the news these days, and have figured prominently for over a decade, and it would be a similar reaction. Try to tell them God has not called them to cleanse the earth of “infidels”, or force other nations out of their land by bombing and beaheading; they’re goung to adamantly insist what they are doing is “the truth”.
So all religions have a bit of presuppositionalism, unless you water them down, to the all inclusive “just peace and love”, which “fundamentalists” of all religions will criticize.
Does it really proclaim truth?
Presuppositionalism say the the proofs of God’s existence point directly to the Biblical God; but that everyone is suppressing this “clear revelation”, except the elect, who are granted the ability to believe.
But at the most, “general revelation” points just to “intelligent design”, but does not point to all the details about the Godhead, the work of Christ, etc. They will point to the “invisible attributes”, but these are not elaborated in the passage, beyond simply “eternal power and Godhead”. We normally think of “omipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, holiness, truth, justice, grace, mercy”, etc. But all of this is not evident in looking at the design in nature either. (It was clearly evident in the Temple system, and the Law, however!)
Most people don’t say absolutely nothing made the universe; many say it is so beyond our comprehension, we can’t know (which actually fits this to some extent, and especially “to whom shall ye liken Me?” (Isaiah 40:25). It’s religion (and I mean monotheism; Bible-based religion) that has often turned God essentially into a creature (in different ways), just as Paul mentions here!
This was the point of the grotesque “Flying Spaghetti Monster” mockery atheists came up with about 10 years ago. In other words, that’s a hypothetical “intelligent being” that people could surmise created the universe, and form a religion around; it’s just as good as any others.
I guess presuppositionalists feel they don’t even have to address this, as I’ve never seen any attempt to do so, but that would be a perfect opportunity to proclaim why the God of scripture is far more superior and true than some monstrosity men purposely made up, out of common manmade objects, to prove a point.
Others will argue Romans 1 is focusing on idolatry and sexual sin (i.e. man’s relationship to the animals; often used in idolatry, and the relationship of the sexes), and this is then generalized as a complete proof of the God of the Bible, through “conscience”, discussed in chapter 2, if nothing else.
Then, it might be admitted that this is “incomplete” knowledge, but then, you are held “responsible” to ask for more, and then God will send someone to give you all the details about sin, and salvation in Jesus, so you can make the move to get the [conditional] covering.
Of course, this last part is going way beyond scriptural exposition, and it does say that “what CAN BE KNOWN” of Him, or “the knowable aspect of God” is what is “shown” through “nature”; so again, there is a particular context behind this passage that is being missed. (Peter warns that it is easy to misunderstand these deep teachings of Paul. So you HAVE to keep focus on the overall CONTEXT, not not just grab isolated verses that look like they say something relevant, let alone filter them through traditional “presuppositions” as people of all movements keep doing).
Paul’s point there was the contrast between the written “Law”, by which God had “showed Himself” to Israel, and how Gentiles did have conscience that achieves pretty much the same thing.
But Law alone does not lead to God (i.e. eliminate the separation; but instead, rather enforces it), as Paul takes great pains to show in the rest of the book, and epistles.
Our natures are so corrupt, it even twists the Law (as the Israelites he was warning in ch.2 did), and the Law only makes us more rebellious (as he shows in chapter 7).
This is why most people now cannot even bring themselves to try to impose a theocracy, as Reconstructionism wants. It’s also why watered down religion that says “it’s just peace and love” is accepted, while any religion with moral conviction they believe should be legislated to others (or even thrown in other’s faces, such as in certain religious displays in prominent places), is generally opposed.
They know any one of us could be wrong, being we “see in a glass darkly”. (1 Cor.13:12) (Even Calvin said God gives reprobates false faith that He later takes away so they can perish).
Again, it is a very faulty approach, because ANYONE can just come up to anyone else and proclaim that, and that’s what many do; hence so much dissension in the religious world, rather than such “clarity” as they claim.
It’s just another device of sinful man to exalt themselves, using God.
More fruits of the doctrine: race and economic oppression!
*It should be noted that Chilton’s action goes right along with the old Puritan notion that wealth and “productivity” were signs of divine “election”. Tony Campolo The Success Fantasy, pp.143-144 points out, speaking of Calvinists such as the Puritans in early America, “…certain Protestants, particularly those in the Calvinistic traditions, have twisted Reformed theology in order to make wealth the evidence of divine election…there were some Calvinists who wanted concrete evidence that God had chosen them to be saved. The doctrine of predestination declared that God had already decided who would be saved and who would be lost. However, these Calvinists still wondered what the evidence or signs of divine election might be…Many Christians answered that the saved would know of their election because they would economically prosper. Thus, prosperity became the evidence of a right relationship with God.”
It is obvious a whole host of problems that would erupt later on could be traced to such an ideology. If wealth is a sign of God’s election, then right there, the “barbarian” Africans and Indians then are not only divinely cursed (as evidenced also by their demonic religion), but also their enslavement or eradication is justified. It was from here that a heavy reliance on the Old Testament came into play, with the account of the driving out or killing of the Canaanites ordered by God, and the preaching of prophets like Elijah becoming the models for the “Christian” mission, with Church and secular state going hand in hand.
If the people could not be enslaved for long, then oppression would continue. The elevation of the people to equal status in society would be like the Israelites mixing with the pagans, and here we see the roots of the nation’s racism and segregation. Sure enough many blamed the country’s supposed moral “downfall” on allowing the cultures to mix, and it even spreads into the Church in the form of the “contemporary versus traditional” debates. (Supposed ‘judgments’ on the nation in the form of terrorism and natural disasters are also said to be a result of this).
People today claim:
1) Obama is the worst president in history
2) He was only elected because of his race (by “reverse racists”)
3) Now get this one; he is so bad, that he is in fact God’s judgment on the nation!
If they really want to look at him that way, then, you never would have had any “reverse racism” and people electing him because of his race, if the race had never been oppressed and discriminated against in the first place. That’s the “national sin” that always gets excluded from all of these polemics on “divine judgment”. So if they think he’s so bad, then maybe he is God’s judgment on the nation after all, but not for the sins they think of.
But they’ll never look at it that way. Once again, the central creed is that the nation was following God in the beginning; hence being so materially “blessed”, and it was the turning away from the original values, by everyone else, that angered God, bringing “judgment”.
Racism then became replaced by class war, in which you still had one group on top, and others below. It was formerly drawn largely on race, but people could cross from one side to the other now. Those on the top side, were said to be “deserving” because of their “hard work”, (while still appealing to “divine providence”); while the poor are considered to be lazy.
Citing a so-called “Protestant work ethic”, the Christians often led this fight, to get the government to stop taxing the well-off so much, and supposedly giving it all to the “undeserving”. Hence the basis of the “Christian Right” with it’s “Christian America” concept).
A lot of these people will be foremost at condemning the likes of Osteen and the prosperity gospel movement, but it’s really the same principle. Do what’s right, and then God must bless you. The prosperity crowd may be looking at it synergistically (i.e. you can make this happen by your own free will choices), but to change it to a monergistic view (that you did right was evidence that God already favored you) is just a rehash of the same thing. You’re in the end still more “worthy” than others. (I would think attibuting it to God would be even worse, because now this has Him “showing respect” to men; see Rom.2:11, Acts 10:34).
To repeat the closing point, all forms of presuppositionalism serve to exalt one group of men over other, and totally violated Grace; that salvation was by the faith of Christ, and not man’s works (not as earning salvation, nor by “proving” election).
People with views like this love to focus on “God’s glory“, which they essentially elevate above every other attribute (especially Grace), and justify any idea of divine action possible with it, but God says “My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8). Why do so many men think that what they call “election” effectively grants them this forbidden status?
In his new book, Bell is challenging the traditional Christian belief of hell. Does it really exist? And if so, is it eternal or just a temporary place of “cleansing”? I do not think it is possible to overestimate the ramifications of the debate that will follow.
Bell is advancing a new belief, that suggests somehow the judgment mentioned in scripture is not really eternal, and thus all souls will eventually be in Heaven.
I wonder if it may tie in with what’s called “Millennial exclusion”, which I first encountered on a fairly conservative Christian debate forum (which quickly clamped down on it, while more legalistic belief systems that nevertheless maintained some form of eternal judgment, such as Catholicism, Campbellism and sabbatarianism, were allowed to peddle their doctrines longer).
It splits judgment up, basically. The standard view holds that all who are saved participate in the first resurrection and thus enter the Millennium (1000 years), which is a fixed up earth visibly ruled by Christ. All of those left out of this are then resurrected at the end of that period, and then sentenced to the lake of fire (eternal Hell). Millennial Exclusion says that many who miss the first resurrection and Millenium will suffer a kind of Hell during that period, but then still be saved in the second resurrection.
I quickly noted, it was basically a rehash of purgatory.
They did have some impressive scriptural or at least logical evidence (which I’ve forgotten by now), and the idea could easily explain many scriptures we were debating over, which seemed to effectively revoke salvation based on one’s works (which were the main argument of those three legalist groups I mentioned). They’ll simply miss the Millennium because of their works, yet still be saved by grace, in the end. But it still didn’t seem to deal with all of the relevant passages.
All of this was before Bell come up, so I’m not sure whether it’s the same teaching, and have not really read up on Bell much. From what I gather, Bell’s teaching is that some of the punishment passages normally interpreted as Hell were really just the “end-of-age” cleansing, and the souls experiencing that would eventually be freed, to enter life. Not sure whether this is affixed to the two resurrections and the Millennium, or not. Not sure whether annihilation of other souls (not redeemed) was involved too.
Now, here’s the major concern:
If Christians begin to believe that hell is a fictional place, it will lead to a major shift in the interpretation of the gospel. Emergers will intensify their arguments that God is all about love and no judgment. That Jesus came to earth as a good teacher—not a living sacrifice for our sins. That all we have to do is love one another and usher in a world of peace—that once we accomplish that, Jesus returns to rule in a world that we as humans have perfected.
Yes, Jesus really did teach that hell exists. He also clearly stated that no one comes to the father except through HIM. He is the Son of God who paid the price for sins of all of those who believe upon Him. He freed us from the bondage of sin. If people start to believe that hell is a fictitious place, imagine the consequences.
Many will be swayed into rejecting the existence of hell, believing that a loving God could never condemn anyone to eternal damnation.
We must be anchored in God’s truth and be able to refute Bell’s teachings with the Word of God. Imagine the slippery slope that appears when our youth and even youth pastors begin to reject the fact that God is a god who not only loves—but also judges. Doctrine and beliefs become unimportant. We do what we want when we want, because God would never hold us accountable for our actions.
Make no mistake, many will believe what Bell is teaching—and the consequences for the church will be very serious.
Of course, in any case, any threat to the doctrine of eternal unescapable Hell is of course going to be met with the charge that they’re trying to make God/Jesus “all love”, and eliminate His “judgment”, “holiness”, and of course, the motivation for men to repent and be holy, and lead to some “one world religion” (which they believe will then become the very “end-times deception” they are awaiting. It of course, threatens the fear-based power of the institution of the organized Church, whether the large ones, or the small, independent ones).
None of them sees this as compromising “by grace are you saved…not of works” and “true love casts out fear” (which is what this implies keeps people in the right doctrine and morality).
Also, as many of these critics complain, Jesus has already become “a good teacher, not a living sacrifice for sins” in the contemporary Church, even with the doctrine of Hell still officially on the books. And even that doctrine is already slipping, as some (including even leading figures such as Billy Graham) are allowing for those who have never heard to possibly be saved by “grace”. (I guess they’ll say both doctrinal shifts are apart of the same trend).
And many conservatives have just as much aimed through their doctrines and control, to usher in some age of perfection. Many have spoken as if there once was some golden age of righteousness, which the “forces of godlessness” (basically, any other political system or ideology) has ruined. (Even those who still believe things will get worse anyway, and then God will take them out of the worst part, destroy the present kingdoms, and establish His Kingdom Himself).
The route I had since gone was the Fulfilled View, where the condemnation warned about was for the end of the Old Covenant system.
Bell’s position and Millennial Exclusion I see as being like traditional universalism, in as Fulfilled View writer Tim King put it “extends salvation to all apart from the covenantal framework of biblical eschatology” and thus “the concept of salvation is severed from its Hebraic roots, the victory of God is reinterpreted through the lens of human worth and Christ is removed as the central figure in the victory of God”, and thus “the true story of hope gives way to any number of stories and the foundation for the continued development of human society is compromised”. (“Comprehensive Grace”, Jul 30, 2002).
This is pretty much the same thing the traditional Hell advocates are saying. So we would have to agree.
The traditionalists will still see our view as “all love, no judgment”, and then by extension, “Jesus is just a good teacher and not a living sacrifice”. It appears Jesus’ position as sacrifice seems to depend on most people ending up in Hell, and only the few having that sacrifice efficacious for them, which is what in practice is happening, in their view.
(In the end, it’s like God is most glorified by damning, and then forcing the damned in the fires of Hell to finally bend the knew and profess Him as Lord, rather than saving all by grace, who would in that situation naturally glorify Him).
Of course, this is from the need to have that covering manually applied (whether by free will, or unconditional regeneration leading to repentance), usually assumed to lead to one’s life being cleaned up, and most just aren’t applying it (even though hypothetically, all could).
I could say “if you want judgment so much, then let’s see how you would stand”, but since these people believe “salvation by grace” applies to themselves, it becomes a matter of them figuring all this necessary “judgment” is now for everyone else, as they have already met the “requirements”. (Here’s an article that touches upon this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/michele-bachmann-proof-that-end-times-theology-will-poison-your-worldview
Most Fulfilled View advocates do teach something similar to Bell, but place it in that past judgment (AD70), saying that the people who “perish” suffered for awhile, and then still ended up in Heaven. Or they say the fiery destruction of Jerusalem and end of the “covenant” was the ONLY “[eternal] death”. I’ve never been able to bring myself to take it that far.
But at least, the AD70 view is based on the notion of an OVERLAP of covenants, where an “earnest” of Grace is given, but you still have to apply it by faith and “run the race” by works. This is what’s basically been extended, indefinitely, to the present and beyond. And it’s the main cause of a lot of this doctrinal deviation and confusion.
But for either Bell, Millennial Exclusionists, Fulfilled view advocates or others to simply reduce eternal punishment to temporal punishment, but still based on works, still compromises “grace alone”.
Even if the “salvation” promised is from temporal judgment; if it’s “by grace”, then it is no longer by “works”, else, it is “no more grace” (Rom.11:6, 4:4).
Again, the AD70 view, with an “overlap” of covenants for the previous 40 years (the antetypical “Israel in the wilderness” for the Church) is what would explain the confict of grace vs works, and within a covenantal (Biblical) framework, that could better stand the scrutiny of the traditionalists.
[Continued with another quote, in the following article, on "presuppositionalism".]
In a similar vein to a true “Main Street” in NYC [previous entry], it should be mentioned that while New York and most other cities will have extensive prominent inner city numbered street systems (Brooklyn has several systems: East, West, North, South, Bay, a few named after an area ⦅Paerdegat, etc.⦆ and plain ⦅no prefix⦆ streets and avenues (making up Borough Park). Queens was turned into one big street and avenue grid, with a smaller one prefixed “Beach”, in the Rockaways), New England and upstate New York generally do not.
Springfield has a tiny 1st and 2nd St. out in the outskirts. This is the way it is for most other New England cities. (like the reverse of the “Main St.” situation in NYC). Just beyond this is next town Chicopee’s tiny 1st and 2nd Ave which are perpendicular. Westfield has a tiny 1st St. that meets an A St. at a corner, in the outskirts.
New Haven has a 1st-6th St. in a small two block wide grid right where West River empties into the Sound. (The I95 runs right between 5th and 6th St. but you’d of course never know it).
Worcester has a little First-Fourth St. also on the outskirts.
South Boston and Telegraph Hill have a small numbered (and lettered) grid (E/W 1-9 St. and A-P Street) of medium length streets; the largest in the multistate region. The next place after that is East Providence, with 1st-10th St. Next after that is Stamford, which has fairly short 1st-8th north of downtown.
Hartford doesn’t seem to have any, so Google directs you to this tiny system in neighboring New Britain (short 1st-8th). Nearby Bristol also has a very small 1st-6th. For Bridgeport, it at first pointed to Fairfield (1 block 1st, 2nd and 3rd), and then Stratford (1st-6th Ave. on the Sound).
Now this was very wild.
Bridgeport does have its own little numbered system (3rd-6th St.) it missed for some reason, which is off of Seaview Avenue (again, a somewhat outerlying area), and just as I was appending all of this info, and looking at the map, just a mile up the same street, this huge, huge, HUGE fire was erupting, with mushroom clouds of flame, and showed up on the news right after I had finished looking at the maps and moved on.
So today, having heard the fire was on Seaview, and looking up and down that street for where exactly that was, I see the numbered streets, and find I had passed by them twice on my NY-Springfield By Local bus trip http://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/new-york-to-springfield-ma-by-local-bus (both the aborted first try and the second successful one), as the Coastal Link bus goes down Stratford Ave. Trying to remember remembering seeing a couple of numbered streets there. Seems a bit familiar now, with the fancy looking blue street signs.
The “warehouse” burning, which was up closer to US1/Boston Ave. consists of these one story buildings that on Street View look like they were already for the most part gutted, and surrounded by empty space, and empty trailer bins. Perhaps more had been added since the Street View was taken. It was said to be perfume tanks and drums and a roofing factory fueling that inferno.
S. Portland, ME has a short 2nd, 3rd and 6th St. Also, close by, A-F and Q Sts. (Nearby Peaks Island has a 1st and a tiny 3rd that meet at a corner, and a tiny 2nd St. on the other side of the island). Manchester, NH has just a tiny 1st Ave. on the outskirts.
The adjacent upstate New York fares a little better, but not much.
Albany has a 1st, 2nd and 3rd St. just north of downtown (they each run about two miles, though), and Buffalo has a very incomplete numbered system (4th, 7th, 10th, 14th-19th, with everything between them named).
Rochester has a 1st-8th St. that are mostly just two blocks and was very easy to miss on Google. Syracuse also had 1st-7th, which are near the NY State Fairgrounds, but this seems to be really out in a neigboring town (Solvay), but Google (both the map and the serach) considers it part of Syracuse.
In Westchester, the first county outside the city heading upstate, you might not usually think of numbered streets, but some are there in a few places.
Yonkers has just a 1st St. (of it’s own), near the Bronx River. It actually enters the Bronx as Vireo Ave. Right near where this street passes, Yonkers also manages to get the very tips of the city’s E241st and E242nd St., which enter and run into McLean Ave at an angle (240th seems to end right at the border which is by that time on McLean as well).
Another Yonkers street a few blocks further up then becomes a realigned E241st when it crosses the river and enters the city in the section of Wakefield that pokes up into Westchester.
New Rochelle has somewhat small 1st-8th St. west of downtown; while Mt. Vernon, wedged inbetween the two larger cities, consists mostly of a numbered E/W street and S/N avenue grid. (Some of them cross the border into the city, instantly becoming Bronx streets, including the Wakefield E241st and 242nd). White Plains doesn’t seem to have any numbers at all.
Staten Island also has a small numbered system (1-9 Street) in New Dorp. and an even smaller 1-4 Ct. on the beachside near Annadale, and numbered avenues and lettered streets in the College of Ststen Island. 5th St. was omitted in New Dorp (that’s where the train station plaza is), but Hagstrom shows one not too far from the beachside “courts”, as an extension of Allegro st. off Poillion Ave. into Blue Heron Park. In Google, there’s nothing there, but a tiny dead end right north of there, and in Street View, Allegro just ends there at a wooded section that looks like it may possibly once have been a street, while the other dead end looks like a driveway for some sort of house or church there.
The Bronx, while again continuing Manhattan’s number grid (with the crosstown streets, and Third Ave), also has two of it’s own little separate number grids; 1st through 12th Avenues; including a second 3rd Avenue, over near where the Main St. is., and 1st 2nd and 3rd St, with Avenues A-F, in Hunts Point on the Bronx River, away from the main numbered grid. (The main 3rd Ave. addresses start in the 2000’s, while the Throggs Neck one are under 100).
Newark looks like it doesn’t have numbers, but there is a sizable grid of streets and avenues to the west, away from Downtown. (There’s also the numbered system beginning in Jersey City right across the river from Manhattan, that almost line up. (like the Lincoln Tunnel goes out under W39th St., and on the NJ side, the highway leading to it, wbich has the same alignment even after the Helix, is between 30th and 31st St.)
In New York, I grew up used to a crisscross pattern of numbered streets and numbered or lettered Avenues, and the biggest thoroughfares usually named after places or people.
The other sizeable city I went to, Springfield, MA; the primary “avenue” is “Main St.” (and the primary perpendicular one radiating out of the center of the city was “State St.”)
The next sizeable city I would encounter, every five years, would be Richmond. Its backbone was “Broad St.”, but there was a slightly smaller “Main St.” right next to it (which we used to get to the Poe Cottage in Shockoe Bottom). Norfolk had one as well. I once saw an old picture of it, when it looked more like the others, with the standard 75-100 year old smaller storefronts, but the entire area had been replaced with the standard modern skyline. (The perpendicular Granby St. was similar; Norfolk seemed to originally have an odd L shaped central business district, and Granby for the most part kept its old character). Farmville and other small towns’ primary business district roads were usually Main St. too.
Reading maps, and following roads like Broadway (US9) and Boston Road (US1), which supposedly went “all the way” to Albany (or even Canada) and Boston, respectively. I found that when passing through towns, they often changed their name to “Main St.” and then changed back once past.
Even LA, which seemed such a far cry from the old small towns and cities of the East, had a Main St. (Though you don’t hear about in on TV as much as Hollywood and Sunset Blvd’s and even other streets like Crenshaw, Wilshire, etc)
It seems like Main St. is something almost universal in populated places. In fact, it has become the trope of average everyday America, often used in contrast with the powerful “Wall St.” or “Madison Av.” or even “Pennsylvania Avenue” and “K Street”.
So it seems like another one of those things that sets New York apart from evewhere else. The “city” proper; Manhattan island, has no Main Street. Growing up in Brooklyn, I never encountered one either, and the Bronx, as a continuation of the Manhattan Streets, didn’t seem to have one either.
As it was, NYC was already different from most other cities in not having a simple business, with the rest of the city radiating out from it. Manhattan island was the initial “New York City”, that in 1898 incorporated a whole other city (Brooklyn) with its own downtown and radiating main throroughfares and street grids, and three other counties and their towns. Even on Manhattan, the CBD became split between “downtown” (containing the government and financial centre), and “midtown”, containing the entertainment/media/pop culture (including fashion, etc), shopping and main tourism districts. The general “offices” in big office buildings of corporations, law firms, etc. were divided between both areas.
The areas between them were likely skipped because they did not have the bedrock to support the larger more densely packed construction. (Hence, why they ended up having so many 150-200 year old little houses, like the ones long vanished in Five Points, which got wiped out by downtown’s expansion).
So the city really has three centers of businesses with accompanying skylines: downtown, midtown, and Brooklyn. (And now, Long Island City, across the river in Queens, is becoming like an expansion of midtown).
I found a technical “Main Street, New York, NY” had been forged on the little satellite island, called Roosevelt Island, which was placed on the “Manhattan” side of the river between that borough and Queens. Living there a year, I actually had Main St. NY, NY as my address.
But I knew this was not a real city “Main Street”. It’s not apart of the city grid; it’s only connected to Queens, roadwise, and the island used to be for hospitals and such, and only had the residences added in the ’70s. It’s like it was done to be “cute” or something; but it’s really this little island’s own Main St., not the city’s.
(In passing, 125th St. was dubbed “Main Street, Harlem, USA”, at least in an old Kurtis Blow rap about the street).
In actuality, other major cities Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and Washington DC don’t seem to have a Main st. either. (In Chicago, Michigan Ave. seems to hold that place, and in Atlanta, it’s Peachtree St. and Pennsylvania Ave. is called “America’s Main Street”).
In Philadeplphia, it’s in Manayunk, which looks like a separate town later annexed. Likewise, in Boston, it’s in Charlestown, which was a separate town annexed in 1874 (and didn’t fully take on Boston’s city functions until the 1990’s).
I eventually find that Brooklyn does actually have a Main St.; a small two block poorly paved over cobblestone street that was technically “downtown” like Main St. should be, but in a canyon of loft buildings and next to that really old warehouse with the steel shutters in this isolated waterfront industrial part of it I never went to: down underneath the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges (“DUMBO”). This was once a more active area, when the waterfront and ferries were more prominent in city life, but then the center of activity moved more inland, with Fulton St. taking on more the role of an old Main Street (And Flatbush Ave., the main thoroughfare of my area, being sort of like a newer counterpart to it, running perpendicular to the newer parts of the borough).
They’ve been moving to make the DUMBO area more of an attraction, with plans for the waterfront, and many of the factories convarted to lofts, and some new buildings as well.
The most prominent “Main Street” in the five boroughs, is Flushing Queens. This is the most like the traditional Main Streets, as being the main thoroughfare, and is long (running to the county administration area in Kew Gardens) and busy. In fact, the corner of Main and Roosevelt Av. looks like a small piece of midtown Manhattan. The street is commonly known, in the Transit field (and hobby) because it is the terminal of the line.
The borough of Queens remained set up more like a suburban county with individual “towns” or townships (the postal addresses even go by these), so Main Street belonged to the town of Flushing.
Staten Island’s “Main Street” belongs to Tottenville, way on the extreme other end of the island from St. George, which is the seat of the county. (It too, as NYC’s most suburban bourough, in some respects retains it’s individual “town” setup, though it’s not as prominent as Queens, because it’s not as big, and it’s primarily those two towns and Port Richmond, while the whole center of the island is suburban).
Bronx also has a little Main Street in a very remote corner of Throggs Neck, on the Long Island Sound. This too is out in a more suburban area.
My interest in this was raised, when studying the Five Points of Manhattan, and seeing how streets had been renamed. The main drag in New York; the backbone of the city would be the most famous street, Broadway. That is sort of the practical counterpart to “Main Street” for NYC.
I learned that the Bowery pretty much served as the “Main Street” for the lower East Side (such as the Five Points). Below Chatham Square, it pretty much became Park Row, or what was known as Chatham Street back then. (Later, attempted to be extended further down into running into Pearl St, but this section was renamed St. James Pl.)
It seemed even more like a traditional Main Street, having really old buildings. (It was also once apart of Boston Post Road, and thus truly sort of like the East Side’s counterpart to Broadway).
So I wondered if either of these may have ever been called “Main Street”. Like if Broadway was, since there’s also an East Broadway and a West Broadway, then maybe they would have been “East Main Street” and “West Main Street”. NYC would have really sounded like other cities then!
But I could find no evidence of that. Not even in the original old Dutch names.
So if not those two, I wondered which street would have been considered Main St. (or why if none ever was).
It was when running across the “Old Streets” site, which came up when trying to find out when the streets were de-mapped, fusing the two halves of block 161 to block 165 (Columbus Park extended to Worth), and block 160 (reducing the Five Points to today’s “Two Points”), that I ran across an apparent actual former “Main Street” listed for Manhattan!:
Main Street. Mentioned in Minutes of the Common Council for August 3, 1812. Apparently part of the present Mercer Street.
You can actually see the text here:
“A Petition of John and James Beekman stating that they were
owners of Lots N 51 52. 53. 54 fronting on broad Way, and of Lots
N 81. 82. 83 & 84 in the rear of the same fronting on Main St and
also of sundry Lots between Spring St and Broom St that upon a late
survey they find those Lots are deficient owing as they are informed to
a mistake of the former Street Commissioner in marking the corners
of Spring Street and Broom Street”
Mercer St. runs next to Broadway (to the west) from 8th to Canal. Hence, it shares all of its east side blocks with Broadway. It’s a somewhat narrow, one way (southbound) mostly cobblestone street, and is not a main commercial strip, but does consist mostly of storefronts (mostly tendy “Soho” type shops in really old, mid 19th century loft buildings), or at least other businesses. (At it’s nw corner with Canal is Canal Lighting, where I always check for the latest LED bulbs and other lights. Above Houston, it’s the eastern boundary of the NYU campus. My first true kiss, with my future wife, was near the corner with Waverly).
Can’t tell which block it was on, as no block number was listed, and the lot numbers for each block are now all mostly under 40. (So they changed, as I saw that the lot numbers had changed on block 160 in Five Points). But assuming these guys’ properties were all in the same area; possibly the same block, it must have been near Spring and Broome.
A “Mann St.” was similarly listed from 1821. (Probably a misspelling. If their source is the Internet Archive like in the link, those were probably OCR scanned, and Main and Mann are obvioulsy close, visually).
This site http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/mercer-playground/history reports “Mercer Street, directly to the east of the park [a little playground between Bleecker and 3rd], was laid out prior to 1797 and called First Street and Clermont Street. By 1799 it was renamed for physician and soldier Hugh Mercer (c. 1720-1777).”
Still, we don’t know if the whole street was named one way or the other or not. (The section they’re referring to is on the other side of Houston St). Being that it was once “First St.”, obviously it is reflecting a time when the Manhattan was still set up like individual towns with their separate grids (the main grid was laid out in 1811).
Still, if a part of Mercer was in fact Main St., considering that Broadway, as stated, is NYC’s practical “Main Street”; I wonder if there was some sort of connection. The fact that at least a part of it was once “First Street” possibly indicating it once being important or a very early center of the area.
These maps http://www.codex99.com/cartography/images/nyc/ny_1803_lg.jpg (1803) http://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/mappingthecity/intro/item/21065 (1817)
seem to show the whole thing named Mercer. Though in the first one, when it gets down to Broome and Grand, you’re entering the marsh of the stream or canal leading to the Collect Pond (of Five Points fame). So who knows what this was about. (Could it even have been an early road between Broadway and Mercer, that was de-mapped at the time and still referred to by the owners? Most of those lots probably weren’t even built up yet. Probably just one of the earlier alternate names still used by the landowners).
Seeing some people on Facebook rail on against Obama and Obamacare, acting as if their whole lives (and the nation) are ruined because of his policy, and thinking how these people so disclaim “racism”, yet are unaware of the “Shadow” (which is the unconscious; so of course they are unaware); I decided I needed to further articulate on how this works.
People identify with their forefathers, who settled and built up America, and share their VALUES. (There is likely a “participation mystique” involved, where people today introject almost wholesale, the values of the fathers as their own, at least partially unconsciously).
•The settlers mostly believed a “Manifest Destiny” that authorized them to capture the land and build it up with slave labor.
•There was a great outcry against this, and it was forced to be ended.
•People holding on to the original values (including the privilege afforded by their race) appealed to the Constitution, and claimed their rights were being violated.
•Ever since, progressive forces have been demonized by those most strongly waving a banner of “patriotism”.
Obama is both apart of the progressive wing of politics, as well as being a member of a people whom the original “values” declared not even worthy of freedom, let alone holding the highest office of the nation, of all things!
Today’s patriots are in a bind, because they grew up in generations where blacks were free and gained equal rights in theory, so they have learned to live in society with them and [in theory] accept them as equals. But they still feel an allegiance to the values of their forefathers.
So to begin with, they see many blacks are still dysfunctional and blaming racism for it (which they figure has changed, and so should be “gotten over” already), so they begin making character judgments on “the community” to begin with. (Which conveys a kind of superiority supposedly based on the “facts” of crime and other statistics, with themselves assumed to represent the “par”. Their counter-criticisms to all claims of “racism” become “they should do something about their own killings of each other, rather than complain about others”. Hence, the focus on “Chicago” and “Detroit”).
Yet “racism” is now frowned upon, and looks bad in the public eye. Yet they feel parts of “the truth” are being suppressed as “racist”.
Hence, no matter what he does, or how much his policies even compare to other liberal Democrats before him,* Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is totally unjustified by the factual data. It’s purely an archetypal evil that they are not even aware of (archetypes are products of the “collective unconscious”), and they try to rationalize it with facts (like his ACA is SOOOO “radical” in a fiscal and an “authoritarian” sense, compared to what anyone else has EVER done), but it just doesn’t add up in reality.
When they look at him, they are seeing something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”. It’s just this deep resentment, that was already there, and only filled out with stuff he’s done they don’t like.
*(And many leftists can argue he’s pretty conservative! Like bailing out the auto giants instead of Detroit, and several other policies. The conservatives simply change their tune, and condemn him further as a “sociaist” for these things, while they previously upheld the principles behing them, such as “trickle down” theory)
I see people talk about how all their freedoms are ending, but I do not see them saying they’re foreclosing, losing their house, car and everything. You hear about unemployment, but it’s usually not the same people doing most of the complaining (which include wellpaid political pundits and candidates).
They’re all still living this cozy American life. Some are even retired, or at least further along in their career, and not dealing with job market difficulty. (And thus often use their own testimony of “pulling themselves up from scratch” as private business owners to compare to all these people they see as getting a “free ride”).
So what are they talking about? What exactly is this ACA program doing to them, personally? They’ll point to what we’re “heading” to, but that’s up in the air. What affect this is having on you is angering you so much NOW?
What it looks like, is if Obama is a valid president, then the forefathers, the founders, the authors of the Constitution etc. are all proven wrong on several fronts, and the patriots aren’t ready to accept this.
So he becomes (sneeringy) “Soetero the Kenyan”.
(They’ll hold up black conservative leaders, but when one of them got close to nomination, other GOP leaders dug up dirt on him, and got him out of the race. Another one, years ago, possibly sensed this coming and refused to run).
Another big part of it is because as this article points out: “America’s first black president was expected to usher in a new era of racial equality.” He then goes on to blame both Obama and Holder for “the bonds that hold Americans together becom[ing] more frayed, and us becoming “more polarized and more divided along racial lines than the day you took office”, solely because of their “recklessly accusing your opponents of racism”. They have single handedly “turned back the clock on race relations in this country” and now “We are all worse off as a result, and weaker as a country”. (In that vein, you have this). Never mind the people with the slogan “2012: Don’t Re-Nig”. I guess since that was the second term election, the damage had already been done. Obama and Holder made those people coin that slogan and carry it around. They couldn’t help themselves.
Another one mentions “the signs comparing Obama to an ape, the lynch posters, the Confederate flag unfurled in front of the White House”, which someone then defends as having nothing “to do with the chaos he has created on our border, his lack of action against ISIS, running guns to drug dealers in Mexico, and his IRS targeting political opponents”, and that “Calling people names is part of our 1st amendment rights”; and while assuring us that the racist names are “disgusting”, they are “not nearly as bad” as Holder Sharpton trying to “railroad” Zimmerman for being “half white”.
|No matter what he does; how much he actually compares to other liberals, Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is purely archetypal, and unaware of. When they look at him, they see something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”, including the spots on the nation’s “exceptionalism”|
These people for one do not understand the unconscious, as well as the fact that racist sentiment has thrived in the form of blaming blacks for economic problems (“they just elect people who give them ‘freebies'”, etc.). All anything Obama and Holder (and Sharpton who he then also mentions) and the “promise” to unite the nation (e.g. by improving race relations) may have done is at most stoke people’s guilt; bring it to the surface.
So people who had long stuffed their sentiments have this subconscious reaction (“What you do mean ‘unite’ us?! We’ve already given blacks equality and more”. This then leads to the feeling that the tables have now turned, and in fact, blacks are being favored, and white males now oppressed, or at least the “minority”.
While you can try to blame Obama for Limbaugh and others saying that, you can hear such sentiments going all the way back to the 80’s, and culminating in the 90s’ “angry white male” backlash. Obama or Holder were not nationally known enough to have created that!
So while they figure they have already yielded and conceded enough, if not too much for the cause of racial equality (and thus should, if anything, be given something back for it), the guilt is there; because the sense of “American exceptionalism” being marred by historical race relations and reproved in favor of people trying to unfairly get a free ride, has been under the surface the whole time. (He aso claims the hatred of Holder is solely “everything to do with your failure to explain how the United States government provided guns to Mexican drug cartels that were eventually used to kill Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010.” But the “Fast and Furious” plan this is referring to was actually a George W. Bush policy; from before Holder was in office! And isn’t that similar to the old Contra scandal under Reagan that the Right justified?)
This latter issue I am seeing a lot, of “the border crisis” is perhaps the biggest thing that has become tagged on Obama (but I too saw how conservatives were already screaming about it before Obama got in office), and thus directly tied into the fear that they are quickly becoming the “minority”. This likely caries with it an underlying fear that what was done to African slaves, and native Americans, including the Mexican tribes, will be done to them. They are so anticipating this, like getting themselves ready for it, by seeing it as an already starting trend in every news story that touches upon race or immigration.
This is a large part of why they see Obama as a foreigner who has come to measure this judgment upon them. Even though, again, the border policies they are so upset by were in place before him; it’s like the see him get into office, and then look up and see all these people coming across the border, and then put those two things together, and add them to the old issues of “welfare”, and there you have it; they’re finally trying to get us back for racism.
But of course, we’ve already made our amends for that, so they must really want more. They are the ones who want to wrongly take what’s ours now!
People in the comments of the two linked articles acually claimed “He would love nothing more, than to open wide the borders, and inundate this country with the masses of uneducated, unvaccinated hords of people from South America, south sudan, or any other place where there are masses of people with no education, no skills, and their hands out. He would love to weaken and destabilize and ultimately bankrupt the US by taking care of people that are not the US’s responsibility. He is an American hating vengeful, infantile, thin skinned Marxist radical! He wants open borders, because he does not believe in our nations sovereignty. That is the only thing that is transparent about this president.”
When one of the commenters simply accuses the author of the article (who is black) of being a “sellout”:
“you are pathetic, brainless, racist slug for suggesting that someone has a responsibility to their ‘people.’ Martin Luther King would shake his head in disgust at you for placing a meaningless physical characteristic such as skin color over the content of one’s character. You are a prisoner of your pigment, powerless to think as a human being. And you insult all blacks to suggest that they behave as a mindless zombie like you, driven only by skin tone, not a brain.”
So now, all of King’s work is reduced to that one statement, hurled back at blacks, yet doesn’t figure when people want to scold the black community as a whole (as essentially, lacking in character). The division is clearly, already on the table. (Another commenter even pointed out that what the author was doing amounted to Pee Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I”? “This is not a conciliatory opinion piece, it is full of the accusatory phrases and condemnations that Christie takes offense to himself. Rather than seek cooperation, he relishes the fight. Rather than mitigate that which he claims to despise, Christie just adds more fuel. THAT is hypocritical. It’s like saying ‘stop calling me a jerk, you stupid jerk.'”)
“There are names for blind, hateful, ignorant black sheeple such as yourelf- Gives a true definition of the word- Niggr. You still be on the plantation- boy! You carry your chains around as surely as you mimic what your government masters tells you to! You will always be slave, because you dare not free your soul!”
So, in a topic whose whole premise is that racism is over and a black leader is the one fomenting it, this person sees a green light to hurl no less than the “N” word at someone. (And as if simply omitting the “e” really means something).
Yet again, from last month (see http://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/racial-rhetoric-becoming-worse-it-seems/#comment-1941):
“They seem to want to flaunt their racism while denying it at the same time… They are not racists, but are ashamed of their racism. All the hate…is just confirmation. Hate against blacks, liberals, democrats…Obama, and anyone else who does not accept the conservative view of the world. But they are not racists.”
Old forum post, and I thought for sure I had made an article out of it, but I guess from early ’11 it was before I began the blog, and by the time I did, and started posting on type on it (which was after awhile), I had forgotten it. (Did include the term in the Glossary, though). What I was probably thinking of, was the “Type Binary” article (http://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/type-as-binary-code), which covers some of this.
I believe that the “enigma” witnessed in some types is due to the disparity between personal vs impersonal factors in some of them.
Personal (relational): Feeling, informing, motive focus
Impersonal (task): Thinking, directing, structure focus
For the FP’s and TJ’s, all of these line up.
It is the TP’s and FJ’s where they do not all line up
STP Thinking, directing, motive focus
NTP Thinking, informing, structure focus
SFJ Feeling, informing, structure focus
NFJ Feeling, directing, motive focus
All Feeling types are informing except the NFJ’s.
This is perhaps why they have taken on the biggest reputation of being “enigmatic”.
Feeling is usually connected with the “responsive” people-focused social skills Keirsey dubbed “role-informative”, yet this one pair of types still manages to be role-directive like most Thinking types.
Directive is more than just issuing directions, though they probably do that enough. Keirsey, in Portraits of Temperament identifies it as “defining the relationship”. Basically, it’s an attitude of “don’t call me; I’ll call you”, as described for the corresponding “low Wanted Inclusion” in the FIRO and APS systems.
Hence, the types seem a bit aloof, distant, and perhaps unapproachable to most, even though they are still a Feeling type, and an extraverted Feeling at that. This (coupled with the misty introverted iNtuition that tends to make them directive in the first place).
All Judging types are structure focused except for NFJ’s
Likewise, structure vs motive is sort of “directing/informing” on another level (conative action and leadership skills instead of social interaction skills), and Judging is usually structure focused (fitting people into structures such as organizations or plans), but this one pair of types manages to be motive focused (take into consideration why people do what they do, in order to work with them. This factor identified by Berens, connecting SP with NF and SJ with NT).
Hence, the types still have an inner warmth, inside of the intuition and outward spunk of directiveness.
So basically, NFJ’s are task-focused where we would expect them to be more people focused; and people focused where would expect them to be task focused.
All Thinking types are directing except the NTP’s.
These types are probably considered “enigmatic” as well, and a big part of that is probably the “informing” nature making them a bit softer than other thinkers. The biggest result of this is many struggling with the T/F dichotomy and being confused with NFP.
All Perceiving types are motive focused except for NTP’s
This also creates an interesting mixture, of the non-seriousness and openness of P with the seriousness and tough-mindedness of T. As I pointed out in the Glossary, they can move back and forth between being very serious and analytical, to being very light and silly.
So they too are task-focused where we would expect them to be more people focused; and people focused where would expect them to be task focused.
The S’s don’t get the tag of “enigmatic”, but here’s the disparity as it continues onto their side:
All Feeling types are motive focused except for SFJ’s
All Thinking types are structure focused exept for STP’s.
All Perceiving types are informative except for STP’s.
All Judging types are directive except for SFJ’s.
It’s like S concretizes the judgment function/interaction style/social image match. So F is informative and T is directive.
Now, with the new “Cognitive Styes” concepts and associated tandem names, these “enigmatic” types all fall under the “Aligning Assessments” preference category, while the “consistent” ones are “Ordering Assessments”. “Ordering” even sounds like something that would go along with “consistency” (It “Defends Potential”—STJ/NFP or “Advances Reality”—SFP/NTJ), while “aligning” implies things that are different that need to be lined up (and thus “Enriches Reality”—SFJ/NTP or “Differentiates Potential”—STP/NFJ).
Sensing and iNtuition and people’s value
Tangible/intangible (S/N) extends to people, who are both tangible bodies, as well as intangible ideas or concepts. The term “person” means “presence” or “mask” in a play. A person’s “influence” can spread way beyond their location in space (where they are now) or time (their lifespan). Internally, they can be thought of as a collection of memories that builds their sense of identity.
The tangible body is the most easy part to recognize and “locate”, so it often becomes what’s used to define the person. It’s also the most vulnerable, being easy to destroy, and the rest of the “person” is dependent on it to maintain recognition as a person, and communication with the rest of us, at least in this universe of physical space and time. (And even with “faith”, there’s still an element of uncertainty as to what happens after we die).
Women, for instance, want to be accepted for the concept of who they are (subject) rather than strictly the tangible body (object). On the flipside, this can start by realizing that they are tangible creatures whose bodies have a tangible purpose (their physical life, and the gender specific organs for reproduction), and not just the conceptual images (of attraction, conquest, etc.) men project onto them.
Thinking and Feeling and true justice
Introverted Thinking (Ti) favors a symmetrical tit for tat system of justice, where for every action, there is a reaction. This is what the “when every sin is judged” idea of divine justice as promised by futurist Christianity appealed to when I first became a Christian.
Yet after awhile, especially when my tolerance of problems seemed to wear even thinner (and some of them seemed to get even worse, making me feel totally dehumanized in life), this sense started coming up, that this would “justify” the initial offense. In other words, if the end is “good”, then “the end justifies the means”. This is often suggested by those trying to teach “hope” in suffering. “God is doing it [or at least “allowing” it] for a good purpose”. They often put it forth in an impersonal, “matter of fact” way.
But this violates a more “personal” or “humane” (F) perspective (which naturally tries to gain the attention of the ego as it develops), that says people should be treated in certain ways simply because it’s “right”, and the end does not justify the means. You can’t always undo some evil by covering it up with some good. (And such a philosophy will often encourage people to do evil and buy their way out of any culpability).
The dominant functional perspective leads me to expect the world to act according to internal sense of logic, especially as it directly affects me. When I see someone else experiencing some setback that brings back a painful memory for me (or even something hypothetical I might fear happening), I “personally identify” with them (whether they feel as strongly about it or not). This is the definition of Fi, but I’m not really “using” the function in any differentiated sense. It is not necessarily a “daemon” constellation, or even a right brain “crow’s nest”, (though enough one-sidedness of the dominant demand for logic, or emotional trauma associated with the memories, might trigger those things. It may be something that stemmed from the younger period when the Crow’s Nests responses were natually more common; but then later on, the tertiary is used more instead).
Less differentiated forms of T/F products
The world operates from a legalistic sense of “give and take”, or expense and benefit. (“transactional” view as opposed to “transformational”, and would also represent a lopsided undifferentiated “T” perspective; i.e. not specific to Thinking types and the conscious T decisions they make).
There’s a saying I’m seeing going around “Power isn’t given, it’s taken”. To “take” power is counted as “expense”, or “delayed gratification”, that is rewarded with benefit later on; no matter how bountiful it may be.
To fail to rise up and “take” power is assumed to be undelayed gratification, and so the supposed “path of least resistance” taken is presumed to be the “benefit”, then to be followed by the “expense” of living on the bottom of the ladder.
What people who seem to believe this ignore, is the role of factors such as personality type (where the act of “taking power” comes more naturally to the ego, and thus IS more of a kind of “gratification” than a real “challenge”), as well as simple fate, meaning being in the right place at the right time; having the ability, etc. (like as an extreme example, if you were mentally challenged, you would not have been able to make the achievements you can claim).
If the truth be known, people are not as much the masters of their own destiny as they think.
This parallels the religious concept of “works-righteousness” versus grace.
The negative sense of “destruction” in the universe (and thus, the whole “power” issue) stems from the value we put in things (undifferentiated F). Like we may see a black hole rip up a star and fling the planets into darkness, and we subconsciously put ourselves in that place and imagine it happening to our solar system. Since we depend on it for our existence, it conveys a very negative sense of “destruction”. The same with animals devouring one another, which is even closer to home.
We realize this is simply the laws of the universe at work (where the more energy something has, including through more mass, the more it can affect other objects) and then put this all together into an overall principle of “the strong survive”, which people then use to justify the actions of themselves or institutions they identify with, or to trash the physical universe as “fallen” and in need of replacement with a new universe.
But it’s really our own perception, as the Fall account shows (i.e. “who told you you were naked?”)
This raises the question of what the ideal “unfallen” perspective is like? Would we value anything in the world, sinc that seems to be the source of [emotional] pain? Or would we be able to just shrug and say “oh, well” whenever things are destroyed, including other people? Or, we would feel the pain, but it wouldn’t effect us as it does now? (I guess it really is all about the guilt).