ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

A thief is a thief

Whether he wears a badge or not:
What Lanier portrays as crippling criminal enterprises appears to be equally targeted towards separating users from their next fix -- or simply separating random "suspects" from whatever they happen to have in their wallets.

Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures under city and federal laws, according to records and data obtained from the city by The Washington Post through the District’s open records law. Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20.

Because the system is primed for abuse, legislation has been introduced that would overhaul the city's asset forfeiture program, raising the threshold of proof needed to justify a seizure as well as forcing a majority of funds to be routed into the city's general fund. Unsurprisingly, cops aren't fans of the proposed legislation.

[T]he bill has been opposed by law enforcement officials, partly for the same reason other reform efforts across the country have been stymied: money. The officials also said it would create an administrative burden. In addition to tightening oversight and the rules for civil seizures, the District proposal would cut back on revenue.
No policeman who has ever participated in a civil asset forfeiture can be declared innocent of thievery. Nor is it correct to point the finger and blame politicians when the police themselves are actively lobbying against legislation that would place the burden of proof concerning the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the ownership of the individual's property on the accuser rather than on the owner.

In their commendable respect for authority, conservatives often tend to forget that authority can be legitimate or illegitimate, as well as honest or corrupt. They also tend to ignore the fact that every single totalitarian and authoritarian state in history has had a police force which the people quickly learned to fear and hate. After all, one can hardly have a police state without police.

Like it or not, "law enforcement officials" are actively attempting to undermine the remnants of the Constitutional limits on policing the public in their own pecuniary interest. An extrapolation from the DC data indicates that around 2.9 million Americans who are accused of committing no crime other than carrying $150 dollars or less have been robbed by these police thieves; will the defenders of asset forfeiture attempt to evade the point by demanding to know why these individuals are in possession of such outrageous sums of money?

The decent, law-abiding police of yesteryear are simply not germane to the subject. They are retired or dead. The police of today do not wear the same uniforms, carry the same weapons, or operate under the same rules of engagement. One can no more exonerate the police of today by appealing to the behavior of the police of yesteryear than one can argue for the scientific precision of biology by appealing to the accuracy of physics.

It is not police critics like me who are traducing the reputations of the good policemen of the past. It is their corrupt and lawless successors who are doing so through their actions.

Labels:

194 Comments:

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 8:39 AM  

Never quit.

Your utopian libertarian society has never existed nor will it. All states are authoritarian just like a father in a family is authoritarian. Your anarchism is an anachronism.

Anonymous VD November 29, 2014 8:46 AM  

Your utopian libertarian society has never existed nor will it.

My utopian libertarian society exists only in YOUR imagination. I am not a utopian of any kind. One reason why I am far more effective and popular than you are, Wheeler, is that I am dedicated to the truth. You, on the other hand, are crippled by your observable willingness to engage in overblown and deceptive rhetoric for your cause. Consider:

All states are authoritarian just like a father in a family is authoritarian.

Case in point. You are deceitfully substituting the term "authoritarian" for "authority", thereby demonstrating to all and sundry that you are not honest and cannot be trusted to even use basic words properly.

AUTHORITARIAN
adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others.


Now that your deception has been exposed, do you care to retract your statement that "All states are authoritarian just like a father in a family is authoritarian." Or are you going to stand by it?

Blogger Desiderius November 29, 2014 8:53 AM  

"In their commendable respect for authority, conservatives often tend to forget that authority can be legitimate or illegitimate, as well as honest or corrupt."

The word shares a root with the word "author" for a reason. All legitimate authority grows from its creative power, and loses that legitimacy as it descends to mere predation upon the creation of others.

Anonymous Herman the German November 29, 2014 9:01 AM  

Wow....didn't even get a chance to queue up Wheeler... He was already chomping at the bit. Read the comments from the last police-related post. Yup.... Someone in an earlier post gave us a nice little nugget that also applies here. Newsflash: Bears are _still_ pooping in the woods.

Anonymous Herman the German November 29, 2014 9:03 AM  

Wheeler?....seriously...already? Coming here with the same ol' crap?

Newsflash yet again: Bears _still_ pooping in the woods. *shakes head*

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 9:04 AM  

"Individual Freedom" is a concoction of the atheist "Enlightenment". It is a modern invention unheard of in Classical Antiquity, in Christendom. Western Culture and Western Civilization existed for the longest time in Classical Antiquity and in Christendom. "Individual Freedom" was ONLY possible with the rise of Protestantism with its destruction of Catholicism. Protestantism preached "individual salvation" and "personal" salvation. It took an extreme position. Protestantism rejected the Church. Only in Protestantism and its countries did this "individual freedom" exist because the Protestant was free to decide what the Bible wrote. This passed into the secular sphere.

It is up to you to point to an historical successful example of a libertarian state.

Anonymous Herman the German November 29, 2014 9:04 AM  

Sorry for the repetition.... Phone having trouble proving I'm not a "not". Fun.

Anonymous VD November 29, 2014 9:13 AM  

It is up to you to point to an historical successful example of a libertarian state.

No, it is not. I have never claimed such a thing has ever existed and you're simply trying to change the subject. You have falsely attributed a belief to me that I do not possess and have never once proclaimed, then deceptively attempted a bait-and-switch trying to substitute "paternal authority" for "politically authoritarian"

You are observably less honest than I am, Spartan, and all your babbling appeals to history will not save your credibility here. You made the massive mistake of trying to directly challenge me and were foolish enough to do so in a rhetorically dishonest measure.

Now, I repeat the question: do you stand by your statement "All states are authoritarian just like a father in a family is authoritarian"? Or do you retract it.

Come, you like to boast about your knowledge of Ancient Greece. Let's see how you do with Aristotelian dialectic when I turn my sights toward you. Athens versus Sparta, if you like.

Anonymous Leon Trotsky November 29, 2014 9:14 AM  

Wheeler is "Rome or Die" guy, correct?

Moldbuggery plus aspie Catholic OT trolling... gonna spam him?

Anonymous VD November 29, 2014 9:18 AM  

Wheeler is "Rome or Die" guy, correct?

No, he is the Original Spartan.

Moldbuggery plus aspie Catholic OT trolling... gonna spam him?

Of course not. He is one of my favorites among the Dread Ilk.

Anonymous Zippy November 29, 2014 9:23 AM  

Hope I don't have a double post. Tried to post a second ago along these lines, but it doesn't seem to have gone through.

Wheeler is engaging in an intellectual bait-and-switch here, or maybe you could call it the overgeneralization trick. He's saying that all good societies are authoritarian, and so this particular instance of it is apparently justified.

I dispute his major premise, but even if one doesn't, the desire for "authority" doesn't justify any particular exercise of it. It's difficult for me to see how making our cops into thieves furthers the cause of justice, or how it's even desirable. Oh, I understand why police departments want the wealth transfer, but I fail to see the social desirability of facilitating such transfers.

If anything, it undermines the case for lawful and legitimate authority.

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 29, 2014 9:25 AM  

This is amusing.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 9:30 AM  

I stand by my statement.

First, to state a "libertarian" state is utopian is correct factually.

1. There never existed a libertarian state. That is a fact.

2. If one did come into existence, it would soon fall, like America, because it can't control the media.

3rd, Liberertainism or Individualism rejects the characteristical being of man. Man is a Social animal. Aristotle defined that. Second, Christ, the Logos said himself this. He characterized mankind as sheep.

Sheep are social/group animals. They are herd animals. That is the basic condition of reality of mankind. That is why Aristotle wrote that man is a social---i.e. HERD animal. That is reality.

Regardless of John Locke and others "individualism" is just nihilism for it seeks to destroy or wants to negate the social aspects of man. Mankind acts in herds. That is the Natural Law. We are set up that way.

So first off, to state a Libertarianism state is a utopia is logically right. It can not exist nor can it. Maybe in some small communatarian community. Or maybe in a New Hampshire town. But as a "state" with large groups of people? Racially mixed people? With Religiously mixed people? With ideologically mixed people? No.

Your libertarian ideal requires conformism to libertarianism at the outset. It is a fallacy.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 9:45 AM  

I am a traditionalist. I am for the ancien regime. I am a monarchist. I am for Christendom. The language I use pertains to that milieu. I am a nomophylctes, a guardian of the law.

I have not kept references but I have read many articles on classical antiquity and when the subject comes up, all have denied that there was a conception of "individual freedom" in classical antiquity.

My definition of authoritarianism is that the Church has the right to dictate morals and the State has a right to defend its institutions and the Church from attack. The State has the right to educated its people in the way of its culture.

I point to all of which is Christendom as my justification. I have an historical reality that is continuous from Sparta, to Rome, to Christendom. The practice of Christendom is what I defend--a real historical reality that lasted from 325 A. D. to the French Revolution of c. 1796.

Your definition was created in America under ideologicial milieu of Americanism. Proof: Wikipedia, Individualism where "In the English language, the word "individualism" was first introduced, as a pejorative, by the Owenites in the late 1830s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently.[9] A more positive use of the term in Britain came to be used with the writings of James Elishama Smith, who was a millenarian and a Christian Israelite."

There you go. The article goes on to reference John Locke, one of the greatest heretics and ideologues of the Enlightenment. It also references Liberalism.

All states have to have some authority and there are degrees to authoritarianism. Sparta was authoritarian. Rome was authoritarian. Christendom was authoritarian. Calvin set up the first police state. America had a degree of authoritarianism. Blue Laws. Fugitive Slave Law. Laws against sodomy. Laws against Blasphemy. Those are authoritarian. All law is authoritarian.

All law is authoritarian. If a state is based on law---it is authoritarian.

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2014 9:58 AM  

To paraphrase Moshe Feiglin:

The petty criminal breaks the law, the average criminal avoids the law, the master criminal uses the law.

Blogger njartist November 29, 2014 10:03 AM  

OT: for those of you who are so wedded to the hateful, damn Yankee invadersmeme.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 10:28 AM  

Vox!

If I redefine authoritarian to mean authority then I am right! See? But instead of just saying that... I'm going to type 8 paragraphs of meaningless twaddle... then say it. And hope you miss it.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 10:29 AM  

My definition of authoritarianism

That's cute, you have your own definitions and everything...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 10:30 AM  

Nate: Is an "authority", "authoritarian"?

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 10:31 AM  

"OT: for those of you who are so wedded to the hateful, damn Yankee invadersmeme."

That is, without question, the single dumbest thing I have ever read on the War for Southron Independence.

Blogger Jason Roberts November 29, 2014 10:33 AM  

In the WaPo's reporting of asset forfeiture, do they break down the victims by race? Without looking myself, I tend to doubt it. This is one of the things white Democrats object to in principle but not in practice when they're living in majority black cities.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 10:35 AM  

"Jewish Law contributed powerfuly to the ideal of freedom".

"Even early Christian philosophy did not condemn slavery, or for that matter condemn authoritarian government....All in all the early Christian concept of freedom was far removed from that of the Jews; it was ineffect, freedom to enter into the bondage of God". pgs249-250

Dias, R. W. M. (1973)"Freedom, Legal concept of". Dictionary of th eHistory of Ideas, Vol. II, ed. by Wiener, Philip P.

"Individual Freedom" is a Protestant legacy built on the over-teaching of the OT and on Jewish influence. It is NOT Western Culture nor traditional Christianity.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 10:36 AM  

"Nate: Is an "authority", "authoritarian"?

Authoritarian is an adjective son. It is applied only to some authorities that meet its qualifications. Sparta was authoritarian. The USSR was authoritarian.

A state where you decided if you want to be a shoe salesman or a carpenter is likely not authoritarian.

Anonymous trev006 November 29, 2014 10:39 AM  

There is a whole spectrum of laws and governments between "absolutist libertarian chaos" and "oppressive tyranny."

Of course, when you consider that modern America has far more characteristics of the latter than the former, you wonder what the difference is anymore. Suffice it to say the Founders chose armed revolution over far, far less.

I am curious, though- how do some American intellectuals claim to be monarchists and authoritarians? The vast proportion of American tradition, excepting the modern era, points in exactly the opposite direction.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 10:50 AM  

Nate, in no way has ever authoritarianism dictated who was going to be a "shoe salesman or a carpenter". That is super silly. The Roman Empire required the "pagani", which is the Latin phrase for country peasant to stay on his land and farm. Is that authoritarian? Yes.

I don't know why you repeat that Nate, Sparta is authoritarian. The USSR was authoritarian. That is not in dispute. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire were authoritarian. Christendom was authoritarian. The Roman Catholic Church is authoritarian.

What is the meaning of "authoritarian" when applied to Christendom, Catholic monarchy or the Greek Orthodox Church or Roman Catholicism? There are countless examples of the word "authoritarian" applied not only to the Father in his family but also to Christendom. Understand, there was no "rights" in Christendom.

I can prove that VD's definition is a modern invention. VD quotes from a dictionary:

of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

This "accountable to the people" is a modern heresy. It was created by John Locke and the English Protestants. Government was never based on "the accountability to the people". That is a modern invention that never existed for 2500 years or more.

You can't create 'a nuovo' a concept and then re-apply that into history.

Anonymous Augustina November 29, 2014 10:54 AM  

Mr. Wheeler, all well and good to support natural authorities. But what do we do when our government is full on opposed to and undermines Christendom, imposes acceptance of sodomy and other sins on Christians, and in general is corrupt and unjust? Obeying that "authority" means disobeying the highest Authority.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 10:54 AM  

You're a Christian and a monarchist? How exactly does one serve two kings?

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 10:55 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 10:56 AM  

"Nate, in no way has ever authoritarianism dictated who was going to be a "shoe salesman or a carpenter".

" The Roman Empire required the "pagani", which is the Latin phrase for country peasant to stay on his land and farm."

Do you read what you type Spartan?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 29, 2014 11:02 AM  

W.LindsayWheeler: "All states are authoritarian just like a father in a family is authoritarian."

All states are "authoritarian" according to you. Got it.


W.LindsayWheeler: "My definition of authoritarianism is that the Church has the right to dictate morals and the State has a right to defend its institutions and the Church from attack. The State has the right to educated its people in the way of its culture."

"Authoritarianism" requires a Christian Church, according to you. (You don't say which Christian Church.)

That's fine as long as history shows no such thing as a non-Christian state, anywhere, ever.


W.LindsayWheeler: "I am a traditionalist. I am for the ancien regime. I am a monarchist. I am for Christendom. The language I use pertains to that milieu. I am a nomophylctes, a guardian of the law."

But the language you use pertains only to a specific milieu - monarchist, Christian and "ancien regime". (As opposed to the same state when it was young and the "ancien regime" was pagan, maybe?)

So when you say all states are "authoritarian" your language has a hidden proviso that lets off the great majority of actually existing and historical states.


W.LindsayWheeler: "I have not kept references but I have read many articles on classical antiquity and when the subject comes up, all have denied that there was a conception of "individual freedom" in classical antiquity."

Except that you do continue to appeal to non-Christian states, even though (a) they show up your self-contradictory thought, and (b) you claimed your language didn't pertain to them.


W.LindsayWheeler: "I point to all of which is Christendom as my justification. I have an historical reality that is continuous from Sparta, to Rome, to Christendom. The practice of Christendom is what I defend--a real historical reality that lasted from 325 A. D. to the French Revolution of c. 1796."

You continue to contradict yourself.


W.LindsayWheeler: "All law is authoritarian. If a state is based on law---it is authoritarian."

On and on.

This is not much better than filibustering. You don't have a proper argument; you're just filling the air with incoherent words.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 11:03 AM  

"Individual Freedom" is a Protestant legacy built on the over-teaching of the OT and on Jewish influence. It is NOT Western Culture nor traditional Christianity.

Have you ever read the book of galatians?

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 11:04 AM  

Mr. W.LindsayWheeler:

You posted in part:

"..."Individual Freedom" is a Protestant legacy built on the over-teaching of the OT and on Jewish influence. It is NOT Western Culture nor traditional Christianity. "

IIRC the Catholic Church, indeed all Churches with Apostolic Succession, teach that each soul possesses "free will" - the ability to choose between good and evil. It would seem to me (and I am a knuckle dragger so I may be missing something here) is the ultimate expression of "Individual Freedom"

Also, IIRC, the New Testament is the culmination or fulfillment of the Old Testament. Therefore it seems to be right and natural that what you term "Jewish influence" is one of the foundation stones of Christendom.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 11:07 AM  

If outright theft is acceptable to you, wheeler, this might be an easier question for you to answer:

How much authority is too much? Is it un-Christian to break sharia law? Where do you draw the line? If outright theft (one of the ten commandments) is acceptable, would it be okay for police to murder someone?

As to your libertarian utopia nonsense, no libertarian believes in utopia. In fact, most are libertarians because they realize that utopia does not exist, and man's feeble attempts to create utopia through authoritarian governments (which you favor) have all ended in mass death and despair.

Kim Jong Un has his utopia, Fidel Castro had his. Giving ultimate power to men and expecting them to behave in a Christian manner... wait, who's the utopian?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 11:08 AM  

"...the idea of authority...had its origins during the Roman Republic with the coinage of the distinctive term, auctoritas, to cover several kinds of primarily, albeit not exclusively, legal relationships." pg 141

"They agree that the frequency and variety of the Romans' applications of these ideas to both their private and their public life demonstrate the fundamental importance of authority for the whole of Roman society, and they agree too that this importance implies a cultural coherence among the Roman ideas of authority." pg 142

Krieger, Leonard (1973) Authority. Dictionary of Ideas.

He points out that it was J.S. Mill--an ardent atheist--that posited "the most prominent theme in modern history to be the persistent 'struggle between Liberty and Authority'."

I don't know about you, but the first verse of the first Psalm reads: "Blessed is the man who has not listened to the counsel of the ungodly". Mill is an atheist. He is aping the teachings of the atheist Machiavelli who wanted a "freer life".

Is Christian society based on the teachings of Atheists?

(Yes, Nate, I noticed.)

Anonymous VD November 29, 2014 11:09 AM  

I stand by my statement.

Then you are a fool and a dishonest, deceitful one at that. And you can blather all you like about how you are a monarchist, but you have completely destroyed any ability to convince anyone here of anything.

You are a fool because you are more concerned about protecting your pride than you are about seeking the truth. Seek first the truth, Spartan, not to defend your assertions.

Let's parse the statement by which you stood:

"All states hold individual freedom as completely subordinate to the power or authority of one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people just like a father in a family holds individual freedom as completely subordinate to his power."

That's absurd on both familial and state counts. And you stood by it. Not your brightest move, Spartan.

Anonymous VD November 29, 2014 11:11 AM  

My definition of authoritarianism

But you're not mentally masturbating, Wheeler. You're engaged in discourse with other men, using their words, which are not defined by you.

Now you're openly admitting to having switched the terms, whether you realize that or not.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 11:11 AM  

I repost:

"Jewish Law contributed powerfuly to the ideal of freedom".

"Even early Christian philosophy did not condemn slavery, or for that matter condemn authoritarian government....All in all the early Christian concept of freedom was far removed from that of the Jews; it was ineffect, freedom to enter into the bondage of God". pgs249-250


Dias, R. W. M. (1973)"Freedom, Legal concept of". Dictionary of th eHistory of Ideas, Vol. II, ed. by Wiener, Philip P.


Reading comphrension anybody?

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 11:13 AM  

"(Yes, Nate, I noticed.)"

So you contradict yourself... you notice you contradict yourself... and you what? Just expect us to not laugh at you for it?

You're making a fool of yourself Wheeler. Not that its anything new.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 11:17 AM  

VD, I said, I stand by my statement. I never said I stand by YOUR modernist dictionary statement:

"All states hold individual freedom as completely subordinate to the power or authority of one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people just like a father in a family holds individual freedom as completely subordinate to his power."

I never wrote that. I never said that. Where did you pull that from?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 11:23 AM  

Nate, those pagani were already on the land. They were already peasants. The Roman Empire needed them to stay on the land to support the Empire. The collective good was that food had to be produced. What was happening is that men were leaving the farmland untilled and moving out. This harmed the society. The law was passed to protect the Good of the Whole. There is good reason for that situation. Nate you are not a reader of classical subjects. Have you posited any lesson from antiquity?

Anonymous jack November 29, 2014 11:23 AM  

Well: More interest and entertainment than expected so early on a football day. Broadsides at 25 yards by Vox and Wheeler. There is a sloop circling the line ships [Nate] and the rest of the fleet [Ilk] hanging off just to windward waiting.
Whats not to like today while waiting for Alabama and Auburn tear each other apart.

Keep at it guys. We ARE entertained.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 11:24 AM  

So, because JS Mills was an atheist who, according to your text, noticed a conflict between authoritarianism and liberty, individual liberty is a pagan thought conjured by witches to snuff out the light of Christ? Earlier, you said it was a Lockean philosophy, but John Locke was a Calvinist Christian, so that kind of destroys your atheist nonsense.

You're grasping at straws. It might be better to reflect on what contradictions you've made, correct them within yourself, and then see where it takes you. Maybe we're all wrong, and having a king is the way to go. It can't be the way to go if it is full of contradictions.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 11:26 AM  

The collective good was that food had to be produced.

Commie

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 11:26 AM  

Mr. W.LindsayWheeler:

You posed as a citation in part:

"Even early Christian philosophy did not condemn slavery, or for that matter condemn authoritarian government"

I learn something new every day. I did not know thee was early Christian philosophy. I though there was early Christian Theology. Do you know who the cited author was referring to?

Christ of course taught us to love our neighbor and render unto Caesar. Neither, I think, an endorsement of slavery or any type of government.

You also cited in part:

"All in all the early Christian concept of freedom was far removed from that of the Jews; it was ineffect, freedom to enter into the bondage of God"

May I ask what early Christian concept of freedom you are referring to? Freedom from sin perhaps?

Thank you.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 11:26 AM  

Not that he needs me to stand up for him, but vox was parsing your statement. He took your contradictory gibberish and put it into plain rational language. The fact that you don't agree with the logical conclusion of your own point if view should tell you something.

We've led you to the logic, but we can't make you think.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 11:27 AM  

"Reading comphrension anybody?"

Spartan... the fact that someone wrote something in 1973 really doesn't mean a damned thing. Its a baseless assertion.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 11:31 AM  

"The Roman Empire needed them to stay on the land to support the Empire"

Wheeler you ignorant slut. Why Rome wanted it done is irrelevant. You said X has never happened! then turned around in the next sentence and said, Rome did X."

That's the only part of this that matters.

Some states are authoritarian. Some states are not. Rome was. Modern Switzerland is not. Modern Costa Rica is not.

The concept of a jury for example is not authoritarian, because it is a group of people, not a government agent, that decides things.

I don't give a damn what you want to call authoritarian Wheeler. The word has an objective meaning when used in communication. It means what it means.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 11:32 AM  

We've led you to the logic, but we can't make you think.

Hey man, an authoritarian state can make you think

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 11:34 AM  

" Nate you are not a reader of classical subjects. "

And now you've gone from fool to liar. I've read much on classical matters Wheeler. The matter is of interest to me, because I am after all, Greek.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 11:38 AM  

"Free will" is not the same thing as "individual freedom".

Humans have free will. The Angels do not have free will. Angels were the slaves of God. God created angels to be his handymen/messengers/helpers. But Lucifer wanted to do something else and broke away. He did not have free will, but still excercized a choice he made to rebel. He was punished for that.

Humans have free will and when Adam excercised that he was punished. I can choose to eat vanilla or chocolate ice cream. But when for the common good, the Church says to an artist--you can't publish that, or to an heretic--you can't proselytize, that is for the common good. Shepards have an authority to engage in acting on the Common Good. People have a responsibility to obey Authority and The Good.

Plato taught that Reason must subjugate the passions. Humans have free will to be run by their passions but this leads to destruction. No one in his right mind wants to be lead into destruction. When individual choices and practices lead into destructive behavior, destroying the homogeniety of a society, they are to be interdicted just like a father interdicts his son when his son is playing with matches. Does the son have free will to play with matches? Most certainly. But the Father knows better and steps in. At this point the Son must obey his father. Father knows best.

In answer to Comerford, the theological Free Will is not a political free will. What happened is that Protestantism moved the theological field into the political field. Free will was a discussion amongst theologians in Catholicism and never preached to the people.

The Protestants took what was in the theological field and started to preach it into the people thus creating rebellion and revolution. It is Jewish Law.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 11:41 AM  

"People have a responsibility to obey Authority and The Good. "

And who, Bootlicker, decides what is the The Good?

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 11:45 AM  

The matter is of interest to me, because I am after all, Greek.

How does it feel to be related to wheeler?

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 11:47 AM  

The Angels do not have free will. Angels were the slaves of God. God created angels to be his handymen/messengers/helpers. But Lucifer wanted to do something else and broke away. He did not have free will, but still excercized a choice he made to rebel. He was punished for that.

If he did not have free will, how could he choose to rebel?

Anonymous Dan in Tx November 29, 2014 11:47 AM  

"He did not have free will, but still excercized a choice..."

Huh?

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:00 PM  

I've never claimed to be the smartest man, but I can't be the only one having a hard time squaring Wheeler's circle here. Satan had no free will, yet he chose to rebel against God, so God punished him. Humans, on the other hand, have free will, so they are also punished for rebelling.

Is it a Catholic only thing that angels don't have free will? I know they were His servants, but I've never heard that angels didn't freely choose for themselves to join Lucifer, or that Lucifer himself didn't have free will. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm no theological scholar. If I am wrong, though, how did Satan decide without free will to challenge God? It'd be like a robot freely choosing to disregard his programming.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:02 PM  

Nate writes: Some states are authoritarian. Some states are not. Rome was. Modern Switzerland is not. Modern Costa Rica is not.

I want to single out Nate's phrase "Modern Switzerland is not".

Nate doesn't know what he is talking about. I lived in "Modern Switzerland". I lived there in the late eighties. I lived in Switzerland for two summers. I lived in the Caton of Ticino in Valle Osernone.

Did you know that you can't cut a tree on your property without a government permission?

How about that Nate? Is that authoritarian? Is this what gets your panties in twist?

In Switzerland, you can't modify you home with government permission and what modernization you do or renovate has to have community permission and okay. An historical preservationist has to sign off on it!

Switzerland is not "free" by no stretch of the imagination. All males between the age of 18 and 56 has to serve in the military. Authoritarianism.

Tell me where is this free will in Switzerland? You can go to the pub to drink, you can attend the church of your choice, but you can't cut down a tree on your property without state permission. There is a lot of laws in Switzerland governing many things.

Nate, Switzerland is not your libertarian utopia.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:03 PM  

A slave has a certain amount of will but not the choice to leave his master's side nor refuse the master's command. Even dogs make choices.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 12:03 PM  

Nate, Switzerland is not your libertarian utopia.

No one is arguing for a libertarian utopia except you, wheeler.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 12:04 PM  

"How about that Nate? Is that authoritarian? Is this what gets your panties in twist?"

That's just one law Bootlicker. A similar law exists in Mobile Alabama. There are Live Oaks that they will plant you UNDER the jail for harming.

But who determines the guilt of the crimes wheeler? Is it the government itself or is it a jury?

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:10 PM  

Libertarian utopia! LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA! LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA!!

Your authoritarian utopia already exists. North Korea is waiting for you.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 12:11 PM  

A similar law exists in Mobile Alabama. There are Live Oaks that they will plant you UNDER the jail for harming.

FREE HARVEY UPDIKE!

ROLL DAMN TIDE PAWWWWLLLL!

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:12 PM  

(This was intentionally disingenuous. If wheeler keeps insisting that we all believe in something we don't, then hell, north Korea can be a Christian monarchy as well.)

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:17 PM  

Wheeler, you almost had something with that slave bit. Except free will is entirely in our thoughts (think Descartes, I think, therefore I am). It also means we aren't bound to instinct like insects. Free will is the tool we use to make our choices.

Is there a biblical reference to angels being denied free will?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:27 PM  

Humans do have instinct. Women have a maternal instinct. The Trifunctionality mode of thinking is an Indo-European trait. (per Georges Dumezil) Men naturally hate weak things. People act in herds. Sex is an instinct. It is amongst animals. We share in that. We have some instincts due to gender. We all have hormones. When a woman goes thru menopause and causes her to behave crazily is that Free Will or Hormones?

Authoritarianism doesn't mean the end of individualism.

The human being has four sides, he is a part of humanity, he is a racial being, he is a gender, and he is an individual: Universal, Particularity, Individual. We are connected three ways here. There is animal instincts in us, there are racial instincts in us, there are gender instincts in us, and personal choices in us. We also have transcendence, the divine, a spiritual drive in us. All of this combined with our wills. We don't have an "absolute" free will. None of us do.

Jesus alludes to that with the parable of the good/bad tree. Good fruit only comes from a good tree. Here Nature is important to Jesus. He doesn't say anything about the will of the tree. Out of its Nature is what is produced.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:30 PM  

Here is your link. My source has always been Catholic teaching but here is a Protestant source:

The Free Will of Angels

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 12:40 PM  

Here is your link. My source has always been Catholic teaching but here is a Protestant source:

The Free Will of Angels


From your link:


However, no scripture declares that angels have no free will. From the fact of the fall of so many of them, they obviously have some form of self- etermination.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:40 PM  

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas on Angels having Free will

Angels are the servants of God. They are there at his beck and call.

We are not at the Beck and Call of God. We have been given liberty, more liberty than the angels. We are not directly servants of God but as his friends. We can be called individually to be prophets, priests, servants of God. Humans are half animal and half divine. Angels do not have this.

They have some sort of will, but they can not leave the presence of God and do their own thing. Nor as was explained in one of the links can they change their mind. None of the Angels could repent.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 12:43 PM  

They have some sort of will, but they can not leave the presence of God and do their own thing. Nor as was explained in one of the links can they change their mind.

Do you even read what you link to?

Do you even read what you've previously written?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 12:50 PM  

Lucifer did leave the presence of God. Better yet, he was thrown out. There was a war in heaven.

Because Angels can not leave the presence of God, they can not rebel. Lucifer rebelled, thus his sin.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 12:51 PM  

Because Angels can not leave the presence of God, they can not rebel. Lucifer rebelled, thus his sin.

Was Lucifer an angel?

Anonymous LES November 29, 2014 12:54 PM  

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Jesus did not want the church of the government to force goats to be sheep or tares to be wheat. However, Christians wanted a society that reflected and supported Christian values.

Individual freedom has been turned on its head in the US. The authority of the government is being used to force Christians to accept behavior they believe is sinful. For example, homosexuals want their unions recognized by the state and they want the state to force the church and individual Christians to submit to their demands.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:56 PM  

Having instincts != bound by instincts like an insect. From your link, there is no biblical reference to angels not having free will. The only thing angels don't have a choice in is acknowledging God's existence, but having stood in His presence, an angel would not be likely to do so anyway.

We can repent, because as Christ himself said, we know not what we do. We don't KNOW that there is a God, let alone that we worship the correct God. Angels can't repent because they have seen the face of God, they know of His rule and dominion over all. They don't just believe on faith, they know.

The only unforgivable sin mentioned in the bible (beyond repentance) is knowing God and denying him. The angels know God. To deny him is unforgivable. Stands to reason that going against God would be beyond repentance.

Anonymous FP November 29, 2014 12:56 PM  

"Nate, those pagani were already on the land. They were already peasants. The Roman Empire needed them to stay on the land to support the Empire. The collective good was that food had to be produced. What was happening is that men were leaving the farmland untilled and moving out. This harmed the society. The law was passed to protect the Good of the Whole. There is good reason for that situation. Nate you are not a reader of classical subjects. Have you posited any lesson from antiquity?"

Tell me Lord High Supreme Court Justice Wheeler, your thoughts on Wickard v Filburn.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 12:59 PM  

Wheeler, you do know that that war in heaven you mention saw a third of the angels rebel against God and join Lucifer, right? Of course you do.

Your beliefs are contradictory. Reconcile those before you proselytize.

Anonymous Water is wet November 29, 2014 1:05 PM  

PopeTroll is boring.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 1:15 PM  

WTF, Wheeler is back to Catholicism again? Last I checked, he was Greek Orthodox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHEELER

Quote: "My name is W. Lindsay Wheeler. My hero is Socrates and I am the servant of my Lord Jesus Christ. I am a Doric Kretan who is a reactionaryist, race realist, monarchist/classical republicanist; anti-communist; a Catholic for 40 years, now a convert to Greek Orthodoxy."

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 1:17 PM  

Wheeler: I am a Doric Kretan

The Bible: "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."

Anonymous The CronoLink November 29, 2014 1:19 PM  

Pride cometh before the fall, Wheeler.

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 1:19 PM  

Re: Rome, Angels and Free Will

Mr. Wheeler has confused me. If I understand him correctly he, speaking from the Roman Tradition, claims that Angels do not have free will.

However Rome apparently disagrees with Mr. Wheeler.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Fall of the Angels"

# 392 "Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign."

Perhaps I am missing something; but Angels, according to Rome, do have free will.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 1:24 PM  

Mr Wheeler
Re: St Thomas:

You cited St. Thomas as support for your contention that Angels do not have free will. Yet in your citation the Angelic Doctor writes in part:

"We must necessarily place a will in the angels."

I am very confused. Perhaps you are not Catholic?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 1:28 PM  

But back to the topic, we should apply the same standards as cops are applying to our property: prove that you haven't engaged in this legal thievery, or you're guilty of it. This "not all cops are like that" tomfoolery is demonstrably false when their very job description requires them to be exactly "like that."

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 1:38 PM  

Mr. Wheeler:
Re: Rome does not preach free will

You posted in part:

"the theological Free Will is not a political free will. What happened is that Protestantism moved the theological field into the political field. Free will was a discussion amongst theologians in Catholicism and never preached to the people"

Clearly Sister Mary Francita, back in 5th Grade, did not get that memo. I have been teaching catechism for decades (which is remarkable seeing as how I am only 29) and I have never, ever heard anything like that.

The Catechism I am currently using was published in 1908 AD and is based on the Council of Trent (1566 AD)

In answer to the question as to whether we can resist the grace of God the Catechism answers:

A. "Yes, we can resist the grace of God because it does not destroy our free will."

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 1:42 PM  

Yes, Josh, Lucifer was an angel. The highest angel. References in the OT was that he was living the life of luxury; he was surrounded by Jewels and other oppulence. He was also a lover of music. That should tell you something.

The angels do have a will. The will implanted in Angels is not like our "will". We can change our minds. Angels can not. Angels are the ministers, servants of God. In the Greek, "doulos" can mean either slave or servant. Angels were not given a choice at their creation. They were just created to serve him. At some point in history, the highest angel, Lucifer, didn't like what was going on, and rebelled. A slave can run away from his master but no court would keep him free. A court would return a slave to his master just as St. Paul returned a slave to Philemon.

As Jesus said to the soldiers--be content with your pay. That has never changed. It is sin to steal whether one is in a position of authority or a slave. I say again, we live in a society without Virtue. Training in virtue is the answer to corruption of any kind. But that doesn't negate authority or authoritarianism.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 1:44 PM  

We can change our minds. Angels can not...

At some point in history, the highest angel, Lucifer, didn't like what was going on, and rebelled.


If angels can't change their minds, how could Lucifer rebel?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 1:48 PM  

Mr. Comerford, I am talking about medieval Christianity when there was no catechism books. Catechism for the church was either a) preaching or b) pictures and stained glass windows, art. That is how the Faith was promulgated.

The Baltimore catechism originated in, if my memory serves me, in the 1830s. St. Thomas Aquinas was not writing to the faithful but to other theologians.

Protestantism only existed due to the Printing Press which then put the Bible in individual hands. The Old Testament is not read on Sundays either in the Greek Orthodox Church or in Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. The Old Testament was not a reading during Sunday liturgies. Only in the Protestant Reformation did the Old Testament become available to the much of the faithful. And then they were told they were lied to by the instigators of the Protestant Reformation.

Anonymous Sarcophilus November 29, 2014 1:51 PM  

no crime other than carrying $150 dollars or less
I think you mean "more".

Even worse, professional theives (from "The Professional Thief - written in 1936) actually offer to give all the cash back and then some when caught, which is quite profitable when they only have to do it a small fraction of the time they get caught. Police - and lets not forget Prosecutors are also involved.

Also note how the "drug dogs" seem to always indicate there are drugs even when there are not. Some defense attorney should get the statistics for a particular Dog and try to get any evidence of any drugs found suppressed for any dog whose alerts are "false positives" more than a small percentage of the time. That should be the standard and tests were conducted and the dog alerts more often based on the predisposition of its handler.

But that would be actual justice. The cop from the Norman Rockwell diner picture has long disappeared. The few good cops attend things like oath-keepers and constitutional conventions, and hold their fellow officers to the same standards they hold everyone else to. There are also big differens between different parts of the country (copblock.org and policemisconduct.net have noticeable geographic variability - e.g. Idaho is far worse than the states just east and south). Serpico and Prince of the City are two true-life stories about corruption. And it has just gotten worse. At some point, every good cop will have to choose between his job and his soul. Most choose their job and pretend that they are fine because they aren't as corrupt as the rest. That doesn't work.

But this is the same as the drone strikes. People want to believe until someone close to them is robbed, abused, or otherwise hurt by the police. Then their illusions are shattered. As the boomers - many of whom don't respect the police from the 1960's - disappear, the legacy of respect does too. And when cops simply are more government crony thugs, and get the fear, anger, and hatred - but no respect - the good cops who are doing nothing will be like the good Germans in the 1930. Rare, silent, and condemned by history. And when "policeman" has the same moral weight as "slut", where are you going to go to restore honor? The best I hope for is to return to a militia or posse.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 1:51 PM  

The only way any of that gibberish makes sense is to say that God ordered Satan and the rest of the fallen angels to rebel. If they're following orders, is not a rebellion. If it's a rebellion, the choice to rebel had to be transformed from the choice to obey.

So, is your contention that God commanded Lucifer's rebellion? Either they have a free will to change their minds or God controls their will.

Anonymous Frederick303 November 29, 2014 1:54 PM  

A quick note on Swiss ideal of freedom:

While is a generalization, the idea of Swiss freedom would best be defined as “an orderly society that is not subject to foreign interference.” Now it is a democratic society, which is why such things as what you can do with your house and who gets to become a citizen are subject to local community control. So if you agree with the somewhat Teutonic culture it is very free, if you are not culturally in sync with the prevailing culture it can seem rather difficult and non-free. The ideal of what constitutes correct behavior and thought is fairly defined in Swiss culture; there is a desire to maintain a united outlook on life, despite the cantonal differences, since the one time the state collapsed and was successfully invaded during the French revolution.

Regarding the observation of property rights, Switzerland did not have a series of cataclysmic civil and world wars such as the Germans, French and Italians went through, so some of the institutions that they have are……well medieval. In the case of property rights, what you see is the promulgation of old laws that date back to the 1400s, when all land was in some manner held by not by a deed simple, but some form of fealty. Now as such the hunting rights, mineral rights and wood rights are in many cases separate from the ownership of the land and agricultural rights.

So you might own a farm and have some woods on your property, but you cannot hunt the land unless you join the local hunting club that has the hunting rights. You might have to maintain the forest, which involves cutting and tree falls, then cutting the wood to the proscribed length and stacking it for collection (or you can buy the wood yourself, more commonly done). Mineral rights are more complex, as the mining generally cannot disturb the agricultural rights in any way, plus there is not all that much to mine anyway. In any case if is much more complex than the typical Fee-simple arrangement that comes out of English common law that most Americans are familiar with.

There is really much more than that, but to an Englishman or modern American city dweller with their expectations it might seem unfree, though to a rural gun owner of Germanic cultural background it would seem a much more free society. It all has to do with what your cultural expectations of what a free, well ordered society are. By the bye, the variation in laws from Canton to Canton vary quite a bit, or did until 1999, when the Schengen treaty normalized a few things across cantons.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 2:00 PM  

The Old Testament is not read on Sundays either in the Greek Orthodox Church or in Pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. The Old Testament was not a reading during Sunday liturgies. Only in the Protestant Reformation did the Old Testament become available to the much of the faithful.

As in the story above, one of the first places to begin in speaking about the influence of the Old Testament in Orthodox worship is with the Psalms. Anyone who attends Vespers, Matins, one of the hours, or hears the Antiphons sung at the Liturgy or the Prokeimenon or the Communion Hymn, is aware that the Orthodox Church makes extensive use of the Psalter in Her worship.

http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/scripture/oldtestamentinworship

The word "Introit" means to introduce, or to enter. The Introit is a Psalm that introduces the mass for the particular day; it varies with the liturgical calendar. The Introit has its roots in the Psalms that were sung by choirs as the procession of priests and clergy would enter the church, beginning the mass of the as yet un-baptized catechumens.

http://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/Traditional-Latin-Tridentine-Mass.html

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 2:06 PM  

Thank you Fredrick3o3! This is what I mean: “an orderly society that is not subject to foreign interference.”

That statement is the Traditional European Continental meaning of "freedom". That is the Spartan ideal of Freedom. It is the Roman Ideal. It is Christendom's ideal. The traditional meaning of "freedom" in European politics is "“an orderly society that is not subject to foreign interference.”

"Individual Freedom" comes out of English Protestantism.

The English Civil War was more of a Scotch thing. It was labelled the Presbyterian War. It was Puritans/Presbyterians against Anglicans who still held to "popery". With John Locke and J. S. Mills, this idea that government is from the people was born. This "individual freedom" is a innovation, a recent innovation.

You all act as if this was a god. Individual Freedom is not absolute. It is not European culture. It is probably more Gaelic and perhaps before civilization hit the teutonic tribes.

With civilization comes authority. Social Order requires certain things. In Christendom, for the necessity for the salvation of souls, one needs authority to create and protect the Social Good towards salvation. Hence the authoritarianism of the Catholic Church and Catholic monarchies. It was Throne and Altar.

Only in English Protestantism did this "individual freedom" come about and became an American meme.

Anonymous Bobo November 29, 2014 2:10 PM  

Not to start trouble, butt...Spartans & RC priests do seem to have a lot in common...

(I know that didn't add anything of value to the conversation, but other people's illogic bothers me more than my own..)

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 2:13 PM  

Good lord, Josh. This is blog, not a scientific academic reference journal.

I stand by what I said. There were NO readings from the OT.

If you read further down you will find this:

The Epistle or "letter" is usually taken from one of Saint Paul's or another of the letters written by the original twelve apostles to the faithful following the death and resurrection of our Lord. The Epistle and Gospel are first read in Latin at the altar, then more loudly in the vernacular from the pulpit just before the sermon or Homily.

NO readings from the OT. That is an innovation of Vatican II. Yes, a psalm was read out.

In the divine office of the Church, like at Matins there were readings from the Old Testament. Readings of the Old Testament were part of religious houses and monastic orders in the Divine Office. Martin Luther as an Augustine prior was able to read the OT. But faithful not connected to monasteries or religious houses, like the Nobertines, never heard the OT except in references in preaching. There was no official church reading in the Sunday liturgies.

Today, the Greek Orthodox Church olds fast to the tradition. It only reads an Epistle and then the Gospel. For over 2000 years the Tradition of the Church is that the Epistle and the Gospel are only read. It was the advent of Protestantism that put the OT in the hands of laity.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 2:16 PM  

NO readings from the OT. That is an innovation of Vatican II. Yes, a psalm was read out.

Psalm=ot.

This might be the most pathetic display in many months on this blog.

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 29, 2014 2:16 PM  

Nate,

Is a jury not acting as an agent of the state? What criteria is used to determine when one is an agent or not?

Wheeler,

Its like someone hit me over the head and threw me down the rabbit hole.

1) Someone introduced a concept into history and you don't like it.
2) So you refuse to use the dictionary.
3) You insist other people must 2. if you 1.
4) Therefore you are authoritarian
5) Therefore, novelists are evil.

Makes complete sense.

Blogger Josh November 29, 2014 2:17 PM  

Today, the Greek Orthodox Church olds fast to the tradition. It only reads an Epistle and then the Gospel. For over 2000 years the Tradition of the Church is that the Epistle and the Gospel are only read. It was the advent of Protestantism that put the OT in the hands of laity.

Do the orthodox use any palms in their liturgy?

Palms are part of the old testament.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 2:33 PM  

Do the orthodox use any palms in their liturgy?

Only on Palm Sunday.

Anonymous Nothing to see here, move along November 29, 2014 2:37 PM  

OT
WHO's latest Obola numbers? Too low, again

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 2:37 PM  

Mr. Wheeler:

You posted in part:

"I am talking about medieval Christianity when there was no catechism books."

The word catechism means to teach orally. The Early Christians, so I have read, were quite possibly more literate than the medieval Christians. The Church Fathers used written Catechisms dating from the First Century AD - some of which are extant.

You also posted in part:

"St. Thomas Aquinas was not writing to the faithful but to other theologians."

I do not know what you mean by "theologian"; but the Angelic Doctor's body of work was simply immense; and some parts, like his Gospel commentary, were written for the common man.

I now understand that you are Orthodox and not Roman. I apologize for answering as if you were a Roman.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 2:44 PM  

Mr. Bobo:
Re: Picking on the Spartans

I have read that there are only 2-documents extant from contemporaries of the Spartans that mention homosexuality: one by Socrates and one by the author of "the March to the Sea" - both Athenians.

Socrates complains the reason that there is NO homosexuality among the Spartans is that they allow their women too much freedom.

Xenophon also comments about the relative lack of homosexuality among the Spartans.

The first claims for sodomy among the Spartans came, so I have read, from 19th Century German Biblical Scholars.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong...again.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger Nate November 29, 2014 2:46 PM  

"Is a jury not acting as an agent of the state? What criteria is used to determine when one is an agent or not?"

A jury cannot be said to be an agent of the state. The Jury is by default an agent of the people.

Anonymous takin' a look November 29, 2014 2:47 PM  

What in the world is going on with Wheeler, Wright and Map in their defenses of five-o?

Map's contention that "it mainly affects minorities so, so what?" Makes no sense. Minorities, especially NAMs, are given equal rights to the founding white Gentiles of this nation. This is just one of the many ways which the alinskites social engineers knew how to enslave whites. Unleash the NAPA and Squatmonster hordes, while brainwashing whites into believing "they are just like us".

He's complaining that we are complaining because we shouldn't complain since it is mostly minorities. News flash, all these restrictive laws and codes etc. on the books to keep NAMs under some semblance of control can and will be used against whites.

John C. Wright.....good author, great wordist, too much "BECAUSE IKAGO-oooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!" (Yes, bit of a musical flourish there.) I knew he was a fan of the personal anecdote when I saw a post of his months ago saying anyone who questioned the holocaust or jewish sufferink would be banned because he had jewish family members "who really suffered badly!" My reaction was..(pursed lips, hmm, ooookay then) guess we will never discuss Lazar Kaganovich in any manner. Don't even bother with the "hate facts".

Wheeler, just stop, you aren't even funny anymore, you look like the literate version of a narcoleptic pygmy goat having a spaz attack.

Blogger Kevin Blackwell November 29, 2014 3:01 PM  

It isn't theft, it is robbery. And yes, people can just sue the officer for robbery. You just enter a claim into the public record instead of a complaint, which would go to an inferior court where you'll get railroaded. The means to stop this exists, the knowledge doesn't.

Anonymous Sarcophilus November 29, 2014 3:11 PM  

A more comprehensive article, many videos from a conference.

Anonymous things are going exactly as planned November 29, 2014 3:13 PM  

Wheeler, your contention that the French Revolution was the catalyst for the modern era corruption of Western Civilization is certainly accurate. But your insistence on denouncing the "libertarian utopia" to defend authoritarianism of our current anti-Christian regime and it's enforcement agents is ludicrous.

You conflate libertarian with libertine.

"Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," words many times repeated since these days by stupid poll-parrots who, from all sides around, flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well-being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob.

The would-be wise men of the Gentiles, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractedness; did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom: that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws: never stopped to think that the mob is a blind thing, that upstarts elected from among it to bear rule are, in regard to the political, the same blind men as the mob itself, that the adept, though he be a fool, can yet rule, whereas the non-adept, even if he were a genius, understands nothing in the political - to all those things the Gentiles paid no regard; yet all the time it was based upon these things that dynastic rule rested: the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty and none could betray it to the governed. As time went on, the meaning of the dynastic transference of the true position of affairs in the political was lost, and this aided the success of our cause.

In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the Gentiles, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the Gentile States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the Gentiles, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the Gentiles we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force."

Blogger Cederq November 29, 2014 3:14 PM  

I am interested Kevin Blackwell, what kind of "public record?" And how would that translate into a bill of indictment to the said officer of robbery? I am not being sarcastic, just curious.

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 29, 2014 3:21 PM  

Nate,

The Jury is by default an agent of the people.

And acting as an agent of the state.

Why or why not?

Blogger Matamoros November 29, 2014 3:33 PM  

You're a Christian and a monarchist? How exactly does one serve two kings?

The State serves the Faith. It is the doctrine of the two Swords. Look it up.

Anonymous Anubis November 29, 2014 3:35 PM  

"Josh November 29, 2014 11:45 AM
The matter is of interest to me, because I am after all, Greek.

How does it feel to be related to wheeler?"

I suspect Nate is more closely related to the Greek in the video "One golden Dawn vs. 30 anarchists" than the black "Greek" politician imposed by Soros

Anonymous Difster November 29, 2014 3:56 PM  

I was going to shred Wheeler a bit, but nah. I'll just laugh instead.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 4:03 PM  

Josh, you are nit-picking. There is no formal OT reading. Psalms are used in the introit and verses from different psalms before the gospel and other places in the liturgy. So what. You castigate me because I do not dot my i or cross my t. Excuse me.

Anonymous Wyrd November 29, 2014 4:04 PM  

The decent, law-abiding police of yesteryear are simply not germane to the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyWVPHoFGJA

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 4:12 PM  

The nature of the angelic creatures is different than the Adamic race's nature. We are a duality, physical and spiritual, whereas angelic is singular (call it spiritual). When Adam sinned, God chose to grant grace and redemption by cursing the physical to decay. Giving humans a period of time to repent and reestablish the to a right relationship with God. Angels? The ones that sinned are condemned, only waiting till they are thrown into the (metaphorical?) lake of fire. Till then, they are God's leashed dogs in redemtion's theater.

Anonymous x-priest heritic November 29, 2014 4:14 PM  

It is the old dragon from the abyss of hell who is standing before me!

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 4:19 PM  

Oh me, oh my! From an older thread:

Rome or Die November 20, 2014 9:27 PM

False and blasphemous. You shitlib Protestants created Puritanism and thus lawlessness anarchy...


---

I so love it when they have a tic...

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 4:22 PM  

A jury is called by the state but the state cannot involve itself in the jury"s deliberations and cannot change the veredict (i am leaviing aside the issue of appeals, which mostly deal with procedures and law applicability). The state cannot penalize juror for a juror's decision.

Blogger Salt November 29, 2014 4:23 PM  

This may have been covered, but how much of asset forfeiture is designed, through media participation, to drive the sheeple towards a cashless society?

Blogger Salt November 29, 2014 4:38 PM  

Wheeler, you a Calvinist? If the State and Church are authoritian, so now what of free will?

Just a late into the game thought.

Anonymous Curtis November 29, 2014 4:39 PM  

You will note, that Wheelers idea of utopia will never work by the very nature of mans nature to sin. And some more than others.

Plutarch's Lives is a pretty interesting piece of work to see how authority and virtue worked out amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans.

And Wheeler, get off the Pope schtick. On this rock, the confession of Peter, will God build his Church. Not on Peter. Every man who confesses that Christ is the Son of the Living God, inters the Church of Christ. Not the Church of Peter, the Pope, the Catholic Church.

Anonymous takin' a look November 29, 2014 4:41 PM  

Richard W. Comerford-

The first claims for sodomy among the Spartans came, so I have read, from 19th Century German Biblical Scholars.

"Sodomy" is a funny word to me. The more I read about those two cities, the more I am convinced God destroyed them because they were reprobate drug dealers on a scale to make the Sassoons and CIA gasp in envious wonder.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 4:52 PM  

I don't know if Vox deleted Monarchist's comment, or if it got auto-spammed by Blogger comments. But, this officially confirms Rome or Die as a Man of Many Pseudonyms.

A new one for me to hunt.

Joy!

Anonymous Curtis November 29, 2014 4:52 PM  

The state cannot penalize juror for a juror's decision.

Not entirely true. They have, and they do.

Anonymous A Reader November 29, 2014 5:08 PM  

W.Linday Wheeler gets Thomist thinking wrong. Wheeler said:
"Humans have free will. The Angels do not have free will."

Yet, in the very link which Wheeler provided, Aquinas wrote: "Consequently, wherever there is intellect, there is free-will. It is therefore manifest that just as there is intellect, so is there free-will in the angels, and in a higher degree of perfection than in man. "

So, Wheeler, I'm going to put you in a dialectical bind: Either admit that you mis-interpret Aquinas, or argue why Aquinas is incorrect.

Anonymous A Reader November 29, 2014 5:14 PM  

By the way, it is unfortunate that the topic of the blog post by Vox Day has been side tracked by Wheeler. It is sometime called thread hijacking.

Now. Wheeler, let me ask you some questions: What do you think about civil asset forfeiture? Are you in basic agreement with Vox Day's views on civil asset forfeiture? Do you have any direct criticisms on Vox Day's views on the subject?

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 6:16 PM  

Wheeler: You OK with First Night? Would you have acquiesced, objected, fought or helped and taken pictures of doing civic duties?
By the standard you seem to advocate, all those Christians hiding in the Catacombs, those that fled, heck, the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt, all sinned against God for disobeying authority.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 6:18 PM  

As I say, more and more, it seems: There is no human solution to the human condition.

There are no human utopias. There will only be one utopia and it will be ruled by an absolute despot. Paul's word, not mine.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 6:22 PM  

Curtis: "Not entirely true. They have, and they do."

I am addressing the trial's deliberation and nothing antecedent or after the fact. Otherwise, the only penalty against a juror is due to some kind of violation of law, like taking a bribe in quid pro quo, talking about the case outside the jury room or with other jurors before tasked with to actually deliberate, etc.

What is the example you are thinking about?

Anonymous DT November 29, 2014 6:45 PM  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Uh...must of been a misprint.

Anonymous kh123 November 29, 2014 6:56 PM  

So... Cops. Taking monies off of peoples. Not your grandaddy's police.

Discuss.

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 7:02 PM  

Mr. takin' a look

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"The more I read about those two cities, the more I am convinced God destroyed them because they were reprobate drug dealers"

I did not notice anything in scripture about drug dealers; but I am not a Bible scholar. I am, however, a skilled knuckle dragger.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 7:25 PM  

St. Thomas Aquinas is not divine revelation.

Man is made in the image of God; the angels are not. The angels are the servants (doulos) of God. They are His slaves, or servants. They do his bidding. Do Angels have the "Free Will" just to move out of heaven and do as they please? Or must they minister and do their duties?

Angels are not free to take off. Angels are not free not to do their duty. An Angel doesn't wake up one morning and decide to stay in bed for the morning. Their range of decision-making is quite narrow. They do not have the range that we do. After the war in heaven, do Angels today say, "I'm going down to earth and murder a human"? Today, Can an Angel steal a lampstand from heaven and place it on earth of his own violition? Today, Can an Angel go to Saturn and just drop his duties in heaven?

After the war in heaven can the remaining angels still rebel? or do evil? or do nothing? or go on strike? Today, do Angels go on strike because they are the slaves of God? Do we read the "Emancipation Proclamation" for Angels? Do we free Angels from their obvious oppresion from their dominering Master? Can Angels who are slaves of God practice or recieve the benefits of Libertarianism in heaven?

All of this is interesting. Food for thought.

Is there "Individual Freedom" for Angels? Because "Individual Freedom" seems to be a moral dogma somewhere. From what I gather, it seems that Free Will is an absolute. Is it?

Do Saints have "Individual Freedom"? Does "Individual Freedom" exist in Heaven? Or does heaven run as an "orderly society free from foreign domination"?

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 7:34 PM  

And where does it call the angels doulos, Wheeler?

Nowhere, that's where. Because I just checked every verse where it occurs. It is only used of human beings.

Now, in your typical dishonest fashion you put that word "minister" there, clearly to have us believe that "ministering spirits" involves the word. But it doesn't. THAT word is διακονία.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:36 PM  

Do you even understand what the concept of "The Mandate of Heaven" means, Wheeler?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 7:36 PM  

A friend of mine who was once a libertarian writes me:

As an erstwhile libertarian, I can tell you that neither I nor any other libertarian that I have known ever believed in a "libertarian" government. That would be an oxymoron.

If a "libertarian government" is an oxymoron--then what is its case, or the adherents case to criticize any government? What sort of action does a libertarian take if a "libertarian government" is an oxymoron?

If it is an oxymoron, it can't exist in reality. Was America at its founding a Libertarian state?

If it was, then today, we can say that America is a failed state. In the face of original sin, the Natural Law that Life is War, how does Libertarianism exist at all?

If it can't exist---why even adhere to an ideology that can't be put into practice in reality?

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:43 PM  

For a man who claims knowledge of classical antiquity, Wheeler is curiously ignorant of "The Mandate of Heaven".

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 7:45 PM  

Also, you are as ignorant as you are dishonest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Quote: American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

STATE, you say? Yes, state. And from the definition of night-watchman state:

Advocacy of a night-watchman state is known as minarchism.

Libertarians are minarchist. Minarchist is not anarchist.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:47 PM  

"This "accountable to the people" is a modern heresy. It was created by John Locke and the English Protestants. Government was never based on "the accountability to the people". That is a modern invention that never existed for 2500 years or more."

Traditions far older than 2,500 years say that you're an ignoramus, Wheeler.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 7:50 PM  

Also, it sounds like your friend was an anarcho-capitalist who was merely very confused about the terminology.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:53 PM  

The Pagani were moving to the cities to get welfare

Anonymous Curtis November 29, 2014 7:53 PM  

JaimeInTexas,

There have been instances of jurors held in contempt for not convicting. I remember one case in which the juror did not convict on a drug charge. There are other instances of jury nullification where jurors have been held in contempt. You know, voting your conscience.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:54 PM  

Looks like wheeler has the Kim Jong Un theory of food production

Blogger richard w comerford November 29, 2014 7:55 PM  

Mr. Wheeler:

You posted in part:

"St. Thomas Aquinas is not divine revelation."

I believe you previously cited the Angelic Doctor as support for your claim that Angels do not have free will. However St. Thomas does indeed hold that they have will.

Now you have apparently disowned the Angelic Doctor.

Perhaps you would have more success in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ if you were more cautious in your citations and arguments?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 29, 2014 7:59 PM  

Curtis: I will google for such things sometime this week. It is hard for me to believe there are " instances of jurors held in contempt for not convicting."

Re. Jury nullification. Did the juror stated he nullified?

I check this week.

BTW, I understand the changes that have occurred with respect to, rather, against fully informed jurors.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 8:01 PM  

"Have you posited any lesson from antiquity?"

Why, I have, wheeler. It's called "The Mandate of Heaven"! Something that you demonstrated ignorance of.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 8:17 PM  

Hmm. I wonder what the VERY FIRST RECORDED church fathers thought on the issue of free will and angels? By golly, I'll check.

...

The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians Addressed to the Roman Senate:

[That would be Justin Martyr, by the way, from c. 100 – 165 AD]

"But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed."

Oh. That.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 8:19 PM  

To rub more salt in the wounds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

"and [Justin Martyr] is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Anglican Church,[4] and the Eastern Orthodox Church."

Anonymous Curtis November 29, 2014 8:24 PM  

JaimeInTexas - Thanks. You'll find them. Not saying it is an epidemic, but it does happen. As for nullification, there was a guy arrested maybe a couple years ago for handing out Fully Informed Jury pamphlets also

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 8:30 PM  

Markku, you are right on the subject. There is no angel tied to the word "doulos". I was wrong about that.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 8:34 PM  

Well, that was surprisingly honest and straight-forward response. I didn't expect that. I may have been a bit too harsh in some of my wordings.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 8:49 PM  

In my Septuagint, I have "Angels/Slaves" with this verse Psalm 102:20 (numbering is different from your bibles)

"Bless the Lord, all ye his angels, mighty in strength, who perform his bidding, ready to hearken o the voice of his words."

From that verse, I connected angels as the slaves of God. The Greek word "doulos" can mean slave and/or servant; a slave is a servant. Since angels are God's servants par excellence, I see them as God's slaves.

Nowhere in the OT or in the NT is slavery condemned. I just don't like how the modern world changes things and condemns things that were normal under the Old Order.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 8:51 PM  

Mr. Comerford, I said that Thomas Aquinas accords to will to the angels.

If angels have free will--can they not change back? But then we know they can not. They can not repent. If you can not repent, does one have "free will"?

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 8:52 PM  

Nowhere in the OT or in the NT is slavery condemned.

No argument there. The ecclesia are both slaves and children of God. Modern translations shouldn't sanitize it to "servant", because if EVER there was an ownership kind of relationship, it is this.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 8:54 PM  

If angels have free will--can they not change back? But then we know they can not. They can not repent.

There is no reason to think they cannot repent. But even if they DID repent, it wouldn't change anything, they would still be eternally tormented in the Lake of Fire. Because the important question is, are their sins paid for. And the answer to that is "no".

So, in the case of angels, repentance is irrelevant.

Blogger Markku November 29, 2014 9:06 PM  

But of course, if one still insists on the question "will they", the answer is almost certainly "no". Because when was there EVER a criminal, depraved and hardened for all his life, let alone for millennia, who repented while knowing for a fact that the repentance changes nothing about his sentence?

Anonymous Bobo November 29, 2014 9:20 PM  

@ Richard W. Comerford

You may be correct, I have little time to correct you if you're wrong. My personal belief is that all of Greek extraction, save Nate, are prone to buggery.

As per the RC priests, I stand pat. To be fair, I'm sure we Protestants have a few boy-diddlers in our midst unbeknownst.

Blogger Rabbi B November 29, 2014 9:29 PM  

@Markku

Also this:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under darkness until the judgement of the Great Day -

Cf. Jude 6 (7)

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2014 10:01 PM  

@ Markku

So, in the case of angels, repentance is irrelevant.

So, Markku, my special friend, when the scriptures say in I peter 3: 19-22 that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, what was the point of that if it was of no use?

Blogger Rabbi B November 29, 2014 10:06 PM  

And this also:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the Judgement;

Cf. II Peter 2

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2014 10:15 PM  

> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the Judgement;

Waht? Not tortured for all eternity right off the bat?
Blasphemy, Rabbi B.

Say One hundred hail maries and a partridge in a pear tree, sinner man.

Blogger Rabbi B November 29, 2014 10:18 PM  

Will you settle for 7 our father Abraham's and 7 hail Miriam's? :)

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2014 10:27 PM  

.> Will you settle for 7 our father Abraham's and 7 hail Miriam's? :)

That's a little too Old Testament there, Rabbi. Your intentions seem sincere, However, so we can leave it at that. Just remember, Miriam got the skin disease, unlike the mother of our Lord.

Just sayin' .

Blogger LP 999/Eliza November 29, 2014 10:33 PM  

I dread bank day or withdrawal day.

Anonymous Just asking November 29, 2014 10:40 PM  

If the angels with free will decide to carry more than $150 in certain parts of Washington, DC will they be subject to civil forfeiture, i.e. armed robbery under colour of law, or are they exempt from that?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 10:54 PM  

I found an article on Freedom, Free Will in Christianity:

True freedom, then, is not freedom to do anything one wants in virtue of faith but rather freedom from acting contrary to natural reason, by which he is inclined to justice (as Aquinas goes on to say). When grace perfects this natural desire, it does so in such a way that the natural freedom of the will remains in tact.
here at The True Freedom of a Christian; A comparison of Marin Luther's Views on christian Liberty with thos of the Fathers of the Church and St. Thomas

Blogger Rabbi B November 29, 2014 11:04 PM  

No worries zen0, I was just funnin' about.

Anonymous A Reader November 29, 2014 11:11 PM  

Well. W. LindsayWheeler, you still haven't addressed my questions concerning civil asset forfeiture.

Really, bluffing and evasion does not work in internet discourse does not fool people.

You should quit derailing internet discussions and find a more useful hobby. Maybe reading books on logic, for instance.

Anonymous Just asking November 29, 2014 11:39 PM  

I found an article on Freedom, Free Will in Christianity:

Gee, that's special. What does it have to do with civil forfeiture in the 21st century?

Anonymous Scintan November 30, 2014 12:00 AM  

Watching Wheeler show his ass to this extent has been well worth the read, despite its being off topic.

Thanks to all who participated in making the show so much fun.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 30, 2014 12:25 AM  

I am totally against civil asset forfeiture. I thought before we lose property and life only after due process.

America is a failed state. The ideas that it is based on is bankrupt. It didn't work, because it couldn't last. The constitution died a long time ago. What did work was Christendom, an authoritarian system that lasted over 1000 years.

Anonymous takin' a look November 30, 2014 12:48 AM  

-Richard W Comerford,

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"The more I read about those two cities, the more I am convinced God destroyed them because they were reprobate drug dealers"


No problems, here is a quick link

I think this, plus Christ's refusal of of the vinegar waters will be most enlightening. Jesus came as both God and Man. He had to have His mortal flesh aware and unpolluted in order to receive all Sin i.e, the Wrath of God. In other words He had to have a completely sober mortal flesh brain/nervous system in order to maintain connection with God the Father. I think you can draw your own conclusions what that means for drug dealers past and present and why God was so wrathful to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I did not notice anything in scripture about drug dealers; but I am not a Bible scholar. I am, however, a skilled knuckle dragger.

(grins and chuckles) perhaps, you are certainly a polite one if so! I am no scholar, I just play at one from time to time. No, this is one of the few areas of the Bible where even fundamentals chalk up to metaphor. Personally, I think this explains quite a lot.

God bless

May God bless you.

Anonymous takin' a look November 30, 2014 12:59 AM  

uh.....why are my posts being removed? my reply to Mr. Comerford and my previous post asking about it.

Anonymous map November 30, 2014 1:02 AM  

There is a serious lack 0of reading comprehension on this thread.

Anonymous takin' a look November 30, 2014 1:03 AM  

AH, I think I got it, it's the way I've been blowing up the comments framebox. hopefully this one goes through as well.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper November 30, 2014 2:31 AM  

Y'all are conflating Miltons's Lucifer with Satan.

Satan, the adversary is mentioned in the Bible is the one with the Rebel angels which along with the fact it seems they mated with humans in Genesis 6:4 suggests that angels have some free will

Lucifer from Isiah 14:12-17 is Nebuchadnezzar II known by his title and note he is sent to Sheol which is where everyone was thought to go not the later ideal of hell .

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

Now its quite possible that is self same pit is where Satan is cast and its not a place of torment but basically a way of saying "Those who don't follow Jesus will stay in Sheol."

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 30, 2014 3:25 AM  

kh123: "So... Cops. Taking monies off of peoples. Not your grandaddy's police."

The rot is from the head down, not from the feet up.

States influenced and increasingly governed by a hostile minority should increasingly exhibit counter-majoritarian strategies, including in law enforcement. When everything increasingly conforms to the tastes of predators and parasites in power, that includes the police.

When the political class thinks that elected offices are valuable private property and not to be given away, it's natural for the police to think that things that are within their gift, like the option to drive the roads and return home safe, ought not to be given away.

Courts taught the police to lie more systematically than they used to, by consistently accepting formulaic bogus stories, for example about how the suspect just dropped his drugs on the street in front of an officer, who was then inspired to make a search with adequate legal cause. (And lo and behold!) Meanwhile the courts rejected the truth consistently. That's how you get a police force full of indoctrinated perjurers. Things don't get better from there.

In this case of highway robbery, based on a proven lie, the courts really stuck it to the police -- they forced them to give back 90% of the money. So even when the cops are caught, apparently it's a given that they get to keep at least 10% of what they choose to steal.

If that's not conducive to a corrupted police force, what would be?

Anonymous map November 30, 2014 3:43 AM  

takin' a look,

You need to re-read what I wrote.

Blogger richard w comerford November 30, 2014 4:11 AM  

Mr. Wheeler:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"I said that Thomas Aquinas accords to will to the angels.

If angels have free will--can they not change back? But then we know they can not. They can not repent. If you can not repent, does one have "free will"?"

I t appears that you are relying on the Angelic Doctor to grant free will to angels; then you appear to question the free will of Angels. Is that a correct summation?

If it is then I think we must remember that Angels are not men. They do not suffer the effects of the Original Sin. Their intellects and wills have not been weakened and darkened.

Despite this some Angels out of pride rebelled and were cast out of heaven.

Rome's take on this matter:

"It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death" # 393 CCC

See: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

May the Angels guide and protect you

Richard W Comerford

Blogger richard w comerford November 30, 2014 4:26 AM  

Mr Bobo:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"I have little time to correct you if you're wrong."

And, alas I am in so need of correction!

And in part:

"As per the RC priests, I stand pat."

And this is a very serious matter. The crisis the priesthood has gone through of late is a problem with homosexuality. According to the John Jay Report 95% of the abuse cases did not involve little boys under 12; but rather teenagers, indicating a problem of homosexuality in the priestly ranks.

Rome holds that even for chaste men that this inclination to homosexuality "is objectively disordered" (2358 CCC); and in Canon Law (which sadly has nothing to do with field artillery) denies men so inclined admittance to seminary and religious formation.

Indeed Rome holds that the act of sodomy is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.

And yet although I am an old man I have never heard sodomy condemned from the pulpit; and there appear to be more than a few effeminate men in the priesthood.

Evil days we live in.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger Chris Mallory November 30, 2014 8:43 AM  

"Curtis: I will google for such things sometime this week. It is hard for me to believe there are " instances of jurors held in contempt for not convicting."

The case of the women out in Denver(?) who was convicted after not convicting on a drug case was about her answers during Voir Dire and her "juror's oath" to follow the orders of the judge. She did argue during deliberations for nullification. If she had kept her mouth shut and just voted "Not Guilty" she would have been safe.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 30, 2014 8:55 AM  

Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. There is no angel-women sex in the bible.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 30, 2014 1:14 PM  

I'd like to revise my statement. I am for asset forfeiture if it is drug money acquired and it is proved in a court of law by due process.

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 1:48 PM  

So, Markku, my special friend, when the scriptures say in I peter 3: 19-22 that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, what was the point of that if it was of no use?

Fallen angels are in Tartarus. Jesus went to Hades. So, these can't have been fallen angels. Hence, they were dead human beings.

Ah, but you may protest, these were called pneuma, not psyche. Well:

Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Yes, human beings are also referred to with that word.

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 1:57 PM  

Also, NINE VERSES later, Peter says this:

1Pe 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.

If you still maintain the spirits were fallen angels, is Peter perhaps referring to some totally unrelated event by this, just nine verses after the passage you quote?

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 2:09 PM  

I know, I know. You are a Russelite. Can't have conscious, dead men. Must mean something TOTALLY DIFFERENT, nine verses later, in a scroll that didn't originally have verses nor chapters. Peter was obviously saying,

...for this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, in that other scroll that nobody has ever even heard of, you know, even though I was ONLY JUST speaking about preaching to spirits in captivity, heh heh, I can be a bit confusing sometimes, but anyhoo...

Anonymous Porphyry November 30, 2014 2:11 PM  

@wheeler you're misunderstanding the principles of obedience. Obedience ought to be founded on ever increasing love: "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." Thusly self governance should take an ever increasing part in the heavenly order. For love requires two parts, does it not? Additionally one should not divorce political authority from love as christians. For a man becomes accustomed to justice through the state, and a man who sheds blood unlawfully (OT sense) will make guilt fall on his own head no matter the circumstances, (even Cain murdered for with a natural law as his justification)

Anonymous Porphyry November 30, 2014 2:21 PM  

"I know, I know. You are a Russelite. Can't have conscious, dead men." It's not even necessary "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith." if the teaching is new it can still have been heard and accepted long ago by men now in prison. so that when the teaching is fulfilled they are freed.

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 2:27 PM  

if the teaching is new it can still have been heard and accepted long ago by men now in prison. so that when the teaching is fulfilled they are freed.

Porphyry, so you ARE saying that when, as Zeno quoted, "Jesus preached to the spirits in prison", and then nine verses later it says "gospel was preached even to the dead", the latter doesn't refer to the former?

Anonymous Porphyry November 30, 2014 2:31 PM  

"Porphyry, so you ARE saying" No, Im saying preaching to the dead can take place while the subject is still alive. For teaching has 2 parts acceptance and truth.

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 2:37 PM  

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah...

The preaching in question is obviously done IN CONNECTION with Jesus's death. Or is this time travel?

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 2:44 PM  

Note that the "he went" is explicit in the original (poreuō). So, even though there was the general knowledge of the coming Messiah due to what was said to the snake in Eden, this particular delivery of knowledge involves active "going" on Jesus's part.

Anonymous Porphyry November 30, 2014 2:47 PM  

Well then, that renders my comments irrelevant I thought we were speaking about death of the spirit. Additionally context debunks a russellite reading by creating a distinction between death of the flesh and death of the spirit.

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 2:50 PM  

Porpyry, the original point was that zeno tried to offer the "spirits in prison" -passage as evidence that fallen angels might be able to repent. To me, it seems absolutely preposterous to think that those "spirits" are fallen angels, rather than the spirits of the dead from Noah's time. But, obviously, if you are a Russelite, then fallen angels are the only thing you're left with. Since it precludes them from being the dead.

Anonymous Porphryry November 30, 2014 3:15 PM  

@Markku thx for the summary. This is the part that I had a hard time wrapping my head around: slightly OT: How can you believe that a spirit is alive without a consciousness? (as a Russelite seems tied to)

Blogger Markku November 30, 2014 3:16 PM  

No, they think that the spirit doesn't exist at all, after it dies. It is then re-created from scratch later, to face the Final Judgement.

Anonymous The king and the state are one November 30, 2014 8:06 PM  

Wheeler
I'd like to revise my statement. I am for asset forfeiture if it is drug money acquired and it is proved in a court of law by due process.

Bah. In your kingdom all belongs to the king. Therefore if the men who serve the king choose to take something, they merely are taking what belongs to their capo. They answer only to him, and the king answers only to God, so there would be no need for any post-Reformational nonsense about "due process" or any of that Lockean nonsense.

The king take what he wants, when he wants, and his men are the same. That is the system you want, Wheeler. And it is an ancient one, to be sure: Pharoh's Egypt, for example.

So you betray your own position with this namby-pamby, post-Enlightenment "rights", "law", claptrap. What are you, some kind of supporter of the rights of Englishmen?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts