Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on July 25, 2009, 09:24:48 AM
-
The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it....As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because the take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. The the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
from Orthodoxy, by G.K, Chesterton, 1908
Who are the modern revolutionaries of our day, and is Chesterton right about them? Are they useless for all purposes of revolt?
-
Don't let a postmodern count your change.
-
Too much Pirate Christian Radio for you. :laugh:
-
Chesterton is good stuff....he was a major influence on C.S. Lewis, too....
One of the Christian Apologetics I listen to quotes Chesterton and Malcolm Muggredge (sp?) often...Ravi Zacharias ( www.rzim.org (http://www.rzim.org) )
-
I know. I used to be a very faithful listener, but he keeps recycling the same quotations (brilliant as they may be) and the same illustrations (and those are usually quite fascinating).
I just wish I could find more of those quotations, like the bit from Chesterton.
-
Chesterton is good stuff....he was a major influence on C.S. Lewis, too....
One of the Christian Apologetics I listen to quotes Chesterton and Malcolm Muggredge (sp?) often...Ravi Zacharias ( www.rzim.org (http://www.rzim.org) )
Before I got to the bottom, I thought I was reading CS Lewis.
Just about every college-age activist acts like this. Just hates the system in general, but has nothing to contribute via constructive solutions grounded in rational thought. No praise for existing institutions, usually, too.
-
Any of you guys keep a common-place book for great quotations you find? I really ought to start one.
-
Any of you guys keep a common-place book for great quotations you find? I really ought to start one.
Yes, in a plain text file I named "CoolQuotes.txt. I have about 1000 lines/entries (excluding white space) of content. GKC has a few entries.
I really ought to parse it and dump it into MS Excel.
Here is an early entry with application to this thread (started about hte year 2000):
"Nothing disappoints a revolutionary more than the persistent lack of injustice."
----Jonah Goldberg
-
Too much Pirate Christian Radio for you. laugh
I would think it would be obvious. Nobody who's confused about the existence of truth can be trusted with being anything but, oh, an English professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_McLaren). Arguably not even that. Fix something, make change, deliver a burger that won't give you food poisoning, uh uh.
I'm tempted to hand one of these "your truth/ my truth", no metanarrative blatherers, one of my handloaded .40S&W rounds. Tell them my load, explain to them the consequences of getting it wrong (KABOOM!), and ask them if it's safe to fire, and how they would know.
I've got a dozen other podcasts I follow. 2.5 hrs/day of PCR is far too long to keep up with.
Orthodoxy, by G.K, Chesterton, 1908
Chesterton, unlike Lewis, I tend to bounce hard off of. Except for The Man Who Was Thursday, which was a fun read.
-
By "bounce off of," you mean you don't like his work? Orthodoxy is the first bit I've read from Chesterton, outside of a few quotations here and there. I'm only a few chapters in, but I certainly don't like it as much as Lewis's writing.
-
Not don't like, just can't seem to read much of.
-
While the above selection from Chesterton is profound, he was wrong about the effectiveness of these revolutionaries. They have indeed wrought terrible damage since Chesterton's time.
From the same work by Chesterton:
I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself....Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once.
I have long considered starting a thread about the traditional (or Christian?) view of sexuality, the body, nudity, modesty, etc. It seems it needed its own thread, because so many people misunderstand it in other threads, when it comes up as one of many issues.
The common misunderstanding is that the traditionalist wants sex to be hidden because it is shameful, or that Christians urge modest dress because the body is something dirty or sinful. In fact, we are protective of the body because we have a high view of it. It is the libertine and the secularist that say of the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, "It was just a breast." Traditionalists do not know about "just a breast." We appreciate the beauty thereof too much to make such a dismissive comment.
-
And yet, seventy years later, the men who Chesterton refers to are in charge of most institutions of European society, American media and academia. Not so useless after all?
-
Yeah, I just remarked on that, actually. It helps that they neither they, nor the public, are terribly logical. Kinda like folks that plump for gay marriage on the basis of "rights," "justice" and "equality." If one of those ideas is flexible, so are the other three.
-
from Orthodoxy, by G.K, Chesterton, 1908
Who are the modern revolutionaries of our day, and is Chesterton right about them? Are they useless for all purposes of revolt?
Longeyes.
=D
-
While the above selection from Chesterton is profound, he was wrong about the effectiveness of these revolutionaries. They have indeed wrought terrible damage since Chesterton's time.
From the same work by Chesterton:
I have long considered starting a thread about the traditional (or Christian?) view of sexuality, the body, nudity, modesty, etc. It seems it needed its own thread, because so many people misunderstand it in other threads, when it comes up as one of many issues.
The common misunderstanding is that the traditionalist wants sex to be hidden because it is shameful, or that Christians urge modest dress because the body is something dirty or sinful. In fact, we are protective of the body because we have a high view of it. It is the libertine and the secularist that say of the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, "It was just a breast." Traditionalists do not know about "just a breast." We appreciate the beauty thereof too much to make such a dismissive comment.
Former Indy Fundy speaking up here...well put sir.
-
Yeah, I just remarked on that, actually. It helps that they neither they, nor the public, are terribly logical. Kinda like folks that plump for gay marriage on the basis of "rights," "justice" and "equality." If one of those ideas is flexible, so are the other three.
You are trying to get me to start an argument? =D =D
Also, you listed only 3 ideas. =D
-
>In fact, we are protective of the body because we have a high view of it<
I've heard similar arguments used by fundamentalist Muslims regarding the status of women (especially regarding wearing the burkah).
Not to say you're taking a similar view as they, just pointing out that this particular argument gets used regularly... ;)
-
>In fact, we are protective of the body because we have a high view of it<
I've heard similar arguments used by fundamentalist Muslims regarding the status of women (especially regarding wearing the burkah).
Not to say you're taking a similar view as they, just pointing out that this particular argument gets used regularly... ;)
I can't speak for the Koran, but the NT is pretty clear on how women are supposed to be treated. I don't have the references handy, but the NT talks about "loving your wife as yourself" (an echo of the second of the great commandments) and "loving your wife as Christ loved the Church," which is a mighty love indeed.
Proverbs 31 speaks of an industrious woman who owns a business and provides for the household.
Many people don't realize that gender roles are pretty loosely defined in the Bible (and in true Christianity) but not to the point of "equality," hence the amount of respect we show to women by encouraging, but not forcing (a la Saudi) modesty in public.
Hope that helps.
Can you say "thread drift?" :laugh:
-
Microbalrog,
Seriously, you didn't see that there were four ideas presented there? :|
>In fact, we are protective of the body because we have a high view of it<
I've heard similar arguments used by fundamentalist Muslims regarding the status of women (especially regarding wearing the burkah).
Not to say you're taking a similar view as they, just pointing out that this particular argument gets used regularly... ;)
And I've seen a racist website that used "God loves diversity," as a prop for their anti-miscegenation views. :P Thanks for playing. :laugh:
-
I love when people start talking about "we" in reference to Christians/Christianity and then start talking about how "we" treat women.
At least half of Christians *are* women. Try treating women like, oh, people.
That is all I have to contribute to this thread. I have no interest in an extended discourse on "Christian" approaches to sexuality with anyone who regularly refers to his wife as a girl.
Unless you are cool with me referring to you all as boys.
-
Do I refer to my wife as a girl? [Redacted - don't wanna tangle with BW, right now. ]
-
I'd have no issue with being referred to as a boy. Strikes me as looking for things to be offended by, same as African-American vs Black.
-
Unless you are cool with me referring to you all as boys.
Just don't call me "late for dinner."
-
Men are frequently referred to as "boy," with no offense taken. It may not be used the same way as "girl," but that's OK. Men and women being different, sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander.
-
At least half of Christians *are* women. Try treating women like, oh, people.
50% of Orthodox Jews are women, too. A view or a culture can be patriarchal even if it is endorsed by women.
-
As, indeed, many Muslim women DO "endorse" their lifestyle (honor killings and all)...
Like I said: not trying to start a fight with this one. Was just pointing out an interesting fact.
I honestly can't see anyone who is a member here (especially one of long standing) being openly judgemental enough to say "what you're doing, while legal, is morally reprehensible and should be stopped immediately". Y'all may make a judgement call on others, but you wouldn't attempt to force your beliefs on anyone...
-
While legal, fistful is morally reprehensible and should be stopped immediately.
-
50% of Orthodox Jews are women, too. A view or a culture can be patriarchal even if it is endorsed by women.
You totally missed my point.
-
Unless you are cool with me referring to you all as boys.
Disrespect runs both ways. "Man bashing" is pretty near ubiquitous.
(I try to refer to y-all as "ladies".)
-
You totally missed my point.
Actually, you argued that it's wrong to argue that Christians mistreat women because at least half of said Christians are women. I pointed out that there are many cultures where women are mistreated, even though these cultures involve women as members.
-
First, we are all crazy for arguing with BW about this right now, given the circumstances. =)
Second, Microbalrog is really missing the point. :P Seriously, re-read the post.
Third, English-speaking people refer to grown men as "boys" very frequently, perhaps more frequently in the American South. This is usually not regarded as offensive.
Fourth, lee n. field, if I refer to my wife as a "girl," it's a term of endearment; the furthest thing from "bashing."