A hearty welcome to our first guest blogger, Tim Larsen (aka "Utes"), who wrote this post. If anyone else would like to submit a post, please email one (or all) of the permabloggers. Thanks!
Propaganda
As we approach November 4, we seem to be hearing more and more frequently that individuals will be voting “The Lesser of Two Evils.” What does this phrase really mean, who profits from its’ results, and is there another choice?
When information, ideas, or rumors are being spread deliberately and widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution or nation, the method of delivery is said to be propagandistic. Ezra Taft Benson once said:We are going through what J. Reuben Clark, Jr., once termed the greatest propaganda campaign of all time. We cannot believe all we read, and what we can believe is not all of the same value. We must sift. We must learn by study and prayer.
Two synonyms of the word propaganda are misinformation and half-truths. Misinformation implies that another is deliberately harming another through information that may not be true, relevant or pertinent. Half-truths can tend to be even more dangerous in that something that may not be as easy to swallow on its’ own is easier to ingest when coupled with something that we recognize as truth. As Mary Poppins put it so well, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down . . . in the most delightful way!”
Satan knows well how mortals succumb to the power of half-truths. It was in the Garden of Eden after the Lord had told Adam and Eve that they could eat of every tree of the garden except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because eating of that tree would lead to death. The master of half truths started working on Eve:Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes , and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The propaganda had worked. Today, many do not realize they are being fed propaganda; much comes in the form of the 5:00 news. As J. Reuben Clark said, we must sift and learn by study and prayer. We must be wise.
The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil
Part of what the propagandists leave out of their argument that we must vote for the lesser of two evils is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. As a Latter-day Saints, we have been taught that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired. In the 98th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants we read:And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
It is interesting to note that in these first sentences of the Lord’s discussion regarding evil He is speaking specifically with the “law of the land which is constitutional.” Did the Lord tell us that we should uphold the lesser of two evils? He reminds us that we are free, but also reminds us that when the wicked rule the people mourn. He then goes on to say that we should forsake all evil and cleave unto all good. Is voting for the lesser of two evils cleaving unto good? To cleave is to adhere closely, stick, or cling. According to the website dictionary.com to cleave means to “remain faithful,” it then uses cleave in the sentence, “To cleave to one’s principles in spite of persecution.” We must cleave unto principled candidates in spite of the persecution by the “sheeple” that by doing so you will be wasting your vote.
Numerous examples of the Lord using the word cleave are found in the scriptures: Deuteronomy 13:4; Joshua 22:5; Matthew 19:5; Acts 11:23; D&C 11:19; and many others. One of the more frequently used examples of cleaving in the scriptures is found in Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:7; D&C 42:22; Moses 3:24 and Abraham 5:18 in which we learn that a man should cleave unto his wife and none else!
Fear
Part of the propaganda of voting for the lesser of two evils is that by doing anything to the contrary would be to throw away your vote. In pondering this line I have come to the conclusion that the sole purpose of such a statement is one of fear. Fear that our time and voice have been wasted. Fear is the antithesis of faith and hope. Humans tend to not want to be on the losing team—nobody wants their candidate to lose in an election but, fear of failure is not reason enough to not cleave unto all that is good.
Political polls seem to fluctuate more than gas prices these days. Are these polls simply a tool of the propaganda machine to keep us in fear of cleaving unto the good candidates? If the polls tell us that our best, principled candidate has no chance of winning, is this when it becomes apparent that our vote will be wasted in voting for them. What if 60% of the country actually would like to vote for the best candidate but the polls tell us that the best candidate only has an 8% chance of winning and that we would be throwing away our vote if we voted for them. See how the propaganda worked? Fear.
In the October 2008 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf stated:In the twilight of the Nephite Nation, Moroni wrote that without hope, we cannot receive an inheritance in the Kingdom of God. But, why then, is there despair? The scriptures say that there must be an opposition in all things. So it is with faith, hope and charity. Doubt despair and failure to care for our fellow man lead us into temptation which can cause us to forfeit choice and precious blessings.
We must not fear that our vote is wasted, but rather have hope that others will cleave unto their principles. It is only is this fashion that true change can occur: through electing principled leadership in government.
Conclusion
To those of you who feel there is no reason to get involved in the fight for freedom, a word from Ezra Taft Benson:In spite of the scriptural evidence and the counsel of modern-day prophets during the past more than 100 years, there are still some who seem to feel we have no responsibility to safeguard and strengthen our precious God-given freedom. There are some who apparently feel that the fight for freedom is separate from the gospel. They express it in several ways but it generally boils down to this: Just live the gospel; there’s no need to get involved in trying to save freedom and the Constitution.
Of course, this is dangerous reasoning, because in reality you cannot fully live the gospel without working to save freedom and the Constitution.
In the war in heaven, what would have been your reaction if someone had told you just to do what is right—there’s no need to get involved in the fight for freedom?
The first presidency of the Church counseled its’ members in a letter dated September 11, 2008:Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.
We must not take the two minute sound-bites of the candidates and base our decision on these alone. We must pray, search and sift through the propaganda. We must research, know and understand what the proper role of government is, and then look for those principles in the candidates. And finally, when we find a candidate who we believe will most nearly carry out our ideas of good government, must we vote for the lesser of two evils? NO! As our modern-day prophets counseled, we must actively support and vote for that candidate. Doctrine and Covenants section 98 continues:
Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
Might the Lord try us in the form of seeing if we are willing to take a stand and cleave unto the principled candidates? His promises in Section 98 are fabulous:Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy….Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children….Let not your hearts be troubled….And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
In this election regardless of who you see as being the lesser of two evils, vote for neither of them. Find a candidate who strictly adheres to principles of good government. There are six candidates running in the presidential election this year who will be listed on the ballots in all 50 states. Research each of them and find what they stand for! Then, fear not, and know that the Lord is God. Though others may say that you are throwing your vote away, know that the gates of hell shall not prevail against you for you have done as the Lord has commanded.
Lesser of Two Evils: This November 4th
Posted by Stephanie on 10/09/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Sigh....
First, the serpent told the truth. (The idea that the serpent is Satan is not in the story, BTW--that's a theological interpretation of the story and was added to later stories.) Adam and Eve did not die; their eyes were opened, and they did become "as gods, knowing good from evil." If anyone's guilty of conveying half-truths or misinformation, it's God, who tells Adam that if he eats the forbidden fruit, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." According to the story itself Adam does not die on that day.
Now I know that you can try to rescue God's lying little behind here by engaging in some Clinton-like creativity about the meaning of "day" and of "die," but one only needs to engage in such exegetical acrobatics if one is already committed to the idea of God's perfection. Which is fine, but it prevents you from actually reading the text itself. And Stephanie's reading is manifestly not a reading of the text itself, but an imposition onto the text of her own theology. (Also missing from the story itself is any evidence that the serpent desired to harm anyone. Nor did he harm anyone, unless you consider it harmful to find oneself maturing into the moral condition of human adulthood.)
Second, one key element of propaganda involves the suppression of alternatives. The idea is to make your message the only message known to your target audience. The effect of the serpent's words was to take Eve from a position of ignorance of alternatives (a condition in which choice is impossible) to one of knowledge of alternatives (the condition that enables choice). She found herself in the position of having to think, to make a reasoned choice between plausible-sounding alternatives. In other words, she became a true human being--which of course is the main point of the story. It's an "emergence narrative," as the mythologists say. It's not, as Stephanie would have it, a tool of socio-political control.
Anyway, the point here is that the serpent cannot accurately be called a propagandist. That's a projection of Stephanie's theology back onto the story.
The devil quotes scripture to his purpose. So does just about everyone else, and Stephanie is no exception. Nor am I. Problem is that scripture offers support for just about every position imaginable, from communist to fascist to everything in between. Think of the incredible variety of actions carried out by scripture-quoting Christians: socialist revolution in Latin America, anticommunist revolution in Poland, the sanctioning of Galileo and the burning of witches, the lynching of thousands of black people, the creation of Mother Teresa's selfless mission, the pro-gay Metropolitan Community Church and the anti-gay churches of Fred Phelps and President Monson, the Holocaust, the founding of Jews for Jesus, etc. In every case the actions were backed up by scripture. The Bible is truly a capacious book.
Stephanie, I could match you quote for quote, exegesis for exegesis (not to mention work in some well-deserved digs at the creepy racist Benson). But the whole scripture-and-authority-quoting procedure is itself bogus. It's pure appeal to authority, which is to say, pure logical fallacy. I'll demonstrate:
Says God: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, which I interpret to mean, Don't worry about petty earthly political affairs. (And my interpretation is correct because I prayed about it and anyway I'm a member of the Only True Church, and I know it's the Only True Church because of how I interpret the scriptures, but don't you dare point out the circularity of my reasoning.)
Says Benson: God commands us to fight for a better political system.
God says don't worry about politics, Benson says God commands us to worry about politics. But God by definition is right, so Benson must be wrong. Furthermore, as every good conservative Mormon knows, if you're not with God you're against him, which means you're with the devil, ergo, Benson is satanic.
Next question.
--David
Anon David, please go back and read the first line of the post. It says, A hearty welcome to our first guest blogger: Tim R. Larsen (aka "Utes") [Hint: I didn't write it]
You have some good points, but I have a hard time seeing them past your typical tactic of discrediting anything an LDS prophet says for other things he said.
That and the fact that you discredit the use of any scripture or any quote and the use of praying about something to receive an answer. But, we should, of course, rely on your interpretation of what God says and thinks.
Says God: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, which I interpret to mean, Don't worry about petty earthly political affairs . . .God says don't worry about politics.
Let's explore this a bit. Anon David assumes that God does not want His followers to worry about or be involved in politics. That means that every person who listens to and believes in God would withdraw from the political debate and leave only those who do NOT believe in God. So, all the voting, law-making, etc. involved in politics would be done by those who reject God. I am sorry, but I just don't believe that God loves me that little to leave the future of me and my family up to people who reject Him. And I don't believe that he loves you (Anon David) so little that He would only give a say to people who do listen to Him. I think He loves us enough to give us a system where we have a voice, where we can be represented. So, I have to agree with President Benson that we have a responsibility to strengthen and safeguard our freedom and constitution.
(However, I can see why it would be convenient for you to feel otherwise and to try to convince God-fearing people that God doesn't want them involved. We are so pesky getting involved in things like trying to dismantle traditional marriage, providing abortions to children as young as twelve without parental consent or delivering unwanted babies enough to kill them before delivering them the rest of the way. What a pain in the butt we are.)
Sorry for all the comments (and the threadjack), but I think as I go. Let's couple this assertion that God wants His followers to withdraw from politics with Anon David's assertion that true Christians should not save for retirement or college education for their children or own a home. The picture you are painting, Anon David, would leave true Christians penniless and powerless in a world where they are being increasingly outnumbered by others who wish to take away their freedoms. How very convenient for you, but I don't believe that is the Lord's plan.
That's not to say that in Zion, or under Christ's rule, that things won't be different. They will. We won't have to worry about government. The law of consecration will be in effect for everyone (not just the temple endowed), so the system will run differently in a way that we won't need to worry about protecting ourselves and our families. Currently, we are still in the "lone and dreary wilderness". So, instead of just giving us Christ's pure teachings that apply to a Zion society and expecting us to live them (while getting slaughtered by society), the Lord gives us prophets to tell us what we need to know today. Benson is a good example of that.
The United Order was given to the Saints and then withdrawn because of their wickedness. Was it withdrawn to protect the wicked? I don't think so. I think it was withdrawn because it would hurt the people who were truly living the commandment. I think the Lord loves us enough to give us the commandments and give us current revelation and all the information and tools available to further His work while protecting our families.
Tim, thank you for this post. I think it is excellent. While I do agree with Anon David that Satan wasn't necessarily a propagandist in the Garden of Eden (mostly because it was all part of the plan and the joke was on him), I agree with pretty much everything else you said, and I appreciate the quotes.
Conservatives, listen up, we've already lost! The moment that John McCain became the Republican nominee, we lost representation. Even if he wins in November, we already lost. We need to start looking forward. We need to prepare for next time. Get involved at the local level. Use the principles outlined in this post to vote for good leaders locally. Let's stop this cycle!
Yup--conservatives have already lost, at least when it comes to gay marriage. Like it or not, it's the wave of the future, and the Church will not be able to stop it, though it might be able to slow it down a bit. Just today, gay marriage became legal in Connecticut.
In the words of Leonard Cohen, "Democracy is coming / to the U.S.A."
--David
Note how it became legal - in the courts. Not through the voice of the people, but through a few activist judges. Even the legislature plans to fight it.
And my apologies for attributing Tim's post to Stephanie. I guess when I got to the end I'd forgotten about the beginning.
As for my interpretation of scripture, I claim only that it's my interpretation, and ask only that you claim no more than that for your interpretations. And I never said you should not practice politics. What I took issue with was the idea that God commands us to concern ourselves with politics. That's contraindicated by the "Caesar" passage.
--David
P.S. Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia came via the courts as well. Is it not at least possible that the courts might have more wisdom than the people?
Is it not at least possible that the courts might have more wisdom than the people?
You are not the first liberal to use this argument. I think not because it assumes that a few people know more and are smarter than the masses. It concentrates power into the hands of a few, and I don't believe that is how it should be. I believe we should be governed by the voice of the people.
What I took issue with was the idea that God commands us to concern ourselves with politics. That's contraindicated by the "Caesar" passage.
Well, that's contraindicated by your interpretation and application of the Caesar passage.
It's fine to "believe we should be governed by the voice of the people." (However, you're definitely not a conservative on this point. And I'm wondering if you've completely thought through the implications of government "by the voice of the people." Think of what that meant in 1838 in Missouri. I doubt that Lilburn Boggs would have let any prissy Supreme Court get between the mob, er I mean the people, and Haun's Mill, because as we all know, the people know best....) But however much you might prefer a straight democracy, the fact remains that Connecticut's constitution (like the federal one) limits the people's power to use government to disadvantage minorities. Insofar as it limits what government can do, it embodies the essence of conservatism.
--David
Adam and Eve did surely die. At least they are not living in my neighborhood, are they living in any of your neighborhoods?
Also, it has always been my understanding that the "Render unto Cesar's" line refers specifically to money and taxes.
To expand the interpretation to include political activities is the application of creative interpretation.
There is a difference between personal revelation and creative interpretation - the source.
Vic
Vic, you write, "Adam and Eve did surely die. At least they are not living in my neighborhood, are they living in any of your neighborhoods?"
But the text says, "for IN THE DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam and Eve didn't die "in that day." Ergo your observations about their current residence are, to put it mildly, irrelevant.
You also contend that I "expand" my interpretation of the scripture. I can't resist pointing out that perhaps the best examples of expansive "creative interpretations" are the Mormon scriptures themselves, in which Joseph Smith amplifies figures like Noah, Abraham, and Moses beyond the wildest dreams of pretty much any other exegete who ever puzzled over the Bible.
Says Noah, according to Smith, "Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." So, thousands of years before the onset of American backwoods revivalism, Noah was a Christian preacher addressing the ancient world as if he were Marjoe! Who knew?
Says Abraham, according to Smith, "thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land," the race "by which he [Pharaoh] could not have the right of Priesthood." So God really was the author of the Hamitic myth of black inferiority! Again, who knew? Just when the rest of the world was starting to see this theory for the white-supremacist bunkum it was, the brilliant exegete who founded your church saw fit to enshrine it for all time in his scripture.
And you denigrate my interpretation?
--David
Dear David:
There are some things I like about Mormons
1. They seek the truth of all things
2. They see the humor in all things
3. They seek not to offend.
3. They do not seek offense where none was intended.
4. They differ without being bitter.
4. They stay on topic. (Well maybe this one is a stretch)
That the term "day" means more than just a period of 24 hours makes my statement relevant. Definition from dictionary.com - Day:period of existence, power, or influence: as in "the day of the dinosaurs."
That you use the term "your church" makes me realise you may not be pleased if I addressed you as Brother David. So I will address you as Dear David, in the spirit of a quote from a previous blog: from President Eyring - "Skillful peacemakers search for anything on which opposing parties agree. I once served on a city council, and my overarching goal was to set an example of decorum."
When Senators debate they use the term "my friend" while presenting their argument to their opponent. I like to think that this simple act is one of the things that has helped our country last as long as it has. Wouldn't it be nice if PoliticaLDS lasts as long as this country has?
That you use the term "your church" also makes me wonder if your name really is David, as I have heard that term used before, my friend. Of course I could be wrong. On that I think we can agree! Perhaps, David, there is another title you would prefer? If so please let me know and I will be happy to oblige.
That you think my comments deride your interpretation is another example of creative interpretation.
Conversations can be had simply for the sake of enjoying the conversation with malice towards none.
You said:
"As for my interpretation of scripture, I claim only that it's my interpretation, and ask only that you claim no more than that for your interpretations."
So I again state: The difference between Personal Revelation and creative interpretation is their source. My belief being that the source of Personal Revelation is God. I do not claim my Personal Revelation is for everyone - hence the term "personal."
I'll be sure and let you know if I am ever made Prophet though, because then my revelations may count for more - hence the term "Prophetic Revelation."
May I refer to one of the scriptures that I take comfort in: Doctrine & Covenants 59: 21
"And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments."
So, in my effort to not offend God
(for MY interpretation of this scripture let's ME know He is pretty to hard to offend)
as I contemplate things I consider source.
Vic
That I might get back on the topic of this post -
Tim, very nice post, I thoroughly appreciate the argument you presented. I have been involved in numerous third party campaigns and have lost all of the campaigns even with the financial support of then President Benson (as a private citizen)
A perfect example of this is the "Your Choice for President" election that is taking place here on PoliticaLDS. Obama is winning by a small margin. A small margin though is large enough for him to become President of the United States. But if the votes that the conservatives are splitting up between the other third party candidates were united under one candidate the results would be different.
Today many of the national mainstream politicians are saying what the third party candidates were saying 30 years ago. So there is a time and place to support third party candidates. It is gratifying to hear what we were saying then being promoted on the national airwaves now. However it would have been more gratifying not to have the likes of Clinton as President because the conservatives split their vote over Pero. I've seen a split vote get the opposing party into office so many times.
There is personal accountability if your vote allows or causes the opposing party to win. There is a time and place for everything. There is a time to stand United. What's the old saying: United We Stand Divided We Fall. That is as true this election as it ever was. This is the time to be wise. The term "justifies" is used in the scriptures about politics for a reason. The Lord knows we are in imperfect times with imperfect people.
Work locally to promote your cause. Befriend nationally those who are going in the right direction of your causes even though their path is wider than yours. Be Wise.
Voter Vic
Thou shalt surely die - aka - thou surely shalt die - meaning death becomes an assurity on that day. Regardless of the Biblical Fable, LDS have plenty of reason for equating the serpent with Satan.
David, you're very logical - I appreciate your logic, and I happen to agree with some of your conclusions - indeed the Serpent did not lie (neither did God). However, from the text, the serpent was not up front either - genesis 3:1's reading of "the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts of the field..." in fact is a poor translation and should read, "the serpent was the most CRAFTY of all the beasts of the field." - Not "the serpent was the most upfront honest chap, with the people's best intrests ant heart..." No matter what one thinks of the story, its pretty plain to me (and to the Rabbis) what the Deuteronomists were trying to purvey when the compiled Genesis for the Torah.
It seems that you missed the point of the post - that is that there IS alot of propaganda out there, and that we SHOULD sift through it and find the best candidate. Whats wrong with that? Or did you just want to point out the problem with quoting scripture....to alot of scripture quoting christians?
re. David's complaining about JS's apperantly pre-christian Christian Noah. Sounds a bit funny, but what if you read it like this? "believe and repent of your sins and take upon you the clensing initiatory ritual in the name of Jehovah, who will be with us as the Annointed One." That at least brings Noah back into the language of Old Testament Prophets - - who are responsible for our understanding of Noah in the first place(regardless of when Noah lived - so I'm comfortable with Noah sounding like an OT prophet) - and I didn't even change the wording - just interpreted the greek word "Baptised", "Jesus," and "Christ." "Jesus is from the Hebrew Yehoshua (Jehovah is (will be) with us) and Christ is the Hellenization of Messiah (Annointed One). And for convenience, JS decided to keep it simple - thus "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." I, personally, prefer my reading - but they have the same meaning either way.
And regarding your sarcastic interpretation of JS's "Hamitic" doctrine - most primitive foundation myths are full of absurdities (especially a Hebrew one that is hell bent on proving the superiority of the Hebrew People above all others). So, this concepts seems to lend authenticity to JS's Abraham. In other words, its the writer of Abraham's "Hebrew" explaination of why Hebrews are better than Egyptians.
Anyways, be all that as it may, Tim has a very valid point, and I appreciate it. I will be voiting for someone other than the two main candidates (maybe thats just because I'm cool and edgy) and I'd encourage you all to do the same. Thanks Tim.
Rick, none of us needs to know how you'll vote to know you're cool and edgy.... ;-)
And I appreciate (and largely agree with!) your comments on the scriptures. I would only add one thing to your observation that, while "indeed the Serpent did not lie (neither did God)...the serpent was not up front either." That's true enough--but God was also not wholly up front, if, as one commenter suggested, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" really meant something as esoteric as "in that day death will become a reality, even if you won't actually die for a long, long time."
Voter Vic, I agree with you when you write, "There is a time to stand United." So let's all unite behind Obama! The need for unity does not tell us whom to unite behind. And there's more than one way to be "united." We can all be "united" behind the concept of free and fair elections, for example, rather than united behind any particular candidate or issue. In that sense, you and I are already united. As long as we are all united behind the process, our political differences pose no threat to the country. In any event, in a democratic republic like ours, the time to unite behind a leader is after the leader has been elected, not before!
I'm told I should believe that "[t]he difference between Personal Revelation and creative interpretation is their source. My belief being that the source of Personal Revelation is God. I do not claim my Personal Revelation is for everyone - hence the term 'personal.'"
So it's not that your personal revelation comes from God, but that you believe your personal revelation comes from God. A belief that comes from within you leads you to believe your belief does not come from within you (but from outside of you). Thus does the snake eat its own tail.
I know, Rick. I'm being too logical. Please accept my apologies.
--David
stephanie, will you come over and join the discussion at my blog.
i'd like to hear your pov.
thanks
I think this article has convinced me to vote for McCain. As much as I dislike the thought, I think the consequences of an Obama presidency are just too great. And, of course, being in Texas, it won't really matter who I vote for, but I don't want to aid Obama at all. So, I think I will have to go ahead and go with the "lesser of two evils". [shoulders slumped]
Post a Comment