Non Christian thought

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If you don’t have a reading comprehension problem, why were you making false claims? And this is not the first time we have tangled. You attack me all the time.

You have at least as much of a reading comprehension problem as what you accuse me of. The hypocrisy charge stands.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You have at least as much of a reading comprehension problem as what you accuse me of. The hypocrisy charge stands.

Uh huh. You can’t admit you are wrong. You are arguing in bad faith. Now I know not to take you seriously and I’ll stop wasting my time.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Uh huh. You can’t admit you are wrong. You are arguing in bad faith. Now I know not to take you seriously and I’ll stop wasting my time.

Oh, bosh. You are only making it worse with all that nonsense. I wasn't wrong that you were whining about having to track down links, nor more to the point that you failed to provide a direct source link when you posted your own article, but that is neither here nor there here.

The point is that you are equally offensive whether you admit it or not. If you want to go down that road of correction you will first have to do a lot of apologizing yourself. Personally, I'm not interested. If you really want to be 'holier than thou' rather than merely try to sound like it, then it would be better to just overlook the offense rather than try to hypocritically cite someone else.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are mixing a number of different viewpoints together as if they have a common source.

“Atheism” is a religious point of view, making a theological claim — “there is no god or gods,” which is usually held in opposition to a religious view claiming the existence of a god or gods.

“Secularism” usually refers to the belief that civil government should be separate from religion (separation of church and state). It may or may not have a religious element. For instance, Baptists are traditionally secularists because of their religious conviction. There are those who are secularists because they see the wisdom in the position and may not be influenced by any religious notions. I am a secularist for both religious and non-religious reasons.

“Naturalism” is a vague term, but the most basic viewpoint holds to empiricism, the belief that all knowledge comes exclusively from sense experience. That does not rule out a god or gods, but requires all gods to be experienced through the senses (like when Jesus embarked on his ministry). It is not a religious view, but a reductionist epistemology.

“Scientism” (usually a term used to criticize) refers to methodological empiricism, using the various adaptations of the scientific method in areas beyond science, especially in regard to religious viewpoints. It is not a religion, but a philosophical and epistemological viewpoint.

Atheism is a religious viewpoint. Secularism is sometimes a religious viewpoint, but often not. Naturalism and scientist are not religious viewpoints, but they can be influenced by religious presuppositions.

Does that clear it up for you?

Well, your condescension aside, you clarified and muddied at the same time. I'm not intending to mix them, but to associate them, and for good reason.

Sure, there are differing definitions of these terms. But in this context, they all indicate a theological position, a generally atheistic one, and thus a religious one.

The Scientism to which I refer is not about being a scientist, but about imagining that science can answer all important questions. Those in this category deny the supernatural and dismiss the important questions that science cannot answer as unimportant, silly, or nonsensical. It is decidedly religious in nature.

Naturalism, while not necessarily philosophically the exact same as Materialism (which can be added to the list), is close enough in theological terms. They both hold that the natural or material world is all there is, that is, they deny the supernatural. Again, religious in nature.

Secularism isn't in Webster's 1828, but Merriam-Webster says it means "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations." But that hardly does it justice as it promotes atheistic tendencies or denial of the supernatural. Both observations make it decidedly religious. Sometimes this term stands for Secular Humanism, but with the same general effect.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

... Here’s a link. It is well worth reading. ...

OK, I had a chance to take a closer look at the full speech. In that 1920 speech, brother Truett sounds as typically deluded and politically misguided as anyone else. He seems hellbent on establishing the League of Nations, evidently imagining worldly world peace possible and naïvely proclaims prohibition a permanent American establishment. His ideas of freedom of religion and conscience do not at all include freedom from Christian moral standards. In fact, he seems to include Christians almost exclusively in his vision of America.

However, his ideas of democracy and freedom encompass the world, a world that acknowledges neither of those nor the Christianity he credits with promoting them. While his lofty, eloquent enthusiasm was likely inspiring at the time, he seems not unaware yet too ignorant of the evil forces at work in the world. He would live to see the advent of radio, the devastation of the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, and perhaps the US entrance into WWII, but easy references to his political beliefs seem scant.

That said, the following may contain some fair assessment, and is from a link which you may even favor generally, but which I most certainly do not. It paints a much different picture of Truett politically than one might imagine from your linked speech.

Truett established First Baptist’s tradition of politically involved preachers. As Dallas grew from a sleepy backwater of about 10,000 inhabitants in 1880 to a bustling regional epicenter of almost 160,000 in 1920, Truett feared that an increasingly diverse population of African Americans, Italians, Latino/as, Jews, and Catholics would transform the city into Babylon on the Trinity River.

Between 1911 and 1925, he repeatedly warned that the United States was “menaced by our vast and fast-growing cities,” which had become dens of “lawlessness.” Urban centers drew “the alien populations of the world with their strange customs and beliefs and ideals and sentimentalisms.” He charged that Catholic immigrants rejected separation of church and state and were secretly plotting papal control of the American government.

You Get What You Pray For​

 

[Baptist Believer]

OK, I had a chance to take a closer look at the full speech. In that 1920 speech, brother Truett sounds as typically deluded and politically misguided as anyone else.

First, thank you for actually reading the speech. Many people do not take the time to do their homework. I appreciate that you did.

The views that Truett expressed regarding separation of church and state are squarely in the mainstream of historic Baptist theology and thinking, from the very beginning of the Baptist movement. If you think his view of separation of church and state is “deluded and politically misguided,” then perhaps you should not identify as Baptist.

He seems hellbent on establishing the League of Nations, evidently imagining worldly world peace possible…

They had just lived through the horror of the first mechanized modern war with poison gas and a worldwide pandemic coming at the end of it. It was clear to most people that nations needed to find a better way to solve disputes and work together to solve problems of mutual concern, like pandemics. I don’t know if he truly believed that universal world peace was possible, but I think it is fair to say that the United Nations has helped prevent some wars, as well as helped nations work together to fight famine and promote healthcare around the world. You may not agree, but that is beside the point for the purposes of our discussion.

…and naïvely proclaims prohibition a permanent American establishment.

Yes. Baptists had a lot to do with the passage of Prohibition, but it was a failed movement precisely because it imposed a morality without winning the hearts and minds of the public. The anti-abortion movement is trying to move down the same path by hoping to change laws, but throwing away moral credibility and influence in hopes of merely changing what is legal. But again, that is beside the point.

His ideas of freedom of religion and conscience do not at all include freedom from Christian moral standards. In fact, he seems to include Christians almost exclusively in his vision of America.

You need to remember that he is preaching to a crowd primarily composed of Baptists who were meeting in Washington, DC. His words are for the body of Christ. As a pastor, he is exhorting his audience to live the gospel in word and deed, because it is aligned with truth (reality) and will bear fruit inside and outside the church.

However, his ideas of democracy and freedom encompass the world, a world that acknowledges neither of those nor the Christianity he credits with promoting them. While his lofty, eloquent enthusiasm was likely inspiring at the time, he seems not unaware yet too ignorant of the evil forces at work in the world. He would live to see the advent of radio, the devastation of the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, and perhaps the US entrance into WWII, but easy references to his political beliefs seem scant.

He was a man of his time. He did not know the future, but he did know the past and present. But that is beside the point. His view of separation of church and state is founded in Baptist convictions and interpretations of scripture. He was quite aware that the first human government established with separation of church and state (Rhode Island) was founded by the Baptist, Roger Williams. Rhode Island immediately became a refuge for atheists, Jews, and religious dissidents from other colonies, as well as people from Europe. He also knew well that Thomas Jefferson, a key ally in the struggle for religious liberty in Virginia (see the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”) and the First Amendment, was not a Christian in any biblical sense. But he knew the power of the gospel, and knew that mixing of the gospel with the power of the state damaged both.

That said, the following may contain some fair assessment, and is from a link which you may even favor generally, but which I most certainly do not.

I do not favor it.

It paints a much different picture of Truett politically than one might imagine from your linked speech.

It is harsher toward Truett than I would be. As I wrote previously, he was a man of his time. He grew up in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and in the midst of Reconstruction (which was not as heavy in Texas – that’s why my paternal ancestors moved here) and in the Jim Crow, heavily segregated South. By today’s standards, he would be demonized as a racist because of his paternalistic viewpoint, but he was quite a bit better than most in this area.

… He charged that Catholic immigrants rejected separation of church and state and were secretly plotting papal control of the American government.

Yes, that was a huge concern at the time, due to the push of Roman Catholic groups who advocated for religious dominance in the United States. Some of the concern was based on very real attempts by the Knights of Columbus to introduce sectarian views into school classrooms, as well as get government funding of private Catholic schools and academies, as well as a lot of fear about the large number of Roman Catholic immigrants who had come into the nation who did not necessarily agree with the premise of separation of church and state.

I did not post Truett’s sermon for the purpose of exalting Truett, I posted it to show you what Baptists believed more than 100 years ago about separation of church and state, since many revisionist historians want modern Baptists to believe that separation of church and state was something the Supreme Court cooked up in the 1940s-1960s. If you go back and read the relevant Supreme Court opinions regarding church and state, you will see that the cite the same history that Truett cites.

All that to say, the document cited by the OP would be well-received by Baptists who hold historic Baptist convictions on religious liberty.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First, thank you for actually reading the speech. Many people do not take the time to do their homework. I appreciate that you did.

The views that Truett expressed regarding separation of church and state are squarely in the mainstream of historic Baptist theology and thinking, from the very beginning of the Baptist movement. If you think his view of separation of church and state is “deluded and politically misguided,” then perhaps you should not identify as Baptist.

They had just lived through the horror of the first mechanized modern war with poison gas and a worldwide pandemic coming at the end of it. It was clear to most people that nations needed to find a better way to solve disputes and work together to solve problems of mutual concern, like pandemics. I don’t know if he truly believed that universal world peace was possible, but I think it is fair to say that the United Nations has helped prevent some wars, as well as helped nations work together to fight famine and promote healthcare around the world. You may not agree, but that is beside the point for the purposes of our discussion.

Yes. Baptists had a lot to do with the passage of Prohibition, but it was a failed movement precisely because it imposed a morality without winning the hearts and minds of the public. The anti-abortion movement is trying to move down the same path by hoping to change laws, but throwing away moral credibility and influence in hopes of merely changing what is legal. But again, that is beside the point.

You need to remember that he is preaching to a crowd primarily composed of Baptists who were meeting in Washington, DC. His words are for the body of Christ. As a pastor, he is exhorting his audience to live the gospel in word and deed, because it is aligned with truth (reality) and will bear fruit inside and outside the church.

He was a man of his time. He did not know the future, but he did know the past and present. But that is beside the point. His view of separation of church and state is founded in Baptist convictions and interpretations of scripture. He was quite aware that the first human government established with separation of church and state (Rhode Island) was founded by the Baptist, Roger Williams. Rhode Island immediately became a refuge for atheists, Jews, and religious dissidents from other colonies, as well as people from Europe. He also knew well that Thomas Jefferson, a key ally in the struggle for religious liberty in Virginia (see the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”) and the First Amendment, was not a Christian in any biblical sense. But he knew the power of the gospel, and knew that mixing of the gospel with the power of the state damaged both.

I do not favor it. It is harsher toward Truett than I would be. As I wrote previously, he was a man of his time. He grew up in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and in the midst of Reconstruction (which was not as heavy in Texas – that’s why my paternal ancestors moved here) and in the Jim Crow, heavily segregated South. By today’s standards, he would be demonized as a racist because of his paternalistic viewpoint, but he was quite a bit better than most in this area.

Yes, that was a huge concern at the time, due to the push of Roman Catholic groups who advocated for religious dominance in the United States. Some of the concern was based on very real attempts by the Knights of Columbus to introduce sectarian views into school classrooms, as well as get government funding of private Catholic schools and academies, as well as a lot of fear about the large number of Roman Catholic immigrants who had come into the nation who did not necessarily agree with the premise of separation of church and state.

I did not post Truett’s sermon for the purpose of exalting Truett, I posted it to show you what Baptists believed more than 100 years ago about separation of church and state, since many revisionist historians want modern Baptists to believe that separation of church and state was something the Supreme Court cooked up in the 1940s-1960s. If you go back and read the relevant Supreme Court opinions regarding church and state, you will see that the cite the same history that Truett cites.

All that to say, the document cited by the OP would be well-received by Baptists who hold historic Baptist convictions on religious liberty.

I didn't read the speech for your sake, but to get at the truth, which is quite different than your original linked article tried to portray. In the actual speech, Truett's position on religious freedom compared to separation of church and state is quite different than what you would have it be. His positions on the Prohibition Amendment and the League of Nations would be prime examples, but there are other points.

Also, I know you like to attack me instead of addressing the issues, but you youself seem to be sadly deluded about what it means to be Baptist if you think that one must hold to your opinion on Truett's position regarding religious freedom compared to separation of church and state. It is not nearly as antichrist as you and the secularists would portray it. His deep concerns about RCC influence during his time could easily translate to concern about atheistic influences in our own.

And finally, you did not initially post Truett's speech at all, but only a cherrypicking article. It was like pulling eyeteeth to get you to link it. First, you acted like you didn't even know what I was talking about when I noted you'd failed to link it; you even insisted you had already linked it; then you got all offended about it. But thanks for finally linking it. Perhaps you would've linked it earlier had your reading comprehension been sufficient, or if you had really cared for others to see the truth for themselves.

 

[Baptist Believer]

PART 1 OF 2

I didn't read the speech for your sake, but to get at the truth…

That’s what you should do. I was just thanking you for obviously doing your part in our discussion. If that offends you, please ignore any expression of friendliness or generosity of spirit.

…which is quite different than your original linked article tried to portray.

For anyone who is trying to follow this discussion, the “original linked article,” which is actually a series of excerpts from George W. Truett’s address (without commentary) is here. George W. Truett’s full address, is here.

…In the actual speech, Truett's position on religious freedom compared to separation of church and state is quite different than what you would have it be.

I have to wonder why you would think such a thing. I agree with Truett on the issue of separation of church and state. I suspect you have made unwarranted assumptions about what I believe.

…His positions on the Prohibition Amendment and the League of Nations would be prime examples, but there are other points.

I hate to break it to you, but Prohibition and the League of Nations are not traditionally religious liberty issues, and certainly have nothing to do with separation of church and state. You obviously don’t like his political perspective. I also disagree with him. But differing with him on issues of his day is not a distortion of his view of separation of church and state.

…Also, I know you like to attack me instead of addressing the issues, but you youself seem to be sadly deluded about what it means to be Baptist if you think that one must hold to your opinion on Truett's position...

No. I am in complete debt to my Baptist forebearers for my viewpoint. I came to the Baptist view in the late 1980s, with the suspicion that separation of church and state was unbiblical. I examined the Baptist position and it made sense with my own study of scripture and convinced me. In the early 1990s, I took a class in seminary entitled “Church and State” and we went through an entire semester reading translations of primary sources, as well as primary sources in English, tracking the progression of Baptist thought on the issue, as well as contrary viewpoints through the ages. We paid particular attention to the religious situation in the American colonies, the War for Independence, and the development of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment. We also read several of the major foundational religious liberty Supreme Court cases throughout the years and discussed the merits of them in class. Immediately after finals that Spring semester, an elder in my church at the time, presented David Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage” video and heard/saw him misquote the First Amendment, select only quotes that supported his viewpoint, and even present distorted versions of Supreme Court cases to mislead. In reaction to that, I had to put together information to bring before the pastor and the elders to show that Barton’s teaching was deception. I did so, but my interest in the subject, and the real need to be a resource to others about this important biblical doctrine of religious liberty has kept me researching and following developments in this field of doctrine and history.

Therefore, I don’t demand that you agree with me, but I am simply trying to point you to a body of truth that our Baptist forebearers struggled and died for.

(continued)

 

[Baptist Believer]

PART 2 OF 2

…regarding religious freedom compared to separation of church and state.

You seem to think there is a difference. A society cannot have religious freedom without allowing citizens to practice a religion of their choice, or practice no religion, according to their choice, without penalties or disadvantages imposed on them. And true religious liberty does not provide favor or advantage upon certain religious viewpoints or irreligious viewpoints. The government must maintain neutrality. As Roger Williams, the Baptist founder of Rhode Island, famously wrote in a 1644 letter (see page 45) of a “hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” Thomas Jefferson, responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, purposely echoed Roger Williams’ words regarding religious liberty, wrote “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Both sides of their correspondence can be found here.

…It is not nearly as antichrist as you and the secularists would portray it.

Since I have NEVER portrayed it as “antichrist,” you can be assured that you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me. The Baptist viewpoint on religious liberty and separation of church and state (my view) literally flows out of the teachings of Jesus. If I was going to call something in this realm “antichrist,” I would call David Barton’s historical revisionism and the “Christian nationalist” movement “antichrist,” since they go directly against the teachings of Jesus.

…His deep concerns about RCC influence during his time could easily translate to concern about atheistic influences in our own.

That’s a bit of a stretch, but I need to point out that the government’s position is to be neutral toward religious belief/nonbelief. For anyone to mandate atheism would be a violation of separation of church and state.

…And finally, you did not initially post Truett's speech at all, but only a cherrypicking article. It was like pulling eyeteeth to get you to link it. First, you acted like you didn't even know what I was talking about…

Because I didn’t. I said so.

I only finally see, with this message, that you were referring back to the Truett address, not the document in the OP. What confused me was your characterization of me “whining” when I praised the OP for providing the link. Furthermore, I assumed you would know how to find the full text of Truett’s address by using a search engine, if you were interested in it. And beyond all of that, I was expecting you to actually respond to your weird assertion that “The 'separation of church and state' is a Marxist expression." I asked you about it, and you dodged it. You wouldn't back it up, so you decided to change the subject and attack me by falsely claiming that I was "whining about others not providing links to source documents." So get off your high and mighty throne. When someone is telling falsehoods about me, I try not to assume that they are a malevolent troll, but perhaps someone who may have a reading comprehension problem. I was trying to assume the best.

…when I noted you'd failed to link it; you even insisted you had already linked it; then you got all offended about it.

Yes, because you lied about me. I wasn't "whining," I was praising. But apparently you don't (or won't) understand that because you needed to rapidly backpedal away from your 'separation of church and state is Marxism' nonsense.

…But thanks for finally linking it. Perhaps you would've linked it earlier had your reading comprehension been sufficient, or if you had really cared for others to see the truth for themselves.

Perhaps if you had not been dodging questions and asserting hypocrisy, I would have understood your meaning. And you assertion that ‘I didn’t really care for others to see the truth for themselves’ is just about the most offensive thing I have ever read here. I spend way more time that I should trying to help people see things for themselves. Yet you assert that I have portrayed ‘my view’ of separation of church and state as antichrist. If you were a knowledgeable Baptist you would never have made that assertion.

There is a widely disseminated statement among Baptist groups that explain the eight distinctives of the Baptist movement. You can find it among diverse Baptists, for instance, Regular Baptists, some allegedly 1611 KJV-Only Baptists, Canadian Baptists, and a generic Baptist site all say the same thing. (I am only citing the first seven distinctives and providing the full eighth distinctive, Separation of Church and State, to demonstrate that this is currently in the mainstream of Baptist life):

What Are the Eight Baptist Distinctives?

Biblical Authority

Autonomy of the Local Church

Priesthood of the Believer

Two Ordinances

Individual Soul Liberty

Saved, Baptized Church Membership

Two Offices

Separation of Church and State
God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government’s purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1–7 and the church’s purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
Matthew 22:15–22; Acts 5:17–29

And for better or worse (I believe the better), Southern Baptists (including George W. Truett) have been clear on this point:

Baptist Faith and Message confession
The statement on religious liberty has remained the same since the first confession written in 1925.

XVIII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and he has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to his Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to the church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

For further study, read the First Amendment Encyclopedia's article on Baptists.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

PART 1 OF 2
That’s what you should do. I was just thanking you for obviously doing your part in our discussion. If that offends you, please ignore any expression of friendliness or generosity of spirit.

For anyone who is trying to follow this discussion, the “original linked article,” which is actually a series of excerpts from George W. Truett’s address (without commentary) is here. George W. Truett’s full address, is here. …

I have to wonder why you would think such a thing. I agree with Truett on the issue of separation of church and state. I suspect you have made unwarranted assumptions about what I believe. …

Therefore, I don’t demand that you agree with me, but I am simply trying to point you to a body of truth that our Baptist forebearers struggled and died for.

PART 2 OF 2
You seem to think there is a difference. A society cannot have religious freedom without allowing citizens to practice a religion of their choice, or practice no religion, according to their choice, without penalties or disadvantages imposed on them. And true religious liberty does not provide favor or advantage upon certain religious viewpoints or irreligious viewpoints. The government must maintain neutrality. Since I have NEVER portrayed it as “antichrist,” you can be assured that you have COMPLETELY misunderstood me. …

I only finally see, with this message, that you were referring back to the Truett address, not the document in the OP. …

So get off your high and mighty throne. When someone is telling falsehoods about me, I try not to assume that they are a malevolent troll, but perhaps someone who may have a reading comprehension problem. ...

Yes, because you lied about me. I wasn't "whining," I was praising. But apparently you don't (or won't) understand that because you needed to rapidly backpedal away from your 'separation of church and state is Marxism' nonsense. …

Perhaps if you had not been dodging questions and asserting hypocrisy, I would have understood your meaning. …

You are flat out wrong about my own position regarding religious freedom and separation of Church and State. By your own standards, it would seem this is because you make too many baseless assumptions. But more on “your own standards” later.

You seem to simultaneously admit and deny the truth of Truett’s full stance on religious freedom and separation of church and state, which seems rather clear from his full speech, though not from your original cherrypicking article on it, and does not align with the stance you have been pushing in this thread. Regardless of details, I would consider his stance much closer to my own.

But an entire century has transpired since that speech, and so many changes have occurred in our country that comparing apples to apples is admittedly difficult here. Government has encroached ever more deeply and forcefully, especially at the federal level, into the lives of individuals and communities, and exacted so many more taxes for the purpose, that perhaps Truett would be shocked at the state of both the State and the Church today.

Suffice it to say that if you agree with Truett and the Baptists of his day that Christians have an obligation to Christ, the State, and the World to lobby for laws (e.g., Prohibition Amendment) and legal organizations (e.g., League of Nations) that oppose godlessness and impose godly morality on the populace and on governments, then perhaps you do align with his position on religious freedom and separation of Church and State after all.

However, you seem to vehemently disagree with his interpretation of those concepts in certain contexts. You seem to part company with him at some particularly important points of practical application which this discussion has been about. Ultimately, you seem to favor more of a Marxist or atheistic interpretation, as I’ve already clarified, yet you continue to lyingly say I’m dodging on that.

In this vein, you also seem to simultaneously admit and deny that atheism is a religious position just as is Christianity, though they are with opposite intents and purposes, the former being decidedly antichrist and been able to gain nearly de facto State Church status through its masquerading as merely “secular” in all its forms. I don’t mean that you are consciously trying to promote such an antichrist agenda, only that your approach is in fact doing that. You seem dangerously blind to this fact, or this effect.

As far as offense, you continually maintain a condescending air, as if you imagine you have a corner on the truth, because you imagine you have analyzed matters absolutely, so cannot learn only teach. You accuse me of poor reading comprehension but regularly exhibit a remarkable lack yourself. You accuse me of being deluded but exhibit the very thing that would demand your own judgment, and the same goes for your “high and mighty throne” comment. It is high time you dismounted. You are not in such a unique position to teach others how or what to think as you imagine. And your constant condescension and many insults simply won’t be interpreted as friendly. I could overlook them but will not for now, because you have chosen to make such an issue of offenses as if you aren’t very offensive. But, brother, you are. Very.