|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Help us preserve David’s legacy: HERE.]
Editors’ note: As all of us grieve the passing of our Center’s founder, David Horowitz, we reflect on many of the monumental moments of his incredible life. One of those moments was his appearance on the PBS interview show Charlie Rose in 1997, when he discussed his new (at that time) memoir, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey, and his journey out of the belly of the leftist beast. The interview reveals the fascinating and profound mind of the young David — and his incisive and deadly accurate understanding of the evil Marxist idea.
Make sure to watch.
Original Sin? I doubt such an intelligent man took that irrational and evil doctrine literally.
If man is born evil then he cannot be trusted with freedom and liberty he requires to be put on a leash a moral elite, a priesthood, a theocracy is necessary to ride roughshod over the evil impulses of such a dangerous creature.
You are the embodiment of original sin.
I’m glad you shot him down by pointing to the sin every newborn has already committed. Is it murder? Adultery? Chewing gum in class? Ignoring inconvenient facts in a comment section? Maybe farting in the womb?
Having attended Catholic school–did you find the name of that school in your research?–I was taught the concept of original sin. Once I was old enough to give it more intelligent thought, I realized it was a dumb concept. Ditto for “limbo.”
I’m not surprised that you didn’t remotely understand what I was talking about. But your new boyfriend obviously does and, for now has chosen to keep his mouth shut.
You don’t seem to know when to do that. So what do you give us? Lame childish insults like “ignoring inconvenient facts.” Which facts? Your facts? You should stop thinking that, somehow, we can benefit from your “instruction”
“Intelligent people will recognize you don’t refute points.” — Ritchie Johnston.
“It also doesn’t have many commenters who think juvenile name-calling is a good substitute for a sound argument.” — Ritchie Johnston.
Maybe you should take your own advice. If this is how you condescendingly treat your students, no wonder you haven’t moved on to a real university.
Oh, you came here for “refutation and an elevated sound argument.” A give and take as it were. How silly of me. Maybe you should hide out at the WSJ website if you are looking for a “sound argument” and “intelligent” people of your supposed caliber.
This is a comment board, not your dink college classroom, shmuck face. It’s also not a college debating society where pressed trousers and the Marquis of Queensbury rules exist.
That’s all you got? “You are the embodiment of original sin.” Where would that go on the Stupidometer? We’re still waiting. What sin has a newborn already committed? SILENCE!
I laugh when you have to resort to “your facts” as if the facts I present are just opinions. You make liberals proud with that tactic. Is it a fact babies are born with original sin? Did Trump address the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare or not? Did he give us President Biden with a Dem Congress or not? Let the prevaricating and gay jokes commence.
As for my boyfriend, c’mon, tell us about your married life. C’mon, tell us about your marriage. I got a guess about it..
Speculating about how I treat my students? Apparently, since they voted me Professor of the Year in three of my first four years, they must not find me too condescending.
I will continue to enjoy this. Your conspicuously unsuccessful attempt to denigrate my career is entertaining. Tell readers about my athletic career. After two more weeks of school, I’ll have three months off. Tough life! I’ll spend some of that time preparing a new course featuring the writings of Thomas Sowell. You should read some of his writings so that you can learn how to mount a successful argument. Some of the time I’ll spend playing Heart of Gold and other great songs. Your buddy’s post indicates he has different musical tastes than you.
“It’s the same old theme since 1916…”
How funny… two narcissists arguing… <<< Oh… that's funny…
…
richardj@monmouthcollege.edu
1) “You are the embodiment of original sin.” <<< Is reference to THX's soulless demeanor…
By you asking…
"What sin has a newborn already committed?" <<< Is quite the insult of THX. Are you saying THX is a newborn? <<< hahahaha…
You say…
"As for my boyfriend, c’mon, tell us about your married life."
A) Intrepid doesn't have a married life… he's a narcissist… like you. Running off his women… in search of a woman to lay all the time. Reverting to Blow-Up dolls…
B) I wouldn't doubt you've been divorced, as well…
C) Is THX actually your "boyfriend"?
…
You say…
"they voted me Professor of the Year in three of my first four years," <<< That's hilarious!
I must ask… You being a Professor without sin… must make you a god… aye?
Oh yes… you're a joke…
That’s all I got? That’s all I need. Yeah, your facts. Libs always talk about their “lived experience”
So you are a lib. Thanks for finally admitting it.
Since you are so interested in my marriage…..37 years…..happily. I did database programming for 21st C. Insurance, Pioneer Electronics, and a few other top corporations. Retired since the Obama Goddess and his husband Michael came along and fucked the economy. Ran my own company after that. Started a rifle restoration service for collectors. I was always self employed, unlike you.
They voted you professor of the year? Wow! What an accomplishment. About as significant as being voted class president in the ninth grade.
Refuting what passes for your comments is a sucker’s game since you set the gotcha questions, mainly about a subject you supposedly teach, and you already have your answers. Bashing Trump makes you feel like a big man doesn’t it. Except he’s president. You ain’t.
Since you are just so smart maybe I’ll have to ask you about long range rifle shooting, powder charge differences, primers, the projectile, say out to 1000 yards with two or three changes in windage along with the coriolis effect. And I’ll be able to tell if you consult a search engine.
So you will have three months off….at taxpayers expense. No one cares. Typical lib, stealing tax $$$s from the populace.
As for Thomas Sowell I don’t care….any more than I care about Shelby Steele or Walter Williams or any number of “conservative” black writers who write for white liberals. I never see black ghetto kids reading these authors because they are irrelevant to “da bruhs.” But hey, have fun being the lib racist you obviously are.
I don’t have to speculate re: your students. You are a naturally condescending, irritating person.
Enjoy listening to your old worn out Neal Young albums, because he is so edgy, while you work on your Sowell project.
Original sin is compatible with the innocence of babies. Anyone who has had children knows babies are totally innocent. Original sin speaks of an attribute of our universal human nature.
Once a baby grows a little older, he manifests this nature. The phrase “terrible twos” addresses the developmental milestone when parents must begin to deal with their child’s propensity to behave badly – just like people.
If we were sinless, we would not need correction. Parents of young children would always be saying, “Yes! Wonderful! Good!” They would never need to say “No!”
“The Christian theologian will never find a contradiction between the propositions of faith and reason, because it is his job to interpret them out of existence.“ – George H: Smith
THX, faith and reason are not opposites. They are not like light and darkness, hot and cold, love and hate. The opposite of faith is doubt. The opposite of reason is unreason (or chaos).
Faith is never belief without evidence in Christian theology. Never are Christians called to believe without evidence, or to abandon reason.
Your categories of thinking are sloppy because you employ a strange definition for “faith” that is nowhere found in the Bible or Christian theology.
I re-issue my challenge to you to find a single instance anywhere in the entire Bible in which the word “faith” means “belief without evidence.”
Truly, you are the most religiously rigid and ideological commenter on this forum.
What is original sin?
Original sin is the condition shared by all human beings. It is inherited through Adam. and all our fathers since him. Because of Adam’s sin, humanity lost original righteousness and distorted the image of God.
Richard are the same Richard from some college somewhere. Professor of the year, bragged about athletic achievement, bragged about how little work a professor actually does. Seems you haven’t exactly internalized the protestant ethnic of humility, hard work, and charity. The last is the most important, because someone who is professor of the year is obviously better than most people, and should show kindness to us lesser mortals.
Yep, I only became a college professor because I lack a serious work ethic. Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here.
No, it is about our human nature wanting so easily to do wrong things. The word sin is too simple for this thought. It’s just about our penchant to live less than nobly.
Put your assertion that original sin is irrational to the test. Universal, original sin is one of the most vehemently denied and objectively true attributes of human beings. Do you deny this? Then give an example of perfect righteousness in humanity. Rand? Peikoff?
First understand what sin means – it is the doctrine that human beings have a universal propensity to sin, Sin literally means to “miss the mark.” The mark is like the bullseye of a target. The bullseye is perfection in thought, word and deed without variation.
Using that standard, there can be no sinless person. Can you point to one?
Your comments assume a different standard, most likely Reason. But Reason alone has no objective moral standard. Yes, reason is a “good” tool, but it can be used to “miss the mark” and is often employed to do evil with greater alacrity.
If you are going to engage with Christian doctrine, would it not be Reasonable and rational to understand its terms and strongman them? Otherwise, what is the point? You become sound and fury, signifying nothing.
“Sin” in its religious definition is any disobedience of God. Sin means disobeying your god for any reason whatsoever simply because it is disobedience of the allegedly higher, ultimate, supernatural, and perfect authority.
Virtue in its religious definition consists of obeying God simply because it is obeying God.
Religious virtue consists of obeying Yahweh’s or Allah’s commandments because they are allegedly superior and divine, they are supernatural, better than natural, higher than natural.
The opposite of a commandment to be obeyed is a moral principle to think about and apply contextually.
But supernatural commandments are NOT moral principles they are commands to obey blindly, to obey no matter what the circumstances or context.
“If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.” – Ayn Rand
“…The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.” – Ayn Rand
First of all, Rand’s definition of “moral” is impoverished and parasitical. Morality is simply the quality of a thought or action that renders it GOOD.
It is possible to choose evil without force. It is possible to understand and not obey in service of evil. It is possible to use reason in service of evil. It is possible to reject all commandment and to do evil. Are you unable to contemplate the exceptions to these propositions?
Think, THX. Do you see that not a single one of Rand’s assertions is good in and of itself? Reason is not a transcendental like truth, beauty and GOODNESS.
“Reason is not one tool of thought among many, it is the entire toolbox. To advocate that reason be discarded in some circumstances is to advocate that thinking be discarded – which leaves one in the position of attempting to do a job after throwing away the required instrument….
Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.” – George H. Smith
Give one example from the Bible where Christianity destroys reason or defines “faith” as belief against reason and / or evidence.
What is original sin?
Original sin is the condition shared by all human beings. It is inherited through Adam. and all our fathers since him. Because of Adam’s sin, humanity lost original righteousness and distorted the image of God.
Original Sin is where Christian mythology and misery begin. No Original Sin and there is no need for salvation and the carpenter from Galilee would be out of business.
Original sin is the cause of all of human misery.
Even absent an afterlife, this life requires the redress the suffering caused by human wrongdoing.
Original sin is the most objectively observable yet universally denied attribute of humanity. Only irrational people can avoid noticing it.
THX, you are one of the most miserable, angry people I have ever dealt with. We can always count on that misery to come shining through as you spread your Objectivist poison on this comment board.
Thank God you haven’t migrated to any other comment boards that I go to…..especially the ones where you actually get to block annoying irritants.
G-d provided mankind with moral agency and therefore mankind is required to master himself using his freedom in choosing life; and doing so comes with laws that are a fundamental fabric of the created universe and given to the Jewish people in the Torah.
It is also the case that when self interests eliminate an understanding of the impact our choices and behavior have upon others, this is the willful abuse of freedom that is without self restraint for which we are accountable in a universe governed by laws.
Individual freedom is invested with the highest standards of self accountability and responsibility and there is no offload elsewhere for us being accountable for what we say and do.
‘I wish I had been given the doctrine of original sin, so I could understand, that people like Huey Newton with progressive ideals could still be dangerous people.’ Best statement from the video.
A doctrine of Original Sin isn’t necessary. Just heed Genesis 6:5 “The LORD saw how great was human wickedness on earth—how every plan devised by the human mind was nothing but evil all the time.”