2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Philosophy, Religion, Homosexuality and Conservatism

Reader comment on item: Conservatism's Hidden History
in response to reader comment: Conservative Liberals vs. Liberal Conservatives

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Oct 1, 2018 at 16:20

Hi, Robert. You said,

"This is not a place to discuss personal views."

Havers. We're all expressing our personal views, however we dress them up.

"It's about the distinction - which rely (sic) isn't accurate in describing American History , because, inter alia, yesterdays Liberal, or Revolutionary, is Tomorrow's Conservative."

Forgive my small reperetoire of philosophers, but what you're saying seems to describe the "dialectic" alluded to Marx; and indeed, Marx's doctrine -- that today's revolutionary, once in power, becomes tomorrow's reactionary.

Marx may be correct, as far as that goes; but this is not the case with "true" liberals and "true" conservatives. Yes, the "Conservative" Parties of the UK and Australia are probably just as "liberal" as, if not more than, the American Democratic Party (presumably "liberal"); and in the US, those wildly liberal Democrats have their core support among descendants of the Puritans, who used to be quite conservative; and the Republican base in the Deep South used to be the baileywyck of Democrats with some very old-fashioned ideas. The party labels have indeed flip-flopped; but Southern Whites still tend to be genuinely conservative while Northern Whites still tend to be more genuinely liberal: the core ideologies haven't really changed: Yesterday's conservatives are still pretty much today's conservatives, and yesterday's liberals are still pretty much today's liberals. You went on to say,

"You've made a strange observation regarding Christian Dogma! You seem to believe that God is One and Two Persons. But I am more interested in Roman Catholicism - where this Dogma is subsumed under the notion of the TRINITY: that God is both One Person and Three Persons AT THE SAME TIME. Actually, it's something I've research, and it's not that difficult to get a hold of if you study Pythagorean and Euclidean ARITHMETIC."

Robert, I think you and I would probably have opposite scores on any "Liberal vs. Conservative" quiz; but this definitely does not mean we cannot have fun -- certainly more fun than I have had, trying vailny to discuss these things with fellow Jews and Christians to date. Let me read on...

"In brief, One is not a Number; rather, it's a primitive in virtue of one has a Unit (like One Apple, as opposed to Two Apples). Similarly, Two is not a Number; rather, what is commonly recognized as Two, is actually, strictly speaking Evenness, as opposed to Oddness: Everything that exists as a Plurality, is either Even or Odd..."

Let me interrupt your thought here. I happen to be doing a word study this week, into the word "one", as translated into the KJV of the Bible. "One" can have many meanings. In French, I believe, "une" is used as an indefinite article ( = the English "a" or "an"). In my current Bible study, which has so far only covered Genesis, the KJV "one", and the Hebrew counterparts ("echad, achad, achat, ish, tappam", etc.) never are used as indefinite articles. The instance of "one" that you are no doubt interested in, is in Deuteronomy 6:

"[4] Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

The Hebrew original is "echad"; and it is indeed a number:


as in,

Genesis 1:
[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place (i. e. Pangaea), and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Genesis 10:
[25] And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The standard Trinitarian defense I am familiar with, states that "echad" always refers to a "collective" unity (such as a "trinity"); but the two examples I've shown here show that this is not the case. "Echad" refers here to a NUMBER, a "count", distinguishing itself from "two", "three", etc.

According to this, the boilerplate Jewish understanding of the "count" or "number" of God is correct. This doesn't necessarily make the Trinitarians wrong, so long as they realize that they are comparing dissimilar UNITS; for they believe that an essence or substance which they call "God" encompasses both Jesus and the Biblical entity called "God" (which they do philosophical gymnastics to re-label as "God the Father").

The apparent confusion of the Trinitarians can therefore be scripturally resolved, with some transposition of language; but the dilemna I passed on to you goes even deeper into confusion: I have been associated with Christians, most of whom I count as my friends, who, through misplaced loyalty, confusion or ignorance, confess that "Jesus IS God". All bets are off with this doctrine, for it has Jesus praying to himself, loving himself, being his own father and indeed, literally being beside himself! I tossed the problem to you and your philosophers, mainly out of exasperation at having had to deal with this sort of thing for some 45 years.

Enough of my interruption. Let me read on...

"...Everything that exists as a Plurality, is either Even or Odd, So the First instance of Plurality occurs in the Case of the Number THREE - the First Number. And if you want to know more about the Roman Catholic dogma on this aspect of God, I suggest you begin with "ON THE TRINITY" by St. Augustine."

I think you can see that I am not interested in knowing more about the RC dogma. I will only say this about the Catholics, that whatever their dogma (and hardly any Catholics really understand much of it), adherence to that dogma as their form of "political correctness" has kept this church of hundreds of millions of people together for some 1700 years. That is not bad: Most churches I'm familiar with don't outlast a generation). You went on,

"3) Regarding Homosexuality, I maintain that they should be treated as having the same rights and human dignity in civil society as the rest of us."

I agree completely.

"I assume that you read the Bible as imposing a duty on me to discriminate against homosexuals."

You assume wrongly. The Bible says that practicing homosexuality is abominable, and I agree (It involves uncleanness to a dangerous, unhealthy degree). The Bible also commands JEWS to put those openly practicing homosexuality to be put out from among them WHEN THEY ARE LIVING IN AND IN CONTROL OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL. That is because the land and people of Israel are meant to be sepatated from the rest of the wold in holiness, being dedicated unto the King of the Universe. None of this legal enforcement is expected nor demanded of Jews outside Israel, nor among the people of the nations, nor even of the Israelites of today, who are religiously confused.

"And you probably want laws passed against homosexuals."

I want Americans to be free to express their wishes in enacting laws and regulations, in such areas as are delegated to them; and this is certainly an area that is delegated to them. It's the utmost of folly, and disaster for the country, to allow boys to shower with girls in gym class without their parent's knowledge and permission. That is perversion, not freedom.

"Our American Constitution does not allow us to pass any laws that violate their Due Process or Equal Rights provisions.."

After the Kvanaugh Character Assasination Kangaroo Court, you have the gall to talk to me about "due process" and "equal rights"? That is so sick, I won't even discuss it with you. Let's move on...

"4) Since you accept (as I read your writing) that God is both One and Two Persons simultaneously, you shouldn't have that much trouble tolerating my position that I am BOTH a CONSERVATIVE and a LIBERAL !"

You're certainly wrong on the first count; and as for the second, you have your opinion and I have mine: I am a conservative, and your political persuasion -- call it what you will -- is very opposed to my own.

Thank you again for the discussion. As I said, I have been able to talk more freely with you about some of these things, than with many others who ought to be more open to me.

Shalom shalom :-)


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Philosophy, Religion, Homosexuality and Conservatism by Michael S

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)