I just posted this in my artistic irrational interpretational blog . . . all are welcome

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Once upon a time in the world of Greece existed a lot of knowledge of empty boxes in a land of disorderly chaos which the Sophists immediately took advantage of by way of arguing both sides of the debate with them deciding to do this by design for the sake of making lots of money to hide a long standing conflict which had and has and still is going on forever between the very highest and the very least acting as if such the existing situation was normally the case as no truths existed or ever would exist other than the Truth other than lots of empty boxes of endless varying sizes with some being small and others large and some smart and others dumb and others old and others young until Socrates stumbled after proving to the Spartans to be the bravest man to ever live before insinuating that all this sophisticated disorder might not be worth living causing him to proceed teaching a dangerous way of learning to Plato of recognizing a new classification of order of boxes into a volume of dialogues with the king himself being developed into the whole formal box of a book with a lot of informal subjects about and under and within him being things like titles and forwards and introductions and thesis statements and chapters and conclusions and subheadings and other subjected subjects like topic paragraphs and topic sentences and worthless isolates and subjects with predicates as well as simple and complex sentences along with independent and dependent clauses all in an order of empty boxes from the formal box of the king the book itself to all the way towards that one thing that never existed to make sense of it all that order perpetuated by just a dot that little unseen necessary box never mentioned but always playing her part within the great story of a king the man himself being within the greatest box amid the very least unmentionable burden itself unlimited boxes within boxes within the smallest of them all with this being infinite numbers of scattered boxes shattered to pieces by war and thoughtlessness while the same boxes themselves had been pieced together though they all be empty but boxes indeed so carefully assembled together forever and forever these boxes all of them existing without question in a system of disorder until our Founders later created a whole new order while standing on a long standing foundation created by Plato overthrowing the prior accepted tyranny of disorder by crafting a scheme to include the little period that little dot that smallest of boxes into the equation check mating the king finally into accepting that all boxes are the same as being all men and as being born equally endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness finally ending all the compromising of the king in his preventing all men from being included within the over all social contract of a big box of a king of a moderate boxes of subjects and commoners and finally of the very least of all boxes as an insignificant little prostitute that little dot that period at the end of the sentence.

[CaptUSA]

Fascinating. You wouldn't happen to be related to Timothy Dexter, by any chance?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Fascinating. You wouldn't happen to be related to Timothy Dexter, by any chance?

No. Is he also an irrational media bashing extremist?

[acptulsa]

No.

Way.

Man.

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. I don't get it. What are you trying to say with that?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Hmmm. I don't get it. What are you trying to say with that?

I'm interpreting media bombardment. James Joyce developed this type of stream of conscientiousness writing a sentence without punctuation of a length over a hundred pages in his novel entitled "Ulysses."

[Sola_Fide]

I'm interpreting media bombardment. James Joyce developed this type of stream of conscientiousness writing a sentence without punctuation of a length over a hundred pages in his novel entitled "Ulysses."

Do you enjoy that people must decipher your writing in an unusual way? I only ask because some people truly get their kicks when they use symbolic ways of communicating that only they understand. It becomes an obsession.

[heavenlyboy34]

UEW, you mix up figurative and literal language and use run-on sentences so much that your writing winds up going nowhere. A very unsatisfying experience for the reader. You've done pieces that are much better than this.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Do you enjoy that people must decipher your writing in an unusual way? I only ask because some people truly get their kicks when they use symbolic ways of communicating that only they understand. It becomes an obsession.

I am not fooling you as I am speaking to you word for word. I'm not pretending to be rational while actually writing in emotions created with colorful metaphors and superfluous phrases as is the case in newspaper editorials and magazine articles. I always try to narrow down to what is unalienable and common ground first before elaborating. Shoot, most of the time there isn't any reason to even elaborate.
Obsession is not a scientific term. You realize that there exists a lot of problems with the cognitive endeavors of psychology and sociology being part of science, right? It is called the unification question in the philosophy of science. We do know that the physical sciences are indeed sciences while it seems like every time a new novel comes out, new theories of psychology and sociology are created.
I just hate how people are being deceived today. This is the reason for my trying to show on multiple levels how irrational the news media truly are.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

UEW, you mix up figurative and literal language and use run-on sentences so much that your writing winds up going nowhere. A very unsatisfying experience for the reader. You've done pieces that are much better than this.

A stream of conscience was invented by James Joyce when he wrote a sentence that went on for over a hundred pages without any punctuation. I clearly state that the sentence is a stream of consciousness without any punctuation. It isn't a stream of consciousness written rationally as James Joyce did, but then I'm not trying to be rational, but artistic! I could change some of what I wrote in that sentence, but then it would no longer be spontaneous. Look, I'm not arguing against rational thought. I'm arguing about how people in this forum not only waste their times, but become agents of the media by taking the trouble to rationalize their nonsense for them.

Prose is the normal way people use to communicate. As we all know, the media uses clear prose to fool the people. They have an obvious set agenda established by a hierarchy network of senior editors in coercion.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm interpreting media bombardment. James Joyce developed this type of stream of conscientiousness writing a sentence without punctuation of a length over a hundred pages in his novel entitled "Ulysses."

Ah hah, now I got it.

I tried to get my mind wrapped around where you are coming from, and it, now, makes sense.

Having tried, once, to struggle through Finnegans Wake and finding Joyce to be a pretentious scribbler and an impossible bore, with a tin ear to boot, I gave it up.

Not that I think that of your writings.

:rolleyes: ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

A stream of conscience was invented by James Joyce when he wrote a sentence that went on for over a hundred pages without any punctuation. I clearly state that the sentence is a stream of consciousness without any punctuation. It isn't a stream of consciousness written rationally as James Joyce did, but then I'm not trying to be rational, but artistic! I could change some of what I wrote in that sentence, but then it would no longer be spontaneous. Look, I'm not arguing against rational thought. I'm arguing about how people in this forum not only waste their times, but become agents of the media by taking the trouble to rationalize their nonsense for them.

Prose is the normal way people use to communicate. As we all know, the media uses clear prose to fool the people. They have an obvious set agenda established by a hierarchy network of senior editors in coercion.

You think the media uses clear language? I heartily disagree! The only speech I know of more Orwellian than that uttered by the Political Class is the garbage printed and recited by the media. You are correct, however, in that the media manipulates language to fool the undiscerning audience.

[acptulsa]

You think the media uses clear language? I heartily disagree! The only speech I know of more Orwellian than that uttered by the Political Class is the garbage printed and recited by the media. You are correct, however, in that the media manipulates language to fool the undiscerning audience.

Oh come on. Just because they talk 'round and 'round in endless circles without ever saying anything of substance doesn't mean they don't use third grade language to do it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You think the media uses clear language? I heartily disagree! The only speech I know of more Orwellian than that uttered by the Political Class is the garbage printed and recited by the media. You are correct, however, in that the media manipulates language to fool the undiscerning audience.

But it is accepted as prose. My argument concerning the irrational art of the news media is how it shouldn't be rehashed rationally. Or, consider how in university, as the British might say, either all things end up narrowing down to the one ultimate method of science, or all things expand upwards towards an endless number of artistic methods! As I'm saying the irrational arts aren't bad, likewise, I'm saying that the news media aren't bad. Don't rationalize the news, but feel it! Don't know the news, But interpret it! Let go of your feelings. I do think the use of this, much as it is the same with the force, will help unravel the deep mysteries of the news media.

[Sola_Fide]

I am not fooling you as I am speaking to you word for word. I'm not pretending to be rational while actually writing in emotions created with colorful metaphors and superfluous phrases as is the case in newspaper editorials and magazine articles.

Actually, you are doing this. If you weren't using superfluous phrases and strange symbolic metaphors like "prostitute" and things like this, people would be able to understand you. Not that I'm coming down on you for this. I think deep down, you enjoy that people can't grasp things you talk about on the surface.



I always try to narrow down to what is unalienable and common ground first before elaborating. Shoot, most of the time there isn't any reason to even elaborate.

Are you sure you do that? You are seeking for common ground?



Obsession is not a scientific term. You realize that there exists a lot of problems with the cognitive endeavors of psychology and sociology being part of science, right? It is called the unification question in the philosophy of science. We do know that the physical sciences are indeed sciences while it seems like every time a new novel comes out, new theories of psychology and sociology are created. I just hate how people are being deceived today. This is the reason for my trying to show on multiple levels how irrational the news media truly are.

I agree with you that phsychology and sociology are very loosely scientific, but I would expand that out to other "physical sciences" too. There is so much taken for granted and so many a priori religious assumptions that go in to the "physical sciences", they are not as reliable as you make them out to be.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Oh come on. Just because they talk 'round and 'round in endless circles without ever saying anything of substance doesn't mean they don't use third grade language to do it.

Funny you should put it that way. In interpreting my own insanity above within that spewed out stream of consciousness, I do argue that all of life is an empty box of empty boxes unless that last little box, with it being a period, is placed at the end of it all. Then it becomes substantially meaningful. I'm really surprised that Heavenlyboy didn't interpret that meaning.

[heavenlyboy34]

But it is accepted as prose. My argument concerning the irrational art of the news media is how it shouldn't be rehashed rationally. Or, consider how in university, as the British might say, either all things end up narrowing down to the one ultimate method of science, or all things expand upwards towards an endless number of artistic methods! As I'm saying the irrational arts aren't bad, likewise, I'm saying that the news media aren't bad. Don't rationalize the news, but feel it! Don't know the news, But interpret it! Let go of your feelings. I do think the use of this, much as it is the same with the force, will help unravel the deep mysteries of the news media.

You know, professors of literature nowadays maintain that anything can be literature-from the garbage in the newspapers to posts on this forum. In that regard, you're right. Rarely do media writers use truly neutral language that we can deal with rationally.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Actually, you are doing this. If you weren't using superfluous phrases and strange symbolic metaphors like "prostitute" and things like this, people would be able to understand you. Not that I'm coming down on you for this. I think deep down, you enjoy that people can't grasp things you talk about on the surface.
Are you sure you do that? You are seeking for common ground?
I agree with you that phsychology and sociology are very loosely scientific, but I would expand that out to other "physical sciences" too. There is so much taken for granted and so many a priori religious assumptions that go in to the "physical sciences", they are not as reliable as you make them out to be.

I utilize an altered version of Aristotle's political spectrum the one he coined "the Golden Mean" to reduce down to our Founding Fathers. More specifically, I do this to include "all men" into the social contract without any compromise. I manage to do this by placing the character of an enthroned king on one end of the spectrum, either on the conservative right or the liberal left hand side, and then by placing the character of a homeless prostitute on the other end of it, either the Democratic or Republican side. I then place everyone else in the world in the middle. In considering an issue, I don't consider it on the personal level concerning myself, but in how the issue pertains to the enthroned king and the homeless prostitute.
Now, I have been narrowing down while discussing this issue. I have done so all the way to the "all inclusive" part within The Declaration of Independence. I am not being deceitful.
To give an example of how Americans should deal with the gun control issue, well, the king has a lot of well armed big men set up to protect himself; meanwhile, in contrast, the homeless prostitute has been abandoned on the street defenseless.
Therefore, for an unalienable reason, I am a big supporter of the second amendment.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You know, professors of literature nowadays maintain that anything can be literature-from the garbage in the newspapers to posts on this forum. In that regard, you're right. Rarely do media writers use truly neutral language that we can deal with rationally.

Indeed, while very little of it is rational. If one of the prerequisites of life was rational thought, none of us would be here. That is why the sophist Protagoras said that "man is the measure of all things!" If he had said instead that "man was derived from the lowest form of life" no one would have stuck around to listen to him speak. This last statement is the truth actually, which is why very few people ever know what the real truth is.

[jdcole]

Cool story bro.

[Sola_Fide]

I utilize an altered version of Aristotle's political spectrum the one he coined "the Golden Mean" to reduce down to our Founding Fathers.

Why? Also, what makes the "founding fathers" the standard for anything? Besides, Aristotle was complete statist. Why use the political spectrum of a statist?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Why? Also, what makes the "founding fathers" the standard for anything? Besides, Aristotle was complete statist. Why use the political spectrum of a statist?

Order first, and then law. Bang the gavel first, and then address the law. Before the advent of law, there was disorder. Therefore, at one time there existed together, one in the same, an indistinguishable relationship between the government and organized crime. When Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, he blessed the disorder. When our Founders created a new order by the utilization of the scientific method of Natural Law, they finally created an order. This is why the prior order should be thought of as disorder. Law and order as Americans know it was invisible as no one thought about it. After our Founders established a new order that redefined civilization as a society that advances, that redefined the law. Think about it. A civilization that only maintains its order is a dynasty. A dynasty is tyranny. Therefore, in order to advance the order, with this being our Civil Purpose, the U.S. Constitution was created.
When our government makes laws threatening the U.S. Constitution, they threaten the new order our Founders established for us. This is the real contempt.

[Sola_Fide]

Order first, and then law. Bang the gavel first, and then address the law. Before the law, there was disorder. Therefore, at one time there existed together, one in the same, an indistinguishable relationship of government and organized crime. When Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, he blessed the disorder. When our Founders created a new order by the utilization of the scientific method of Natural Law, they finally created an order. This is why the prior order should be thought of as disorder. Law and order as Americans know it was invisible as no one thought about it. After our Founders established a new order that redefined civilization as a society that advances, that redefined the law. Think about it. A civilization that only maintains its order is a dynasty. A dynasty is tyranny. Therefore, in order to advance the order, with this being our Civil Purpose, the U.S. Constitution was created.
When our government makes laws threatening the U.S. Constitution, they threaten the new order our Founders established for us. This is the real contempt.

Why do you think order comes from natural law? If anything, it is in human's nature to murder, steal, and oppress his neighbor. That is what is natural. Where does order come from that?

[torchbearer]

when words are hard to find to describe a situation. metaphor and simile are useful tools.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Order first, and then law. Bang the gavel first, and then address the law. Before the advent of law, there was disorder. Therefore, at one time there existed together, one in the same, an indistinguishable relationship between the government and organized crime. When Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, he blessed the disorder. When our Founders created a new order by the utilization of the scientific method of Natural Law, they finally created an order. This is why the prior order should be thought of as disorder. Law and order as Americans know it was invisible as no one thought about it. After our Founders established a new order that redefined civilization as a society that advances, that redefined the law. Think about it. A civilization that only maintains its order is a dynasty. A dynasty is tyranny. Therefore, in order to advance the order, with this being our Civil Purpose, the U.S. Constitution was created.
When our government makes laws threatening the U.S. Constitution, they threaten the new order our Founders established for us. This is the real contempt.

Let me provide an example of government and organized being one and the same. In the bible, it tells of a woman condemned to being stoned to death for adultery by the high priesthood. It doesn't bother to express any of the organized crime going on in the background. Here is how I think things played out during that time. The high priesthood was in it for the money. As the souls of every Jewish person was in subject to this priesthood, as they could sentence one to death for violating the laws of the ten commandments, then this same priesthood could also sell another's soul into bondage. This would lead to a lot of promiscuity going on behind the scenes. So much so that I think the reason the woman's execution took place out in the street was to provide time for any passing man who might desire to bid on her soul. The fact she wasn't bought up proved that she was extremely wretched another point which isn't made. When Jesus managed to scare the Jews off with threats of exposing their bloodlines as having lots of promiscuity involved, making their birthrights questionable as a result, they all left the woman abandoning her to Jesus. This meant that He owned her soul to the extent He could have ended her life. But He told her to "Go" to any place she desired, freeing her soul, while not going back to the adultery.
In the past, there wasn't a lot that we understood about cultures because of the lack of any line differentiating between what government was and what organized crime was.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

when words are hard to find to describe a situation. metaphor and simile are useful tools.

Indeed, but that doesn't make it rational. We shouldn't read the news seriously. It should be interpreted and felt instead.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Why do you think order comes from natural law? If anything, it is in human's nature to murder, steal, and oppress his neighbor. That is what is natural. Where does order come from that?

Tyranny was the disorder with that being a combination of government and organized crime. It is only after our Founders managed to utilized another method blessed by God, with that being the point. As the church authority ordained the tradition legal precedence involved with establishing new nations, the same authority also ordained the utilization of Natural Law. In dealing with the long standing traditions of legal precedence, a process which was persecuting the American people, our Founders by-passed the normal way of doing business by developing a new natural law. This justified what they did in the eyes of God. As a result, they managed to free the people out from the former disorder. In other words, if the order had existed prior forever, then it existed as a chaos or disorder. In their creating a new order, our Founders exposed the former order as evil. As the law in the past existed as an unseen portion of this prior order, it took on a whole new definition after our Founder's creation of a whole new one. That is the best I can explain it.

[Sola_Fide]

Let me provide an example of government and organized being one and the same. In the bible, it tells of a woman condemned to being stoned to death for adultery by the high priesthood. It doesn't bother to express any of the organized crime going on in the background. Here is how I think things played out during that time. The high priesthood was in it for the money. As the souls of every Jewish person was in subject to this priesthood, as they could sentence one to death for violating the laws of the ten commandments, then this same priesthood could also sell another's soul into bondage. This would lead to a lot of promiscuity going on behind the scenes. So much so that I think the reason the woman's execution took place out in the street was to provide time for any passing man who might desire to bid on her soul. The fact she wasn't bought up proved that she was extremely wretched another point which isn't made. When Jesus managed to scare the Jews off with threats of exposing their bloodlines as having lots of promiscuity involved, making their birthrights questionable as a result, they all left the woman abandoning her to Jesus. This meant that He owned her soul to the extent He could have ended her life. But He told her to "Go" to any place she desired, freeing her soul, while not going back to the adultery.
In the past, there wasn't a lot that we understood about cultures because of the lack of any line differentiating between what government was and what organized crime was.

Why do you think the Constitution made government and organized crime separate?

[Sola_Fide]

Tyranny was the disorder with that being a combination of government and organized crime. It is only after our Founders managed to utilized another method blessed by God, with that being the point. As the church authority ordained the tradition legal precedence involved with establishing new nations, the same authority also ordained the utilization of Natural Law. In dealing with the long standing traditions of legal precedence, a process which was persecuting the American people, our Founders by-passed the normal way of doing business by developing a new natural law. This justified what they did in the eyes of God. As a result, they managed to free the people out from the former disorder. In other words, if the order had existed prior forever, then it existed as a chaos or disorder. In their creating a new order, our Founders exposed the former order as evil. As the law in the past existed as an unseen portion of this prior order, it took on a whole new definition after our Founder's creation of a whole new one. That is the best I can explain it.

Natural law is not justified in the eyes of God. It is illogical and unbiblical. God did not command men to worship Him and not harm each other based on human's nature or the nature of anything in the world. He commands what He commands based on HIS nature. That's not natural law...that is SUPERnatural law. God's law is supreme. God's Word is the standard by which the principles of law must be derived.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "church authority" if it ordains something that is contrary to God's Word. What church are you even speaking of? Any church or man who teaches something contrary to God's Word has no authority...therefore natural lawyers have no authority, whether they are in some church or not in a church.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Why do you think the Constitution made government and organized crime separate?

It wasn't the U.S. Constitution, but a new order that was established within The Declaration of Independence, a natural law created by the utilization of the scientific method of Natural Law. The scientific method of Natural Law was ordained by the church prior as such was born out of it. Prior to our Founders declaring "all men" to be born equally endowed with the same business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the king would use traditional legal precedence, also ordained by God, to compromise any advancement made by the commoner. What is difficult to understand is how there can't exist an old order until a new one is established. This is why it was impossible to perceive a line between what was government and what was organized crime.

Another good example, think of Jesus having to bless the Ten Commandments because He was forced to against His Will while fulfilling the prophecy as the Messiah. This act by Him put the Gentiles at a disadvantage enslaving them to the Jews. After establishing this predicament, He then went to the Gentiles with the Gospel reducing the Ten Commandment to a whole New Covenant establishing for them a new order to "Love thy Neighbor as thyself."

As the Ten Commandments were blessed to fulfill the New Covenant Jesus declared by the use of the Gospel, so was the U.S. Constitution intended to advance the natural law our Founders declared within the Declaration of Independence.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Natural law is not justified in the eyes of God. It is illogical and unbiblical. God did not command men to worship Him and not harm each other based on human's nature or the nature of anything in the world. He commands what He commands based on HIS nature. That's not natural law...that is SUPERnatural law. God's law is supreme. God's Word is the standard by which the principles of law must be derived.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "church authority" if it ordains something that is contrary to God's Word. What church are you even speaking of? Any church or man who teaches something contrary to God's Word has no authority...therefore natural lawyers have no authority, whether they are in some church or not in a church.

Spiritually speaking, you are right. According to the chosen vessel Apostle Paul, you are wrong. As brother Watchman Nee, a Chinese Christian, put it, there is a difference between being submissive to authority and obeying authority. Pertaining to the Truth, the word of God from the Apostle Paul should be the ultimate power on earth. Pertaining to the powers of false manipulation, those things that we do, the Roman emperor was the ultimate power. The Apostle Paul said for us to be submissive to this authority. However, that doesn't have the same meaning as obedience.
An example is let's say that the government passes a lot of laws forcing mothers to quit taking care of their children. As by natural law mothers love their children, this would put them in conflict with authority. So, the proper way for the mothers to behave is to submit to the authority while, at the same time, disobeying the law.
While this is how Christians are supposed to be, the behavior sounds ideally American to me.

[Sola_Fide]

Spiritually speaking, you are right. According to the chosen vessel Apostle Paul, you are wrong.

Where in any of the epistles do you think Paul defends natural law? The first chapter of Romans? Paul doesn't say in the first chapter that men can know God by their reason or discover the truth by observing creation. The natural revelation of God only serves to MAKE MEN WITHOUT EXCUSE. Natural revelation is only enough to make men guilty before God, it is not a saving knowledge of Him. This is the error of Aquinas and all of the antichrists in history who have tried to fuse reason and revelation.

Paul says:


Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The natural revelation of God doesn't save men or give them saving knowledge of God, it condemns them.






As brother Watchman Nee, a Chinese Christian, put it, there is a difference between being submissive to authority and obeying authority. Pertaining to the Truth, the word of God from the Apostle Paul should be the ultimate power on earth. Pertaining to the powers of false manipulation, those things that we do, the Roman emperor was the ultimate power. The Apostle Paul said for us to be submissive to this authority. However, that doesn't have the same meaning as obedience.
An example is let's say that the government passes a lot of laws forcing mothers to quit taking care of their children. As by natural law mothers love their children, this would put them in conflict with authority. So, the proper way for the mothers to behave is to submit to the authority while, at the same time, disobeying the law.
While this is how Christians are supposed to be, the behavior sounds ideally American to me.

I would definitely not recommend Watchman Nee as an authority for anything spiritual. He was a mystic, not a Biblical Christian. But what you are saying about submission vs. obedience, I generally agree with. Christians aren't obedient to any government or earthly authority...ever.

[torchbearer]

by the way, Sola_FIde speaks for GOd. its is as though god uses Sola_Fide to inform all of us of his mind.
the hubris.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Where in any of the epistles do you think Paul defends natural law? The first chapter of Romans? Paul doesn't say in the first chapter that men can know God by their reason or discover the truth by observing creation. The natural revelation of God only serves to MAKE MEN WITHOUT EXCUSE. Natural revelation is only enough to make men guilty before God, it is not a saving knowledge of Him. This is the error of Aquinas and all of the antichrists in history who have tried to fuse reason and revelation.

Paul says:



The natural revelation of God doesn't save men or give them saving knowledge of God, it condemns them.









I would definitely not recommend Watchman Nee as an authority for anything spiritual. He was a mystic, not a Biblical Christian. But what you are saying about submission vs. obedience, I generally agree with. Christians aren't obedient to any government or earthly authority...ever.

The Apostle Paul was long gone by the time the works of Aristotle were rediscovered in the twelfth century and incorporated into the Catholic church by Saint Aquinas. This was done in a similar fashion as Saint Augustine did when he incorporated the philosophy of Plato into the Catholic church in the forth century. Once again, the works of Aristotle were adopted into the church as God's natural laws as apposed to His spiritual laws. A natural philosopher, the name given to scientists back during that time, had to be members of the clergy. His works were almost canonized into the bible. Natural Philosophers would read from Aristotle's works in a similar out of order fashion as the spiritual philosophers would read out of the old and new testaments.
While a lot of this work by Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas has been deemed harmful, a lot of it has proven essential. One example is Plato's theory of the forms. In the bible, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit, which has been formalized in the higher case, and man's spirit, which has been depicted informal in the lower. Another example would be the Holy Soul versus the human soul. Similarly, Aristotle is the one who differentiated between the spiritual and the "natural" worlds.
The protestant was born out of the Catholic. The first protestants were protestant Catholics. These were those who stood up in the congregation challenging the word of the minister, words from the Pope, with the word of God, with this being the Word from the Apostle Paul as the Triune God's chosen vessel.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

by the way, Sola_FIde speaks for GOd. its is as though god uses Sola_Fide to inform all of us of his mind.
the hubris.

As long as he has your flank when the Ten Commandments comes around trying to take away our guns. Loving thy neighbor as yourself would amount to caring about them as you would your arm or leg. One would be willing to give their life to save parts of themselves. My argument, the reason tyranny needs to think twice, is if that day ever comes, the very least of our neighbors are going to be those living on the street as the homeless prostitute. This means it will be required of us to take the offensive in order to protect such from tyranny.
Yet, we aren't trying to destroy tyranny, but to control it. Tyranny needs sobering up. Right now, we need to incorporate espionage into the plan. This is why I'm always suggesting the passing out the Truth to media corporation employees and the police only. Tyranny will think twice about sticking its filthy nose where it doesn't belong if the drunkards realizes our plan is to bypass the front lines to go straight for the throats of cowards.