Danny Hutson

8 thoughts on “The Cost of Freedom: How Disagreement Makes Us Civil (Robert George, Cornel West, Rick Warren)

  1. Very frustrated that this is largely a soup of metaphor and generality: much hand-holding, well wishing, and poetic manoeuvring around hope, faith, love, optimism, secularism, integrity, power, vessels, Shakespeare, Bible, rationality, truth and so on with prudential "majestic words".

    They gave an explicit definition of what Christian Love is – but no concrete follow-up on what to do with or about it. Perhaps the closest to an objective act is Cornel's endorsement of letting marginal people have a voice, but this is still quite vague (also eliminate ISIL and abortion).

    What does "radical freedom in love" do five minutes after one leaves the conference hall? I'm glad that love is active, but active how, when, to whom, in what degree?

    I also don't see over what these two disagree.

  2. There are thought to be 2 Christian worlds. If you draw a diagonal line from the tip of Western Africa (Morocco) through southeastern Europe and on up through Russia. Everything to the east of this line represents where Christianity has generally been persecuted (costly Christianity). everything to the west has generally been non persecuted Christianity (safe Christianity), only then can you begin to see the real problem and enormous threat of multiculturalism.
    There is a concerted and unignorable effort to move this diagonal line in a westward expansion, and hardly anyone is addressing it. The line will be eliminated one day but problem will NOT be solved with radical love, not unless it comes from the hand of god himself and not before Christianity is delivered into the hands of the enemy.

  3. Viewer Discretion mentioned "…I spent two hours watching this and it's just a couple of guys on a stage being effusive, vague and convivial." This is true. A fascinating thing about the orbit of the New Testament, in terms of it's content (even if someone relegates it to un or trans historical) and engages in complex literary analysis to explain away the earthiness of it, you never find it's author's loving "categories" of politically designated and determined individuals. Though, of course, categories do pop up eg. Barbarian, Scythian etc.. Colossians 3:11. But these categories, when the author's mention them, are NEVER evocative to elicit empathy, sympathy or compassion – – ever. You see, that's the problem with brother Cornell's rhetoric: it uses Biblical terms and phrases from which to catapult into a sociological-driven ie. evidence, to re-interpret what was always and at all times Biblically a proclivity of humans to doubt, distort and diverge away from that which our Creator designed. Hence, when Christ came he sought not to "awaken" dormant virtues nor cultivate a corrupted culture. BUT rather, as Ephesians says, "His purpose was to create one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace." [2:15b] These two men optically by their discussion, (I am not exegeting their hearts) have reduced the "mystery" Ephesians and Colossians talks about, of a historical death effect and affecting a historical condition of alienated and estranged people FROM God, into a symbolic metaphor for the type or sort of life one mediating on the "Christ event" should and is expected to live. But reverentially, (to the speakers it seems) all notions and opinions are merely culturally conditioned preferences (even emotionally charged ones!) that amount to humanities way of coping with a cold and cruel world. Christ Jesus converts rather than merely comforts. His Cross restores rather than rearranges. His resurrection vindicates what all other religions equivocate, to mediate and re-create that which sin sought to abdicate and obfuscate.

  4. The word "reverentially" should read "referentially" with an "f" not a "v". Meaning: their (speakers) concept of what constitutes objective reality is bound within the lookers inner set of experiences, rather than received from without ie. a revelation.

  5. So much in here is comment worthy. The defense of the Indiana religious ideology protection law is a misrepresentation at best a lie at worst. Sure it was a good bill if you were a Christian who's values were discriminatory.

    Looking at what was going on across America at the time of this legislation in the treatment of the LGBTQ community by the religious right. The fact that religious freedom is already fully protected under the constitution. Looking truthfully at this anyone can see that the results of this bill were intended to be even though religious people like the one defending it here work hard to deny its intent.

    If religious freedom trumps other law than it not only permissible to discriminate but most religious documents have rules spelled out for the faithful allowing and justifying slavery, killing other humans, abuse both child and domestic, the subjugation of women & children, etc.

    Any law creating a tired society where one group is guaranteed preferential treatment and defense is wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *