This is the passage as I was taught it: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:1-13 KJV) ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:43 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Is Hizbollah a Resistance Organization or not? "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." With this as my standard, being Presbyterian, how can I be expected to have a record of the Leftists on Lit-ideas? I keep hoping that the Leftist language and arguments will be changed, and a new conservative reasonableness will prevail. This is naïve, my conservative atheist friends assure me. People don't change. But is that true? The Neo-conservatives were, most of the early ones, Trotskyites. Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyite. David Horowitz was once a Leftist, and I was as well. We would all agree, of this I have no doubt, that the patois is unmistakable. Is it infallible? Perhaps not, but if one hears it day after day from the same person, the likelihood that a person is not a Leftist seems more and more remote. For example, I usually put Irene in the Leftist camp, but she often says things which are un-leftist. I think of Dispensationalists when I think of her. I have argued with a number of them. "Ah, I say after listening to them argue, I see you are a Dispensationalist." "A what," they invariably ask? "A Dispensationalist. You are using arguments that originated in the Christian viewpoint called Dispensationalism. Its founder was John Darby who founded the Plymouth Brethren, who came over here, influenced Scofield to write his reference Bible and Chafer to write his Systematic Theology. Dallas Theological Seminary cranks out Dispensational preachers every year." "That's got nothing to do with me," he or she will reply. I never heard of Darby. Yeah my pastor graduated from Dallas, but that don't mean nothing. I just believe in the pure word of the Bible and not no sect called Dispensationalism." Since I have had that argument scores of times with similar people who don't know the sources of their beliefs, I rapidly bow out as gracefully as possible and as quickly as possible try to change the subject. Some Dispensationalists I have gotten to know more thoroughly, and when they hear from me more of the details about what Dispensationalism consists of they invariably pick something out and say, "hey wait. I don't believe that." And indeed there is something they disagree with. They don't subscribe to the entire Dispensationalist package, but does that mean they are not Dispensationalist? I tend to think of them as inconsistent Dispensationalists and Irene as an inconsistent Leftist. But as to someone who doesn't write much, it is harder to tell -- not that I'm trying hard to tell -- I may notice that they insult Eric and praise Omar. That may mean that they agree with Omar but not Eric; however they write so little, how can one be sure -- even if I wanted to be; which I don't. There is no need to attempt to trace the history of Leftism at the present time as far as I can see. But it has been observed by several writers that modern American Leftists are siding with Militant Islam against Israel and against America. There is a whole series of arguments that have been advanced by the Leftist/Islamists, for example 1) America had 9/11 coming. They deserved it. It is good that they now know how it feels. 2) American policies caused Militant Islam to react. America caused Terrorism. 3) America has no interest in the welfare of Arabs. There only interest is oil. 4) American government does what big business tells it to. 5) America does what Israel tells it to. 6) Israel does what America tells it to [note: consistency is not necessary to Leftism/Islamism]. 7) Saddam Hussein was a creature of the CIA 8) Osama bin Laden was a creature of the CIA. The list is much longer but these come to mind at the moment. Why is Leftism siding with Islamism? That is an interesting question and I have heard several theories about it. My own favorite is that the Leftists learned to hate America during the Cold war when they supported Soviet Russia and the Communists. This wasn't a crude sort of support. It was more intellectual, and they typically distanced themselves from Stalinism but they supported the Communist Party Line fairly consistently. And here again, one who has been Leftist can recognize the patois. It has been said that when the Soviet Union collapsed the pentagon and its right-wing supporters had to frantically search for a new enemy. I would not use the word "frantically," but to some extent this is true. The pentagon must "war game" against the most likely enemies. China moved up to the top immediately after the fall of Soviet Russia, and now Militant Islam is up there as well. We build weapons to fit the most likely scenarios. That is only prudent. Something similar occurred (in my theory) with the Leftists after the fall of the Soviet Union. The epitome of Leftism had fallen, but the hatred of America remained. And then along came Islamism and as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There followed hugs, kisses, hand-holding, all the rest. Note that I have not lumped "Liberals" in with "Leftists." Paul Berman has a problem with some Liberals who seem to have sided with the Leftists. See his Terror and Liberalism. I am not taking that up here. David Horowitz has described the current love affair between Leftism and Radical Islam in his Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left. It is the David Horowitz sort of thing that I have in mind here. Lawrence From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Geary Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:24 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Is Hizbollah a Resistance Organization or not? LH: >The Lit-Ideas Leftists aren't as articulate.... Just curious. Whom do you list among the Lit-Idea's Leftists? Come clean, now. You've been spouting that label for years, but no one I know thinks they're the one. We all keep looking over our shoulders. Tell us who it is, damn it! Mike Geary Memphis (can't be me, this is the South) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006