Meat Isaiah's Job: Or, are we wasting time?

[Mark C]

After this introduction, I will include a link below to what I have found, personally, to be one of the best "motivational articles" I have ever read.*

Especially now.

But I begin with a serious question. On another thread, which I won't rehash, an age-old question of "sacrifices" came up, as did some dogma that may, or may not, comport with the totality of Scripture.

At some point, my patience ran thin, after I realized this was not a "discussion", with thoughtful examination of the evidence, but a mere contest of cleverness, where His Truth was in fact irrelevant.

Is it time to "wipe the dust off my feet?" But that's not the real question. This was, in theory at least, a "public forum," for the exchange of ideas, and where honest disagreement can have positive results, not just among the 'debaters' (who RARELY change their own minds) but those who participate, or even just read later. It's possible that others, in other words, might find something of value in the exchange, even while I conclude it had become a waste of time.

My question: Did anybody who saw that exchange (or any other where you might have an actual interest in the question on the table, and the evidence) actually look up any of the half-dozen or so specific verses (in the "Old Testament") cited as relevant? Or even listen to the (over an hour) teaching on that subject?

I have often said that the reason I prefer to "do radio" is because people can listen - or change the dial. Those who care will listen, those who aren't interested, won't. On call-in shows, and always during my live Sabbath midrash, people can ask questions (or later via email). And I've observed that the vast majority of mere "disrupters" won't bother with either. But I have yet to see one confirm the sources.


MANY of the threads here on BF are of great value, ESPECIALLY to people who CHOOSE to seek the Truth on things that they just don't hear from what I call (yes, it can be offensive to some, but so is the realization of Jeremiah 16:19 when it hits home) the 'whore church,' aka northern kingdom, Aholah, adulterous sister, that was exiled by Yah for that very reason. Even, perhaps even ESPECIALLY, acrimonious discussions where there is a genuine exchange of ideas, with thoughtful arguments, can be very valuable to those with the same questions, or who have been "fed the same BS."

But generally 'not so much' when dogma is merely being parroted vapidly.

There is a reason we are told to, "come out of her, My people."


So, the related question for all of us is, "when does honest discussion, ideally with real disagreement, become mere argument? And when does it become a mere waste of time?"

And, no, I don't believe the answer is as simple or trite as when frustration, verbal snipes, or even anger and personal attacks enter the arena. ("Jane, you ignorant slut." It was funny: if we've ever seen it, we still remember...)


So, I offer the following.


I personally do not believe that a sinner's prayer, which is NOWHERE in actual Scripture, to "another jesus, whom we have not preached" (II Cor. 11:4) means much of anything. Thus, it's not the focus of my ministry. But, understanding who the Real One IS, Why He came, and what He did, certainly is. The Torah Made Flesh said, "IF you love Me, keep My commandments." And, since the world, and a once 'God-Fearing Nation,' is now on the brink of the greatest level of tyranny in human history (and prophecy, too, of course) we should focus on what's important, "avoid foolish questions," and encourage "the Remnant." Those who genuinely seek His Truth, while there is still time.

Here is a link for the best 'extra-Biblical' article I have ever seen on the subject of how to focus on that:

Isaiah's Job - LewRockwell

by Albert Jay Nock One evening last autumn, I sat long hours with a European acquaintance while he expounded a political-economic doctrine which seemed sound as a nut and in which I could find no defect. At the end, he said with great earnestness: “I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I...

www.lewrockwell.com

Kazakh!


-------------------------------------

* I sometimes tell the story of my first 'in-person' meeting with the statesman I respect more than any other I've met, Dr. Ron Paul. During a long discussion, we eventually talked about the topic of discouragement, and the Sisyphean-task of dealing with people who "just don't get it." He in Congress, with people who won't honor their oaths, me in radio, where we both realized we weren't going to "change the world." When I started to describe this article, he said, before I got the title out, "Mark - you're talking about Isaiah's Job, by Albert J. Nock. I keep a copy in my top desk drawer, and take it out when I get discouraged."


PS> Years after I had that discussion with Ron, Tom Woods wrote this. I saw it when I looked up the link to Nock:

Ron Paul's Task - LewRockwell

Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: There's Nothing Wrong with u2018PreachingtotheChoir' Few people in public life ever stray from the three-by-five card of approved opinion. On those rare occasions when they do, a macabre ritual of clarifications, retractions, and apologies – a veritable liturgy...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[steve]

“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do”

Yup, you sow the seed of Truth, not knowing whether it falls on fallow ground or other. Whether it will take root or be eaten by the birds of the air. Or choked out, or withered.

 

[Mark C]

...generally not, in this life anyway...

 

[PeteR]

There are points wherein we know that Isaiah knew he was addressing the remnant and his tone was decidedly different than when he addressed the masses...

 

[MemeFan]

Actually, this works always matter.

We can advance because we don't have to recreate existing stuff.

If advances are forgotten new generations will have to start from zero.

 

[FollowingHim]

My question: Did anybody who saw that exchange (or any other where you might have an actual interest in the question on the table, and the evidence) actually look up any of the half-dozen or so specific verses (in the "Old Testament") cited as relevant? Or even listen to the (over an hour) teaching on that subject?

I'll honestly answer your question Mark: No, I did not. But that was simply because I wasn't interested in investing time delving deep into that particular subject at that point in time. Which I'm sure you can understand. So my answer is a bit irrelevant but I thought someone should answer the question!

So, the related question for all of us is, "when does honest discussion, ideally with real disagreement, become mere argument? And when does it become a mere waste of time?"

Obviously the line is grey, but I think a discussion becomes an argument when it gets personal. When comments are being directed at an individual rather than at the topic.

Obviously this includes direct personal attacks. But I think it also includes repeated prodding of one individual to engage in the discussion - repeated questions of "did you read my references" being one mild example, but one party continuing to push the matter as long as there is disagreement and insisting on having the last word being a more general example - because those statements express the frustration of one individual with another participant. If the discussion is truly being written for the benefit of third-party readers, then whether a specific participant has read the references or not, or agrees or not, is irrelevant - you're probably not going to change their mind anyway even if they do.

The sort of deep topics that trigger heated debate tend to be matters where people are never persuaded unless the Holy Spirit actually leads them. If the Spirit is calling they'll change their mind even if the argument is poorly worded, because it will inspire them to dig into the topic themselves and try and learn. But if the Spirit is not calling, however good the argument, they simply won't hear it - their heart will be too hard.

So once the statements have been made, and the references are given - from both sides - a reader who wishes to delve into it now has everything available for them to do so. The goal has been achieved. Pushing the matter beyond that becomes an argument.

I personally do not believe that a sinner's prayer, which is NOWHERE in actual Scripture, to "another jesus, whom we have not preached" (II Cor. 11:4) means much of anything. Thus, it's not the focus of my ministry. But, understanding who the Real One IS, Why He came, and what He did, certainly is. The Torah Made Flesh said, "IF you love Me, keep My commandments." And, since the world, and a once 'God-Fearing Nation,' is now on the brink of the greatest level of tyranny in human history (and prophecy, too, of course) we should focus on what's important, "avoid foolish questions," and encourage "the Remnant." Those who genuinely seek His Truth, while there is still time.

I absolutely agree.

 

[The Revolting Man]

After this introduction, I will include a link below to what I have found, personally, to be one of the best "motivational articles" I have ever read.*

Especially now.

But I begin with a serious question. On another thread, which I won't rehash, an age-old question of "sacrifices" came up, as did some dogma that may, or may not, comport with the totality of Scripture.

At some point, my patience ran thin, after I realized this was not a "discussion", with thoughtful examination of the evidence, but a mere contest of cleverness, where His Truth was in fact irrelevant.

Is it time to "wipe the dust off my feet?" But that's not the real question. This was, in theory at least, a "public forum," for the exchange of ideas, and where honest disagreement can have positive results, not just among the 'debaters' (who RARELY change their own minds) but those who participate, or even just read later. It's possible that others, in other words, might find something of value in the exchange, even while I conclude it had become a waste of time.

My question: Did anybody who saw that exchange (or any other where you might have an actual interest in the question on the table, and the evidence) actually look up any of the half-dozen or so specific verses (in the "Old Testament") cited as relevant? Or even listen to the (over an hour) teaching on that subject?

I have often said that the reason I prefer to "do radio" is because people can listen - or change the dial. Those who care will listen, those who aren't interested, won't. On call-in shows, and always during my live Sabbath midrash, people can ask questions (or later via email). And I've observed that the vast majority of mere "disrupters" won't bother with either. But I have yet to see one confirm the sources.


MANY of the threads here on BF are of great value, ESPECIALLY to people who CHOOSE to seek the Truth on things that they just don't hear from what I call (yes, it can be offensive to some, but so is the realization of Jeremiah 16:19 when it hits home) the 'whore church,' aka northern kingdom, Aholah, adulterous sister, that was exiled by Yah for that very reason. Even, perhaps even ESPECIALLY, acrimonious discussions where there is a genuine exchange of ideas, with thoughtful arguments, can be very valuable to those with the same questions, or who have been "fed the same BS."

But generally 'not so much' when dogma is merely being parroted vapidly.

There is a reason we are told to, "come out of her, My people."


So, the related question for all of us is, "when does honest discussion, ideally with real disagreement, become mere argument? And when does it become a mere waste of time?"

And, no, I don't believe the answer is as simple or trite as when frustration, verbal snipes, or even anger and personal attacks enter the arena. ("Jane, you ignorant slut." It was funny: if we've ever seen it, we still remember...)


So, I offer the following.


I personally do not believe that a sinner's prayer, which is NOWHERE in actual Scripture, to "another jesus, whom we have not preached" (II Cor. 11:4) means much of anything. Thus, it's not the focus of my ministry. But, understanding who the Real One IS, Why He came, and what He did, certainly is. The Torah Made Flesh said, "IF you love Me, keep My commandments." And, since the world, and a once 'God-Fearing Nation,' is now on the brink of the greatest level of tyranny in human history (and prophecy, too, of course) we should focus on what's important, "avoid foolish questions," and encourage "the Remnant." Those who genuinely seek His Truth, while there is still time.

Here is a link for the best 'extra-Biblical' article I have ever seen on the subject of how to focus on that:

Isaiah's Job - LewRockwell

by Albert Jay Nock One evening last autumn, I sat long hours with a European acquaintance while he expounded a political-economic doctrine which seemed sound as a nut and in which I could find no defect. At the end, he said with great earnestness: “I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I...

www.lewrockwell.com

Kazakh!


-------------------------------------

* I sometimes tell the story of my first 'in-person' meeting with the statesman I respect more than any other I've met, Dr. Ron Paul. During a long discussion, we eventually talked about the topic of discouragement, and the Sisyphean-task of dealing with people who "just don't get it." He in Congress, with people who won't honor their oaths, me in radio, where we both realized we weren't going to "change the world." When I started to describe this article, he said, before I got the title out, "Mark - you're talking about Isaiah's Job, by Albert J. Nock. I keep a copy in my top desk drawer, and take it out when I get discouraged."


PS> Years after I had that discussion with Ron, Tom Woods wrote this. I saw it when I looked up the link to Nock:

Ron Paul's Task - LewRockwell

Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: There's Nothing Wrong with u2018PreachingtotheChoir' Few people in public life ever stray from the three-by-five card of approved opinion. On those rare occasions when they do, a macabre ritual of clarifications, retractions, and apologies – a veritable liturgy...

www.lewrockwell.com

Sour grapes. You got caught out on a limb you couldn’t get off of and slunk over here to be passive aggressive.

What you should have done was clarified your point and then supported it.

 

[Mark C]

No, I actually thought the article was of some value. And I said why.

I do not find merely being "Revolting" to be of much value whatsoever. I hope you can at least understand that. Even if it's a bit passive.

 

[NickF]

My question: Did anybody who saw that exchange (or any other where you might have an actual interest in the question on the table, and the evidence) actually look up any of the half-dozen or so specific verses (in the "Old Testament") cited as relevant? Or even listen to the (over an hour) teaching on that subject?

To be quite honest, your flagrant and overwhelming arrogance and disrespect towards nearly everyone you speak to here has cemented in my mind that dialogue is particularly pointless and a waste of time.

My one question to you asking for your stance on the definition of a word you were using incorrectly was answered with “use a concordance”.

Man, I should have thought of that! *facepalm* I must be an idiot! I didn’t know there was such a thing as a concordance!

Yeah.. dialogue with someone that arrogant and conceited is pointless.

If you act in good faith and humble yourself a bit maybe that will change. I offer this not as a passive aggressive or outright aggressive overture. But in hopes you can do some self reflection and improve your communication style.

 

[Mark C]

I'll honestly answer your question Mark: No, I did not. But that was simply because I wasn't interested in investing time delving deep into that particular subject at that point in time. Which I'm sure you can understand. So my answer is a bit irrelevant but I thought someone should answer the question!

Thanks, Samuel - and certainly. The only people any of us would expect to invest time in a subject are those with an interest, or who ask a question that is answered.

And while the question was largely rhetorical, the answer is still interesting, including the fact that you're a moderator. I tend to think it goes to the heart of 'self-censorship,' which relates to the point Nock is making about what he (and Scripture, albeit without the cap in most renderings) call 'the Remnant.'

While the article predates the modern label of self-censorship, he said this,

"...necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one’s doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo...

while

...Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not."

In that context, I can't help but think of articles I've read concerning the pernicious design of, among the first, what I now call "2Facebook" - aka 'Social[ist] Media': a pandering to the 'masses' via the tool itself. Ultimately a socially-enforced mechanism for compelling compliance, or, worse still, what Orwell called "groupthink" - and now sometimes "virtue signalling."


I.e., Will this post get me a "like"? Or will I be 'shunned'? (or shadow-banned, etc, which most don't even understand, but still accomplishes the same censorship goal.)

I posted the article because, after reading a number of threads on this forum, and participating in a few more, the question of the Remnant seemed more important than ever. And that seems relevant, because, in this thread alone so far, I can count one response that actually has to do with the article and concepts [MEAT] it raised -- to the point where it seems the responder actually read it. Which perhaps still makes Nock's point.