RSS

Noah Webster Didn’t Define “Collective” as a Noun

09 Jun

Noah Webster (A.D. 1758-1843) [courtesy Google Images]

Noah Webster (A.D. 1758-1843)
[courtesy Google Images]

“Toland,” one of the regular “commenters” on this blog, posted the following comment.  I replied.  Both comments appear towards the end of one of my recent articles where they’re not likely to seen by many more readers.. 

On reflection, I think this pair of comments deserve to be posted as an article to ensure that they’re seen by more readers:

.

Toland’s comment:

@Henry

Searching the internet for info on this William Blackstone you mention, a few results from this very blog turned up. Someone in November of 2013 was, like you are now, asking fellow commenters for a dictionary definition of “sovereignty” that’s consistent with supposed “individual sovereignty” in American law.

Also, like you are now, this commenter was asking the “individual sovereignty” campaign to square their notion with Blackstone’s definition of sovereignty as “the making of laws”.

Sure ’nuff this commenter in 2013 got back a combination of complete silence, attempts to change the subject, and fancy song-and-dance routines in reply – but not one responsive answer.

So we see that a conspicuous hole in the “individual sovereignty” campaign is its inability to make sense in terms of any definition of “sovereignty” found in a law dictionary.

The flaw is that fundamental, take note. Though it’s possible this is considered a problem only in the “real world”, where facts and law matter.

Adask’s reply:

First, who is the beloved “commenter” of A.D. 2013 who was so shockingly abused back in A.D. 2013?  It wasn’t you, Toland. According to WordPress, your first comment on this blog was in February of A.D. 2014. Please say the “secret name” of the A.D. 2013 “commenter” and, time permitting, I’ll look up his comment to see what he said or asked.

Second, in the past several years, I’ve written and published 1,717 previous articles on this blog. If I spent my time reading and responding to every comment, I would probably have published no more than 500. I don’t have the time, inclination or obligation to respond to every comment posted on this blog. Don’t imagine that my failure to reply to any comment on this blog is evidence of the comment’s brilliance and overwhelming strength of their arguments.

Third, I agree that the fundamental power of the sovereign is to make laws. According to Article 6.2 of the Constitution, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”. Given that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” it follows that the “author” of the Constitution must be the “supreme sovereign of the land”. Who is the author/authority that enacted and established the Constitution? Not Congress. Not the presidency. Not the courts. The author/authority behind the Constitution was, and is, We the People.

The only question is whether We the People in the sovereign capacity of: 1) a multitude of individual sovereigns or, 2) as a single sovereign “collective,” when We ratified the Constitution in A.D. 1788 in conventions (not by State legislatures or any other agency of established government) held in each of the States of the Union.

The answer to that question can be inferred from Noah Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary which was published just 40 years after We the People authorized the Constitution. That was certainly one of America’s earliest dictionaries and was probably America’s first dictionary.

Wikipedia describes Noah Webster as follows:

 

“Noah Webster, Jr. (October 16, 1758 – May 28, 1843), was an American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author. He has been called the “Father of American Scholarship and Education.” His blue-backed speller books taught five generations of American children how to spell and read, secularizing their education. According to Ellis (1979) he gave Americans “a secular catechism to the nation-state.”[1]

“Webster’s name has become synonymous with “dictionary” in the United States, especially the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary that was first published in 1828 as An American Dictionary of the English Language. He was one of the Founding Fathers of the nation.[2]

.

My copy of Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary includes the word “collective” as an adjective and as an adverb, but does not define “collective” as a noun. The failure to define “collective” as a noun implies that there was no such thing as a singular, political “collective” (in the sense later seen in communism, socialism, and democracy) before A.D. 1828.

Given that that: 1) the essence of sovereignty is the capacity to make laws; and 2) We the People ratified and thereby “authorized” the Constitution in A.D. 1788; it follows that 3) We the People acted in a sovereign capacity when we authorized the Constitution in A.D. 1788.

Given that the Constitution is declared to be the “supreme law of the land,” it follows that We the People must’ve acted in the capacity of “supreme sovereign(s) of the land” when we authorized the “supreme law of the land”.

It appears to me that We the People could’ve acted only as: 1) a multitude of individual sovereigns acting in conventions (rather than through governmental legislatures, etc.) or 2) as a single sovereign “collective“–when we ratified the Constitution.

If so, it seems inexplicable that Noah Webster (one of the Founding Fathers, political writer, student of language) 40 years after the Constitution was ratified, published America’s first authoritative dictionary and neglected to define the word “collective” as a noun.  Note that he did defined “collective” as an adjective and as an adverb, but not as a noun.  The word “collective” was not overlooked or accidentally omitted. Only the the noun “collective” was omitted.  If the American people had acted as a “collective” (noun) when they ratified the Constitution in A.D. 1788, how is it possible that Noah Webster failed to define that term in his A.D. 1828 dictionary?

If the American people had truly acted as a “collective” when they ratified the Constitution, they would probably have been the first nation to have ever done so. Wouldn’t America (rather than Karl Marx) therefore be the “father” of collectivism and thus communism, socialism, and democracy?   We would certainly want to take credit for coining the words “collective” (as a noun) and “collectivism” since we invented them as part of our radical, new system of government–and because those terms were therefore fundamental to our political system.

Alas, Noah Webster neglected to define the noun “collective” in A.D. 1828.

Gee, I wonder why?  As one of the “Founding Fathers,” he certainly should’ve known if Americans had acted as a “collective” when they ratified the Constitution.   If we’d been the first collectivist nation, doncha think the facts and law would’ve compelled Webster to explain the radically-new use of the word “collective” as a noun, and its completely new, radical definition to the American people?

If the People had truly acted as a “collective” when they ratified the Constitution, don’t you think that Noah Webster would’ve been aware of that fundamental fact of the American Revolution? Don’t you think that Noah Webster would’ve defined the noun “collective” if such existed in A.D. 1828, let alone A.D. 1788?

And yet, 40 years after the Constitution was ratified by the People, Websters didn’t bother to define “collective” as a noun.  How odd, hmm?

The fact that Noah Webster (a “Founding Father”) failed include the definition of the noun “collective” in his A.D. 1828 Dictionary (and, so far as I know, never corrected that omission) is powerful evidence that when We the People acted in our sovereign capacity to authorize the Constitution (“supreme law of the land”) we could not have acted as a “collective” (because such concept did not even exist in that era). That leaves only only possible sovereign capacity in which We the People could have ratified the Constitution–as a multitude of individual sovereigns.

So, while you argue that there’s “a conspicuous hole in the ‘individual sovereignty’ campaign [that is] its inability to make sense in terms of any definition of ‘sovereignty’ found in a law dictionary,” how do you explain the even bigger hole in the “collective sovereignty campaign”—the complete omission of the noun “collective” from Webster’s A.D. 1828 Dictionary?

I don’t yet know when the word “collective” was first used as a noun.  I suspect that Karl Marx (A.D. 1818-1883) is responsible for devising the concept of a political “collective” somewhere between A.D. 1850 to A.D. 1870—several decades after the Constitution was ratified and Noah Webster published his dictionary. There’s a good chance that the word “collective” was not defined by anyone as a noun until at least a half century after We the People enacted the “People’s Law” we call the “Constitution of the United States”.  That’s evidence that We the People could not have acted as a sovereign “collective” (noun) when We ratified the Constitution.   Instead, it’s evidence that We the People must’ve acted as a multitude of individual sovereigns when We the People authorized the “supreme law of the land”..

So, Toland, how does that argument square up with your “real world” where only “facts and law matter”?

.

P.S.  Those of you who argue in favor of the idea that this country started with the people acting as a single, political “collective” (noun) are collectivists cut from the same cloth as Marx, Engles and the former Soviet Union/ “Evil Empire”.  Our government and the New World Order would be proud of you.  The Founding Fathers would be appalled.  Hitler would applaud your foolish usefulness.  Our Father YHWH ha Elohiym would probably be less supportive.

 
24 Comments

Posted by on June 9, 2015 in Definitions, Sovereignty

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

24 responses to “Noah Webster Didn’t Define “Collective” as a Noun

  1. Anthony Clifton

    June 9, 2015 at 5:58 AM

    amazing how the “Economic Terrorist” {Money Changers} are conveniently
    overlooked in this expose of Jr. High School debate class about the word

    SOVEREIGNTY….[Psalms & Proverbs]

    http://forward.com/opinion/israel/309650/jack-lew-heckle-jerusalem-post-conference/

    does He who formed the eye not see…?

    oh how I wish you could read Lee J. Levingers’ Jr. High School history book
    for “Jewish” Jr. High Schul children available in the 1930’s.

    https://buelahman.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/bmans-2016-potus-watch-bernie-sanders-wins-by-not-giving-oral-sex-to-a-donkey/

    especially when it comes to explaining a little bit about the forming of the
    so-called “republican” form of “government” for the people {Israelites} in
    early “America”….

    http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Israel_in_Revelation.htm

    not knowing about the panoramic view of “History” doesn’t actually change the
    “Facts” { B. Freedman} {Monis} concerning the Children of Israel who have never
    been so-called “Jews”…i.e., “Proselytes” to Talmudic Judaism…a Hate Jesus

    so-called “Religion”.

    Jesus said “To Know the Truth”….!

     
  2. palani

    June 9, 2015 at 6:28 AM

    Printed in 1702 …. The Original Power of the People of England … Seems modern thought is not at all original after all

    https://books.google.com/books?id=-p4xAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=collective&hl=en&sa=X&ei=psx2VaqrH87LsATLqqywDw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=collective&f=false

     
    • palani

      June 9, 2015 at 6:31 AM

      Ooops .. should read The Original Power of the Collective Body of the People of England

       
  3. Toland

    June 9, 2015 at 4:59 PM

    First, who is the beloved “commenter” of A.D. 2013 who was so shockingly abused back in A.D. 2013? It wasn’t you, Toland. According to WordPress, your first comment on this blog was in February of A.D. 2014. Please say the “secret name” of the A.D. 2013 “commenter” and I’ll look up his comment to see what he said or asked.

    I don’t know what this means. What “beloved” commenter? How was this commenter “shockingly abused”? What “secret name”? You seem to know a lot more about this ignoble incident than I do, perhaps because you recall something about it from when it happened.

    As already mentioned, the thread was posted in November of 2013. If I thought you’d consider this incident important enough to investigate a year and a half later, I would have noted the details. I can at least say that none of the names of the “fellow commenters” was familiar. Nor were any of these bad actors the many-times-banned Les Fuchs (under an umpteenth nom de guerre), whose “cute” and “clever” brand of childish babbling we all instantly recognize.

    The only question is whether We the People in the sovereign capacity of: 1) a multitude of individual sovereigns or, 2) as a single sovereign “collective,” when We ratified the Constitution in A.D. 1788 in conventions (not by State legislatures or any other agency of established government) held in each of the States of the Union.

    This is not “the only question”. Your specifying the noun “collective” is arbitrary and unwarranted and sets up a strawman.

    A third possibility beyond these two, and indeed what really happened, is that the people acted in their collective capacity to create the Constitution – “capacity” being the operative noun and “collective” being an adjective that does appear in Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

    COLLECTIVE. formed by gathering; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; congregated, or aggregated.

    To say the people acted “collectively” (adjective) avoids loaded language and the specific baggage you’re imputing to the noun “collective”. As you said, the noun “collective” didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written, nor has anyone in this discussion implied that it did, so why even bring it up?

    As to the collective sovereignty of the people creating the Constitution, we have Chief Justice Jay’s clear statement in Chisholm v. Georgia. We can thank Justice Jay for spelling it out plain and leaving very little wiggle room for misinterpretation:

    “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.”

    We also have the signatures on the Constitution itself testifying to collective sovereignty. All of the signers of the Constitution were elected representatives of collective entities. Each delegate represented a state’s electorate as a “mass, sum, or body”. Each delegate was chosen by the “congregated, or aggregated” choice of a state’ population as determined through the election process. Etc. (See Webster’s 1828 definition of “collective”, above.)

    But none of the delegates at the convention was there on behalf of an individual. If there was such a thing as an individual sovereign in this country – that is, if anyone could make law in his individual capacity – why is every signature on the Constitution that of a representative of the collective citizenry of a state?

    If anyone could make law in his individual capacity, why was no individual’s representative present at the signing of the Constitution?

    Does that argument fit into your “real world” where only the “facts and law matter”?

    It’s not “your” or “my” real world. This world where facts and law matter is usually referred to as “the” real world, because truth is one.

    Surely a prerequisite for an “individual sovereignty” argument to describe the “real world”, where facts and law matter, is for that argument to cite at least one factual example of where any individual has ever actually made a law – that is, an instance of where a single individual’s authority was sufficient for a law to be created. If individual sovereignty existed, we’d expect to see at least one example of it being exercised as such in over two centuries of American history, don’t ya think?

    Yet no such example is in evidence, because nothing of the sort has ever happened. Only the collective authority of the people has ever created law in the United States.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 2:08 AM

      Toland,
      @ I don’t know what this means. What “beloved” commenter? How was this commenter “shockingly abused”? What “secret name”? You seem to know a lot more about this ignoble incident than I do, perhaps because you recall something about it from when it happened.”
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      After reading a few Alfred Adask Articles of November, 2013, it APPEARS that Martens & Jetlag are of the same mindset as Toland, Henry, & Roger. The confusing thing is, Toland, Henry, & Roger, maybe, are still “Beloved” whereas, Martens & Jetlag, got a little to big for their britches with the Chief. Can’t do that & STAY BELOVED. :-) D
      Anyway, does it make ANY difference NOW on how things WERE? We are in the NOW, not then.

       
  4. Henry

    June 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM

    @Toland

    > Webster’s 1828 dictionary: COLLECTIVE. formed by gathering; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; congregated, or aggregated.

    Thus, the American body politic is a collective entity. And the body politic of every nation is the last obstacle the Money Power sees between itself and the anarchistic rule of (their) money. Just look at Greece for a current example of the struggle between a nation’s people (through their hired help in government) and the “national austerity” privatization schemes of international Big Money.

    > To say the people acted “collectively” (adjective)…

    You mean adverb, of course.

    > the noun “collective” didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written, nor has anyone in this discussion implied that it did

    Sure, the non-existence of the noun “collective” in the late 1700s is not in dispute here. Everybody agrees that no such noun was in use in the late 1700s. (Not that anyone has proven this, but it seems reasonable, so let’s go with it pending evidence to the contrary.)

    > …a prerequisite for an “individual sovereignty” argument to describe the “real world”… [is] an instance of where a single individual’s authority was sufficient for a law to be created…

    The “individual sovereignty” campaign’s failure to produce even this bare minimum of evidence doesn’t bode well for their theory. Sovereignty means “the making of law” (Blackstone), yet no one can show where (the authority of) any individual has ever made a single law. Therefore, the individual is not sovereign.

    We could approach this another way and play “show me the law”. Where is the supposed sovereignty of the individual recognized in American law – any law? If every individual was a sovereign, such a fundamental premise of jurisprudence would surely be acknowledged somewhere in the law. So show me a law that recognizes the sovereignty of the individual. They can’t, because there is no such law, because there is no such thing as individual sovereignty, in the real world.

    Meanwhile, back to the dictionaries.

    collective
    noun
    1. members of a cooperative enterprise
    (The Free Dictionary)

    collective
    noun
    1. collective noun.
    2. a collective body; aggregate.
    3. a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.
    4. a unit of organization or the organization in a collectivist system.
    (Dictionary.com)

    collective
    noun
    1. cooperative enterprise.
    2. A collective farm.
    (Oxford Dictionary)

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 2:01 PM

      Henry,Roger,Toland, Colin,
      Re: 1. members of a cooperative enterprise
      (The Free Dictionary)
      collective
      noun
      1. collective noun.
      2. a collective body; aggregate.
      3. a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.
      4. a unit of organization or the organization in a collectivist system.
      (Dictionary.com)

      We most certainly do not have a COLLECTIVE TREASONOUS, TYRANNICAL Gov-Co however, OR, do we? I have seen & felt the sting of tyranny from several individual gov-co agents both in a collective capacity, and in a single solitary capacity.

       
  5. timmy

    June 10, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    well, of course Toland and Colin have been educated in a marxist/socialist worldview, which they are probably as aware of as a fish is of the water it swims in. not to mention a marxist/socialist mass media they have been bathed in their entire lives. Everything is revisionist now…

     
    • Les Moore

      June 24, 2015 at 9:45 PM

      @ well, of course Toland and Colin have been educated in a marxist/socialist worldview, which they are probably as aware of as a fish is of the water it swims in. not to mention a marxist/socialist mass media they have been bathed in their entire lives. Everything is revisionist now…

      @ I enjoy Colin, and respect his thoughts and participation. It did always “smell” a little bit funny to me, but I’ve never said anything. I know a lot of guys like him, and they just don’t ‘do’ things like this for fun. It’s just contrary to their makeup and training and priorities. But I allow him the benefit of the doubt. Because I have no evidence to the contrary. (See Colin!) Perhaps, just perhaps, he subconsciously senses that something IS really wrong in the system. But of course, on a practical level, he is correct and I agree with him on that. It’s just stupid to act otherwise. But I like learning and considering the ideas batted about. Open mindedness is just my makeup, and it has served me well in life. But always tempered by reason and prudence. Well, not always…

      @I’d hire him in a second for business purposes. He’s a better thinker and communicator than 90% of trained attorneys, even from the “best” law schools. Sure, there’s a certain smugness or over confidence that comes with that education. Like doctors, they are deliberately trained to be over confident and superior. They don’t even realize it. That holds the system together. If these types didn’t buy in fully, everything would rapidly descend into chaos. So it’s not all bad…. of course it’s going to collapse and implode one day anyway… we lost the moorings. Plan accordingly is all I can say. And that will not hurt anyone, even the least of these.

      timmy I think I see what you are saying, then again, I don’t know for sure. BUT ! I know it’s me, not you. Colin IS GREAT though, no doubt whatsoever about that. We NEED MORE Colins, for sure.

       
    • Jerry Byrd

      July 6, 2015 at 2:01 AM

      timmy,
      @ well, of course Toland and Colin have been educated in a marxist/socialist worldview,………….”
      Better take it easy timmy. You don’t want to be labeled the newest Les u no who do you? D

       
  6. Roger

    June 10, 2015 at 11:15 PM

    Al said > Those of you who argue in favor of the idea that this country started with the people acting as a single, political “collective” (noun) are collectivists cut from the same cloth as Marx, Engles and the former Soviet Union/ “Evil Empire”.

    Those of us who care about the definitions of words in the actual dictionary are likely to find this claim doubtful, if not inexplicable.

    While the word “collective” (noun) can sometimes denote “cut from the same cloth as Marx, Engels” etc., it can also simply mean “a cooperative enterprise” (Oxford Dictionary).

    Unless one denies the United States is “a cooperative enterprise”, it clearly fits at least one (not to say all) of the dictionary definitions of a “collective” (noun).

    Did this country not start out as “a cooperative enterprise”, in your opinion? Or do you reject the dictionary definitions that qualify something as a “collective” (noun) simply because it is “a cooperative enterprise”?

     
    • Henry

      June 12, 2015 at 4:30 PM

      You was right in remarking thus. I think you discern the principle at work. A few instances:

      If at least one use of gold fringe on the United States flag is military, every use of gold fringe on the United States flag is military.

      If at least one possible meaning of “animal” intended by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals” makes their law unconstitutional, the legislature necessarily intended a meaning of “animal” that makes their law unconstitutional.

      If at least one use of “collective” (noun) implies “cut from the same cloth as Marx, Engels” etc., every use of “collective” (noun) implies “cut from the same cloth as Marx, Engels” etc.

      And so on.

       
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 12:43 AM

        Henry,
        @ You was right in remarking thus.

        He WERE? ok. Coming from you, this is all I need to go on. D

         
    • Allen Curtis

      July 1, 2015 at 3:12 PM

      Roger,
      I fess up to this. I thought for a while that you were the mentor of Henry & Toland. I was wrong. Henry calls the shots. I see that both You & Toland follow Henry’s lead & this is a good idea for your agenda. Your meaning ALL 3 of YA !!!

       
  7. palani

    June 12, 2015 at 5:54 PM

    It was a wise though a lazy cleric whom Luther mentions in his “Table Talk,”–the monk who, instead of reciting his breviary, used to run over the alphabet and then say, “O my God, take this alphabet, and put it together how you will.” [William S. Walsh, “Handy-Book of Literary Curiosities,” 1892]

     
  8. Toland

    June 12, 2015 at 6:39 PM

    “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

    – Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass

     
  9. Spade Koolie

    June 12, 2015 at 6:48 PM

    Toland,
    @ “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

    Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; …. .

     
  10. Henry

    June 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM

    Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
    Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
    More than cool reason ever comprehends.
    The lunatic, the lover and the poet
    Are of imagination all compact:
    One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
    That is, the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
    Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt:
    The poet’s eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
    Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
    And as imagination bodies forth
    The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
    Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
    A local habitation and a name.

    – William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 5:59 AM

      Henry,
      @ Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,…………………………………………………..”
      We all know you are a lover,Toland, & you are here to help, & share your love, &, you are only trying to make the world a better place to live. We know that. :-) D

       
  11. Roger

    June 12, 2015 at 10:56 PM

    @Toland

    Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    Of course, being wise as a serpent means one is not a gullible rube who buys whatever mad and flimsy rhetoric is on offer in a pandering wrapper. However, those who suffer from spiritual blindness – like the recurrent clown Les Fuchs, whom you mentioned earlier – are seduced by slick salesmen who “say all the right things” but do the works of the devil.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 14, 2015 at 12:01 AM

      Roger,
      @ like the recurrent clown Les Fuchs,………………..
      Roger, Toland, Henry, does Fuchs rhyme with trucks? I don’t really know, but I do recall that all of you big 3sum said Les started out posting under a different username other than Les Fuchs, & switched to other usernames BEFORE he/she even began to use the name of, Les Fuchs. IF SO, why do you refer to the many before Les Fuchs usernames as strictly, Les Fuchs? IS there something about that name, i.e., Les Fuchs that is attractive to you? I ask you this because I also remember that Alfred said YOU, Roger, was the FIRST one to understand what his blog was all about, meaning the first one to at least say so. IF I knew what something was all about, then knowing this would also help me to know what to SAY, & what not to say IF my intention was to deceive. Rather odd that Alfred has written either 46 or 48 Articles on MOOA & you & yours don’t get the picture, or ACT like you don’t. I believe Les,et.al. DID, i.e., get the picture. WAS Les the one you called SWINE & you could not understand WHY Alfred allowed SWINE like him/her to write his FILTH on such a unique high quality AWESOME blog like this, or, was that SWINE somebody else, i.e. ANOTHER EARLIER Les Fuchs user name? just curious. OHhhhhhh, once again, why will & yours refuse to say what Psalm Chapter EIGHT, verses THREE, Through EIGHT MEANS? I would sure like to get your OPINION about that. :-) D

       
    • Spade Koolie

      June 14, 2015 at 3:45 AM

      Roger, and, associates,
      Stupid questions do not warrant, call for, etc., intelligent answers do they? :-) D

       
    • Spade Koolie

      June 16, 2015 at 4:20 AM

      Roger,
      @ Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
      @ Of course, being wise as a serpent means one is not a gullible rube who buys whatever mad and flimsy rhetoric is on offer in a pandering wrapper.

      Roger, it is also written,”The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
      .
      ….for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light. Luke 16:8

      Roger I believe You & Henry, &, maybe, Toland, know exactly what this scripture means and you use this to your advantage..

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s