An Interview with Dr. Tom, Pt. 2 – “Marriage vs. Matrimony” – #177

Share

GM_177_rev
This episode is an interview with Dr. Tom, titled “Marriage vs. Matrimony” and is being released on Friday, September 20, 2013. This interview with Tom was recorded Friday, September 13, 2013.

Dr. Tom is psychologist by training. He worked extensively with the moral boundary problems of ministers and also with the contradictory interface between God’s natural law (the Ten Commandments) and politicians’ corporate and commercial codes; which are arbitrary statutes, some of which silence churches from assessing the morals of political candidates and public figures (e.g. 26 USC 501c3).
Dr. Tom from www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Emile
Jeremy
Scott
Mary
Philip
Tino
Brandon
Michael
Sam
Peter
Mirco
Carlos
Louis
Silas
Eric

  15 comments for “An Interview with Dr. Tom, Pt. 2 – “Marriage vs. Matrimony” – #177

  1. Curtis Ingram
    September 21, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    I agree with Tom, BUT…LOL I always have pause when a human being claims they can speak for GOD or read something that GOD wrote. You often give folks a pass when that fallacy is done; which I understand. Speaking of things for the divine is a fallacy in itself, correct? “Who, what, when where (Grammar), why (Logic) How (Rhetoric).” If someone is telling me things about what GOD said or wrote; is the Trivium Method thrown out the window…you agree?

    • September 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm

      LOL, derp, LMAO, it seems that you got caught up into the semantics and missed most of the point. The point he’s discussing is natural law – see Passio, which was referred to. As he said it’s irrelevant if these people were real. You’re using the teachings which apply to natural law which are applicable under our current system. Go back and listen again. Rather than getting hung up on your own fallacies, you’re missing the examples being used and how they connect to law and reality. LOL, derp.

    • elly dozer
      September 25, 2013 at 6:16 am

      Curt I think you ask a very important question and I’m sorry I should have addressed this when I saw it first.

      IMO
      You are correct to see an inconsistency btween using the trivium method and having a believer on the podcast. And this is an interesting –paradox? That may not be the right word I’ll have to think on it…..but yeah, at first your using your critical thinking cap on, listing to the guy talk and what he says probably resonates with you as true—

      But how the hell is a believer in god to be taken as the authority on Contracting with the State? That’s what I asked myself— and I think its key to think that after Rome absorbed the Great Minds of Greece, freedom of thought was declining— then Rome falls, the further decline of free thought– THEN, the Catholic Church takes all these wonderful free thought BOOKS from the underground students of the Trivium and renamed them as Apostles, and censored the Trivium into the Trinity ( an equilateral triangle, 4-4-4. all quadrivium?). see Council of Nicaea

      but I digress. Point is, somewhere between the use of the trivium and the development of the trinity, a middleman to truth appeared, the authority, the church, the priest- whatever. whereas the Trivium eliminates the need for the authority or conduit to truth ( call it god for some). and ever since then, the Church has called the Pythagorean method a Cult. must be something good there, eh?

      So using the Trivium would never ( or shouldn’t) separate you as a human from your spirituality. It may enhance is actually. but I agree, on its face this seems confusing. Then I learned the Trivium and the works of Greek minds was hidden ( for a good reason) in the Codex’s approved by the controlling arm of organized religion-the Church.

      If we ignore our brothers who so do try to walk the talk of the better parts of truth hidden in organized religion today I think we would be ignoring a huge source of knowledge JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IT!

  2. Curtis Ingram
    September 21, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    “You have faith where you don’t have knowledge.” NOT LOL. You have ignorance where you don’t have knowledge. Faith is not real nor tangible…until it materializes or tangible knowledge is gained. But hey…that’s me.

  3. Andrew
    September 23, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    ‘LOL’, ‘LMAO’ and ‘derp’? Seriously, derp? What happened to railing against the dumbing down of language and and the promotion of intelligent rhetoric?

    • Jason
      September 24, 2013 at 5:46 am

      Here here!

      • Jason
        September 24, 2013 at 6:01 am

        (Sorry, I think that should be Hear hear! )

    • elly dozer
      September 24, 2013 at 7:07 am

      i can type a point n move on faster than u if your going to spellcheck and doddle….

      to hell with the outdated use of english grammar when you KNOW what the person is trying to say! english grammar rules can be its own form of mind control if you use it to ignore communication.

      we use computers now and i think that allows for a change for efficency.

      also your statement is premised with English Grammar as the authority but thats not the ONLY authority.

      does his liberal use of grammar make his statements untrue?

      • Andrew
        September 24, 2013 at 11:01 pm

        I appreciate your loyalty to Jan. I’ve read your defense of him many times on this website. But the irony of you brushing off the importance of grammar and rhetoric as insignificant, on Jan’s website, is stupefying.

        To touch on a few of your points:

        - I’m not generally interested in how fast one can ‘type a point’. I’m more interested in the content of that point.

        - If English is being used to communicate, English grammar is the most expedient way to achieve that. A coherent, agreed upon grammar creates the easiest path to communication, as well as being the most efficient – which you claim to hold dear.

        - I don’t see English grammar as mind control in this instance so I don’t see the relevance of your point. And if I were trying to bludgeon and/or impress you with my understanding of logical fallacies, I may point out that your mind control comment could either be a strawman or red herring but that would be obnoxious, wouldn’t it?

        - As for efficiency, see above.

        - I don’t understand your point about grammar as ‘authority’. Feel free to clarify, if you like.

        ‘does his liberal use of grammar make his statements untrue?’

        In this case, I’m not interested in the truth of his statements. I’m concerned with (and continue to be concerned with) the rhetoric. ‘LOL’, ‘LMAO’ and ‘derp’ (even though the context made this pretty clear, I still had to look this one up), aside from being dumbed down forms of communication and condescending, are appeals to ridicule and do nothing to initiate thoughtful dialogue. If Jan doesn’t want the messenger to be shot, it would seem wise to stop provoking the shooter.

        • elly dozer
          September 25, 2013 at 5:40 am

          My loyalty or not isn’t in question.

          I’m speaking to English Grammar in this comment, Jan’s material is based on the Trivium Method one of which is GENERAL Grammar. There is a difference, one of the most notable is that English Grammar is a set of guidelines for a STANDARD way of communication. It just isn’t the only way, friend. And come to think of it, this Anglo-centric opinion of your really leaves no room for error, as in spelling.

          Look you waxed on and on about— a misunderstanding. English Grammar, along with the English Language– IS keeping you from understanding a simple point. I don’t know if you are doing it intentionally or not, but honestly, the question is this, and it’s this truth that I’m defending, and I expect an answer to this question from you and nothing else:

          does his liberal use of grammar make his statements untrue? -

    • elly dozer
      September 25, 2013 at 7:24 am

      Hey you guys may want to get your grammar up to speed before u post again.

      from The Urban Dictionary

      August 21, 2012 Urban Word of the Day

      Derp

      A simple, undefined reply when an ignorant comment or action is made. Brought to life in the South Park series, when Mr. Derp made a guest apperance at South Park Elementary as the chef for a day, followed by hitting himself in the head with a hammer and exclaiming “Derp!”

      “I am t0tally c00l3r than 7u n00bs. ”

      “Derp.”
      ————————
      The First Real and proper definition for “Derp” Was basically just a response for if something or someone did something so utterly retarded or screwy, You literally have nothing else to say, Derp is what you say when you have nothing to say.

      Your friend super glued a pencil to his shirt so he wouldn’t lose it.

      You would say “derp”
      ————————
      From Oxford

      informal
      exclamation
      (also herp derp)
      used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action:
      Lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Derp
      they will probably go “herp derp downloading ROMs is bad”
      noun
      foolishness or stupidity:
      the derp heard outside apparently was only the tip of the iceberg
      Origin:

      1990s: probably an alteration of dur or duh

      derp in other Oxford dictionaries

      Definition of derp in the British & World English dictionary

    • September 27, 2013 at 11:35 pm

      Derp.

  4. elly dozer
    September 24, 2013 at 6:56 am

    i have to be a witness this friday for one of these” legal unions”

    ITS REALLY ALL ABOUT registering the children with the state and consuming crappy appliances.
    –as if you and your mate need another fondue set.!

    marrage==:( (puke)

  5. September 30, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    Jan, I’m glad you don’t discriminate against Believers (you don’t do that ad hominem thing with Christians) (despite your association with Joe Atwill!). I care about this not because of personal issues of faith, but because certain of the religious corner’s critiques of secular culture make logical sense, particularly many of the critiques of Darwinism. The secular/religious dichotomy appears increasingly to be a mind-control tool that works by imposing a seeming stalemate on a set of opposing ideas. Liberal/conservative. Public sector/private sector. Secular/sacred. (Yin/yang?) Couplets never to be resolved . . . .

    • el
      October 7, 2013 at 6:35 am

      …or that the extreme left and extreme right are in complete stalemate because they are opposed.
      …even though they are equal and opposite values of the same whole.

      oh i get it. the Sophists brought Natural Law (the balancing and opposition of the sacred masculine and feminine)–DOWN to mans law. They call it ‘politics’. In Law, they call it “justice”.

Leave a Reply