November 9, 2005
-
Just in case claire_chenault deletes my comment, here's the long and rather rambling reply I posted over on his blog. I don't expect the "debate" to last too long, because neither of us will probably change the other's mind an iota. But I will feel I have succeeded if I can get a single individual reader to expand his or her mind, and cease conflating Christianity with "Americanism", whatever exactly that is.
**********
The reason I recoil from debating you, Claire, is because I'd have to attempt to restructure your very most basic world view, one tortuous point at a time. The world is a complex place, and there are so many facets of a person's world view that I would scarcely know where to start. You'd be trying to restructure mine at the same time, and I can assure you that after 55 years on this planet, my world view is pretty much established. I'm not saying that I'm not open to new information or revelation, but it would have to be a lot more than what you've shown me so far. I've heard all of your arguments already, ad infinitum and ad nauseam. And frankly, I've lived long enough now that I'm generally not interested in the details of the "news". I'm interested in the big picture, and it's so predictable in human affairs that I can, as I said before, usually predict the future with great accuracy.
In addition, you are rather proficient at diversion. Should I make a point that you can't answer, you'd just move to a different point, as you've already illustrated. That's because you're not primarily interested in truth, but rather in "winning the debate", as you say above.
I do thank you for "repenting" after asserting your moral superiority, because whatever Christians do, including when they disagree, is supposed to be done in love. However, you go on immediately afterward to state that your objective is to "win the debate". I pointed out at the very beginning of our dialogue that you have no sincere desire to "understand" or to "know the truth" wherever that might lead you. You merely confirm my assertion here.
As an example of our widely differing world views, you refer consistently to the "liberal media". I see it as exactly the opposite. Just about all of the U.S. media of any size are corporately-owned, and there has been a steady drift toward mindless, jingoistic reporting over the past 25 years or so. One has to search far and wide for a "liberal" opinion in the corporately-owned media. I get most of my news from the BBC and from other news sources outside the continental U.S. Ironically, the BBC, which is owned by the British government, has somehow managed to maintain more objectivity and neutrality than our own corporately-owned media, who function essentially as propaganda organs of the government. I don't expect you to appreciate the irony, Claire, but it is there.
Greg Palast is a journalist of American origins who had to go to Britain to do the kind of investigative reporting that he wanted to do. Had you read his book, "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy", you'd find all of the documentation you could possibly want to support my earlier assertion that Bush and the Republicans committed massive election fraud in Florida in 2000.
As for "Scooter" Libby, the reality is that the special prosecutor has charged him with only those offenses that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I know - and you should know if you have any life experience at all - that more people were involved and that Libby committed more offenses than he has been charged with. I haven't forgotten Watergate. These "scandals" - and I include Clinton's sexual escapades, though in my world view that dalliance with Monica Lewinksy, while stupid, was many orders of magnitude less serious than the atrocities committed by Bush, Inc. - follow a very predictable pattern. First total denial. Then, when more evidence surfaces, grudging admission of lesser offenses, or scapegoating if the situation permits it. Scapegoating is what happened in the case of Watergate, and it's what is happening in the case of Libby.
Think about it. Take an ordinary case of shoplifting or drug possession. Do you honestly think that the first time there is enough evidence or probable cause to arrest someone for such "crimes" is the first time they have ever committed the crimes, or necessarily the only crimes they have committed? Don't be naive.
So you want to debate. How would we go about it? What would be the ground rules? Must everything be tested by Scripture? What if Scripture is not clear on some points (as it is NOT in a great many areas impacting on modern life)? If Scripture is not clear or does not address a given behavior, is that behavior permitted or contravened?
For example, you did mention that Israel was to be governed by God Himself, and not by a king, but the Israelites wanted a king so they got one, with predictable results. (I fail to see a significant difference in principle between Moses and Saul or David, but that's another story.) What are the implications for America? Does the Bible mention America? Does it even mention the concept of "nations"? Does it recommend or command "democracy"? If a king is undesirable, is a President more desirable? Why should we not have a one-world government? Do you ever step back and question any of these things? Do you ever have even a moment of revelation when you realize how much your Christianity is conflated, and confused, with your notions of America and "Americanness"?
This is, I suppose, where I should interject something in response to the scripture you quoted in an earlier post about how government leaders are put in place by God "for the punishment of evidoers." I can't remember the exact quote, and don't feel like looking it up. That's close enough. Surely you aren't arguing, Claire, that every world leader has been put in place by God and is obediently and flawlessly executing his mandate from God to "punish evildoers"?? I hope not, for all that scripture is is a statement of what rulers are SUPPOSED to do. The Old Testament is replete with the history of evil kings, along with the occasional righteous king. If all world leaders were put in place by God for the punishment of evildoers, then that would include leaders such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein, would it not? And if that's the case, then would we not be going against God to try to oust them from power? If it's NOT the case, then what's to say that Bush is not an "evil king" who needs to be ousted....as I, in fact, believe he is? Let's make this your first test of scriptural exegesis, Claire. What does the Scripture mean, that rulers are put in place "for the punishment of evildoers"? You can't have it both ways.
Now I'm brought to your statement above: " If a link could be made from President Bush to an abused US citizen in one of our prisons, the papers would be lit up!" It would be hard for me to remember when I have heard a more absurd statement. Back when Bush was still governor of Texas, the state with the highest rate of capital punishment, he said, "No innocent person has ever been put to death on my watch!" How did he know that? Is he God, capable of perceiving the secrets of the human heart? Given that Illinois found scores of inmates on death row who had been wrongfully convicted, Bush's statement is absurd on the face of it. You don't need "proof", and no "proof" will be forthcoming this side of eternity. That statement was one of the first times when I became aware of how truly ignorant and dangerous Bush Jr. truly was, and is.
Now, after that rather long digression....As another example, you insist that the church and not the government is responsible for the welfare of the less fortunate. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that the government CANNOT take on some of that task? You complain about taxes for "welfare" (though not, of course, for national defense). Where exactly is that distinction supported in the Bible? The government is put in place by God, according to you. So therefore, if the legislature decides to take 90% of "your" money to feed the poor (which of course isn't going to happen), is that not a righteous act? What is the basis for your objection?
Where does it say in the Bible that ANY of "your" money is yours? NOTHING you have is "yours". The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. You exist entirely by His grace and mercy. So why would it not be reasonable to assume that only your "after-tax" income is "yours" to do with as you see fit? (Even then, you are only a steward of "your" money, and God will hold you to account for your stewardship.) This is your second challenge is scriptural exegesis.
But I'm just rambling. It illustrates the complexity of trying to "debate" someone with such a diametrically opposite world view. I merely urge you, Claire, to step back from your thoroughly American notions of Christianity, and try to place it in a broader perspective. Christianity didn't even ORIGINATE in America, and Jesus was not "white". Is it REALLY that the "terrorists" "hate our freedoms", as the illustrious Dubya said? Or is it not rather that they hate the OPPRESSION which we have foisted on them for hundreds of years? It's called "colonialism" and "imperialism", Claire. Learn about it. Learn some geography and history, and try to take a long and broad historical view. Don't be selective in your application of Scripture. Try to step back from your jargon, your self-image as "conservative" and "American", and just look to Christ for answers. Be intellectually honest and transparent - if not before me, at least before God. That's all I ask. But it's a lot to ask.
Comments (38)
I saw what you said on TheTheologiansCafe under prayer requests. And I will pray for you. And remember God loves you with a pure and undying love. A love so great he sent his Son to us. A love so great that while his Son was here he took on the ultimate curse of our sin when he died on the cross. A love which is beyond our finite mind's comprehenshion. So John W. I will pray for you. That you find that truth, and realize that God loves you, and that loving him back is the best reason to keep living. It changed my life and it can change yours. If you ever want to talk I'll be willing and waiting. God bless.
I prayed for you.
I like this line: Do you ever have even a moment of revelation when you realize how much your Christianity is conflated, and confused, with your notions of America and "Americanness"?
and this: As another example, you insist that the church and not the government is responsible for the welfare of the less fortunate. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that the government CANNOT take on some of that task?
I am on welfare. What do you expect when your in a domestic violence situation, for me to become a single mom suddenly and get a super hugh paying job overnight? Another point to drive home for the conservatives. For those who claim that the church should be responsible for welfare. Most americans don't give even close to 10% of their income to their church. And I would bet the same self centered, self righteous, and cold hearted individuals would bitch about their tithe money being wasted on the poor instead of the new lighting system in the auditorium. The government gives the least to the poor, if you want them to quit wasting money, then dump wasteful programs like 'corporate welfare'. You know, where they bail out corporations for millions when they act like frauds? Good work, I hope that you made them think eccentrique, but it's likely that they just puffed up in self righteousness and defensiveness.
And eccentrique, I hear you on the poor stuff... I've lived on less than 10,000 for the past 3 years with two kids to feed. That's why I'm trying to get through school. I just need the government to quit acting like poor people can't learn and give me some stinkin' help.
Wow. Excellent post. My light just increased in wattage quite a bit.
Just a little added value on the welfare situation.
The Bible is FULL of instances where is says we are supposed to take care of the underprivileged and oppressed.
For example: "...DEFEND THE FATHERLESS and PLEAD FOR THE WIDOW." (Isaiah 1:17)
"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest; YOU SHALL LEAVE THEM FOR THE POOR AND FOR THE STRANGER." (Leviticus 23:22) At the end of this bit, it says "I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD." That kind of made me laugh because it reminded me of the political ads.
"I am the Lord your God, and I approved this message."
Ha ha ha!
Come on! You GOTTA think God has a sense of humor don't you?
"If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property, then his next of kin shall come and redeem what his brother has sold"....(look it up for yourself if you want to see the part I left out)..."If he has not sufficient means to get it back for himself, it shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the year of Jubilee; in the year of Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his property." (Leviticus 25:25-28)
Now, my question of the day is: How can all these so-called "Christians" suck up all the anti-welfare bullshit of the /Republican Party when it is SO OBVIOUSLY STATED in the BIBLE that we are EXPECTED to take care of the less fortunate, making sure they are fed, clothed, and housed???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The number of question marks is to emphasize my EXTREME PISSED OFFEDNESS towards those who regard poor people as worthless scum.
You BET YOUR ASS JESUS didn't think poor people were scum.
Someday--SOMEDAY--I am going to take my Bible (and YES, you assholes like Lead_Mare who think I am the spawn of hell, I DO HAVE ONE, and I HAVE READ IT. More than once. Have YOU?) and I am going to take apart the fucking Republican party POINT by fucking POINT and PROVE (to anyone who has half a brain cell in their head) that the Republican Party is most certainly NOT Christian. It ain't even CLOSE, neighbors and friends!
Eccentrique, what's this on my xanga of you saying you won't be around forever?
Are you sick?
Or are you just feeling old?
Perk up, man! Age is just a number. It's meaningless.
I think the problem with the association here - even perhaps my own - is that because America's predominant religion is Christianity, you are somehow less American if you are not Christian and do not exactly follow the doctrines of the "majority reflected" fundamental beliefs. i.e. To be a "good Christian" you ought to be both pro-life and pro-war.
I wonder about the levels of patriotism too and how that changes people's (or is reflected in) ideas/ideals. In America, patriotic pride accounts for so many core beliefs - at least from what I have observed. You can not walk down the street and not come across a flag displayed in at least one window.
*Shakes head*. Maybe I should not opine what I think. I am misguided, myself, being that I have been Christian, Atheist and Agnostic so far in my short life-time. It just seems to me like too many "flags" are held up to one in the name of unity that truly divide rather than unite.
On a lighter note: I asked hubby the all important question. His initial response was "It's impossible". I asked him how he knew if he had not tried. It was an interesting conversation that I believe we had not had before.
Very amusing.
very impressive, john.
I saw your comment on TheTheologiansCafe and I'm praying for you.
"Therefore, I will allure you, will bring you into the wilderness, and speak comfort to you. I will give you your vinyards from there, and the Valley of Trouble as a Door of Hope..." Hosea 2:14-15a, paraphrased
I pray you find comfort in your wilderness, and a door of hope in your trouble.
Cogently stated, my friend.
D.I. Edifice
Very well put.
Praying for you.
It may just be that I haven't yet had my second coffee of the morning, but are these praying types in the comments above against what you say or for you? Just to say that they are praying without commenting on what you say is unsurprising but annoying nevertheless.
VERY nicely put. I'm subscribed to you now.
A little commentary, since I'm narcissistic like that.
Second paragraph: "Diversion"
That tactic is used by my mother. I've learned to work with it rather well, and when she refuses to stick to the point, I just walk away with the strange breed of exasperation and satisfaction of knowing that I've proven her wrong, but also knowing that she's too deeply in denial to acknowledge it.
This is also a tactic used by many women I've met. Hmmm...
Third paragraph: "Winning the Debate"
I find it pointless to enter a conversation with someone as closed-minded as that in the first place. It's interesting to watch them run around in circles and backtracking over their contradictions, slowly getting more and more worked up before snootily insulting you instead of giving an actual rebuttal. It gets annoying after a bit, though.
Fourth paragraph: "The Liberal Media"
I'll have to disagree to an extent on this point. While I agree with your assertions regarding the BBC (bless them and their utilization of the internet), I have to say that there is, in fact, a bit of media in the US that could be regarded as "The Liberal Media." There are numerous reporters and organizations that swoop down upon every little scandal and mistake about the president and administration that they can, but it is, for the most part, contained.
My problem with it, however, is more along the lines of... Well, I just call it "The Extremist Media." No (US) news source seems to be truly objective about matters anymore. Either they're on the left or they're on the right.
I must applaud Jon Stewart and his program "The Daily Show," however, for being a very funny yet well-done and informative program (well, at times). His discussions of issues with his guests is always respectful, unbiased, and fact-driven. More importantly, it's driven by common sense.
It's unfortunate that most reporters can't be as well-informed and intelligent as Mr. Stewart, but I'm glad that we at least have him.
Fifth paragraph: "Rigged"
No comment. It's an inarguable point when presented with all of the facts.
Sixth paragraph: "Libby"
The audacity of the Bush administration astounds me. Getting the opinion of one as seasoned as yourself (it's wonderful and refreshing to hear you reference Watergate, knowing you witnessed that time period firsthand) was something I immediately valued.
Quite honestly, I don't know what to say other than that. The whole ordeal has left me increasingly speechless.
Ninth paragraph: "Scripture"
The way that people keep referencing a millenia-old script as an explicit rulebook is also something that irritates me to no end. Once again, no comment other than that.
Tenth paragraph: "Evildoers"
You know, I'm just going to put commentary for those paragraphs for which I really have something to say. Trying to say something that can't be put into any words beyond your own is redundant and makes me feel kind of like an idiot.
Fourteenth paragraph: "In Conclusion..."
Ironically enough, that takes me straight to the last paragraph.
It's a sad thing, but I've learned that it truly IS too much to ask from some people. They're simply far too comfortable in their state of ignorance and refuse to think that everything that they've been arguing for so long, that everything they've built their beliefs and LIVES around, is inaccurate and possibly even completely wrong.
I could be so arrogant as to say that it probably originates from some sort of subconscious fear, that somewhere in there, they KNOW they're wrong, but that's only applicable to certain ones. I know nothing of this person, so I'm not going to make any assumptions.
Once again, it's great to see someone of your experience on xanga speaking their mind. I'll be keeping up with your posts.
*after reading claire_chenault's post*
Hm. She's definitely eloquent enough. Something about her and her buddy Gewicht just makes them seem as though they're trying extra hard to prove their convictions simply to spite the opposition.
The lumping of anyone of an opposing opinion into the same group as the ignorant majority is a mistake nobody should make. Gewicht seems to have made that mistake.
Keep writing.
Gee - isn't it strange that one small comment regarding Christianity can spark such debate.
And don't you hate it when people THREATEN to pray for you. Whatever, man - *cough,cough*
I don't mind if people pray for me. I just don't want any fucking HYPOCRIT praying for me, you know?
I don't see how someone who thinks that they are God's chosen light of the world and they PRAY for my poor lost soul without even knowing who the hell I am, well...I don't see how someone like that can pray effectively for me.
But--that's not why I wanted to post on here this am.
Eccentrique, I would like to know your story, if you don't mind telling it. If you don't want to share it with the world, that's okay. You can put it under protected, and only them that you WANT to see it can see it.
I didn't realize you were not about 25 or so. Your soul--or what I can see of it through your posts--seems too pure to be an adult's.
Ha ha.
Anna
I came from Dan's site and I want you to know that I prayed for you. That being said, let me tell you a personal story about my dad. He still struggled with depression for many years. Almost 2 years ago, he comtemplated suicide. Wrote the letter. And decided to not do it. He called our MD, scheduled an appointment, and got on anti-depressants. He saw a psychiatrist for several months, but I think he's done. He's happier than he's been in years. Our family is happier and we all have a good relationship with him now. I tell you this, because I want you to know that there are some things that you can't do on your own. Please, get help. If you're proud, lay down your pride for the sake of yourself, your family, and those around you. Christ loves you more than you know. Even when life begins to look hopeless, there is hope because Christ has a plan for your life. Jeremiah 29:11 says, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord. 'Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" Trust in those plans.
Hey... I see that people keep saying they are praying for you. Is there anything in particular that I can pray for you?
I think later today I'm gonna post my letter that I wrote to one of my political leaders in washington. It's pretty seering, and will give you a clue as to why I'm bummed. When I go back to my normal optimistic self I'll join the debate that you are in.
It is not completely Claire's fault. She is following the "royal diadem" of conquer. That is why Christianity is its own oxymoron...you do want love and peace...and you will conquer anyone to prove it---for Christians, winning is a "
silent" command from the Roman Empire of which they have still established themselves as "unknowing" citizens of believing indeed that Christ is the emperor of this world and actually the entire first 9 verses in matthew Chapter 7 is actually a license to indeed judge all of mankind---put with love and peace and the holy spirit---al while carrying the sword of God in their hand....peace my ass!
Interesting note on King David---the mother of Solomon was another man's wife--that man it is written in the Bible that King David had him sent to the battlefield to a sure death...mainly becasue Bathsheeba was just so hot that damn God and the rules altogether---he just had to bang her and somehow that all washes out. Now, contrast that with Constantine....soon after killing his own wife and children (love and peace?)...he set out a mighty set of decretals that forever solidified the Roman Empire and the "teachings of Christ" as interchangeable parts. ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!!!!! March to your war....historically the hypocritical stance that peace through the love of Jesus Christ is established by the sword is still odd to me as Jesus Christ never taught swordmanship......
Matey, you have taken on a good fight with the mechanically sleeping ones...you are not speaking to those capable of "conscious thought" they are too sedated in dogma to even realize that like the matrix...they gave up their own individuality and lives to something external to their own innate power. I will enjoy watching this debate....
JM
America could stand a good dose of "nationalism" however...and that really has no Christian dogma about it. Take note that Thomas Jefferson was a deist and he wrote his own version of the Bible taking out any and all references to "God"...also, please keep in mind that historically, England sent the "Puritans" over here because they were a bother to their system not for religious freedom really as the original colony was not "America" but a bunch of people escaping English Church rule to seek their own way while still being a taxable colony to England.
The people who forged America were not Christian in intent or form. But, we would all like to believe that as it can easily be swept under the rug in some sweeping aphorism that neither looks at nor cares about the truth of what really did establish America...and oh yes...it was bloodshed, gunpowder and a shitload of swords..."God" had little to do with it. "God" is and always will be an opiate for the masses to keep them in order as the fear of living this life is lessened by the fear that that is all there is...so most people live for a future that does not exist and in its own framework is a lie weaved out of stories and imagination.
Well...I do like this one....
jm
I prayed for you also. May God bless you greatly.
For clarification purposes: People are praying for me because of a prayer request I left over on Theologian Dan's blog, NOT because of my debate with claire_chenault. They're two entirely separate things. Those who say they're praying for me are not being self-righteous or hypocritical here....though some of them, I'm sure, are saying "Be warmed and filled." I'll probably post a rant about that one of these days.
pray or prey...the action resulting causes the same effect...the interference into your own private-ness...within the inner space of each self...what action of prayer there is to God is certainly heard and acted upon...by a mechanism that also enters the overall conscious fray and in that effect has the action of dual creation: the good and the bad of the prayer made because again...it is an external action with a target into someone else's internal means...you do get a booger flicking tulpa reaction to that and can actually cause more harm than good (please study the lifespan of the work in the "Spindrift Project"...the Klingbeil's blew their own brains out---the power of prayer--not for me)
It is like forgiving someone else...what effect does that have and if indeed the other person is setting their own emotional center to pivot on you acceptance or non-acceptance of them...the center of focus is already maligned before any action could really be beneficial. The only person you can ever forgive is yourself and truly no one else can forgive you but you...there is no guard at the gate. Acceptance and understanding do not make forgiveness externally for that is an illusion. The same is with prayer...whatever force you have amalagamated and named as a "God" waiting to hear you like fairies come and fix your shoes..well, the subconscious does take that all in and you do begin to take action...especially when the prayer is focused on your needs...but for the needs of another complete and independent from you...little good comes of it....
jm
Greetings Eccentrique! Hey, just a quick note to say that I do not delete notes on my site! Cowards are the first ones into the lake of fire!
On to a couple posts by your comrades:
At no place in the Bible does it state that it is a governments responsibility to provide social welfare for the poor. Quoting Isaiah 1:17 as Anna did as an example, this is speaking to the individual believer. In fact, if one were an atheist, I would think they find it offensive to support the halt, lame and blind. That is a value of one who believes in God or gods (or goddesses, if such deities insist on compassion). Why should atheists, with no moral compass but that which their own capricious mind creates, be compelled to care for the weak? Darwinism as a belief system would dictate that we push the runts out of the nest, males kill off the competition and mate with every female possible.
Prowlinglunatics funny reference to Watergate reminds me of the high water mark for liberals...the 60's! Ahhh..now those were the good old days! I did not bring up Watergate, as I did not want to make the comparison to Nixon being booted (by his own buddies the Republicans) for lying about ONE FBI file....then having to contrast their selective outrage with the MULITIPLE FBI files in the Clinton White House.
I have no difficulty with conservatives or Republicans being arrested, tried and sent to prison IF CONVICTED. However, as illustrated above, I see liberals as using different measuring devices when it comes to their pals as oppossed to those they do not like.
It is way too easy to point at someone like 'Scooter' Libby and say 'See, they are all a bunch of liars', when we have not had day one of the trial! So a simple accusation is all the left needs for a conviction? Yet, the silence is deafening when a forged federal document is used as 'evidence' by a very powerful media elite like Dan Rather weeks before a national election. Where is liberal outrage at this? It appears to me (and please correct me if this appearance is inaccurate) that liberals are disingenuous and selective with their justice. If I were a liberal, I would want the heads of those who are hijacking my belief system for thier own selfish gain. Have liberals no shame?
Longwalk has a stunted view of Christianity stance with regards to war. Those who chose to believe that Christian warriors are attempting to bring heathens into submission have made a poor choice. Any so-called brother who would use the sword to bring people into 'God's' Kingdom has no relationship with Jesus. The Christians' I walk with lay down their lives for others. I have many friends that do not believe as I. Some are homosexuals, others are Islamic, Taoist and Wiccan's. I care for them and would take the bullet for them. What Longwalk is confused about seems to be justice. Christians, walking in the midst of America (I in NO WAY believe America is the sole possession of Chrisitianity) insist that justice be brought to the doorstep of evil. Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Sadaam and so forth were given opportunity to cease from their purusit of injustice. America, operating not in some psuodo-hegemony, then brought justice to them.
Chrisitans (at least those I walk with) indeed desire and want to see the Spirit of the living God change the hearts of mankind...but if one insisits on murdering, then we are only left with the justice of the sword. Would it be justice to continue to allow gangs of thugs to continue to blow up innocent civilians? Would my ancestors been loving to have allowed Hitler to continue to burn Jews? I see the compassion of liberalism at the UN, when they stand by and allow Sudanese civilians to continue to be murdered. If liberalism had won the day back in the 90's, there would be no Kuwait or Saudia Arabia today. Liberalism seems to be neutered when it comes to everything, except standing up to conservatives. They can not even stand up for innocent babies! How does it appear to you, Eccentrique?
On a personal note: I had the opportunity to be in Baltimore a few years ago. A group of inner city youth approached myself and my companion, asking if we had permission to pass through their sectoin of town. I expressed that I was ignorant of such a pass. They then attempted to acost my companion. I asked them if they would rather I pray for them or bring justice to them? They chose wisely, we spoke respectfully to one another and they let us pass. Now...was that the Spirit of Jesus at work in me or not? Had they chosen poorly, would I have been judged by my liberal friends as being un-Christ like had I protected my companion? Would I not have been excercising my God given responsibility to 'protect the innocent' and show these young bucks a 'more excellent way?' It seems to me that Jesus protected the woman caught in adultery from the Pharasees rather than condemned her.
And my last for the day...my whole desire in putting forth this silly little xanga site was for the purpose of having my ideas challenged. I have no desire to live in a cocoon, fighting to protect some foolish little belief system. If my belief system can not stand up to a simple challenge, is it worth believing in? Should I not be able to give a defense for that which I believe? This is what I find honorable about Eccentrique! Although we both may have to aggree to disagree, he is not simply pushed off task my some forceful good like me! My hope is that he is also willing to take his own medicine and is not always wearing the liberal sunglasses.
May the peace that passes all UNDERSTANDING rule as an umpire in our hearts!
Pardon! I meant to refer to myself as a 'goof' and not good! Sorry guys!
A true believer! excellent and with a wonderful dialog...granted, I do not have to be right or wrong and there is no purpose other than the free expression of my observations...oddly, the whole holding of Christianity is in the defense of its stance...as interpreted. that which requires an ardent believing in on its own premise is hard to trust and even claire, you are so much more than a Christian...should all the connotions of "Heaven, God and Eternal Life" be taken away...this life is actually not a hell and this existance is not a dirge...so many people are living waiting for the payoff at death that they miss the whole essence of life.
First there is the imagining of what might be to answer that which is truly unknowable. Then the unknowable becomes explainable by the imagining. This very imagining of course it could not have originated within the person....it must be the inspired word of "God"...wait, this is true..the very word of God...I must write it down...you must read it for God has told me the truth about the unknown...WE NOW KNOW IT...Read what I have written for the HAND OF GOD moved through me. YES, YES, HE IS RIGHT! YAY! WE HAVE MADE CONTACT WITH GOD! Such it is that the imagining of that which needs neither name or definition becomes a belief a religion and an passage of oral and written tradition with the expounding upon on it...the sad thing...it is a lie. A sweet harmless lie but a lie that would stop us all from exploring the truth that as we stand before the ominous and large things for which we have no explanation or understanding for...it is a better practice to observe ourselves and refrain from yelling "GOD"., "MOUNTAIN" or "ABSOLUTE LAW!!!!". I too would love to know what Claire sees with the mind that Claire has and the words that Claire uses. Those are the insights worth knowing.
The world does not need Jesus. It does not need another "religion"...it does need to stop all this incessant insistance and take but a moment to observe each one ourselves and to "remember our own cell-f" in the process. There is no Satan and there are no forces pulling your or my strings. There is us and we and you and me as we are and as it is now and tomorrow or the end of our lives cannot be in control of the action we can focus on today. Screw even politics and all the muckity muck they do. The true problem is the blindness with which religion, sex, race and "political party" is caused by the distraction from what is really taking place. Most people are too asleep in the shell to even be aware neither inwardly or outwardly. The world does not change. People can. One at a time.
History too will not change you. It can teach. It can show. But it means nothing as it no longer exists. Tomorrow is a myth because it will never occur. Today is the greatest time you have ever lived because this moment is within your own hands...our hands. The rest...all of it...all the knowing and learning...dust in the wind. Swords rust..gavels break...but the lies we believe and extend...those can be perpetuated into the next generation...the real issue that all of mankind never wants to step off of is to openly admit...we do not know what we profess to know about so many things that all the neurotic naming has only caused a dis-ease that we cannot hardly stomach anymore and rather than find the source of that. WE would throw all the shit like monkeys at a zoo we can at it hoping it will go away if we speak the "written" words of some original liars. You are hardly a goof...
jm
i pray you found a good reason to get up this morning. i saw your prayer request. oh, the mental pain.
i saw this and thought i would pass it on. not really as answer, but an idea.
Compelled to Trust
By Dr. Robert Schuller
<!--
Why? is the one question all innocent persons in pain cry out to the blackness that is deathly silent. Why?
-->
Why? is the one question all innocent persons in pain cry out to the blackness that is deathly silent. Why? is the one question God is not obligated to answer. The truth is, when in our pain and hurt we call out "Why?" to God, we don't want an answer. We want out of the dark place. If God answered, He'd be drawn into an argument. His answer would only provoke more questions from us: "But why me!? I don't deserve it."
Why? is the normal, understandable, proper, legitimate question, but that doesn't mean it is the right question. God wanted to teach this basic, fundamental lesson to all humanity once and for all-that the questions that start with why may never be answered. This is why He allowed the most beautiful Person of all time to ask "Why?" and teach us that the Almighty God does not need to answer.
So long as the why is unanswered, we are compelled to trust God in times of agonizing mystery. If and when acceptable answers could be offered by the eternal God to His human creatures in suffering, we would know the meaning of pain and would become more dependent on always demanding answers; we would become even more addicted to reason-and that road leads to the atrophy of faith.
We must come to the mental maturity that confronts agonizing mysteries with the positive attitude: "I don't understand-but I believe in God anyway."
Faith grows through trusting God when we can't see or find answers.
i was just browsing, but it seems like ive stumbled upon a most intruiging debate. on that last part, i do agree about the imperialism, which i find quite ironic. does it strike u as odd that the US is over fighting in other countries, forcing our culture and beliefs on other peoples when we cant even decide if we want to say the pledge of aleidgance in our own schools because it uses the word "God" in it? just a thought. however, as far as the terrorism goes i do believe its because we have something they dont, and want.
when you say "...they hate the OPPRESSION which we have foisted on them for hundreds of years..." by "we" you couldnt mean the United States bc our country is barely even that old itself. The US began to impose our government/culture/belief on other ppl only as a predominant factor as far as world powers go. how could we be of significant influence worldwide otherwise? this statement seems to me to be an exaggeration to make a point, and furthermore makes it sound like the terrorists are merely acting in self-defense, and on this point i must disagree. just something that caught my eye. great post though. i guess being 55 gives you plenty of experience in being able to organize your thoughts clearly. comment back, id like to know what you think.
also, i found this site from another, i dont remember which but it was the one with the prayer requests on it. another thing that struck me as odd, you seem to know so much about God and the Bible and seem to believe strongly in your views, but yet you seem to be willing to give it all up...is the only reason you live because you fear going to hell? then perhaps you only know about God, as opposed to knowing him personally. you said you are 55. this strikes me as unusual for someone at your stage in life to think if ending it so abruptly. teenagers yes, we have college and money to worry about, as well as dodging clicks and drugs and peer pressure. but i dont know your situation so i wont judge, it just caught my attention.
I don't know how to debate claire_chenault and Longwalk simultaneously. The latter says that God is irrelevant, while the former believes that God thinks it's OK to torture people.
I can only say that I'm somewhere in the middle.
My reply to a portion of xBellaMuerte's first comment (when you say "...they hate the OPPRESSION which we have foisted on them for hundreds of years..." by "we" you couldnt mean the United States bc our country is barely even that old itself. The US began to impose our government/culture/belief on other ppl only as a predominant factor as far as world powers go. how could we be of significant influence worldwide otherwise? this statement seems to me to be an exaggeration to make a point, and furthermore makes it sound like the terrorists are merely acting in self-defense, and on this point i must disagree. ):
It may have been a slight exaggeration, but I'm looking at the big picture. Europe has been in the colonialism business since the 1500's, in Africa, India, Central and South America, and various islands all over the world. In the 1600's North America became a British and Dutch colony in the NE, a French colony in the midwest, and a Spanish colony in Florida and the southwest. First as a European colony and then as the new United States of America, we collectively committed genocide on the Native American population, while importing slaves from Africa. While we did practice the doctrine of isolationism for a while with regard to the rest of the world, we took over just about all of the scattered Spanish colonies as a result of the Spanish American War, and began to stick our nose into the rest of the world's business shortly thereafter. When Great Britain and France were finally ready to relinquish their colonies, we essentially stepped right into their shoes. We use slightly different methods, with our corporations and organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund paving the way and the military used only as a sort of last resort. But the result is the same; America is an imperial power.
My response to xBellaMuerte's second comment: I have known God personally, but have lost much of my youthful rosy-cheeked faith. I have poverty and disability and existential aloneness to worry about. I wish all I had to worry about was grades and clicks (sic) and peer pressure.
Response to claire's comment above:
{At no place in the Bible does it state that it is a governments responsibility to provide social welfare for the poor.}
I asked you if there is any place in the Bible that FORBIDS the government to provide social welfare to the poor. I also ask you now, explicitly, if there is any place in the Bible that tells YOU to what EXTENT you yourself, and your fellow followers of Christ, should provide social welfare to the poor.
{Quoting Isaiah 1:17 as Anna did as an example, this is speaking to the individual believer. In fact, if one were an atheist, I would think they find it offensive to support the halt, lame and blind.}
Yet many so-called atheists find it less offensive than you as a professing Christian do. Why is that?
{Why should atheists, with no moral compass but that which their own capricious mind creates, be compelled to care for the weak? Darwinism as a belief system would dictate that we push the runts out of the nest, males kill off the competition and mate with every female possible.}
It would seem so. Yet many so-called atheists have a definite moral compass. Where does it come from? And why do you insist on using the term "compelled" to care for the weak? Why do you not rather count it all joy to be PRIVILEGED to care for the weak? And with reference to government "compulsion", why do you not also object to being "compelled" to care for the STRONG?
{Prowlinglunatics funny reference to Watergate reminds me of the high water mark for liberals...the 60's! Ahhh..now those were the good old days! I did not bring up Watergate, as I did not want to make the comparison to Nixon being booted (by his own buddies the Republicans) for lying about ONE FBI file....then having to contrast their selective outrage with the MULITIPLE FBI files in the Clinton White House.
I have no difficulty with conservatives or Republicans being arrested, tried and sent to prison IF CONVICTED. However, as illustrated above, I see liberals as using different measuring devices when it comes to their pals as oppossed to those they do not like.
It is way too easy to point at someone like 'Scooter' Libby and say 'See, they are all a bunch of liars', when we have not had day one of the trial! So a simple accusation is all the left needs for a conviction? Yet, the silence is deafening when a forged federal document is used as 'evidence' by a very powerful media elite like Dan Rather weeks before a national election. Where is liberal outrage at this? It appears to me (and please correct me if this appearance is inaccurate) that liberals are disingenuous and selective with their justice. If I were a liberal, I would want the heads of those who are hijacking my belief system for thier own selfish gain. Have liberals no shame?}
I am not a "Democrat". I am not a "liberal". I object to your hackneyed use of those terms, claire. Just as you refuse to reply to Anna Lanche's profanity, so I will not reply to any of your statements where you attempt to pigeonhole me, or anyone else, with lame stereotypical labels which have become utterly meaningless through misuse or overuse. I want you to go back to source material, claire. Think outside the box you seem to have such a need to inhabit.
{Longwalk has a stunted view of Christianity stance with regards to war. Those who chose to believe that Christian warriors are attempting to bring heathens into submission have made a poor choice. Any so-called brother who would use the sword to bring people into 'God's' Kingdom has no relationship with Jesus. The Christians' I walk with lay down their lives for others. I have many friends that do not believe as I. Some are homosexuals, others are Islamic, Taoist and Wiccan's. I care for them and would take the bullet for them. What Longwalk is confused about seems to be justice. Christians, walking in the midst of America (I in NO WAY believe America is the sole possession of Chrisitianity) insist that justice be brought to the doorstep of evil. Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Sadaam and so forth were given opportunity to cease from their purusit of injustice. America, operating not in some psuodo-hegemony, then brought justice to them.}
I believe that there is a crying need for justice right here in America....in our economic system, in our courtrooms, etc. Why do we spend billions to bring "justice" to certain select nations overseas, while spending billions to PERPETUATE INJUSTICE here at home?
{Chrisitans (at least those I walk with) indeed desire and want to see the Spirit of the living God change the hearts of mankind...but if one insisits on murdering, then we are only left with the justice of the sword. Would it be justice to continue to allow gangs of thugs to continue to blow up innocent civilians?}
I perceive the American government as a gang of thugs blowing up innocent civilians. Please explain to me how we're not. Explain to me the difference between American terrorism and that "other" terrorism. Do you HONESTLY believe that you are capable of correctly discerning our leaders' true motivations, in contrast to the motivation of those "others"? Or is it merely your DESIRE, your NEED, to think of Americans as being somehow more noble and pure? Think long and well before you answer.
{Would my ancestors been loving to have allowed Hitler to continue to burn Jews? I see the compassion of liberalism at the UN, when they stand by and allow Sudanese civilians to continue to be murdered. If liberalism had won the day back in the 90's, there would be no Kuwait or Saudia Arabia today. Liberalism seems to be neutered when it comes to everything, except standing up to conservatives. They can not even stand up for innocent babies! How does it appear to you, Eccentrique?}
It appears to me that I do not respond to empty and meaningless labels. I personally have never taken an innocent baby's life. or advocated that others do so. Since I do not know precisely when that which we call “life” begins, I do not feel qualified to judge others for what must be an exceedingly difficult decision. I DO, however, judge so-called Christians who picket abortion clinics while turning a blind eye to unwanted children desperately needing adoption.
{On a personal note: I had the opportunity to be in Baltimore a few years ago. A group of inner city youth approached myself and my companion, asking if we had permission to pass through their sectoin of town. I expressed that I was ignorant of such a pass. They then attempted to acost my companion. I asked them if they would rather I pray for them or bring justice to them? They chose wisely, we spoke respectfully to one another and they let us pass. Now...was that the Spirit of Jesus at work in me or not?}
You're a very macho guy, claire. A veritable giant of a man. And yes, the Spirit of Jesus was no doubt at work in you in that situation. It’s a very good thing for the inner city youth, I think, that you were not armed with the jawbone of an ass.
{Had they chosen poorly, would I have been judged by my liberal friends as being un-Christ like had I protected my companion? Would I not have been excercising my God given responsibility to 'protect the innocent' and show these young bucks a 'more excellent way?'}
The "more excellent way" was to pray with them, as you apparently did.
{It seems to me that Jesus protected the woman caught in adultery from the Pharasees rather than condemned her.}
Jesus protected the woman taken in adultery with wisdom, not with physical violence.
{And my last for the day...my whole desire in putting forth this silly little xanga site was for the purpose of having my ideas challenged. I have no desire to live in a cocoon, fighting to protect some foolish little belief system. If my belief system can not stand up to a simple challenge, is it worth believing in? Should I not be able to give a defense for that which I believe?}
Yes, by all means. And there are times when you should also be wise enough to refrain from giving a defense of your beliefs, in favor of listening to truth as it is spoken to you.
{This is what I find honorable about Eccentrique! Although we both may have to aggree to disagree, he is not simply pushed off task my some forceful goof like me! My hope is that he is also willing to take his own medicine and is not always wearing the liberal sunglasses.}
I wear Blu-blockers, claire. They are neither liberal nor conservative. And it's not yet clear to me what medicine I should be taking.
{May the peace that passes all UNDERSTANDING rule as an umpire in our hearts!}
I would prefer that the SOURCE of that peace rule as umpire in our dialogue, and leave us both wiser than we were when we began it.
Eccentrique,
I've followed the exchanges here and those on claire_chenault's message board. I feel for you. You did the best you could by patiently waiting for your opponent to actually engage in adult dialogue.
It's discouraging when people contort the bible to support their political opinions--they do it so quickly too, without hesitation or apology. I just happened to do a word search for "conservative" and "liberal" through the entire Hebrew bible and the New Testament. And guess what? I couldn't find a single reference to these political ideologies!
It's a shame these expressions were never part of Jesus' ministry. God must be truly ashamed of Jesus for not ordering the entire global population into the ludicrous binary of "conservative vs. liberal." But God must be so pleased now that others have succeeded where Jesus so clearly failed.
I read your prayer request on TheTheologians xanga site, and I want you to know that I am praying for you.
Eccentrique.....been following this heated interchange.... (however did you find each other, btw?). I would love to hear more of the why behind your beliefs........ie., your story. I imagine that there is more to it than cognitive opinions. What experiences have led to such ardent conviction? What do you do? Do you live in an urban environment among the poor? It interests me, in particular, as we did that ourselves for about 7 years...in the inner city of Chicago........and the downtrodden have a special place in my heart.....
Wow! Two more eProps and I could be on Featured Content for the first time ever! Hahaha! Thanks for all the prayers, gentle readers.
(I probably won't make it though. And that isn't what I requested prayer about.)
Have you ever read the book of Hosea? It encourages me when I'm in the wilderness. Though it's a metaphor for the relationship between God and a nation, it applies to our personal relationship with God as well. Maybe it could help you. I'll keep praying for you.
"Come, let us return to the Lord; for He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up." 6:1
Time for an update, dude.
What are you thinking about today? What did you have for supper? (I had a baked potato and a pot pie and a rootbeer.)
Did you get my email?
Have you clipped your toenails? Did you sweep up the clippings or just leave them laying on the rug? (ew)
Have you flossed?
Cleaned the toilet?
Stocked up on toothpicks and emeryboards?
Inquiring minds want to KNOW!
Ha ha ha.
Without sleep I get a little weird and random. Sorry.
Ha ha ha!
I'll give you props just to give you props...:)
Comments are closed.