What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones
Join...
...Conservation Club!
Help protect and own one
one of the world's oldest
and rarest trees...
..::Legend::..
Black= Mastered
Green= Learning
Orange= Struggling
Red= May never master but having fun
This list is by no means comprehensive
from the mind of... Eric | 8:48 PM
30 Comments:
Amusing. Y'all gripe if they want to do a lot, and you dismiss 'em if they seem practical -- which y'all recently accused the Dems of not being. Y'all are the ones currently twisting in the wind. ...
However, I freely admit that the whole dynamic of politics has changed in this country since the last time the Dems were in power of Congress, because of the 'Net. Not because of we lowly bloggers, no, but because of the increased speed of information and opinion in general.
Veddy interesting.
If you ask me, the entire nation is twisting in the wind... Liberals and Conservatives alike... because of that rough beast we affectionately call "politics". No one paid much attention when it slouched toward Washington, and now, like a bad case of lice, it'll take a lot of hair-pulling, pain, and hardship before 'We the People' can take it back... if that's even possible at this point.
The biggest surprise for me, in terms of your second point, is none of these so-called "news agencies" can get away with lying to the public any more... Memogate, Fauxto-gate, the Associated Press, the L.A. Times, New York Times, Reuters... There're simply too many people like you and me out there ready to call them on it; and their Readership/Viewership is in freefall... It's been a long time since the average Joe has had this much control.
That's a good thing, but... our part in this too is like unto a "rough beast." As the Internet Age is relatively new-- still in its infancy --for now, and for the most part it's a chaotic and undisciplined beast; The clay is still wet, if you will.
Media also has yet to learn the hard truth that it no longer has a monopoly on the American download: meaning, it no longer controls what we have access to in terms of information. You and I no longer have to go to a library and toy around with the microfiche-- those days are all but gone! Which means, with access to terabytes of information at our fingertips we are no longer held hostage to any one man or one organization's version of the truth.
But what I find most amusing about the Media as a whole-- to which, seemingly, they're entirely blind --they all use the same phraseology; from one network to the next, they consistently use the exact same phrases and taglines. It's as though each morning they all get together via conference-call and decide what 'red-letter' phrases and descriptors will be used throughout that day, or until the associated stories die a very public and humiliating death-- remember the word 'Gravitas'? It's laughable. And they seem completely oblivious to how ridiculous they all sound... like a cage full of finches-- an aggravating cacophony of sameness.
Verry interestink times indeed!
But back on topic... if ever a party were between a rock and a hard place it's the 110th Democratic Congress.
A serious case of 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't' could not have found more fertile ground.
The post didn't mention Immigration, did it?
I wonder why?
Unless Republicans grow a set of gonads, the Democrats will continue to undermine this nation. I don't know about you, El, but I'm not so sure the wishful-thinking in the post you linked is much to take comfort in.
Harry Reid is the leader of the U.S. Senate.
Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
They will likely both have at least TWO YEARS as leadesr of a Democratic majority.
I hope you don't take comfort in thinking they will not get harmful legislation signed into law or thinking the rhetoric they will use in condemning the president SHOULD he use the veto-pen will not be harmful to U.S. interests.
Do you doubt the ruthlessness and irresponsibility of leftist liberals?
Well...our Congress is being run by them!
The best indication that we will have a do-nothing Congress is the announcement of oversight hearings.
The Dems are long on talking but short on action.
Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be affected by the same affliction, only not as bad...yet.
I think we clear thinking constituents have little to worry about with this new Democratic led Congress. They will talk until their terms are up and when the smoke clears, little will have been accomplished.
Especially since they need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.
The Liberals now in control of our government are wholly incapable of pointing this nation in a Godly direction-- In this I harbor no doubt or illusion. They care nothing about God's judgment on this nation, thumbing their nose at Him with their false piety while their hands and minds devise snares for the foolish. God will not bless a nation, no matter how much it strives to make the poor's plight less than it is, while the murder of unborn children is considered, and protected as the natural right of women. God will not bless a nation, no matter how it strives to negotiate peace throughout the world and sacrifice convenience and profit to protect the environment, while it routinely seeks to keep Jesus and his Gospel out of the ears, hearts, and minds of little children... to say nothing of the rest of the population! God will not bless a nation that seeks to normalize and celebrate the acceptance of sin, especially aberrant sexual behavior; i.e., homosexuality.
God only blesses nations that honestly seek Him and His will. And neither Democrats or Republicans have done anything these last 40+ years to reverse America's moral decline. The sad fact is America as a whole doesn't want to be a Godly nation...
Which is a truly frightening thought.
Of course, God blesses individuals, not "nations," and for a nation to be blessed it has to have a vast majority of blessed individuals, which this one does not, apparently. IMHO.
Also, remember the Blue Dogs. The crazy lefties -- ha ha -- in charge have to answer to them to do anything.
Also, oversight is not "do-nothing" -- especially with this presidency, which has had its own careless way for so long.
Also, micofilm and microfiche are nowhere near obsolete, and anyone who wants to study original documents of American history from before about 1990 or so still has to hit the library, and will for a long time. Why? There's no money in digitizing that stuff -- a what? a failure of the capitalist system to actually serve the country's best interests. Imagine that.
Also, coalescence of mediaspeak. Only on TV, it seems to me. And I've never really cared about that, although I keep an eye on the best cable shows.
Also, I promise you that the "politics" of the present day is nothing out of the ordinary. It truly always has been this way in this country. I've read enough, and written enough, about American history to know that. It just *seems* worse when yer on the losing end. Welcome to my world for the past six years. Brace yall'selves. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A Do-Nothing Congress is something devoutly to be wished! The less they accomplish the safer the people of the United States will be.
"Brace yall'selves. You ain't seen nothin' yet."
God help us!
"The Liberals now in control of our government are wholly incapable of pointing this nation in a Godly direction"
This is, of course, wrong. Just as it would be wrong to assume that the conservatives previously in power had in ability to point this nation in a Godly direction.
Either the "conservatives" previously in power or the "liberals" currently in power could point us in a Godly direction by either:
1. Their bad examples making a goodly number of the country to turn to God, or
2. By choosing to point to God.
They are (Left and Right alike) mostly Christians by confession. They could at any point point to Godly directions and some have, some are and some do. Left and Right.
We ought not let partisanship or bitterness blind us to God's work, wherever God chooses to work. Even if God chooses a donkey.
I was thinking of Balaam's donkey in the Bible who prophesied, much to Balaam's surprise and chagrin.
One lesson being: Don't tell God who God can and can't use.
My concept of God?
Well, it is bound to be flawed, given that I'm a finite, flawed man talking about an infinite and flawless God, but I suppose that my concept of God is that God is Love. According to the Bible, that is how God describes God's Self.
Love is the primary characteristic of God (and, as an aside, should be the primary characteristic of the church). God wants us to love God and love people. God wants us to love and tend God's creation.
That's my primary concept of God. Nothing too complicated there - I'm too stupid to be too complicated...
I've dug deeper, thanks, Mom2. The deeper I dug, the more love I found.
I am still trying to figure something out. People say God is Love as if that is the only attribute God has.
Because even though God is indeed Love, He also is a just God, and that doesn't seem to square with some people's image of God.
Or does it?
God is most certainly a God of Justice, and of Truth (but not necessarily the American Way...).
I was just saying that, according to the Bible, the pre-eminent descriptor of God is Love.
What I think that means is that we ought to pursue Justice, but do so in Love. That we ought to speak the Truth, but do so in Love.
But, surely this is something that is self-evident and we can all agree upon?
Question:
Jesus gave us the preeminent example of love -- He laid down his life for us.
What was Jesus's example of justice?
I ask because I'm pretty sure that Jesus's concept of justice and the common concept of justice are radically different things.
No pretending Jesus spoke the words of the OT, of He might as well have. What example(s) of justice does the NT present as coming from Jesus's words or acts?
Actually... the pre-eminent descriptor of God is 'Righteousness' or 'Holiness'... either/or suffices. Love is a byproduct of Righteousness and Holiness, not the other way around.
As to God, and what he demands of others... He wants in return the very things that He is:
God is Righteous|He expects righteousness from us
God is Holy|He expects us to be Holy
God is Justice|He expects us to be judicious, or rather, Just
God is Merciful|He expects us to be merciful
God is Love|He expects us to love
It's really THAT simple... Let's try to disagree without being disagreeable. That should be simple too, and it doesn't require an ounce of compromise.
Amy, by the way, is a devout Catholic. I find a lot to disagree about within the Roman Church, but that's not to say she isn't saved.
I'd have more to say but it's getting close to news time... Just try not to fill my inbox with so much acrimony.
"the pre-eminent descriptor of God is 'Righteousness' or 'Holiness'... either/or suffices."
Ahh, perhaps this is one root area that leads to our divergences?
I'd disagree with your "pre-eminent descriptor" assessment.
True, God IS a God of Righteousness. God IS a Holy God (but all Holy means is set apart for a special purpose, so I'm not sure that that's such a big deal). These are descriptors of God.
Similarly, God says God is a jealous God in the Bible. God is a God of compassion. Of justice. All descriptors. Adjectives.
But God's essence is LOVE. That's how I read the Bible - 1 John 4 tells us twice, "God IS love." I see this as more than a mere adjective telling us about God's nature but rather a description of the essence of God's nature.
Surely, if one is steeped in a tradition that says the pre-eminent nature of God is righteousness, then our attempts at righteousness become pre-eminent, too. And harshness towards those less than righteous would be a natural result.
For those steeped in a tradition that says God is Love, then Love and Grace become pre-eminent. Mercy and grace towards all of us who are less than righteous ought to be a natural result.
You think?
EL said:
"It's really THAT simple... Let's try to disagree without being disagreeable."
Who's being disagreeable? I thought this was one of our more pleasant and reasonable discussions, all the way around.
And who's Amy and why do you bring up her and her Catholic-ness?
mom2 asked:
"Are you passing it around to everyone, conservatives included?"
Conservatives especially!
ER said:
"What was Jesus's example of justice?"
I think of Justice as an acting out of love. Jesus loved the poor in the temple who were being oppressed and overcharged and cheated by the moneychangers, so Jesus chased out the moneychangers as an active of justice, demonstrating God's love for the poor their.
BUT NOT just for the poor: That act of justice was also out of love for the moneychangers. They doubtless thought they were doing a good thing within the system that existed: Providing "clean" critters for sacrifice (at a price reflecting the Pure nature of the sacrifices). They were surely not all corrupt monsters but rather blinded by their greed and the status quo.
Sometimes that sort of sleepwalking through life needs a slap in the face to wake it up. Abrupt, strong, love.
Just some thoughts.
However, that did lead me to think about this whole Love-nature vs Righteousness-nature of God. It seems the chief priests, the moneychangers, the religious experts of the day were especially concerned about Righteousness. Purity. Being ritually clean.
And if that is their definition of what God is and wants, then their actions make some sense.
Jesus woke them up, scattered them, yelling "My house is to be a house of prayer, not a den of thieves!" Then he led the poor who were being kept out, in. He opened a door that was being closed by hoops that had to be jumped through.
Back to my grammer angle: Love is the Noun of who God is. Justice is the Verb of what God does.
Maybe?
I like yer noun-verb thing.
Well. As the comment that begins with... "I'd disagree with your "pre-eminent descriptor" assessment"-- which happened to be Dan's --was the first in my inbox, and without bothering to read the rest, I just have to give an answer here to insult...
I have never been so dismayed at something you've said. Never. God is Holy, He is Righteous, ALL else stems from these. It grieves me that you can't see it.
[I had a lot more to say. A LOT MORE. But Christian charity compelled me to delete it all.]
Of course God is a jealous God, and believe me I am jealous of Him, and it get's my goat up something fierce to hear anyone malign or belittle His righteousness and holiness. Were it not for His holiness... His righteousness, Christ could never have paid for our sins. The fact that He IS righteous enabled Him to so love the world that He gave His only begotten son...
Was God acting out of Love when He ordered everyone in Jericho (except the family of Rahab the harlot) killed?
How about Sodom and Gommorah? How loving was that?
How about saving only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives; killing the ENTIRE WORLD?
What about the time Elijah cut off the heads of all those priests of Baal, after their god couldn't make fire? God sanctioned that!
What about God killing all the first born of Egypt? How loving was that?
And here you are all Namby Pamby about Jesus loving even the money changers as he whipped them with a scourge, driving them out of the temple.
This is why you have so many detractors here and elsewhere-- because we don't see the genuine gospel in your words.
Brother Eric, you realize that I feel the same way about what you've said. You give a list of what you think God's characteristics are, placing "love" down around fifth. You appear to malign God's love as something "namby pamby."
I suspect that you don't realize what a powerful, terrible thing Love is? Your idea of love appears to be some milquetoast, wienie thing that only little girls do (no insult to little girls who I think "get it" much more than some "macho" men who appear to have something to prove by belittling love.)
As to your concern that I have somehow insulted God by defining the word "holy," let me try to assuage your concern. The Hebrew (Kodesh) and Greek (Hagios) words translated "holy" both have the basic meaning of "set apart" or "set apart for a special purpose."
"We" have changed the meaning to be more closely associated with extreme righteousness or perfection, but the original word only meant set apart. THIS is why God can command us to "be holy as God is holy." We can't be perfectly righteous in the sense that God is, but we can and should be set apart.
I don't see exactly how you think I've maligned God's righteousness or set-apart-ness. I've just said that, according to the Bible, God defines God's Self as Love. "God is Love," "the Greatest of these is Love." "Only Love remains." God is Love.
To point out that this is what the Bible says (while acknowledging that God is also righteous) is no insult. My apologies if it somehow offended you nonetheless.
"Of course, God blesses individuals, not "nations..." ER
What a fundamental lack of understanding and a complete misinformed fabrication that flies in the face of scripture!
God never blessed Israel? The United States?
Gawd!
I guess we should remove "God Bless America" from our hymnals.
Yes, as a matter of fact, we should.
Here's the lyrics to the song we sing instead at our church (a BEAUTIFUL song - in lyrics and in music, unlike so many anthems)
This is my song, Oh God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my sacred shrine.
But other hearts in other lands are beating,
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
Oh hear my song, oh God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.
Amen, Amen and Amen!
"God Bless America" ? Removed from our hymnals?
Perhaps, as it tends to uplift our nation and not God...
...But then, perhaps not, since there's nothing wrong with petitioning God for our nation's blessing. David did it several times in the Psalms, and I can't remember ever hearing the argument that they should be removed from the Book of Psalms...
Post a Comment
<< Home