Hey! New York's 9th District!
Is that really the best you can do?
Really?
What do you think that says about you?
Monday, June 13, 2011
JUST ONE MORE WEINER-THOUGHT
Hey! New York's 9th District!
Is that really the best you can do?
Really?
What do you think that says about you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Is this the best that the Dems can do? Don't bother to answer, we already know that it is. He is just too stupid to keep in Congress.
And the real sad part of the story is that after reading some of the Libatard blogs, they are supporting him just like they supported Bubba
This weenie wagger has got to go.....
Liberal/progressives either think what he did was moral or they don't think morality applies to them.
My last question implies that they think just like he does, therefore what he did was OK with them.
I would have to agree with Joe's assessment of this horrid situation.
Liberals have painted themselves into a corner. Since they don't have moral standards, they can't say what Weiner did was immoral, for fear those words will be applied to them at some time in the future. So, they call it a "distraction," which takes their concentration away from working for the people. When have democrats EVER worked FOR the people, instead of against them?
It seems that moral rules apply only to people (conservatives) who believe in them. The only standards liberals have are double standards.
I will simply invoke LR's truths about Liberals number 8: Liberals lack the gene to blush.
Is David Vitter still in office?
Ducky, like all liberal/progressives and leftists, justify the actions of one by the actions of others.
If a Republican did it, it must be alright for a Democrat to do it.
Ducky, you are the prime example of a sore losing Liberal sympathizer ..
sue: "...a pretty big judgement."
It might be, and I don't know your moral character or principles, but if you have them, you are not a true liberal.
Liberals in Weiner's district think what he did is perfectly OK because it has nothing to do with his job.
I think it has everything to do with what kind of person he is and what kind of decisions he makes.
To the liberal, morals are relative and "what's good for you might not be good for me," and vice versa.
Liberals recognize no particular standard for morality.
Liberals believe that the government has its own money. Conservatives recognize that the government has NO money except what it confiscates from the people.
The government produces nothing, earns nothing and provides no gain to the economy.
You can't put back into the economy what you took out of the economy and call it growth.
Weiner legislates from that conception and carries on his personal life with no moral compas.
His constituants seemingly agree with him.
Funny. That was the exact same reaction I had to last night's Republican Presidential Debate.
"Really, Republicans? Are those 7 chuckleheads the best you can do? Really?
What do you think that says about YOU?"
amazing how all 7 candidates are knuckleheads and Obama who was a nobody found in the streets of Chicago is this superior intellect appealing to all 57 states.
Only an ignoramus would forgive that statement
Doesn't say much, does it? How can they?
I never said knuckleheads.
I said chuckleheads. Big difference.
And I'm sorry, but say what? "...Obama who was a nobody found in the streets of Chicago..."
A "nobody"? The people of Illinois didn't think he was a "nobody".
"...found in the streets of Chicago..." What? Who found him? Was he just wandering around aimlessly and someone plucked him up, dusted him off and decided to make him President just to annoy you?
The man is going to be your President for the next 6 years. You might want to take a deep breath and pace yourself.
Joe, can you explain how when the Dems call for Weiner to resign for being immoral, and he doesn't, that somehow they think "what he did was OK" yet when Repubicans do not call for the resignation of people like Sens. Vitter and Ensign, who not only committed immoral acts, but broke the law, that is not evidence that their actions are okay with conservatives?
Ducky was not saying the actions of Vitter excused Weiner at all. He was rightly pointing out the blatant partisanship by people like Rep. Cantor and countless bloggers who never called for resignations from the GOP side when their reps actually broke laws, yet did so here.
At least Z could agree that there seemed to be at least some politics going on here.
The real question is why when their guys were caught, the GOP did not call for resignations, but for Weiner they did.
Dave Miller: "...Dems call for Weiner to resign for being immoral..."
Yeah...I can explain it.
Dems, when the issue first came up, defended Weiner like nothing had happened.
Many of them already KNEW what he had done, and they stood behind him.
It was not until they realized that there were more pictures than they had ever imagined "out there" that they began to suggest that he resign.
When it became obvious that the extent was far greater than they thought that they began to seek his political demise.
A little bit of immorality is OK to them. But it seems very, very hard to cross the Democrats' line.
When a Republican man supposedly "touches" another man "inappropriately," it's reason for Dems to call for resignation.
When a Republican sends inappropriate emails, it is reason for Dems to call for resignation.
Hey! I agreed with them!
But Weiner did not send a "couple" of emails...he sent dozens or more.
They should have called for his resignation with the same fervor they applied to the Republicans.
But don't count on it.
And saying "someone else did just as bad" does not excuse Weiner.
The one who did "just as bad," if it is true, should be gone, too.
It is high time to raise the standards that liberal/progressives (and far too many "conservatives," too, have set so low.
Civilized people should raise standards, not lower them.
Unless you're a liberal.
sue: I have 98.6 degrees from Fahrenheit in judging liberals.
Look, Sue, you think you are a liberal because you think that means "open minded."
What "liberal" means is that you think the government should control everything we do while pretending that they don't.
"Liberal" means that each person gets to decide for himself what is allowable and what is not...unless you're in business. Then liberals think you should be regulated until you can't do business any more.
The words "liberal" and "morals" just don't go together, because liberals always ask, "Who are you to tell me how to live my life," while not minding telling others how to live theirs.
Does that describe you, Sue? I don't think so.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I was wrong once last year.
XO: Turns out Obama WAS a nobody. Nobody who was not involved in "community organizing" had any idea who he was until he ran for a Senate seat.
He spent fewer that 100 days as a Senator before he ran for President.
He has since shown how lack of experience can hurt, not only himself, but the whole country.
He operates on a college bull session level, not one whit higher.
Joe, your response may not be factual. On what basis in fact do you know that many Dems knew Weiner was lying?
They may have suspected it, but in this country the last time time I looked, you are innocent until proven, or admit guilt.
Once that was done, the hammer started to drop.
Now what he did was clearly, as I stated, immoral. But it was not illegal. And yet the supposed law and order party, the GOP, decided that they should call for his resignation because he was acting immoral.
My questions remain... Why did some of these very same republicans not call for the resignations of Sens. Vitter and Ensign when they were involved in immoral acts, they had personal knowledge of those acts, and those acts broke the law?
This stance that only liberal politicians and their followers are immoral and devoid of principles is devoid of a factual basis and intellectually dishonest.
I agree with you, civilized people should raise standards, why don't you start by advocating for the apparently morally challenged David Vitter, lawbreaker and prostitute visiting Republican Senator from Louisiana to resign?
You'd could be one of the first conservatives to acknowledge the double standards laid down by the GOP partisans.
Dave Miller: "...you are innocent until proven, or admit guilt."
That is true in, and only in, a court of law.
What liberals cannot fathom is that the word "guilt" applies to the courtroom and has nothing to do with whether or not the accused actually did the deed, only whether it can be proven in a court of law.
Anthony Weiner did what he did, whether or not it can be proven in a court of law.
If it canot be proven in a court of law, he goes free.
Mind you, he is not found innocent, as that is impossible in a court of law. All he can be found is "guilty" or "not guilty."
"Not guilty" does not mean he did not do it. It only means that the prosecutor could not prove in court that he did it.
It's the same with "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in the Constitution except in the minds of liberals.
What the Constitution guarantees is that GOVERNMENT LAWMAKERS (Congress) cannot restrict your speech.
For instance, in my house you don't have free speech.
If you swear in my house, you get kicked out.
No free speech in my house. My house, my rules...your house, your rules.
When will you guys ever learn the basics?
Dave Miller: Oh, and resignation has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
He can be guilty of immorality, without breaking the law, and still be forced to resign...for moral, not legal, reasons.
That is appropriate.
If Vitter and Ensign behaved immorally, they should have been forced to resign.
If it could be proven in a court of law that what they did was illegal, then they should be in jail.
If Weiner broke no law, then he should not be jailed. But if he behaved immorally, he should be forced to resign.
When liberals learn those principles, we'll have a chance to redeem the country.
To All You Liberals: I ask again, is Anthony Weiner REALLY the best you can do?
Does he REALLY represent the way you think?
Really?
I don't believe that anybody, left or right, shouldn't be sharply chastised for this behavior.
I think it shows a lot about our culture that they take these ridiculous risks (especially Weiner for using the internet for this stuff and contacting women he didn't even know when he's an elected official).....
I've never known a man to get embroiled like Vitter, WEiner, Clinton and Packwood, etc., have (Packwood being the Republican who was harassing women and who N.O.W. took after with pitchforks while they ignored Dem Clinton's transgressions, of course) in any sex scandal, but maybe I just never heard about problems between couples who're friends of mine. That's the main thing: being in political life brings everything out to the fore and we HOPE our politicians are smart enough to avoid problems at least for the time they're in office.
It's clear that the Dems can't run a country but they can at least keep their pants up? Cyber or not? :-)
There's politics in EVERYTHING and the very very saddest thing about the Weiner case (other than his wife) is that a majority of his constituents think he should stay in office.
WOW
Z: You and I are equal opportunity disdainers.
If a person is immoral, or amoral, he/she should not hold office.
So who's to judge what's moral and what's immoral.
If liberal/progressives need help with that, I'd be happy to offer my services to help them out.
Joe:
Here come da judge
Joe:
Some of our wars are started because we have a strong, volunteer army
that the military leaders have a desire to put to work. This in an innate characteristic of the military brass.
Sometimes our government gets too big and pushy because our bureaucracy is made that way.
And they just want to see how far they can go.
Doesn't everyone want to 'try out'
what they are made to do?
These are the realities of American Democracy.
We can control both of these
fallacies - we just aren't doing at present.
Dave's answer is typical of the liberal response. Why do liberals always want to say, "the other guy did it so I can also"
I only would ask him why he didn't throw Bill Clinton into the mix?
Anthony Weiner is an embarrassment to the United States Congress, no matter what party he is in. His lack of respect, and morality, and judgement is more then enough reason for him to resign. Who know how they could have blackmailed him into giving up sour secrets etc, etc, and etc. There is no reason for defending this cretin.
sue; "Some of our wars are started because we have a strong, volunteer army
that the military leaders have a desire to put to work. This in an innate characteristic of the military brass."
My father was a military commander in the United States Air Force. During his duty at the Pentagon, he had opportunities to work with and to know socially: George Marshal (Chief of Staff, U.S. Army), General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who one day would be President); General Henry Arnold (Commanding General of the Army Air Force); General Mark Clark (Commanding General of the 15th Army Group); General Matthew Ridgeway (Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers) General John Throckmorton and many others.
I can assure you that not a single one of these military leaders had a desire to “put to work” the men in their commands for the sake of giving them something to do.
Those are DECIDEDLY NOT the “realities of American Democracy.”
That is the most ill-informed, ignoble and erroneous idea that could be put forth and is born of sorry indoctrination and a total lack of knowledge of what the American military has always been and should be now.
In short, your comment is a 100% absurdity. You know not that of which you speak.
I have no clue where you got those silly, inane ideas, unless you just heard someone say them around some water cooler and thought them a good way to cast aspersions and raw hatred on some of the most principled human beings ever to have lived in America.
What a horrible, horrible assessment of our history.
the malcontent: Liberals are very good at compartmentalizing their lives, and each compartment has its own set of rules, or lack thereof.
That's why they can be constantly inconsistant without recognizing their inconsistancies.
Joe - "I can assure you that not a single one of these military leaders had a desire to “put to work” the men in their commands for the sake of giving them something to do."
You seem to be forgetting one fundamental American fact. Our military leaders don't get to choose when to "put to work" the men under their command. That is now and always has been a civilian decision in this country.
This isn't Ancient Rome or even modern Pakistan. Our civilian leadership controls the military, not the other way around.
And Sue is right. When petulant pinheads become President they are often as anxious to whip out the big guns and show them off as Anthony Weiner was anxious to whip out...well...you know.
Exact same mindset. "Hey! Look at me! Look at what I've got!" I'm looking at you, GWB.
XO: "You seem to be forgetting one fundamental American fact. Our military leaders don't get to choose when to "put to work" the men under their command."
I've forgotten nothing of the sort.
Sue's statement made specific mention of the decisions of the "military brass," not of their civilian decision makers.
My reference was to those "military brass," who did not seek war, but determined that we would be ready if the civilian pinheads decided we had to go to war.
Wars are most often political decisions over which the "military brass" have no control and very little influence.
Did you ever serve in the military?
My guess is, based on your lack of self-control and self-discipline, that you did not.
But I could be wrong.
Remember: I was wrong once last year.
Joe - I did not serve in the military, although my father served in the Merchant Marines in WWII, in the U.S. Army in Korea, my Grandfather served in the Signal Corps in WWI and both of my younger brothers served in the U.S Navy with one of them going on to become an Army Recruiter after that. I am not a stranger to military culture.
As for my self-control and self discipline, I have more of both than anyone your are likely to ever meet, although there is no way you could possibly know that, so I forgive you your ignorance on the matter.
I would point out to you that the common denominator in both of those terms is SELF. I did not have to be broken like a horse in boot camp or subjugated by fear of some mythical, supernatural retribution in order to learn either SELF-control or SELF-discipline.
Although I fully comprehend how weaker personalities might require one or the other. Or both.
XO: Then I was right!
I must admit (and this hurts me) that you gave a pretty good answer.
You might take some time to proulf reed your commants befour poasting thum thuohg.
Joe - I want to tell you right off where my comments are coming from.
I am a housewife, but in my spare time I have a deep interest in my country - and politics. I also have age on my side.
None of my opinions have been gotten around the water cooler. They are all original - with the exception of support I gain from talking with others of like mind - some from those on the opposite side of the fence.
BUT - while 'openmindedness' can be bad, so can someone who is completely sure he is 100% right, and calls another person's ideas 'absurd.'
So, Joe (may I call you Joe?). I will be back tonight and try to
defend my comments more clearly.
sue: Yeah, you can call me Joe. You can call me anything you like, as long as you don't call me late for supper.
I agree with your 100% statement. I have never thought myself 100% right on everything.
But there are some things I don't think...I know with 100% certainty.
Not everything.
I know nothing about nuclear physics, and thus don't venture into its discipline.
I know lots about the military, and feel very comfortble dealing with it.
To the untrained eye, the purpose of the military is to break things and kill people.
But to those who know what is going on, the real purpose of the military (a purpose that is not being properly used today) is to keep others from breaking our things and killing us.
I've never met a general who wanted to go to war, but I've never met one who would not, if he had to.
Joe - Have you ever met General
George Patton?
sue: No, I never met him, but my father did.
He did not know him as a friend or a close aquaintance, just on a military business level.
He was never at our house as the others were.
Joe - What we have here is your determination to make us believe as you do.
That's ok, because one should stand up for his or her beliefs.
But it is naive for you to think that all of the decisions concerning war are made by 'civilian pinheads.'
There certainly are generals that are 'pinheads', too, and who have poor judgement.
I never served in the military, but did twenty years as the Army wife of an officer, and was exposed to both highers and lowers - although they were never at my house. Furthermore, I have some knowledge of the military mentality.
'You are not right about everything all of the time, nor am I wrong about everything all of the time.'
I said that.
sue: "'You are not right about everything all of the time, nor am I wrong about everything all of the time.'"
Never said I was.
In fact, said I wasn't.
But if I were a brain surgeon, you'd expect me to be right about operating on your brain.
A brain surgeon is supposed to know about brains.
A student of history is supposed to know something about history.
Trouble with history is, that too many people ignore context and make up stuff to fill it in.
History is also easily twisted by those with a specific agenda.
The history of our country is a prime example.
Our constitution has been twisted, too.
I'll be you believe that Democrats and liberals liberated the slaves, because liberal and liberated sound a lot alike.
But the Emacipation Proclamation was issued by a Republican, not a Democrat.
Democrats faught him tooth and nail over this issue...and lost.
The KKK was started by Democrats.
George "separate, but equal" Wallace was a Democrat.
Harry Truman (the only one to ever drop an atomic bomb on two cities) was a Democrat.
I don't want to be associated with people who do those things...do you?
Joe - Thomas Jefferson wrote the immortal words:
'All men are created equal'
Then he went home and had his slaves pull off his boots and serve him tea.
Never could figure that one out.
Joe - Thomas Jefferson was so into himself, and had such an inflated ego, that he couldn't see past his pen.
From which came words so beautiful, so lofty - yet they were empty, weren't they.
When it comes right down to it, Thomas Jefferson spoke with
forked tongue.
sue: Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition.
He drafted the Virginia law of 1778prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans.
In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest.
From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.
Countless articles and even entire books have been written trying to explain the contradictions between Jefferson's words and actions in regard to slavery.
His views on race, which he first broadcast in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" in 1785, unquestionably affected his behavior.
His belief in the inferiority of blacks, coupled with their presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson's emancipation scheme.
All of our lives have certain contradictions that seem unexplainable.
You, me and Thomas Jefferson are no exceptions.
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
Joe - What you are saying may be true. But while he was writing things that would make him the hero of conservatives for decades - even centuries - to come, there were human beings that were owned by other human beings. These people were suffering, families being broken up, and Jefferson himself - by all accounts - was going home and enjoying the 'benefits' of having women slaves.
Now - these were empty words - all men are created equal - if he did not have the moral insight to see that action was needed NOW to relieve the suffering.
The suffering of men and women who were supposedly created equal to him. Yes, the great Thomas Jefferson.
Joe:
In the olden days when we used the typewriter, we had a sentence that we typed over and over in class:
now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country
Perhaps that time is now.
Joe - The question we have to ask ourselves now is:
Who are these good men - that need to come to the aid of their country?
And where are they?
And when are they going to come to the aid of their country?
When I was in typing class, we learned it this way:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of our party."
We also learned, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
Mark - Do they even sell typewriters anymore?
Joe "If a person is immoral, or amoral, he/she should not hold office."
Imagine, there was a time when nobody'd question what was moral and what wasn't.
It's one of the biggest faults of our country today; relegate the Bible to second-class status (at best) and see how a country proceeds........
Joe - I told my old pal Bob Dylan (he's never been to my house) that I was tryin' to get through to some folks on a Conservative blog - with no luck - and would he help me out.
He said, Hey, no problem, Sue. You can use this - no charge.
come you masters of war
you that build the big guns
you that build the death planes
you that build all the bombs
you that hide behind walls
you that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
that i see through your masks
you that never done nothin'
but build to destroy
you play with my world
like it's your little toy
but i see through your eyes
and i see through your brain
like i see through the water
that runs down my drain
how much do i know
oh to talk out of turn
you might say that i'm young
you might say i'm unlearned
but there's a one thing i know
though i'm younger than you
that even jesus would never
forgive what you do
Thanks, Bob
I concur
sue: I don't know old Bob, but I know this: Bob doesn't know Jesus or he would NEVER say Jesus couldn't forgive what we do.
That was his point, and His only point, in coming.
If he could not forgive what we do, He wasted His time on the cross of Calvary and was nothing more than a fool.
Joe - That is a beautiful answer.
But, Joe, you are so sure of yourself, and that is your one and only failing.
For how can you decide who knows Jesus and who doesn't...
Huh?
Only Jesus knows that.
sue: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothig, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15-16a)
A fruit tree bears fruit of its own kind: orange trees bear oranges (never peaches); apple trees bear apples (never guavas) and Christians bear Christians.
If the fruit borne is not other Christians, the "tree" bearing them is not Christian.
When we were told not to judge, it was in the context of pronouncing eternal judgement on someone, which we cannot do (Matthew 7:1).
But the Bible clearly tells us that being descerning is a sign of maturity (Hebrews 5:14).
It is speaking of knowing good from evil, which it declares are both real and knowable.
Joe:
'Beware of false prophets. They come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.'
Yes. These are wise words from the Bible, which is God's Word.
But Joe, you have chosen to study the Bible and ASSUME that you are interpreting these words in the right way. And you band together with others of like-minded thinking.
That gives you encouragement that you are right.
Supposing Bob Dyan studied the Bible and said about Joe: 'Beware of false prophets....'
Now - how do you know for absolute certain which of you is right and which is the false prophet?
How do you know for sure, Joe?
Maybe God is the only One who really knows.
Maybe it is not an absolute, but is an ongoing process in which all of us must pray for discernment.
Joe - If you examine your heart, you may find that you are fulfilling only one of Jesus' Great Commandants -Love the Lord your God with all your mind, strength, etc.
The other one I'm not so sure. You seem more concerned about your own salvation, without trying to reach out to those who don't have faith as strong as yours - or maybe none at all.
By always speaking through Scripture, you are turning away those who do not yet understand the Word the way you do.
Do you Love your Neighbor as Yourself - or do you want to have a selfish relationship between you and God?
Think about it, Joe.
sue: I'm not a prophet of any kind.
sue: "Joe - If you examine your heart, you may find that you are fulfilling only one of Jesus' Great Commandants -Love the Lord your God with all your mind, strength, etc."
I fulfill both parts.
The uncommitted (liberal/progressives) always live in the "may."
Joe - It bothers me that you have two categories: the committed and the uncommitted.
It sounds as if the door is closed to the uncommitted. The committed seem most concerned about getting themselves to heaven - and that's all that matters.
We all should work toward a common goal - which is helping each other find the right path to salvation.
This choosing up sides: Conservatives vs Liberals, Believers vs nonbelievers,
who is right and who is wrong, who is the real prophet and who is the false prophet, and who is really the wolf in sheep's clothing.
This exclusiveness is getting out of hand.
Joe - How do we turn things around?
We start by looking into our own heart.
For eight years I did nothing but gripe about George W. Bush. I don't even recall that I ever prayed for strength and discernment for him.
Now I have to live with that every day before I can criticize those who are working against President Obama.
Joe:
'If He could not forgive us for what we do then He wasted His time on the
Cross of Calvary...'
My four year old grandson just brought home a Sunday School paper(Baptist) that read:
'For if you forgive men
When they sin against you,
Your Heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins,
Your Father will not forgive your sins.'
That sounds like Jesus' forgiveness from the Cross was conditional, Joe.
Joe - The above Scripture is from Matthew 6:14-15.
sue: Bad context and very poor interpretation. Not at all what it means...not even close.
Scripture must be interpreted in the light of its whole, its purpose, its context and its message.
See, every word of the Bible is about God's character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
Joe - I am sincere when I say that I'm sure you know what you are talking about - when it comes to the Bible.
But just like your Conservative political views, you seem close-minded. As if you are living in your own little world and really aren't interested in including outsiders.
This is how you come across to me when it comes to Scripture. You can quote it very well, but you don't make any effort to help someone out when they are trying to understand.
Is this what it is all about? Some are chosen to know what the Word means and everyone else will be 'left behind.'
Even ole Bob.
sue: Bob is doomed (my opinion...not necessarily born of fact...and meant as mild humor).
Look, being narrow minded is not an evil.
I am closed minded about being hit by lightning. I have never been hit by lightning, but I absolutely refuse to consider that it might be good.
The trouble with liberals is that they insist on open mindedness from everyone but themselves.
In the liberal mind, a person who is a conservative cannot possibly know what they're talking about, so it must be that they are narrow minded or mindless.
Although I am not a "scholar" in the academic sense, I have been studying and teaching the Bible for over 50 years, and I know what it's about...even though there are many parts of it that I don't totally understand...as does nobody.
Nevertheless, when people "use" Scripture to "prove" some point, and use it out of the contex of the whole, it is THEY who are wrong.
If one approaches the Bible as a series of writings that are unrelated and maybe even spurious, then the pieces don't fit and you have nothing but a series of fables and proverbs.
On the other hand, if you approach the Bible as God's revelation of His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption, all of the pieces fall into place better than the pieces of an interlocking puzzle.
It then all fits and makes sense.
It is 66 books, written by 40 or more authors, whose authority is validated by the fact that many of them had no knowledge of the others, yet wrote of things that are tied together by a crimson thread: the blood of Christ.
Sadly, there are millions of people who identify themselves as Christians who routinely take Scripture out of context to prove their personal agenda or to suit their particular behavior patterns (Oral Roberts, Rodney Harold Brown, Joel Olsteen, the dingbat who burned the Koran, the idiot who predicted the date of Christ's return, et. al.)
But then, Scripture itself says that few will find its path, so that shouldn't be too surprising.
I am not certain that a political blog is the place to conduct a theological discourse, but I felt compelled to let you know where I'm coming from.
I try very hard not to try to bend the Bible to FIT my "theology," rather to let it, in its totality SHAPE my theology.
Joe - Thank you for 'opening up' to me. That's exactly what I wanted. It renews my faith in the person I have seen in you from the beginning.
As for whether a political blog is the place for a theological discussion - I think it is the best place to start. As far as that goes, anyplace is good.
Post a Comment