"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."**
"There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."***
*Quoted by Charles Darwin in "Origin of Species" - sixth edition - Second page of front matter, which states edition and date.
**Charles Darwin - "Origin of Species" - sixth edition p.428.
***Charles Darwin - "Origin of Species" - sixth edition p.429.
76 comments:
Sorry to differ with Darwin, but My God doesn't make mistakes. He got man right on the first try.
Mark: Of course, we agree on that. I just thought it interesting that Darwin seems to have acknowledged the possibility of a Creator, even though his followers hve asserted that he did not allow for one.
Joe - (This is Sue the kind liberal)
I read recently that Richard Dawkins - an avowed atheist - said that on a 1-7 scale (7 is no belief in God) that he would only go as far as 6.9 in rating himself.
Thus leaving room for the possibility of there being a God.
This confirmed my belief that there is really no such thing as an 'atheist."
There is a bit of controversy regarding Darwin recanting his whole theory, we will never know.
But I would hope that he did and realized that God almighty is and always was the creator of all.
God bless ya~!
I have yet to meet a fanatic defender of Darwin who has actually read Darwin. For instance the original title of his first book was, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Favored Races???
Darwin was the father of social racism. He believed that different races were at different stages on the evolutionary scale. For instance, savages (blacks) were somewhere between apes and "civilized races.”
Christians believed that all men were brothers, because they were descended from Adam and Eve, who were created by God.
That gave the left all the "scientific evidence" they needed to inspire and justify their atrocities. Since people were just another kind of animal, they could be bred for purity and their populations could be controlled by mass murder and starvation. Since God was not the highest authority, it fell on visionaries like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Margaret Sanger, Pol Pot, etc. to shape mankind in their ideal image.
Evil begets evil. And liberal theology denies that evil even exists.
Putting that aside, how many other sciences of the early 19th century have survived without being debunked? Are tomatoes poisonous? Is bleeding a valid medical technique? Can personality be determined by the bumps on a person's head? And on and on and on. Only Darwinism is armor-plated. Liberals not only fear God, but are scared to death of Him. Like a cancer victim who denies he is ill, atheists deny they will someday be judged. THAT is at the root of their fanatical hatred of Christians and Jews.
LR - 'Christians believed that all men were brothers, because they were descended from Adam and Eve, who were created by God."
Am I correct in the understanding -after reading your comment - that Christians never owned slaves and furthermore never thought of the Black man as 3/5's of a person?
Sue(just another evil liberal)
Another stab at presenting the 3/5 argument as proof the founding father s were racists.
Someone explain the 3/5 compromise to her. I'm tried of explaining it ad nauseum to Liberals.
Use small words, though, so she'll be sure to understand it.
Is that a small enought word?
Sigh. The educational process never ends, because the students don't want to learn.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution reads:
“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
The founders from the northern colonies, who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than “full persons" to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from ever being abolished.
The Slave states wanted their slaves to be counted as a full person so they could dominate the House of Representatives and the Presidency. And the southern whites would have the benefit of counting the slaves, they would also be able to control the political power of their large numbers, as the slaves were not allowed to vote.
The Northern States did not want them counted at all, to prevent the south from getting too powerful. The “three fifths of all other Persons” refers to the slave population as a whole, not to the humanity of each individual. It was a compromise. Liberals are all about compromise, aren't they?
At any rate, I think it's a sick joke for a member of the party of slavery, the party of segregation, the party of the KKK, lynching, black codes and Jim Crow to call ANYONE a racist, particularly Republicans, who formed their party for the purpose of fighting slavery.
I blame the public schools. This is why liberals are such poor citizens; everything they think they know is wrong.
hi ho silver away
tonto to lr: I quit. I have bigger fish to fry
That's the reply I was expecting.
Talking Point #2. There is nothing so impenetrable as a closed mind.
LR - Then I'm glad I didn't disappoint you.
I had no recourse except to respond in that way. There is simply nothing left to say, except THAT - when faced with such obvious continual practiced opinionated attitudes.
You are obviously determined to speak untruthfully when backed up against the wall, which is where the Republicans are now. There is no candidate that can do better than Obama- and although he may not have any magic tricks to pull out of his hat, really, do you think your choices for president can do any better? Really?
It is simply self-denial. It has gone so far that you surely think that what you are saying is right.
But you are not. You just don't have any way out of this.
What needs to happen is for a Republican to be elected, and then
when things don't get better in our country, perhaps some reality will begin to register, like, gee, maybe we are not right about all of this.
That is the only way.
sue: "Am I correct in the understanding -after reading your comment - that Christians never owned slaves..."
NO,that would be wrong.
"...and furthermore never thought of the Black man as 3/5's of a person?"
That would be true.
Christians never thought of Blacks as 3/5 of a person. That myth is historically incorrect.
The 3/5 thing was policital, not religious.
sue: Oh, and foul language is not permitted here and comments with it will be consistantly deleted.
The real problem with our country today is that the presidency has become too big, too involved for one man to handle. It doesn't matter who the president is, it just isn't going to work.
Then, with all the divisiveness that is happening now the situation is causing the system not to work because there is no unity. Without unity there can be no trust. And without trust - this is what is happening. The namecalling and backbiting, and lies and all of it.
And without unity - at least to some degree - this country cannot function properly.
And the would be leaders see the futility of it all - unless, and until, the people themselves come to their senses.
The founding fathers didn't intend this country to operate on harsh, criticizing words (including mine just spoken) but rather on working for the same cause.
There is a common cause to work for here, but the two main factions have moved so far apart that a type of civil war of thoughts and words is taking place of what was really intended.
And the people who are really smart enough to solve our problems are also smart enough to not get involved in this.
Unless Americans themselves - you know, we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, etc.
finally say, ENOUGH.
Let's get together.
sue: "I had no recourse except to respond in that way."
Are you no longer in control of your own responses?
What's up with that?
sue: "Let's get together."
OK. You go first. List the principles you hold that you are willing to give up in order for us to have "unity."
Hint: "Unity" never has, does not now and never will mean "uniformity."
Liberals often find themselves with nothing to say. That is because their opinions are based on emotion and not on FACTS. Whenever attempting to debate with a liberal, the conversation goes downhill faster than a tumbling Smart Car. Sue is absolutely sincere when she says she had no recourse except to respond in that way. Liberals never do.
But hey, I come away with a new Talking Point -- #28. There is no such thing as a kind liberal.
LR: They mistake their "bleeding hearts" for kindness.
Joe - If you deleted my comment then in all fairness you can no longer comment on it, because no one knows what you are referring to.
And I should not have to comment further on a deleted comment.
Joe - I just did go first.
I took the first step in suggesting that we unify.
Let's see someone take the second step by even admitting that my unification suggestion might work.
Joe - Unity means working together toward a common goal. In this case the common goal is a better and stronger America.
Since we are heading toward the abyss, any unity shown would be a step up.
Before we start stating what we want, we need to show that we want unity.
Joe - The 3/5 'thing' may have been political, but becasue it did exist, that means that Christian slave holders accepted it.
sue: False logic. Abortion is the law of the land. I have to abide by it, but I don't have to support it or accept it.
See an upcoming post for a more in depth treatment of the 3/5 thing.
sue: Oh. And where is your list?
Joe - Slavery was the law of the land? People were forced to own slaves.
Abortion is not the law of the land. The law allows women to get abortions, but it does not force them to get abortions. They choose to get aboritons.
sue: "...in all fairness you can no longer comment on it, because no one knows what you are referring to."
I determine what is fair or not on my blog.
And I will delete whatever I want to for whatever reason I want.
I am not congress, and I am not bound by "free speech rules."
"That's not fair!" is the cry of 4 year olds. Adults realize the difference between equal opportunity and fairness (unless they are liberals, of course, in which case they think equal opportunity means equal outcome and is the same as fairness.)
Joe - Unity does not mean making separate lists.
Unity means first deciding that people WANT unity. They get together face to face and say we have had enough of infighting and bickering. We want to work together. We want to be unified.
Then, instead of saying we each want this or that, and we will make up a list of what each side wants, they say what we really want is for a stronger and better country.
Then they make up one list - together - of what the country needs to become strong again (and rise up from being 5th on the list of countries in the world).
From that one list, they work together to make that country strong again. But it does not comes from 'wish' or 'want' lists from each side.
For once unity is acheived, the list will come from the unified people and that list will contain items that need to be worked on together.
The 'I want' lists will be come the 'we the people' list.
~~~
Of course there will be differences, but they will be worked on together. Maybe they will go home for a lunch or dinner break, or maybe they will order out. But they will keep trying.
Unity - and the desire for it, rising out of the ashes of the failure of diviseness - will bring trust.
Then the people will begin again to repair the brokedness of their country - using the tools of trust brought about by unity.
Now, if choosing up sides appeals to people, we can do that.
You chose several of your smartest, sincerest and most trusted people.
We will do the same. We can meet somewhere on neutral ground that both agree on.
Keep the namecallers and hateful people at home - on both sides.
Then the job of restoring this country to its rightful place can begin.
Joe - I agree that it was fair for you to remove my comment. But I'm just saying that once you remove it then it is over.
Why discuss a deleted comment. If you want to discuss it and know why I said it put it back up and we can talk about it out in the open.
Joe - My comment should read 'people were not forced to own
slaves.'
sue: "If you want to discuss it and know why I said it put it back up and we can talk about it out in the open."
No.
In the first place, don't tell me what to put up or not to put up on my blog.
Secondly, my comment about why I deleted your comment was directed at you. You kney what I was talking about, and you were the only one whom I cared about knowing.
We are not going to discuss the reasons for using or not using foul language on this blog.
It just isn't allowed. Period.
But you already knew that.
(BTW: I'm not likely to vote for you for president...just for the record.)
Joe - You are beating a dead horse.
I made the 'bad choice' comment at LR and yes I was prewarned - you deleted it.
Why are we still talking about it.
Chances are that you and I and LR are the only ones that saw it.
Now no one else will see it, but they can use their imagination to think what I may have said.
~~~~
Joe - The way things are going, I may be the best choice to vote for. I can't think of anyone else I would vote for but me.
Reading the comments over I realize that my 'bad choice' comment was made at Mark, not LR.
sue: "... You are beating a dead horse...Why are we still talking about it."
(I could be wrong, but I think you meant to put a question mark at the end of that sentence.)
So...stop talking about it!
If you run against President BO (the child president), I MIGHT consider voting for you...but then you would have to run as an Independent or (horrors!) a Republican.
Sue: Off topic, but I couldn't resist this comment: You realize, of course, that to a Jew your name is usually a verb. Ba-da-bing!
On topic:
I saw your now deleted comment. I get follow up comments in my e-mail.
Don't sweat it. You just showed your true colors. I didn't expect any less.
Joe - If you mentioned that you were not going to vote for me in 2012 then you must have seen the title of my blog.
The title of my blog says:
Vote for Sue in 2012.
It doesn't say anything about my 'running' for president.
Have you ever heard of a write-in vote? I haven't checked it out, but if I were to get enough write-in votes and if that is legal, then I could become president without actually running for president.
~~~
Now about President Obama.
I would never run against an incumbent president. And I think on a personal level that Barack Obama is a great guy. I would like for him to NOT be reelected so that he can spend time with his family instead of being killed off day by day.
He has served his time. Let's let someone else have a chance to work out the problems of this country.
~~~
If I were to be president, I would never be a Liberal or a Conservative. I would be president of a new group of people that sincerely wanted to work out issues in a way that everyone would have a voice.
There would have to be concessions, but there would not be two sides involved, but there would be one united group of people that would be:
caring about America
intelligent enough to know how to run a country
willing to put aside bickering and backbiting for the sake of America
And that's just for starters.
I'm sure once people see that this is the only way, they will come to their senses and join me.
Because so far no one else has come up with a better plan.
sue: Yes, I saw your "blog."
Sorry. Liberal utopianism is not going to go anywhere. It is born of Sophomorism.
I'm still waiting for the list of your principles you're willing to give up for "unity's" sake.
See, the liberals' idea of compromise is: "do it our way or get lost."
Sue the Liberal says, "You are obviously determined to speak untruthfully when backed up against the wall, which is where the Republicans are now."
Lone Ranger's comment was completely totally factual. It's all right there in the history books (the ones written BEFORE the revisionists got to them). The reason behind the 3/5ths compromise is just as he said.
Excuse me, but I am curious. Exactly what part of LR's comment was untruthful?
I love it when LR dismantles a Liberals argument. The reaction from the Liberal is priceless!
Leticia says, "But I would hope that he did and realized that God almighty is and always was the creator of all."
I'm sure there is no doubt in Darwin's mind now. And, he has all eternity to either regret or celebrate his choice, depending on where he is now.
Mark and Joe - I am going to be 'on the road' from now until about 6 pm.
There is no computer in my car, no chance to comment, or answer others' comments.
But tonight I will be home, and will be able to continue any discussion.
And will be happy to do so.
sue: "There is no computer in my car..."
What? Are you living in the Dark Ages?
Oh, wait...I don't have one in mine, either. Not even A/C!
Mark:
I really didn't see any purpose or meaning to your offtopic comment, so I have no response.
As far as your ontopic comment.
You'll always be able to say that you pissed off the First Woman President of the U.S.of A.
Joe - I had a lovely trip home, thank you.
The a/c was not really necessary, although I used it.
My ole friend Bob brought me on in for the last fifty miles or so.
You know, 'How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man,' and so on...
I'll be answering each and every comment this evening that I didn't get to this afternoon.
With timeout to listen to President Obama's speech, of course.
Joe - 'Are you no longer in control of your responses?'
I was in perfect control of my response at the time of said deleted comment.
In fact, I told you that 'I had no
recourse except to act in that way.'
You see, Mark's comment said:
'Someone explain the 3/5 compromise to her.'
He wrote as if I were not in the room, as if I were not reading his comment.
But I was in the room, I read his comment, and wondered why he didn't address me directly, saying,
'Sue, I would like to explain the 3/5 compromise to you.'
That would have worked, and would have saved you, Joe, the trouble of deleting my untoward comment.
You see, Mark's comment said:
'Someone explain the 3/5 compromise to her.'
He wrote as if I were not in the room, as if I were not reading his comment.
But I was in the room, I read his comment, and wondered why he didn't address me directly, saying,
'Sue, I would like to explain the 3/5 compromise to you.'
That would have worked, and would have saved you, Joe, the trouble of deleting my untoward comment."
I saw it. Her untoward comment was the F-bomb. What is untoward to liberals is disgusting to conservatives.
Perhaps Mark did not address Sue directly because he -- as a creation of God -- thought it would be untoward to directly address the descendant of an ape.
LR - Didn't you read Mark's comment that although he didn't see my original F-bomb comment, he did get it through his email?
Mark - 'Excuse me, but I am curious. Exactly what part of LR's comment was untruthful?'
Well, Mark, the first untruth in LR's comment was:
'Liberals often find themselves with nothing to say.'
Any person that has ever known me,
Mark, and even bloggers know - that not only do I always have something to say, but that it is hard to shut me up.
~~~
Also - 'there is no such thing as a kind Liberal.'
Joe - the administrator of this very blog - will tell you that he believes that I am kind.
sue: "He wrote as if I were not in the room, as if I were not reading his comment."
Let me try to understand your "reasoning."
Someone says something in a way you don't like it so your only recourse is vulgarity.
Is that some liberal sickness, some form of childishness or just warpped thinking?
Newsflash: It's plain wrong.
You cannot justify vulgarity by your little hurt feelings.
That's what 4th graders do.
Fourth graders and liberals.
Joe - So are you saying in so many words that you will not support me in what I said to Mark that I am kind?
~~~
Or are you telling me to clean up my act.
Because if you are, then I just may work on that.
Out of my deep respect for your opinion of me.
(But I so dearly love to say these
vulgaritie, Joe, that I will need some time. Say in the next two weeks.I'll let you know how it goes.)
sue: I never said you were kind.
I said you were a nice person.
I might have been wrong.
But I don't really think so.
LR - 'Perhaps Mark did not address Sue directly because he - as a creation of God - thought it would be untoward to directly address the descendant of an ape.'
Please explain to me - as if I were a three year old and not a fourth grader - why you think that I am a descendant of an ape, and not a creation of God.
Joe - The thing is, I am more than a nice person. Calling me a nice person is like people calling Jesus a good teacher, or a prophet, when the truth is that He is the Son of God - or He is nothing.
Lest any Conservatives think I am comparing myself to Jesus I will plainly state that I AM NOT.
But rather I am saying that to me being called a nice person is tantamount to saying that I am nothing.
~~~
But, Joe, whether you believe it or not, I am kind, and I have been called that.
sue: I'm not saying that you are not a kind person. I am just saying that I never said it.
I said you were a nice person.
Wouldn't you rather be a nice person than a horrible, dispicable one?
If I had called you horrible and dispicable, wouldn't you have had a negative reaction to it?
I spontaneously told a woman once that she looked very pretty and she reacted by telling me off.
So I responded, "OK...you look like an ugly old hag."
She didn't seem any more happy.
Joe - My 8 year old granddaughter gave me a real compliment not too long ago.
She said:
'My grandma's dangerous.'
Another time, before that, she said,
'You don't want to see my grandma mad.'
But this same very smart girl also said,
'She's an artist.'
That got her a big abstract painting for her birthday.
Joe - I should have acknowledged
your 'ugly old hag' comment because it made me smile.
A precious commodity these days.
Joe - Re your 'ugly old hag' comment:
'I spontaneously told a woman once that she looked very pretty and she reacted by telling me off.'
Well, Joe, if you ever told me that I looked very pretty - first I would slug you, then I would smile and say, 'Why thank you, Joe.'
Joe:
'I'm still waiting for the list of your principles you're willing to give up for 'unity's' sake.'
~~~
The Free Online Dictionary defines 'principles' as:
1. basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy
2. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior
~~~
To preface my list of principles, I have chosen a local icon, whose statue I pass every day into town, a statue that graces the entrance of the Dirksen Congressional Center, to help me out.
Everett McKinley Dirksen himself spoke these words, upon which I build my list of principles:
'I am a man of fixed and unbending
principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.'
~~~
My list of principles:
faith in God
truth
belief in self
respect for fellow man
upholding the Constitution
my right to patriotism
my right to my basic beliefs
freedom to live my life respecting the rights of others
freedom to be
freedom to move about freely in the confines of the laws of my country
freedom to express my political views
freedom to dream
freedom to achieve my dreams
Freedom
~~~
Which of thses am I willing to give up for unity's sake?
For unity's sake I am willing to accept the beliefs of others, in a way that neither I nor others have to give up their principles.
Joe, we all want the same thing:
freedom. We can all have the same thing. Our Founding Fathers and the brave soldiers that fought and died in the Revolutionary War guarantee that we can have them.
Each time we step out of bounds and infringe on the rights of each other, we are bound by those men to once again establish unity, to right the wrongs, and assure that all the citizens of this country can life their lives in a way that was meant for this country.
No one has the right to be overbearing in saying what is right or wrong for another person.
We have lost our unity. We have gone way past trust. Now we must find trust in one another before we completely lose our bearings.
The first step must be taken - and soon - before it is too late.
Let us set aside our lists and say, we want to save this nation.
And believe me, it's not happening....we must do it here and now.
The bottom line of all this turmoil was spoken by Dirksen - to be flexible at all times.
Because, Joe, if both sides remain rigid, and no one stands up and says let's unify now, the principles upon which we all have built our lives, will burst like a dam and drown us all.
~~~
sue: "No one has the right to be overbearing in saying what is right or wrong for another person."
I say that murder is right for me to do.
You're OK with that?
Give me a break, sue, your comment is circular in logic and flighty in progression.
It is philosophically elementary and theologically unsound.
It is a hodgepodge of unrelated ideas and utopian ideologically.
Freedom is the right to do what one wants, so long as that does no harm to another or another's property.
Every government regulation usurps someone's rightful freedom, "for the good of the majority."
That was Hitler's argument for the extermination of the Jews.
sue: "For unity's sake I am willing to accept the beliefs of others."
You call that giving up something?
Is acceptance the same as giving up?
Joe - What do you want?
I gave you my list.
I have nothing more to give.
Joe - Who are you?
Joe - Did you ever see the movie War Games, where the computer finally learns that it is just a game?
This is just a game, isn't it?
For me it is a lose/lose situation.
Yet I never learn.
I keep coming back for more, like the computer, until it experiences
the final truth.
That it has been just playing a game.
All the time I thought that the people on these blogs were searching for answers.
But there are not. No one is.
No one wants the Truth.
They just want to play games.
It is a lose/lose no win situation.
And I never learn.
But like a true loser, I keep coming back for more.
In the end, I lose.
There really is no Truth, it is just a game.
silly me
Joe - Do me a favor,huh?
Ban me from your blog.
Now.
Make my comments dissapate into cyberspace even before my very words reach your blog.
Please.
If you don't comply with this one wish, I may implode into a burst of sniveling drivel as the world has never seen before.
Please, Joe.
Before I dot another i.
sue: Am I to understand from your "list" that you are willing to give up all of those things in order to achieve "unity?"
My list of principles:
faith in God
truth
belief in self
respect for fellow man
upholding the Constitution
my right to patriotism
my right to my basic beliefs
freedom to live my life respecting the rights of others
freedom to be
freedom to move about freely in the confines of the laws of my country
freedom to express my political views
freedom to dream
freedom to achieve my dreams
Freedom
After all, I did not ask for a list of your principles. I asked for a list of those you are willing to give up for this "unity" you imagine.
Joe - You asked what I'm willing to give up for the sake of 'unity.'
I gave up the right to use 'vulgarities' on Conservative Blogs.
I am no longer going to call Conservatives names when my feelings are hurt.
What are you going to give up for the sake of 'unity,' Joe?
sue: None of my principles, that's for sure.
Joe - You didn't answer my question.
I gave up calling Conservatives names.
That's a start.
What are you going to give up, Joe?
Joe - I'm waiting to hear what you are going to give up.
Would you be willing to give up some of the Liberal bashing for the sake of 'unity?'
Or do you hold Liberal bashing to be one of your strong principles?
Joe 'this unity that you imagine.'
Unity is not something that I imagine.
It is something that can happen.
But we the people have to want it to happen.
Are you willing to give up bashing Liberals on you blog for the sake of unity?
Joe - In the final scene of Ben- Hur, Charlton Heston says that while watching the Crucifixion he felt Jesus 'take the sword out of his hand.'
Of course, He can do this for all of us, but He may want to wait to be sure that our Heart is ready to give up the Sword.
Joe - When you confronted me about my language on blogs, and my childish, impetuous - even hateful-behavior, I was jolted back to reality. The reality that what you were saying was true.
You aided Jesus in taking the sword out of my hand, and more importantly - out of my heart.
sue: Liberal bashing is not a principle.
So far you have not given me one single principle that you are willing to give up. Not one.
Random things are not principles.
Principles are beliefs that one holds as core concepts in his philosophy of life and world view.
My principles include individual freedom and responsibility.
I am not willing to give up that principle because some governmnet believes I should.
My principles include truth and honesty.
I am not willing to give up those principles because some MainStream Media outlet violates them.
My principles include small, effecient federal government with limited powers.
I am not willing to give up those principles because some yahoo or yahoos think they know better than I do what's good for me.
My principles include a constitutional republic where the power of decision making rests with the people through their elected representatives who seek THEIR input.
I am not willing to give up those principles.
My principles include that all powers not specifically allowed to the government by the Constitution are to be held by the states.
I am not willing to give up that principle.
My principles include finding unity by adherence to a Constitution and its precepts rather than trying to work around it to get politicians their own way.
I am not willing to give up that principle.
I could go on, but in short I am not willing to give up one single principle to which I hold.
If I were willing to give up a principle, it would no longer be my principle.
That will never happen.
Joe - So what we are really left with is not your unwillingness to budge when it comes to your principles.
You cannot let go.
You refuse to give up the luxury of bashing Obama and Liberals.
You are behaving like a two year old child and I can picture you now:
sucking your thumb and clenching your blankie.
But, Joe, what am I to do?
Where is the Joe that has been mentoring me on such important subjects like forgiveness and submissiveness.
And when no one else could, who made me see the Light - that I was behaving like a fourth grader lashing out with vulgarities when my feelings were hurt.
You have impacted my life in so many important ways, Joe.
Who am I going to turn to now, when I need guidance.
Because the man that I admire and look up to, the man from whose heart pours the Truth of God's Own Word, is unable himself to give up his childish desire to lash out at the 'other guy.'
Joe, tell me that you are not going to let me down in this way.
For me this is devestating.
Please Joe, pray about this and tell me that your heart can be changed.
Take your time. Let me know tomorrow morning.
I'll pray too.
Post a Comment