"I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one..."
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek..."
"Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential..."
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war..."
"Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction..."
"What Washington needs is adult supervision..."
"As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it..."
"I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.."
"Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America..."
Lord, may it be so (not that I'm counting on a politician to make it happen, but we do so need a "new and better day" and I'm hoping that we, the people will, together, begin that hike).
Congratulations, Senator Obama.
(not that I'm counting on a politician to make it happen, >>
ReplyDeleteYou've had me fooled. Mom2
Mom2, I'll graciously offer you one last time: Show me ONE PLACE where I've indicated that I'm trusting in ANY politician (as opposed to wanting to hold them accountable) and I will apologize personally, sincerely and profusely especially to you for doing so.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you can't or won't do so, then you are simply here rumor-mongering and demonizing and, if you read your Bible, you will recognize that those are sins and you of all people should want to avoid such sinfulness.
So, are you a partisan rumor-monger trying to tear down your fellow Americans and the body of Christ, or are you speaking truth? By your actions now, all can see.
If you choose to identify yourself as a bitter partisan rumor-monger, I'll ask you to go someplace else to bear your false witness. Fair enough?
ReplyDeleteDan, your comment -- do this, or you're a bitter, partisan, rumor-mongering, demonzing, sinful liar (did I miss any?) -- is hardly an offer, much less one given "graciously."
ReplyDeleteA person who is geniune in graciously offering fair-minded requests in Christian love rarely needs to point it out.
Then again, you do support a politician who tells us about his own "profound humility."
Dan, I think it's a fair question to ask whether your hope for a "new and better day" is too closely tied to a political campaign or at least a political agenda.
Given the focus of your writing, I think it's entirely fair to ask whether your hope in Progressivism exceeds even your hope in Christ. I think it's entirely fair to wonder whether your hope in the Person of Christ is trumped by an interpretation of a subset of His teachings -- that is, your interpretation (and, notably, the political implications thereof) of His ethical commands, divorced from His death, resurrection, and promised return.
I suspect that your real hope is not in Christ, but in a political program that has the trappings and window dressing of Christianity. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt that I am.
Seriously: when you write that you hope the people will work together to bring about a "new and better day", just how much of this work do you conceive as political? Does the Christian duty of evangelism and discipleship take a backseat to economic reform? Is the Great Commission even on your radar?
Is your hope for a new and better day fanned more by the nomination of a politician than it is by the celebration of Easter?
These are fair questions to ask. Mom2 is right to express the concern that your priorities are misplaced.
Dan, once again I commend you for your patience. I don't know how you put up with these folks.
ReplyDeleteI honestly cannot understand why someone would wander over to your blog day after day after day to do one thing and one thing only: call you a liar (over and over and over.) Again and again, you ask the free-range rude who visit here to provide evidence of their claims and all you get is drive-by troll droppings and pedantic arm-chair psychobabble from people who themselves are too cowardly to actually have a blog, leave their real name, or do anything but shout anonymously from the rafters.
I don't know how you got so "lucky" as to be targeted by these people, but your patience with putting up with them is remarkable.
bubba said:
ReplyDeleteThese are fair questions to ask. Mom2 is right to express the concern that your priorities are misplaced.
Then, instead of making false assumptions and allegations and twisting my words, let's look (once again!) at what I've actually written.
I have, over the last several weeks, written on:
1. Whether or not some things are objectively right and wrong (ie, targeting civilians is always a wrong) and questioned some on the Right on their moral relativism on the subject [May 29]
2. Advocated for living responsibly and within our means [May 27]
3. Observed how quickly our oil prices have risen (continuing a common theme of living within our means, loving God's creation and personal and societal responsibility - all of which I find to be reasonable and Christian ideals) [May 22]
4. Ran some quotes from Thomas Jefferson about how there are better, more effective ways of dealing with enemies (continuing a common theme of Just Peacemaking, a theme which I find consistent with biblical, Christian teaching and yet acceptable in a pluralistic society) [May 21]
5. Pointed to how poorly the Republican Party is doing, owing largely to their own excesses, poor policy decisions and personal pecadilloes (while allowing that we rightly don't trust Democrat politicians greatly, either) [May 20]
6. Reviewed Obama's platform vs McCain's (in light of the charge that Obama has no significant plans in place - this was an effort to expose a bearing of false witness, a Christian value, surely) [May 17]
7. Predicted Obama will win in a landslide (intended to be an objective look at the race as I see it, acknowledging that no one knows what will happen) [May 16]
8. Made fun of McCain's prediction that things will get better in Iraq [May 15]
9. Talked about a favorite Narnia character (Reepicheep) [May 13]
10. Suggested that Clinton's bid for the Prez Nomination was over and praised the Republicans (and McCain, in particular!!) for advocating responsible energy/food policy [May 7]
======
mom2's specific allegation this time was that I was counting on a politician to save us (a repeated theme of hers - always without support]. You continue with the charge by suggesting my priorities may be misplaced.
And so I ask you: Where in these ten posts (or ANYWHERE? EVER?) have I alleged that a politician(s) could save us?
I DID praise McCain and some Republicans for an action they took; I DID suggest that I think Obama will win the election; I DID (in today's post) offer some quotes from Obama (with the clear stipulation that I was NOT depending upon him to deliver us, but rather upon the people to stand up and start living more responsibly), but nowhere did I do as she has repeatedly charged.
It is a lie and, given her repeated choice to drive by with a false witness and then leave, I can hardly see how it could just be an ignorant lie, but instead, it appears to be a deliberate and cowardly slander of a brother in Christ and a fellow citizen.
(And looking back at it, The ONLY Party I have praised in the last month has been the Republicans! I even said, "Hooray for the Republicans!" Do y'all think I'm trusting the Republicans to deliver us, because that was not my intention in praising them...)
Thanks, Alan, for the support. No patience necessary. I am a hypocritical, hypercritical son of a gun myself, sometimes. I'm patient with them in hopes that they'll be patient with me.
ReplyDeleteYes, congratulations are in order.
ReplyDeleteBarack is a great orator, but I'm afraid that's all he's got.
Time and tide will tell.
Beyond by sincere congratulations I must agree with Bubba that...
"...it's entirely fair to ask whether your hope in Progressivism exceeds even your hope in Christ. I think it's entirely fair to wonder whether your hope in the Person of Christ is trumped by an interpretation of a subset of His teachings -- that is, your interpretation (and, notably, the political implications thereof) of His ethical commands, divorced from His death, resurrection, and promised return."
I have no desire to get into a long protracted debate about the state of your moral compass [been there, done that], but Bubba's is a fair question.
Is Obama the "ObaMessiah" many on the Left seem to worship? Or is he just another sinful man, capable of every human ill? Is he a messiah or a politician?
I must also commend myself for the great patience I exhibit at my place every time "someone... wander[s] over to [my] blog day after day after day to do one thing and one thing only: call [me] a liar (over and over and over."
Yes, my patience is remarkable.
But Barack Obama nonetheless deserves congratulations. However, I do think the debate will be years in conclusion as to how much of his victory was actual charisma, and how much was media-wrought.
bubba said:
ReplyDeleteGiven the focus of your writing, I think it's entirely fair to ask whether your hope in Progressivism exceeds even your hope in Christ.
Then ask. The answer is, no.
I'm a follower of Jesus. Saved by God's grace. I hold my positions (imperfect as they are) based on my best understanding of God's Word and upon my best reasoning.
I don't trust progressivism, liberalism or conservatism - although my beliefs in various ways can be described using those terms.
when you write that you hope the people will work together to bring about a "new and better day", just how much of this work do you conceive as political? Does the Christian duty of evangelism and discipleship take a backseat to economic reform?
* I hope that people would embrace Jesus' Way, and to that end, I talk about Jesus' Way a good deal here at my blog
* I hope that people will live responsibly, within their means.
* I hope that we are wise enough to create policies to reduce incidences of terrorism.
* I hope that we abandon Bush's approach, which I believe to be a demonstrably failed approach (I sure hope no one is trusting in Bush to save us!)
* I hope to be a good father and husband
* I hope that we could work to decrease the divisions between left and right; between Muslim and Christian and Jew and atheist; and that we could do so in responsible ways
* I hope that we could be honest and open in our conversations with each other, without engaging in bitter name-calling or twisting of words
* I hope that we could work to bring good news to the poor, liberty for the captives, health for the ill, the day of God's Good Favor
These are some of my hopes, as expressed often here on my blog.
Do you find some of these hopes to be antithetical to the Gospel of Christ? Do you find some of these hopes to be "too political"?
OH! And when you titled that post "Hooray for the Republicans!" I thought it was sarcasm. You are usually so critical I figured this was more of the same. I simply sighed and ignored the post. I'll go back and give it an honest read.
ReplyDeleteEric asked:
ReplyDeleteOr is he just another sinful man, capable of every human ill? Is he a messiah or a politician?
THIS one is easy: He's a flawed human being, just like Dan and Eric. He's absolutely no messiah and definitely a politician.
I just hope that he's of a better ilk than many of our politicians have been and think the evidence is that he is, indeed, at least a little better than many politicians. Ultimately, though, he's a failed human who will absolutely make mistakes and have failures in his policy and administration.
That much I can guarantee.
EVERY person and politician has flaws. Today, Obama's speech before AIPAC described a commitment to Israel in nearly one-sided terms, barely mentioning the occupation of Palestine. While I understand the need to shore up the Jewish vote in light of McBush's slanders, I was still disappointed that Obama wasn't more even-handed.
ReplyDeleteI have said before that Clinton's healthcare plan is better and that Obama would certainly not reduce the bloated military budget in his first term. His presidency would b e a vast improvement over the past 8 years, but hardly a utopia. And the huge problems caused by Bush--and some before him like global warming--will not be easy to solve for anyone--or any team.
Congratulations are in order. This is the first time Obama actually won an election. His bid for congress was won by digging up dirt on Jack Ryan (of course now he is above that). His bid for state Rep. was won by going to court. It is a great first for BHO let’s hope it also his last.
ReplyDeleteDan, the list of subjects of your last few blog entries is hardly definitive evidence against your putting too heavy an emphasis on politics and too much faith in a political agenda. And acting as if a critic must show where you have explicitly put your complete trust in a politician is demanding evidence that is needlessly narrow -- and conveniently so. This is like saying a signed confession is the only way to prove someone had committed a particular crime, or requiring that inerrantists point to a passage in the Bible that explicitly affirms the inerrancy of every passage of each of its 66 books.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear that you think even Obama is a flawed human being prone to mistakes, but I still believe your writing indicates misplaced priorities.
For instance, here you write, "I hope that people would embrace Jesus' Way, and to that end, I talk about Jesus' Way a good deal here at my blog."
You largely talk about "Jesus' Way" only insofar as you can use His teachings to justify your politics, either pacifism in foreign policy or socialism in economics. You have written literally a dozen or more blog entries on the Bible and economics, Jesus and economics, and the Bible and wealth and poverty, but even Jesus' ethical teachings don't stop at the Christian's concern for the poor. Christian ethics also includes prayer and evangelism, but you don't every have a whole lot to say about those passages of Christ's ethical teachings that cannot be politicized.
What Christ taught doesn't stop with human ethics. He taught about sin and His final judgment, but those subjects don't get aired out here. And He also affirmed Scripture's authority to the smallest penstroke and taught that His blood was shed to inaugurate the new covenant, both of which you seem to deny outright.
And Christ didn't just come here to teach, He came to seek and save the lost. You focus on His "Way" without much mention of His death and resurrection, focusing on what He commanded (or arguably politically germane subsections thereof) rather than what He Himself did.
Just going by what you write, I would think that you see Jesus as primarily concerned with political reform rather than saving souls from sin. Even your stated belief in the Resurrection is couched in your denial of the atonement as something that only "meant something" to ancient Jews, so you could see it as merely divine vindication of Jesus' act of perfect political martyrdom rather than an assurance that His substitutionary punishment for our sins is sufficient to guarantee eternal life.
None of my concerns can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, but the question isn't whether I can demonstrably justify my concerns: it's whether those concerns are indeed well-founded. Whether they are doesn't matter much to me in the grand scheme of things, but they should matter to you.
And if it's really the case that your faith is strong and mature, you should perhaps consider the possibility that our stated concerns aren't because of some malicious intent to slander you, but because your words might not be a particularly good indication of a true commitment to Christ's priorities that does not grossly deviate into an attempt to twist His teachings to justify a personal agenda.
Christian ethics also includes prayer and evangelism, but you don't every have a whole lot to say about those passages of Christ's ethical teachings that cannot be politicized.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not the purpose of my blog. Prayer is a more personal component of my faith ("But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is hidden...") and I DO talk about evangelism (ie, telling the Good News), it's just not an evangelism that you appear to recognize.
In short, this is not a religious blog, even though I talk about Jesus, the Church and the Bible. I'm not interested in blogging about a narrow set of topics that the religious right approve of. I write about what I want to write about and what I have something to think about.
If you would like to have a religious blog, go ahead. That is not what I've set out to do here.
More later...
"None of my concerns can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, but the question isn't whether I can demonstrably justify my concerns: it's whether those concerns are indeed well-founded. Whether they are doesn't matter much to me in the grand scheme of things, but they should matter to you."
ReplyDeleteLOL. Sorry, that just made me laugh.
Alan's right, that's a bit silly, if we're talking on an adult level.
ReplyDelete"The question isn't whether I can demonstrably justify my concerns: it's whether those concerns are indeed well-founded."
The question isn't whether or not I can PROVE Bush is a war criminal, the question is whether or not those concerns are well-founded.
"'Well founded,' based on what?" someone might ask.
"Based on whether or not I THINK they're well-founded." is the reply. "And I DO think they're well-founded. Not based on any one thing that I can point to, just a hunch in my gut based on what I think he's said over the years..."
Shall we convict, then?
bubba said:
ReplyDeleteAnd acting as if a critic must show where you have explicitly put your complete trust in a politician is demanding evidence that is needlessly narrow...
So, are you saying that it is okay (especially from a Christian point of view) to go around casting charges without offering any proof?
You are free to choose to believe that. I disagree. Especially from a Christian point of view.
(And that, by the way, was evangelism, brother bubba. I was pointing out a better way to live, a more perfect grace found, not in Dan, but in God and in the community of those who strive to follow God, by God's grace.
We need not live in a bitter, ugly world where folk cast allegations and slander like so much garbage, here and there, littering the landscape with falsehoods. There IS a better way. We can live lives of love, as demonstrated in the life of Jesus. Good news for those who are tired of petty backbiting and baseless charges. Hallelujah!)
One more. Bubba said:
ReplyDeleteHe [Jebus] taught about sin and His final judgment, but those subjects don't get aired out here.
?
I have to wonder about this communication gap we too often have. You and I. The Left and the Right.
I DO talk about the Good News here frequently. I DO talk about sin here frequently.
I wonder what you think I'm talking about when I'm talking about injustices. About not living sustainably. About overconsumption.
I wonder if it could be that you don't recognize that I'm talking exactly about sin frequently here because I don't talk about the "sins" that you prefer to hear about: Homosexuality. Abortion. Lazy Welfare Queens.
I wonder if you recognize sin being talked about in the books of the Prophets in the OT?
I don't know and I'm not making an accusation. I just find it interesting. I do, in fact, talk about sin frequently here... I honestly wonder why is it that you would not recognize that?
Bubba said earlier (testifying in my defense):
ReplyDeleteDan, your comment -- do this, or you're a bitter, partisan, rumor-mongering, demonzing, SINFUL liar (did I miss any?) -- is hardly an offer, much less one given "graciously."
There. You yourself HAVE recognized that I've talked about sin. Thanks for the backup.
I've just been reviewing my blog. I've decided it's almost exclusively about the Gospel and about Sin. With an occasional news report thrown in.
ReplyDeleteSo, now you know.
And here you were, telling us just a couple hours ago that "this is not a religious blog."
ReplyDeleteDan, if you really want to claim that this blog is "almost exclusively about the Gospel and about Sin," be my guest, but that claim would not repudiate my suspicion in the least. Instead, it would confirm my suspicion that your conception of Christianity is primarily political.
Here, you rarely (if ever) talk about the forgiveness of sin and the offer of eternal life that comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Instead, your focus here is on how this world can be improved here and now through political reform, primarily through pacifism and socialism -- or an "intelligently regulated market" or however you want to dress up your economic beliefs.
Even your self-described focus on sin is only on those sins for which you think there is a temporal political solution: unsustainable overconsumption for which we need regulation from government, not the depravity of the soul from which we need justification through Christ's blood.
So far as I can tell from this blog, your idea of grace isn't even that Jesus is our Savior who died for our sins, but that He is a political teacher who gave collective economics a divine thumbs-up while living out the ideal in political martyrdom.
I've decided [my blog is] almost exclusively about the Gospel and about Sin.
That's precisely my concern. Far worse than the possibility that you know you're focusing on politics to the detriment of the Christian Gospel is this: an apparent confession that you've outright replaced the latter with the former.
I'm not even going to waste my time reading through the excrement left by those who constantly question your salvation Dan.
ReplyDeleteSo back to the topic. Obama. While I am glad and thankful that he is the Democratic nominee, I am under no delusions. My main concern with him is what he might do with the troops. He may pull them out of Iraq, but will he just move them to Afghanistan and possibly into Pakistan??
The army, in particular, is broken. Our soldiers are mentally and physically exhausted from 3, 4, and 5 tours, stop-loss and extentions. They've had enough. So have their families.
Let's hope that Obama has the wisdom to gather advice from the guys and gals on the shooting lines, as well as their families, instead a bunch of chickenhawks.
ReplyDeleteBubba said:
ReplyDeleteAnd here you were, telling us just a couple hours ago that "this is not a religious blog."
Aaahhh, but it's NOT a religious blog. It's a blog where I may discuss sin and salvation, but it's not especially religious.
My distinction is that mine is not a blog where I speak in church-ese, talking about "God's Redeeming Grace" or "the atoning power of the Blood of the Lamb" or "the fire and brimstone of an everlasting hell reserved for the unregenerate" or whatever language it is they use in church (when you don't use it regularly, you start to forget it).
Instead, I talk about birds singing on spring mornings and the beauty of sunsets and the grace and support of community and God found within it all. I talk about regular stuff, and Jesus and God and sin and salvation is part of regular stuff, instead of being this weird religious thing set aside for Sunday mornings and having its own language and set of rules that are mostly irrelevant in the real world.
There is a difference, at least for me.
bubba, do YOU believe in working on God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven?
ReplyDeleteDan, I do believe that Christians are supposed to participate in advancing God's kingdom, and I also advocate political reform. I'm just not foolish enough to conflate the two, or to act as if the latter is essential to the former.
ReplyDeleteGod's kingdom was inaugurated when Christ came, died, rose again, and established His church. Christians are to participate in advancing His kingdom by growing closer to God in a personal relationship, by growing closer in resemblance to Christ through spiritual growth, and by becoming a more mature member of His family through participation in a local church. Christians are also to hope for Christ's return and the consequent consummation of what has already been inaugurated.
If politics does have a role in a Christian's work for God's kingdom, it is minor and non-essential.
Going by what you write here, I believe that you believe the minor aspect of politics is central to Christian faith, and in doing so you not only diminish what is truly important, you very nearly discard it altogether.
It's not just that we're using different lexicons to say the same thing, that I'm using "church-ese" and you're using the language of regular folks. I wish the difference was that superficial.
I don't think it is.
I do not think that you're using non-religious language to communicate the same Gospel. Instead, I believe you're communicating a significantly different set of "good news." I say this, in part, because what you write doesn't "map". Your writing doesn't include plain-folk analogues that correspond to the essentials of Christian doctrine.
You write:
...mine is not a blog where I speak in church-ese, talking about "God's Redeeming Grace" or "the atoning power of the Blood of the Lamb" or "the fire and brimstone of an everlasting hell reserved for the unregenerate"...
Okay, you don't use those terms, but what have you written that even remotely corresponds to the concepts of A) the forgiveness of sin, B) the idea that Christ's death is the means by which we are forgiven, and C) God's promise of an eternal judgment?
It's not that a certain set of theological terms is absent: it's that the ideas behind those terms are absent, because, it seems, you dismiss those ideas as "mostly irrelevant in the real world."
You apparently think that, in the real world, it's much more important to talk about singing birds than it is to preach the forgiveness of sin made possible through Jesus' death. What's galling is that you dare to pretend that, in doing this, you're still proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You write that you believe "more in personal reform than political reform." Let take it as given that you do. It's worth noting that the personal reform you focus on tends to be making one's life consistent with one's politics -- e.g., don't just advocate laws requiring sustainable living, live sustainably yourself -- but the important thing is the Good News of Christianity is not about how we can reform ourselves, but how God through Christ can redeem us.
Our political philosophies are different, and I don't think you promote your philosophy in the most open and consistent manner, but my problem isn't simply that our politics don't match up, but that you seem to think, wrongly, that politics are crucially important to Christianity. There are ostensible Christians who are politically conservative and do the same thing, but that doesn't make your error here any less egregious.
And, it's not just that the language we use is different, it's that they don't correspond to the same Gospel. Preaching a deviation from authentic Christianity and claiming that it's the Gospel is an extremely dangeous thing to do.
One more...
ReplyDeleteBubba said:
Even your self-described focus on sin is only on those sins for which you think there is a temporal political solution...
I have to wonder exactly what sin you want me to talk about. As it is, by my count, I talk about...
greed
oppression
idol worship (trusting in/relying upon something other than God)
bearing false witness
deadly violence against the innocent
destroying God's creation
stealing (from future generations)
hypocrisy
hubris
materialism
consumerism
militarism
...off the top of my head. Or, considered another way, of the Seven deadly sins:
lust
gluttony
greed
sloth
wrath
envy
pride
I talk fairly regularly about at least four of them (gluttony, greed, wrath and pride).
Or, of the Ten Commandments:
Have no other gods before me
Don't worship idols
Don't misuse God's name
Observe the Sabbath
Honor father/mother
Don't murder
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Don't bear false witness
Don't covet
I talk about, I'd suggest, seven of the ten with some regularity in some form.
And in addition to talking about those sins, I talk about repenting of our sins and turning ourselves around in a new direction.
So, I have to wonder, which sins exactly would you LIKE me to talk about that I'm not talking about?
It's true that I don't regularly talk about adultery, which I know is a big fave of the Religious Right. Is that what you would like me to talk about? Envy? Sloth? Coveting?
What am I missing that you find so egregious that you keep coming here to question me for not writing a blog in a manner that is appealing to you?
Bubba wrote:
ReplyDelete...what have you written that even remotely corresponds to the concepts of A) the forgiveness of sin, B) the idea that Christ's death is the means by which we are forgiven, and C) God's promise of an eternal judgment?
Well, I have written repeatedly that I believe we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
I have written that we need to turn from a "sinful" life (or the Wrong Way would probably be more like the language I have used) and turn to following the Right Way, by God's grace.
And I have written that there are consequences to our actions.
But you are right that I have never offered an altar call, inviting people to come forward and ask God for forgiveness of their sins, and to ask Jesus to be the Lord of their lives.
I don't regularly (or ever) make this blog religious in THAT way.
Nor does Marshall Art, nor does Eric, although he probably does from time to time.
So, honestly, why harangue me and not Marshall? This is NOT that sort of religious blog, nor is Marshall's. Nor are many of the other Right Wingers who have frequented here.
I'm really interested in why me?
I would suppose it's because you disagree with me on my Christianity and you don't with them, so it's not really the fact that I never/rarely talk about "A) the forgiveness of sin, B) the idea that Christ's death is the means by which we are forgiven, and C) God's promise of an eternal judgment" but rather that I don't talk about God and God's Way in a way that you approve.
But you tell me.
About why I focus on you and your blog, I find your guess to be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou write, "I would suppose it's because you disagree with me on my Christianity."
I thought your position is that we shared the same Christianity, just using different lexicons in affirming the same Gospel. If you really think your version of Christianity is different than mine, this is another instance where I'm surprised to see you so openly agree with me.
But there are two reasons this discussion has been started more than once: you're incredibly vague about your religious beliefs, and I find that lack of clarity extremely frustrating.
You're articulate without being clear. For instance, a while back I repeatedly asked whether you believe that Christ's death is causally related to our forgiveness, and you repeatedly answered that it's all "of a piece", which is neither a clear yes nor a clear no. This is just like how your present affirmation that our actions have consequences doesn't actually imply that you believe some of those consequences are eternal.
One big reason I find this so frustrating is because I've seen this behavior before.
In evangelizing Mormons.
I'm not suggesting you're a Mormon yourself, but you seem to have the same habit of emphasizing our similarities to obscure the fact that you never clearly explain what may be very radical differences.
I suspect you engage in Mormon-esque obfuscation because, while your beliefs are certainly not Mormon, I suspect they are just as literally unorthodox.
A belief in hell is not critical to salvation, it is NOT "essential to the gospel." A belief in hell - what it means, its existence, how one gets there - is debated in many Christian circles.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I DO believe in hell, although probably not in the way that you do. I believe hell is separation from God.
Regardless, you seem eager to criticize me in ways you do not criticize others, merely for partisan reasons as far as I can tell.
Oh, and probably because if pushed, they would talk about christianity in roughly the terms you talk about it.
But my God is bigger than the box you'd want to put God in.
And God is not tame enough that I would care to try to put God in a box myself.
If you really think your version of Christianity is different than mine, this is another instance where I'm surprised to see you so openly agree with me.
ReplyDeleteThere is ONE Christian faith, one Christian church. I just acknowledge that you have a low view of my mostly anabaptist take on it.
I suspect you engage in Mormon-esque obfuscation because, while your beliefs are certainly not Mormon, I suspect they are just as literally unorthodox.
My views are fairly orthodox anabaptism. Do you reject all anabaptists?
And there is no obfuscation, just a different paradigm that seems to cause you to stumble for whatever reason.
Still, how am I less clear (to you) in my belief than Marshall, Mark or others who talk about God, Jesus, sin, forgiveness, etc, MUCH less than I do?
Again, I suspect that you are not familiar with anabaptists and the lack of familiarity causes you consternation because we look at things differently than you do.
Being anabaptist, I don't really believe in creeds, but even so, looking at the Nicene Creed - accepted by probably most evangelicals as a list of Christian essentials - there is no mention of hell at all, let alone any suggestion that I must agree with bubba's view on hell to be saved or orthodox.
ReplyDeleteFurther, there is nothing in the Nicene Creed that I, particularly or anabaptists in general have a problem with. So, if we agree with the Nicene Creed, where's your beef?
Should Obama become president, his hands may now be tied with regards to Iraq:
ReplyDeleteRevealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Thanks, Marty, for keeping us on topic...
ReplyDeleteSince Marty has so nicely reminded me of the actual topic here, let me sum up bubba's mistakes/misunderstandings, as best I understand them. Then he can respond once more off-topic and save any other off-topic commentary for another day.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with the Nicene Creed and nothing I've written on my blog contradicts it;
2. The Nicene Creed is a statement accepted by most evangelicals of Christian essentials;
3. I am most closely aligned with anabaptism, as far as my faith tradition is concerned;
4. One of the distinguishing marks of anabaptists is their emphasis on orthopraxis - HOW we live out our faith;
5. We believe in simplicity, in peacemaking, in the Sermon on the Mount and the story of the sheep and the goats, in the teachings of the prophets as some (but not all) of our cues on how to live aright;
6. My blog reflects this VERY Christian, VERY old, VERY orthodox approach to Christianity;
7. I'm guessing that bubba does not care much for the anabaptist views on simplicity, peacemaking or right living as defined by Jesus (or at least how anabaptists view Jesus' teachings) and that it makes him uncomfortable, so he lashes out against that;
8. Which is fine, if that's what floats his boat and it's on topic - but bubba should realize that he is heaping criticism upon a brother who believes in a pretty orthodox Christianity in most ways, and often bubba's criticisms are based upon a twisting of what I believe and not what I actually believe
Now, bubba, feel free to respond once more to this comment, and bring it up again, if you wish, when it is on topic.
Peace.
Dan, I wonder why you find it difficult to capitalize my name. Your Shift key does not appear to be broken, I've consistently capitalized your name, and I see that you've consistently capitalized Marty's and Alan's.
ReplyDeleteI guess such slights are an aspect of simplicity, peacemaking, and right living that are too nuanced for me to grasp.
And I see you've picked up Erudite Redneck's little habit of proclaiming that you don't put God in a box. Funny, but I thought you denied that God is capable of revealing Himself through an inerrant, authoritative collection of written texts.
While you say you affirm a belief in Hell, you also say that your definition of Hell likely differs from mine, and -- again -- you do not clearly say whether your definition includes Hell being an eternal separation.
The question of whether there are eternal consequences for our actions is just one example of your apparently deliberate obfuscation, and I see that you continue to obfuscate.
You say that, as an anabaptist, you emphasize right living, but you do not say whether you do so to the exclusion of the importance of doctrine. You say that you believe what Jesus commanded in the Sermon on the Mount, but not whether you also believe His own upper-room explanation for His death.
And, earlier, you wrote this, which bears another look:
I hope that we could work to decrease the divisions between left and right; between Muslim and Christian and Jew and atheist; and that we could do so in responsible ways
All divisions? Christians believe Jesus is the crucified and risen God Incarnate, and Muslims deny that Jesus is God and deny His crucifixion. How shall we decrease that particular division? By evangelizing Muslims and preaching Christ crucified, as Paul taught? Or by emphasizing "living aright", to hell with the little matter about Christ's death and divinity?
I sincerely don't intend to twist what you believe, but you really don't seem eager to make clear what you believe.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point: you think my problem is partisan and political, and I think you're being deliberately vague about your beliefs.
But I guess a discussion about the actual contents of the Gospel is apparently off-topic for a blog that is, we are told, almost exclusively focused on the Gospel.
One final question, bubba and any of your comrades:
ReplyDeleteRead the book of James. All of it. It's only five chapters, you can do it in a few minutes.
Done?
Where, in those five chapters, does James talk about...
A) the forgiveness of sin,
B) the idea that Christ's death is the means by which we are forgiven, and
C) God's promise of an eternal judgment
?
Would you not agree with me that the book of James is a fairly pragmatic little book - talking primarily about orthopraxis/how we should live?
There's no mention of the death or resurrection of Jesus.
There's a little about consequences and judgement (very little).
There are some pretty strong words for those who AREN'T living aright (which is where the words of judgement come in).
There is NO mention of Jesus' death as the "means by which we are forgiven" (which seems to be your main gripe with me).
Would you criticize James as you criticize me? Why not?
We do not all need to sound like one another. My role may not be to talk about Jesus' death and resurrection, but it doesn't mean I don't believe it. I may not jump through all the hoops that you are inclined to jump through but that does not invalidate my thoughts.
Is it not enough for you that we each have our roles? That we are not all hands or armpits, but some are crotches and buttholes (not making any suggestions, there)?
We don't need to all sound alike, use the same words or ideas. What is important, James tells us, is that we act in love, for this is how others know we are of Christ, says John.
Or perhaps you should read the whole of 3 John - all 15 verses, in which none of your three criteria are mentioned, but where John does say:
if I come, I will remind him of how he has been attacking us with gossip. Not only has he been doing this, but he refuses to welcome any of the Lord's followers who come by. And when other church members want to welcome them, he puts them out of the church.
Dear friend, don't copy the evil deeds of others! Follow the example of people who do kind deeds. They are God's children, but those who are always doing evil have never seen God.
James' or John's message are not the whole gospel, but that does not mean they are not part of the gospel.
Lighten up, Frances.
bubba said:
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you find it difficult to capitalize my name.
Whatever you prefer. Your name appears in your signature without a capital so that's how I usually try to put it but many times I capitalize it out of habit.
Is that something that blogger does - make 'dan trabue' and 'bubba' etc, all be lower case?
Also, I still wonder (you didn't answer): Do you have a problem with all anabaptists, as well as John and James, or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteOn the page where blog comments are edited, all the names are lower-case. On the page where the comments are posted, where the original blog entry is archived, the author's intended capitalization is present, and there you will see I consistently capitalize my own name, as does Marty and Alan. On the editing page, Marty and Alan's names are lower-case, yet you capitalized both.
ReplyDeleteAbout James and John, I didn't answer your question in part because you raised it 6 minutes after my previous comment. I'm not Carnac the Magnificent.
I don't know other anabaptists and I hope they emphasize doctrine more than you do and are more clear about their beliefs than you are.
Where, in those five chapters, does James talk about...
A) the forgiveness of sin,
B) the idea that Christ's death is the means by which we are forgiven, and
C) God's promise of an eternal judgment
?
Where does James explicitly mention the Gospel and thereby suggest that those three doctrines above are inessential to the Gospel? You're arguing from silence, suggesting what we can conclude about James' beliefs about the Gospel from an epistle that doesn't even mention the Gospel.
And about John, I'm not sure why you want to limit the discussion to his third epistle. A better view of John's beliefs can be found by looking at all his canonical writings: his Gospel, his three epistles (hence your reference to "3 John") and the Revelation.
But doing that would undermine your position that, like you, John deemphasized the cross and rather emphasized practice over doctrine.
Even beyond his Gospel's reference to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) and, in Revelation, the many references to the Lamb who was slain, John emphasized Christ's blood in his epistles:
If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. - I Jn 1:6-7
And John clearly emphasized the essential importance of the doctrine of Christ's humanity:
Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! - II Jn 1:7
But, yeah, if you ignore his four other canonical works and focus on his personal letter to Gaius, I guess you could miss that emphasis on Christ's death and that further emphasis on orthodoxy.
Touche, I suppose.
Dan, I don't want to get off topic, but I have noted before that you misrepresent the Anabaptist tradition. It was/is "non-creedal" in the sense that no human document is considered infallible or unable to be revised. But the Anabaptists and their descendants did and do make confessions of faith all the time and most of them fit within Nicene Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the atonement, although not understood in a sacrificial manner except in Hebrews, is very central to the NT, including all the Gospels. In fact, the Gospels have rightly been called "Passion narratives with extended introductions."
Back to topic, a president Obama will have strengths and weaknesses like any other politician, but I think it unquestionable that he would be a huge improvement over Bush or McCain.
Thanks, Michael, for the correction. The anabaptists are credal, in a sense, then.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I've brought up the atonement in this particular discussion, but duly noted.
As to Obama's good points, here's another in the news today:
Barack Obama is moving to take leadership of the Democratic Party, installing one of hit top field lieutenants at the Democratic National Committee, along with a sweeping new ban on special interest money.
THAT'S what I'm talking about, why I trust him at least a little bit more than most politicians and a lot more than Bush.
..."Is it not enough for you that we each have our roles? That we are not all hands or armpits, but some are crotches and buttholes (not making any suggestions, there)?"...
ReplyDeleteOh. My. God.
I can't stop laughing.
That was kick-a hilarious Dan.
Because we're off topic, I'd email Bubba if he weren't an anonymoid, but since not, I'll throw this last thing in...
ReplyDeleteBubba said:
You're arguing from silence, suggesting what we can conclude about James' beliefs about the Gospel from an epistle that doesn't even mention the Gospel.
I think this is one major difference 'tween you and I, Bubba. You think that James "doesn't even mention the Gospel," and I do.
For you, the Gospel has been narrowly defined as "the news that Jesus died because you're a sinner and because he shed his blood, you can be saved by God's grace..." or something close to that.
For me, Jesus' life, teachings, death and resurrection are ALL part of the Gospels - the Good News of God. James' teachings are part of the Good News.
THIS...
If any of you need wisdom, you should ask God, and it will be given to you. God is generous and won't correct you for asking...
wanted us to be his own special people...
Religion that pleases God the Father must be pure and spotless. You must help needy orphans and widows and not let this world make you evil...
God has given a lot of faith to the poor people in this world. He has also promised them a share in his kingdom that he will give to everyone who loves him...
But the wisdom that comes from above leads us to be pure, friendly, gentle, sensible, kind, helpful, genuine, and sincere. 18When peacemakers plant seeds of peace, they will harvest justice...
THIS is all Good News! The Gospel of Christ. We are saved by God's grace, free to follow in Christ's Way. The great Good News of Jesus.
It appears you don't see the Good News in that, because it doesn't mention the phrases you specifically want mentioned.
So that is also probably part of the problem why you think I'm being vague: My answers might be bigger than your answers. If I say, "well, believing in Jesus' death and resurrection is certainly part of the Gospel," that's not being vague, that's telling the good news and attempting to tell it all, not just some little corner of it.
Marty laughed:
ReplyDeleteThat was kick-a hilarious Dan.
well, thanks. You know, of course, that I was only referring to myself, if anyone, with that last body part. A butthole for Christ.
We all have our own talents, such as they are...
Feel free to have the last word, Dan, but I think a major problem is that you seem to treat the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as "some little corner" of the Gospel. You seem to admit as much, writing that your role "may not be to talk about Jesus' death and resurrection," as if that sort of thing is optional for Christians.
ReplyDeleteI conclude by saying that it appears we agree that you treat the cross as less-than-central to Christianity. The only place where we disagree is your position that your doing so is nothing to criticize.
Keep putting words in the mouths of your brothers and sisters in Christ, Bubba. That's a Christian thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThat'll show that you're a Christian by your love. Twisting words, making assumptions, telling lies, defending liars. Great witness, there. Is that what you mean by evangelism??
I will remind him of how he has been attacking us with gossip. Not only has he been doing this, but he refuses to welcome any of the Lord's followers who come by...
Dear friend, don't copy the evil deeds of others! Follow the example of people who do kind deeds. They are God's children, but those who are always doing evil have never seen God.
Seeing as how you consistently miss the meaning of my words, I have repeatedly suggested to you and your pals that you're simply not omniscient enough to tell me what I think. If you want to say I've said something, use a direct quotes.
Your interpretative powers are lacking. And since I've told you this repeatedly, and you repeatedly make the same "mistakes" and repeat the same unsupported attacks, one can only assume that you are rumor-mongering and twisting truths deliberately to be divisive or because you're a partisan attacker or, well, I don't know what reasons you have for continually twisting truths, but shame on you.
Go away and take your mom2 with you.
And here's how it is done. Bubba said:
ReplyDeleteGiven the focus of your writing, I think it's entirely fair to ask whether your hope in Progressivism exceeds even your hope in Christ.
I said, "fine, show me where I have demonstrated a hope in progressivism that exceeds my hope in Christ."
He did not.
Just as mom2 did a drive-by lying and left, with providing no proof for her claim.
Bubba went on to claim:
Mom2 is right to express the concern that your priorities are misplaced.
No. If you are truly concerned, you tell the person why you think they're off track. You don't just say:
"YOU TRUST IN POLITICIANS NOT GOD..." (and that itself would carry more weight if this same person was not placing WAY more trust in politicians and weapons of mass destruction than I have ever expressed).
You say, "You seem to be placing more trust in politicians than you do in God. When you say, '....' it sounds like to me you're saying, '....' and you've said that here, here, here..." Something like that.
Continually visiting someone's blog and sniping at the person (rather than talking about the topic at hand) is just childish and whiny (if you want to label something "whiny," then at least make it fit).
Over and over, many of y'all just come by to cast aspersions without supporting why you are making that charge. With no evidence, it is just rumormongering and bearing false witness. And it's really pretty stupid-looking.
I should not bother bringing it up to y'all and just let it sit there like the lukewarm spittle it is, and leave it be, but I can't help myself reaching out to y'all in hopes that I can reach you as fellow humans.
You can not point to some place where I have done the same for you, and if you ever do, I will apologize, as I do from time to time when I've made a mistake. It happens.
The concern that people have with those of your religious ilk is the arrogrance and hubris and hypocrisy of your attitude, presuming to tell others what they're thinking and presuming to speak for God. You seem to be totally oblivious to how you come across (not you, personally, just those of your nature on the religious right.)
Obama met with Hillary tonight. I hope he doesn't choose her for his VP. I might not have balked at that idea had she been gracious Tuesday night and congratulated him on his victory rather than congratulating him on the race he'd "run" and then proceeded to throw her 18 million voters in his face as a bargaining chip. It was rather unbecoming of a lady.
ReplyDeletedan has the patience of a saint, and any who say otherwise are obviously not regular readers of his. he only asks others to not make unfounded remarks, that's all. is that so hard to do? as an outsider to y'alls group the only arguments that will sway my opinion one way or the other (i.e., dan isn't a sincere christian, or obama is the best choice for president) are those with SOME sort of basis.
ReplyDeletefor dan to accuse someone of lying, twisting words, hypocrisy, obliviousness, etc., it isn't an insult if he has detailed proof that said person is twisting words, lying etc.
i guess i don't understand the disconnect. what is wrong with having an intellectual/spiritual blog with open, mindful discussions and disagreements? whats wrong with the philosophy, "i don't care if i'm right or wrong, as long as the truth is reached"?
on topic: i'm a libertarian, but i hate the libertarian candidate bob barr (someone who voted for the patriot act and the protection of marriage act, two acts which increase the size of government) my next choice should be the republican, but there hasn't been a real republican running since goldwater. so, i'm left with obama. to me, his lack of experience is his greatest asset.
Thanks for the kind words, Ace.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, what's wrong with Barr? (I don't know anything about him, other than he's running.)
Marty, I agree with you. There's a lot I don't like about Hillary - the way she's run this race and its conclusion being one of them. And I doubt seriously I would have voted for her for president.
On the other hand, this has been an historic campaign. Although I think she clearly lost (and these tricks of hers to say, "but really I won..." are just more of why I don't like her), this HAS been a neck-and-neck race the whole way. She has done exceedingly well in getting people out to vote for her (for what reasons, I'm not sure).
Given her performance, I suppose I might be open to considering her as a running mate. It would be my preference that it was not her, but still, this has been an amazing campaign for both of them and it was a close race.
Just wondering...
I apologize for the many distractions this entry took, for any who may have been speaking on topic.
ReplyDeleteI will try to treat those friends who keep speaking off topic like any other spam and just delete it.
If anyone truly has off-topic questions, my email is readily available.
Dan, Bob Barr was a primary sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage Act" an unconstitutional law that attempts to excise the "full faith and credit clause" from the Constitution all in order to keep us dirty gays from marrying. For a so-called "libertarian" who wants to shrink the size of government, it's apparent that he wants to shrink it down, as Stephen Colbert quipped the other day, to a size "small enough to fit into someone's bedroom."
ReplyDelete(His support of DOMA led one LGBT leader to ask him, "Exactly which marriage are you trying to protect? Your first, your second, or your third?" Heh.)
In other words, he's a symbol of the typical Republican philosophy of small government for big business, but Big Brother for the little guy.
Then there's his support of the Patriot Act, another Big Government (Big Brother) power grab.
What's good about Barr? He's likely to turn a Democratic sweep into a Democratic tidal wave by taking votes away from McCain.
Thanks for the info, Alan.
ReplyDeleteI can share some sympathies for Libertarians - when they're true libertarians.
When they're for small gov't in every way except for the ways that they want a large, intrusive gov't, I have less respect and less in common with them.
Absolutely. I'd vote for Republicans far more often if they actually did what they say they believe in.
ReplyDeleteSmaller, more rational government? You betcha! Sign me up! Lower taxes? Who could say no to that? Governmental accountability and responsibility? Yup! Emphasis on personal responsibility? Great!
Unfortunately that's not what we actually get. Instead we get a bunch of fusspots telling everyone else in the country what to do with their gonads, no governmental accountability (if you royally screw up in your job, the worst that can happen is you get a huge award from the President), constant attacks on civil liberties, huge increases in governmental size and spending, etc., etc., etc.
How are the Democrats better? Well, in my view, on governmental accountability, governmental size and spending they're not. But they're not interested in telling me how to live my life, and they are interested in protecting my civil liberties. So, at least they're marginally better.
Well, now, I don't know. I think that sometimes - sometimes - they ARE better on fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm not opposed to gov't funded programs - IF they are smart programs. If they show themselves to be fiscally and societally responsible.
One of the easiest to cite examples of this is prison. Study after study shows that by investing in prisoner education and rehab, you decrease recividism. And not only do you decrease recividism, but you decrease it enough that the money saved from the convicts going straight MORE THAN pays for the programs that helped accomplish this.
If we're spending $x million to educate them and it saves us $2x million, well, then, that's smart and small gov't.
I think that the type of programs that the Dems tend to support tend to be of this nature - investments that result in smaller gov't.
Now, obviously, this is not always the case. Both Dems and Republicans pork barrel and spend money in foolish ways.
I'm just not buying AT ALL anymore that the Republicans are the small gov't party. The Dems are not great at it, but I think they have the edge.
I would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee. It took me a while to come to that place however. The stakes are too high in this election to vote for any third party candidate. Obama was not my first choice, nor my second, but it's either him or McCain now. I don't want McCain. I used to actually like McCain, but what I've seen recently...no thanks.
ReplyDeleteI will respect whoever Obama chooses. And I agree with Ace, his inexperience in Washington is a plus. But he does have a lot of experience organizing and getting people to act. That is his greatest strength. This is, after all, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So far, Obama has shown me he still believes that. Plus he appears to respect the Constitution.
I'd like to give him the chance. He just might end up being a president all of America can be proud of. If we continue to go down the same path we're headed on now, only destruction awaits us.
So I say let's reign in that hope, put away the fear, step out in faith armed with that can do attitude and give Obama a chance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey don't care if you're gay? Is that why they spend millions (billions?) of dollars and an untold amount of energy out campaigning against gay marriage and the "homosexual agenda"?
ReplyDeleteOr the energy put into KEEPING responsible adults from doing the loving and beautiful thing of adopting children.
And what of the impossibly, immorally large prison system we have, largely due to imprisoning poor folk who use unapproved drugs?
I'm not partisan. Both parties have their problems. Both parties do want to impose what "they think best" on the population at large.
I think the Republicans are a bit worse about it, is all. And, at least for my part, when I advocate rule changes that might involve others' perceived rights (how fast we drive, how much gas costs, etc), it is in a case of a conflict of rights - that is, your "right" to cheap gas or to drive as fast as you'd like, does not overrule my right to clean air or safe roads.
When the Republicans are intervening in the rights of others, it's usually more for religious-y reasons ("he can't marry a guy, cause the bible says it's wrong!!") and there's a difference in the two approaches.
Oh, Edwin Drood came in and posted a response about how Dems are all about taking away our liberties and how Republicans don't even care if you're gay, as long as you're quiet about it.
ReplyDeleteThat is what I was responding to in my last comment.
" I don't want McCain. I used to actually like McCain, but what I've seen recently...no thanks."
ReplyDeleteSame here. I've voted for him in Republican primaries twice, last time because I actually liked him, and this time because everyone other candidate looked like something out of The Crucible.
But he's for staying in Iraq for 100 years, he's for warrentless wiretapping, who knows what he's for regarding abortion, because he flip flops so often, he lacks even a basic understanding about the Middle East (Sunnis, Shias, whatever.) But most of all I just can't get that picture of him hugging Bush at the RNC in 2000. Ugh. (It was at that precise moment I said, "A deal's been made, he'll be the next Republican nominee.")
"how Republicans don't even care if you're gay, as long as you're quiet about it."
ReplyDeleteROFL. Maybe in Bizarro World.
Looks like Edwin Drood gathered up his toys and went home. Guess he didn't want to share 'em with us.
ReplyDelete"But most of all I just can't get that picture of him hugging Bush at the RNC in 2000."
ReplyDeleteYeah that was pretty shocking. I voted for McCain too. He might have been the nominee had Bush's faithful henchman Rove not done his dirty handiwork.
Given the horrible treatment Team Bush gave McCain, you almost have to wonder if McCain checked Bush's hands for a knife before the big hug...
ReplyDeleteI did delete the post becuse I figured looked like I was responding to someone else. But for the interest of your reader the post as as follows:
ReplyDeleteIs it not the Dems who ban words and thoughts based on your identity? (Imus)
Is it not the Dems who seek to force parents to educate their children in the government run schools? (school voucher)
Is it not the Dems who want to hold you accountable for your "consumption" (carbon credits)
Is it not the Dems who denied two states the right to vote in their own primary.
It sounds like your idea of liberty is the right to be gay. You have it, the only difference is Republicans don’t care and don’t want to hear about it.
ohh and please explaine what rights gay people dont have that the rest of us do.
ReplyDelete"But for the interest of your reader the post as as follows:"
ReplyDeleteROFL. I can't imagine how any of your posts would interest anyone, actually. Except perhaps as something to make fun of. ;)
"Is it not the Dems who denied two states the right to vote in their own primary."
Actually both parties have specific rules about when a primary can be held, and BOTH parties have disciplined MI and FL in the same way, by reducing their votes by half. Truth 1: Edwin: 0
"Is it not the Dems who seek to force parents to educate their children in the government run schools?"
Any parent can put their kids in any private or parochial school they want, or even homeschool if they wish. Truth 2: Edwin 0
"Is it not the Dems who want to hold you accountable for your "consumption" "
Actually that was a Republican sponsored bill, if you're talking about Warner/Lieberman. And McCain was in favor of the bill. Truth 3: Edwin 0
"ohh and please explaine what rights gay people dont have that the rest of us do."
Well, there are the over 1000 Special Rights (as described by the non-partisan GAO) given to married heterosexual couples merely on the basis of their particular lifestyle choice. Not to mention marriage itself (and please don't bother with the stupid, "You can marry any woman you want" crap. That argument didn't work for interracial marriage; it doesn't work now.)
There are also employment rights, social security rights, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, immigration rights, health care benefits, taxes, taxes, and taxes, Just to name a few. There are, as it turns out, very few elements of our interactions with our state and federal government that aren't affected either by marital status and/or employment.
Truth 4: Edwin 0
So please Edwin, do try a little harder next time. Your tired rhetoric and pathetic talking points are nothing but easily refuted lies, as I've shown.
"Actually both parties have specific rules about when a primary can be held, and BOTH parties have disciplined MI and FL in the same way, by reducing their votes by half. Truth 1: Edwin: 0"
ReplyDeleteNo sorry the Republicans did not "discipline" florida.
Alan Lie #1
"Any parent can put their kids in any private or parochial school they want, or even home school if they wish. Truth 2: Edwin 0
"
No only parents who can afford to pay for public schools (taxes) and private schools.
Alan Lie #2
"Actually that was a Republican sponsored bill, if you're talking about Warner/Lieberman. And McCain was in favor of the bill. Truth 3: Edwin 0"
You forgot to mention The bill was blocked by republicans today.
Alan Lie #3
And finally as for gay people they also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like me and you. Even if they prefer not to they still have the right.
Alan Lie # 4
Nice try you hack, read the paper once in awhile.
"No sorry the Republicans did not "discipline" florida. "
ReplyDeleteYes they did. They removed half their delegates. Try reading a newspaper sometime. Here's a sample of what one looks like:
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/06/30gtall-florida-republican-delegates-plan-to/
"No only parents who can afford to pay for public schools (taxes) and private schools. "
So? You said, "Is it not the Dems who seek to force parents to educate their children in the government run schools?" No one is forcing anyone to do anything. So clearly that was still a lie.
"You forgot to mention The bill was blocked by republicans today. "
So? It was a Republican sponsored bill, backed by Republicans including the Republican nominee for President. LOL. Care to try again?
"And finally as for gay people they also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like me and you. Even if they prefer not to they still have the right."
Yup, and they should also have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Don't worry, we're inclusive. Once gay marriage is legalized we'll let any straight person that wants to marry someone of the same sex too, so that everyone still has the same rights.
Like I said don't bother with that argument, it didn't work when it was used against interracial marriage, it won't work now.
"Nice try you hack, read the paper once in awhile."
LOL Oh, the irony. ROFL
"Nice try you hack, read the paper once in awhile."
ReplyDeleteOh, and way to go with the name-calling. Getting frustrated by being shown to be wrong so many times is no excuse to get rude.
So, since he repeated and added to the original truth-twisting, I suppose that makes it:
ReplyDeleteTruth - 8
Edwin - Still Zero
Thanks, Alan, some fine truths to easily disproved opinions.
Facts sure stink when you don't agree with 'em.
BTW, although I was critical of Clinton for not bowing out Tues. night, she did a great job of endorsing Obama and healing the party, today. Currently, Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie nationally, although the electoral college map shows him with a slight edge (if held today, he would get 272 electoral votes and the presidency). The closeness is because McCain is not yet seen as being as tied to Bush as he is--and thus rates better than the GOP brand name as a whole. But it is not a good sign that he had 3 months to build up a lead and hasn't.
ReplyDeleteThese 2 links show that McCain's chances of winning are slimmer than current polling suggests:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_needs_vision_to_beat_hi.html
http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-what-john-mccain-underestimates/
Also, the odds-makers in Las Vegas place Obama's chances over McCain's at 62.1 to McCain's 36.3--and they have been right more often than not on these things. Now, it's true that Obama must not only beat McCain (who is not as tough a candidate as Clinton!), but also the lingering racism in this country and the GOP smear machine. But if anyone can do it, Obama can, and this is the best year for him to do so--GOP insiders are expecting to lose at least 20 House seats to the Dems and 5 to 8 Senate seats. (If the worst case scenario happens, GOP insiders say they could lose 45 House seats and 15 Senate seats. Way to have confidence, Republicans!)
Oh, and on the topic of political salvation vs. realistic hopes, I've outlined what peace folk like Dan and I can realistically expect from an Obama White House on my blog, Levellers. Next week, I'll outline the domestic agenda we can expect.
I skipped the comments today, but that speech was a good one, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd I join you in a hope that Barack will find some success on the road to change. And he will need more than a green team if he is to do it.
Hopefully, we'll see an Obama/Hillary ticket in his future.