Thursday, September 17, 2009
(Neil and friends are pontificating on economics, government regulation, fiscal policy, biblical texts and other things they don't know jack about)
(Let's listen in.)
Fascinating. Seriously. There is only the hint of a voice of reason and unhatred in there. It's like lookin' through a two-way mirror.
--ER
Fascinating. Seriously. There is only the hint of a voice of reason and unhatred in there. It's like lookin' through a two-way mirror.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
On the one hand, you should know better than to lurk, let alone link, there.
On the other hand, I was just as bad, read a bit before I felt my blood-pressure rise, and clicked away.
Less a two-way mirror, it's more a fun-house mirror distortion of the gospel. I wonder if anyone has asked Neil if he believes that the government should not be pushing charity down the throats of the miserly amongst us, why does be believe it should shove an end to abortion-on-demand on Christian grounds as well? Context!
On the other hand, I was just as bad, read a bit before I felt my blood-pressure rise, and clicked away.
Less a two-way mirror, it's more a fun-house mirror distortion of the gospel. I wonder if anyone has asked Neil if he believes that the government should not be pushing charity down the throats of the miserly amongst us, why does be believe it should shove an end to abortion-on-demand on Christian grounds as well? Context!
Isn't there a video of paint drying you could post, ER? Might be more interesting and informative. ;)
Actually, I found a spot where I can agree with Neil, at least a little. His citing the "judge not lest you be judged" passage, that IS often taken the wrong way, at least a little bit.
Beyond that, I didn't read much, taking Brothers Geoffrey and Alan's advice...
Have you seen the latest at American Indecent? M-dawg is advocating that they be prepared for bloody revolution if Obama does not resign or get impeached. Skirting close to the legal definition of treason, it seems.
Turning this around, what might you suggest is the most abused Bible passage?
One that jumps to my head is, "The poor you will always have with you..." using that as an excuse not to assist the poor.
Or perhaps, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword..." Too many use both those passages to justify the complete OPPOSITE of what Jesus was about.
Other contenders?
Beyond that, I didn't read much, taking Brothers Geoffrey and Alan's advice...
Have you seen the latest at American Indecent? M-dawg is advocating that they be prepared for bloody revolution if Obama does not resign or get impeached. Skirting close to the legal definition of treason, it seems.
Turning this around, what might you suggest is the most abused Bible passage?
One that jumps to my head is, "The poor you will always have with you..." using that as an excuse not to assist the poor.
Or perhaps, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword..." Too many use both those passages to justify the complete OPPOSITE of what Jesus was about.
Other contenders?
On an unrelated note, do any of you intelligent gentlemen (or ladies, if any are present) have a link or an idea of how to search for how the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" were used, say, 100 years ago?
Were the liberals the ones who pushed women's rights? An end to Jim Crow laws? The New Deal? Or was it conservatives? Or were those terms even in use then as they are now?
Anyone know? Anyone know where to find such information?
Were the liberals the ones who pushed women's rights? An end to Jim Crow laws? The New Deal? Or was it conservatives? Or were those terms even in use then as they are now?
Anyone know? Anyone know where to find such information?
Boy, that's tough. You might need to consult a political dictionary, a book. Not sure how to fine-tune a search online to get at that.
Off the top of my head, 100 years ago, I don't think the terms were used, at least not so frequently. "Liberal," though has its pinning in "liberty," which 100 years ago was a generall anti-government thing. "Conservative" had nothing of the religious sense, and really meant more "status quo" than anything -- BUT look up "Bourbon Democrats." They were the conservatives of their day, not much more than 100 years ago.
Post a Comment
Off the top of my head, 100 years ago, I don't think the terms were used, at least not so frequently. "Liberal," though has its pinning in "liberty," which 100 years ago was a generall anti-government thing. "Conservative" had nothing of the religious sense, and really meant more "status quo" than anything -- BUT look up "Bourbon Democrats." They were the conservatives of their day, not much more than 100 years ago.
<< Home
