Posted on 04/24/2007 11:46:49 PM PDT by Star Traveler
Ironically, I remember that here at FR - - real time - - the fraudulence of the Lynch story was pretty much taken for granted by most freepers. The people here realized by gut instinct that the Lynch story was a perfect opportunity for the politically correct “mainstream” Democrat newsrooms to go absolutely bonkers with (although there were also a few freepers who wanted desperately to believe the Jessica Rambo myth) and now it turns out, of course, that they did.
Check the archives for some of those old threads.
This is all very old news. I suspect Lynch has a book deal in the works.
You said — “If the President vetoed every bill across his desk for four years we would all be much better off.”
He might have to do that. Of course, the Democrats would love that. It would make their job much easier...
.
You said — “I can only pray that foolish statements such as this fall on the deaf ears of a man of principle.”
Well, such a man of principle has to get elected in the first place. And once elected, unless he likes the phrase “one-termer” — he has to get re-elected. And thus you encounter the “public”...
And in-between times, you encounter the legislators who are much more influenced by the public. And they will either make the President’s life hell or not. I’m afraid that without public support — you’re just nowhere...
Of course, the people who do run for elections already know this. So they’re already plugged into that idea, regardless of what you might say.
.
You said — “Your words are the same as the dumb-masses (mind how you say it) that protested Vietnam or even stormed “The Bastille” with red kerchiefs. I think you have lived in the Pacific Northwest to long. Move back to Oklahoma and get some grit. Visit Ft. Sill and see the “Molly Pitcher” sculpture on the battle monument. Think about courage in the face of battle, instead of recriminations in the face of cowardice and ineptitude. Stop thinking like a leftest whiner.”
Well, I’ve been in Texas and Oklahoma for the last two years, and I’ve had plenty of opportunity to talk to quite a few around here. I’ve got plenty of relatives in Oklahoma, with which I’m engaged vigoursly at times. I’m currently in Texas right now. You may not be aware of how many Democrats, by the way, are in the Dallas/Forth Worth area. Certainly more than I thought existed.
And just for your information in Texas and Oklahoma, these opinions about the war aren’t as solid as you want or prefer to think. It’s soft, very soft. I ought to know, because I argue for the idea of hitting those Islamic terrorists hard where they’re at and I encounter a lot of opposition in these states.
I find myself arguing with quite a few people of apparently Democrat persuasion around here. It’s not a small group, that’s for sure.
The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the support for the ongoing war in Iraq is simply evaporating. And it’s evaporating everywhere. In another year, it will be completely gone. About the only thing that will help it is another major Al Qaida attack. But, I don’t know anyone who wants to go out and encourage that, in order to garner support...
As far as “whining” — I say what I want to, when I want to and that’s just the way it goes. If you don’t like it, that’s just too bad...
.
Then — “It matters not what a Private that couldn’t fire her weapon while others died has to say. It matters less what the Communist shill Henry Waxman of Kalifornia has to say. Shout it from the mountaintop that those persons wish to bring our nation to ruin and destruction. If you believe their filth for one moment I don’t think you belong on this forum.”
I don’t believe things according to preconceived political notions. I take the facts of whatever situation and evaluate it on its own. It seems prevalent on both sides of the political spectrum to accept or dismiss facts or truth on the basis of political expediency or whatever fits your case or the political argument of the day. That makes no difference to me. The only thing that makes a difference is what is right about a situation and what is wrong. And that involves telling the truth about it, too.
.
Finally — “Better still, you could enlist and learn for yourself or prove me wrong by your own experience.”
If I were even inclined to try, I’d never get in, in a million years; they’d have me right back out the door. As far as learning, there are plenty of people who are willing to give testimony to their own experience. Oh..., wait..., I did hear about one recently — ah yes..., Jessica Lynch...
But, besides her, there are lots of others on both sides of the political spectrum. We can listen to them all and make our decisions. And from the looks of it, the public is in not too good of a mood about Iraq.
And whether I think that the Islamic terrorists should be fought where they’re at — the real facts of the matter, “on the ground”, here in the U.S. is that this battle is “going south” and in another year, it’s done for...
You said — “This is all very old news. I suspect Lynch has a book deal in the works.”
Well, she and other women should have never been over there in the first place. That whole “shebang” of a story was only because she was some blonde that got captured. The Pentagon and the press jumped on the story. If it were some other soldier, it would have been a “non-story”. It’s no wonder that this story has come back to bite the military in the butt...
When I have time I’ll review the archived threads to see if the “Jessica Rambo” myth was more a product of the press than the Pentagon. I am catching a strong whiff of an agenda from her.
As I begin to sense this, I start getting frustrated with your behavior. So I was gently trying to equate your behavior with an example of boorishness that you had mentioned.
Folks recoil at Waxman because they know he doesn't care about a thing that he is going on about. They know he only cares about demoralizing the American people. Because, you seem to be buying this hook, line and sinker. And spreading and amplifying this line, you start looking like their traveling companion.
You protest wanting the truth, but instead you seem to want to believe the worst. To speculate on how a charge of lying that is unsupported is worthy of packing your belief in what the Military shares is just wrong. Its a very immature and naive stance and this is why this comes back to me each time we kick words back and forth.
Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus. This doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist, it means that the more contentious the issue is, the more the spin can distort the facts by interpretation.
As has been clearly established, nothing exposed in these hearings has been "News." Instead, these hearings have just been a platform for charging the Military for poor news coverage due to reporters who basically are interested in an interesting story rather than any notion of the "truth." The military is responsible for researching and reporting the facts to itself and eventually to the public as is appropriate. In past conflicts, most of these details would just have been ignored or suppressed. The amount of sharing now is the greatest it has ever been and on the whole it has just been more problematic for our ability to prevail.
This whole conflict resembles the American Civil War where the action in the public of the North was almost the determining factor in the outcome of the war. Only Sherman's capture and burning of Atlanta stood between Lincoln losing the election and the North surrendering.
But, Sherman captured Atlanta and within months the fortunes of the Copperheads went from winning to being dog meat.
At the end, the spin interpretation that the Democrats have been weaving is not accepted by the Vietnam Vets who lived through this crap once already, or by the current Iraq War Vets and their families. The Democrats and their traveling companions are doing everything they can to demoralize these groups and get them to accept defeat and get them to blame Bush for this defeat rather than the Democrats. This tactic is as old as time. The MSM is a willing accomplice, but some folks have the intellectual foundation to see these folks for who they are and the words they are spinning for the treasonous, bitter lies they are. YOU SEEM TO BE HAPPY SPREADING THIS CRAP. I don't know why.
The bad thing is, Deveraux surrendered when his Marines were actually repelling the Japanese, because he had lost communication with his men and didn’t know what was happening. I’m certainly not accusing him of cowardice, and they would have been overwhelmed eventually, but it’s ironic.
Yeah, I’m sure noticing one. It’s like that dog I had, chasing its tail....
Lame.. the pattern is that it is hard to interpret Lynch's behavior in a positive light the more you consider it.
Unfortunately, the same consideration is beginning to apply to your own behavior. This has been an interesting and successful thread up to the point that you come back to speculating about not being able to "trust" the Military as a generalization based on these flimsy twisted aspersions. This thread and what has been presented in it clearly demonstrates that the Military's narrative of these events has continued to become more accurate over time, despite press coverage that filled in gaps with overblown heated images.
It also has been presented that an excessive demand for legalistic standards of "proof" and care in a war zone is actually putting our own troops in jeopardy for no benefit in the pursuit of victory.
I haven't taken the time to research your other postings so I keep assuming you are approaching this in good faith, or at worst playing the devil's advocate.
But playing the devil's advocate and being the devil's advocate are only a breath apart.
On second thought... Now I feel bad. Are you out of junior high yet? I suppose that might explain why this all seems like news to you. If that’s the case, my apologies. I mistook you for an adult that’s been paying attention over the whole progress of things these last few years.
I shouldn’t make such assumptions. You’re doing OK for a kid. There’s a lot of news posted here. Hang in there and you’ll pick up a lot of things.
I am missing in the thread where Star admits being a teen. Because, this would explain much. I keep assuming that Star's heart is in the right place because of some things said, it would be great to know this was the case.
Post #135...
“Break a leg” trying to find out..., it shouldn’t be too hard..
You are correct. The marines had retaken some positions. I think what convinced Deveraux were the arrival of Japanese warplanes that continously circled the island and made further counterattacks impossible.
Now I have had a bit of a chance to go back through your posts, you seem to be a regular and not an idiot. But, you seem to be treading out on the fringe in this thread. Its a way to keep the thread alive but at the sacrifice of any respect someone might have gained for your opinions.
You need to offset quotes better.. its really hard to separate your quotes of others from your responses.
Sarcasm rarely works in a forum like this. You represent who you are with your words and your opinions in the context of your postings. Researching your stuff more provides a context but ultimately your stuff in this thread adds more smoke than light.
Perhaps in some other thread, we can have a more productive discussion.
You said — “Unfortunately, the same consideration is beginning to apply to your own behavior. This has been an interesting and successful thread up to the point that you come back to speculating about not being able to “trust” the Military as a generalization based on these flimsy twisted aspersions. This thread and what has been presented in it clearly demonstrates that the Military’s narrative of these events has continued to become more accurate over time, despite press coverage that filled in gaps with overblown heated images.”
Oh, don’t worry, the military doesn’t get singled out in such a statement of trust. It usually extends to any governmental agency and/or a politician or a company — any of whom tend to hire PR people to massage the truth. It’s not the government or business are known for truth-telling standards.
Most of the time, the small guy, various individuals, are the ones who are trying to tell the truth on a matter. So, I’ll be giving a lot of weight to individuals whose first-hand experience is “at stake” so to speak, rather than a bigger organization (whomever that might be) who has an overall agenda in what they’re doing.
An example of that, in terms of what many here would more than likely understand, is maybe a blog of a soldier/contractor, who is “on the ground” in Iraq (or who has been), and they may be posting a day-to-day journal and taking pictures and videos, putting them on. They’re just tellling a small segment of a larger story, but it’s relevant and important. I’m much more likely to listen to this one guy as being closer to the truth on a matter, than some statement out of the press office of the Pentagon (which is managed and filtered).
In the end, the military doesn’t get any more singled out than any other organization. It’s just that the military is part of this particular story.
.
And then — “It also has been presented that an excessive demand for legalistic standards of “proof” and care in a war zone is actually putting our own troops in jeopardy for no benefit in the pursuit of victory.”
Hey, we’re not talking about putting yellow tape around a piece of ground where the enemy is still zinging bullets around. To put it in that category is nowhere near what telling the truth is about. It’s simply giving an accurate rendition of the story — well..., let’s say one that, at the very least, matches what the main participant says... That would be a good starting point...
.
Finally — “I haven’t taken the time to research your other postings so I keep assuming you are approaching this in good faith, or at worst playing the devil’s advocate.”
I’m not playing devil’s advocate here. What I said, it’s meant in the plainest sense that anyone can read or understand. The big problem here — on Free Republic — is that it’s “polarized” (politically speaking). That means that everything is literally “charged” with one political pole or the other.
As far as “researching” my other postings, you probably wouldn’t find them interesting, but rather hum-drum. I mean, is anyone’s posting more interesting than to oneself? That would be like telling any one of us to write a book about ourselves and see if we could even sell it to our own relatives (and knowing my relatives, they would want a free copy...).
As for me, while I recognize political differences and what the Democrats are trying to do, I’m not participating in my discussion with a “polarizing mentality”. I’m simply speaking to the issue as I see it.
Others are putting the statements in the crucible of the next election and trying to figure out if this statement or that fact, or this reference is going to make a difference for some hypothetical Republican candidate. I’m not in that mode. I’m in the mode of simply speaking to the issue — and that is any of these governmental agencies or politicians (or even throw in a bunch of companies here, too, if you want) — have to be speaking truth on these issues (whatever the topic of discussion is).
And then, secondly, I’ll prefer to hear what the “small guy” has to say first, especially when they are the main figure or character in the issue — as opposed to some big organization or agency or other political figure, who always have agendas that are not necessarily geared towards truth.
So, with that, I just gave you an outline of where I’m coming from...
Oh, don’t worry, the military doesn’t get singled out in such a statement of trust. It usually extends to any governmental agency and/or a politician or a company — any of whom tend to hire PR people to massage the truth. It’s not the government or business are known for truth-telling standards.
As I said sarcasm just doesn't work well in this medium. Frankly, I have personally been impressed by the Military's candor and self examination during this whole operation. This is just a key disagreement we have. You are reaching for an impossible standard. I have already said this.
Most of the time, the small guy, various individuals, are the ones who are trying to tell the truth on a matter. So, I’ll be giving a lot of weight to individuals whose first-hand experience is “at stake” so to speak, rather than a bigger organization (whomever that might be) who has an overall agenda in what they’re doing.
This is simply a raw over generalization. I listen to Military sources both organizational and individual and this group in our Military is the best there has ever been in the history of the world. If the level of transparency they are offering is not enough for you at this point, you would have to be sitting in their meetings and briefings and frankly thats not in our nations best interest. The Military is already trying too hard and should find a way to back up a bit.
Hey, we’re not talking about putting yellow tape around a piece of ground where the enemy is still zinging bullets around. To put it in that category is nowhere near what telling the truth is about. It’s simply giving an accurate rendition of the story — well..., let’s say one that, at the very least, matches what the main participant says... That would be a good starting point...
This is beyond being completely unrealistic. But, some are saying the Military is already trying to conform to some version of this level of documenting. This is part of the Democrat "Slow Bleed" strategy, to cause our soldiers and Marines to second guess themselves as they attempt to be more policemen than war fighters. Soldiers are not suited to police work in general though they can do similar things in a pinch.
The standards in battle are dangerous for our guys if you try to make it pretty. Its just not that sort of endeavor. And, scandal and controversy about actions are post action issues, we cannot afford this effort to hamstring these guys, this is all about running up their casualties with an eye toward justifying the DEFEATIST stance.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate here. What I said, it’s meant in the plainest sense that anyone can read or understand. The big problem here — on Free Republic — is that it’s “polarized” (politically speaking). That means that everything is literally “charged” with one political pole or the other.
This is clearly a cogent and insightful remark. But, frankly, Free Republic rarely tolerates much representation of the other side so its not so polarized as rational or bizarre. This is ok, because we are often soaked in the words and ideas of the Liberals and we come here to share with like minded people and to brainstorm in a supportive milieu. In that this can encourage group think, that is a possibility, but on the whole folks around here have to swim against an almost impossible tide of distortions and twisted charges that deny reality as we know we lived through it. The Democrats are actually planning to hold hearings on the veracity of the "16 words" controversy which is a proven fact. The British not only did say this, they reconfirmed it and said in your face! How can this be a lie, but every lib you run into will say this is a lie. Insane. So understand when you start quoting this insanity, there isn't much patience for it.
As far as “researching” my other postings, you probably wouldn’t find them interesting, but rather hum-drum. I mean, is anyone’s posting more interesting than to oneself? That would be like telling any one of us to write a book about ourselves and see if we could even sell it to our own relatives
Eh. I just couldn't get where your deep suspicions were coming from. I recently was really insulted here by someone in the Active Military and it brought me up short, because this guy had no idea of the price that volunteers pay to get out and counter protest the crazies. I noticed at that time, there is a divide between civilians and military that can be irritating in that some do look down their noses at the rest of us. But, alas, this is not a common stance, just it takes all sorts. So, I have alot of sympathy for folks saying that civilians have a very valid and important perspective and that civilians are not second class citizens compared to people who are actively serving. But, we civilians who care, actively work to keep these guys morale up and let them know we do support them and their mission. Anything else is not in our own best interests unless and until these guys are facing us rather than our enemies. The Terrorists are truly existential enemies who do intend to murder and intimidate Americans and all free people in this world and they have to be fought on every level. Fought with bullets and ideas. Infighting behind our lines is counterproductive. Reasonable oversight is extremely productive. But this oversight is not necessarily the concern of the general public on the level of each individual unit's actions except as exposed by history as notable events.
have to be speaking truth on these issues (whatever the topic of discussion is).
The issue is whether "truth" in the context of the interpretation of events through the lens of intentional misrepresentations by the current Democrats is a reasonable exersize. Once you accept their frame, it becomes problematic. The Tillman episode and the rescue of Lynch were accompanied by statements by the military which were at least 80% accurate within 30 days of the action, and increasingly accurate as you review the press releases actually released by the military so that the history they are offering now is more accurate by far than anything offered in these hearings. I just reject outright that there is anything to be wanted from the military in the way of increasing their reporting or transparency. Abu Garib, other than the pictures, was a Military report released to the public long before CBS got their hands on it and blew it all out of proportion. They were already working on indictments and accountability for these actors. Right now, they are pressing charges against a corrupt Colonel and its in the news. If you look at the Military information sites you can get a gusher of good and bad news. Its just insane to ask for more. So complaining in this situation about their performance in this is based only on accepting the proposition argued by leftists that the Military is "evil" inherently. Crap! Thats just baseless and wrong. So let this go and find the facts, free your mind of the Democrat talking points.
You said — “Look. Waxman has no interest in the truth. And, I have come to believe that you are not interested either, despite your protestations to the contrary. You seem to be deliberately repeating and amplifying negative interpretations.”
Well, let Waxman be Waxman, then. As I said, I don’t pay attention to him personally. If someone is testifying in a committee that he’s in (i.e., Jessica Lynch) that may or may not be helpful to whatever his agenda is. I really don’t know about that particular angle.
I’m only looking at it from the standpoint of a particular story (the one that seems to have come from the two different people mentioned in the story). It’s as I said before (in some other post, around here on this thread), it’s that a particular truth or statement can be used by one group or another. But, whatever group it’s used by, it has to be the truth of the matter and not a filtered or massaged statement to meet an end-goal or an objective, and if it doesn’t — then try to shade it or alter it until it does. That’s the part that I’m looking at. It seems that Jessica Lynch was saying something to that effect — by saying that she is setting the record straight. I would like to find out what it is that she needs to set straight exactly. And I’m still up in the air about it all and haven’t really determined “what is what” yet...
.
And — “As I begin to sense this, I start getting frustrated with your behavior. So I was gently trying to equate your behavior with an example of boorishness that you had mentioned.
Folks recoil at Waxman because they know he doesn’t care about a thing that he is going on about. They know he only cares about demoralizing the American people. Because, you seem to be buying this hook, line and sinker. And spreading and amplifying this line, you start looking like their traveling companion.”
The problem here, with the idea that is being presented (as you state it), is basically all information and facts end up being polarized, without regards to truth.
The “thinking” goes this way. First, who is spouting off a particular “line” or “fact”. Well, if it’s the political opposition, then this fact or information must also be opposed, or it must be “spun” a different way. So, everytime a piece of information or news comes out — what’s the *absolute first thing* one must do?
Well, that’s obvious. The absolute first thing one must do is see who is “lining up” on what side of this fact. If I see my political friends lining up, I take this fact as “my own” because it’s a “good fact”. However, if I see an opponent taking it up — well..., that’s *clearly* a “ploy” that must be opposed. And so, I must take the opposite side of this particular fact or news or opinion.
That, I would say, seems to be the *first mode of operation* for a lot of people.
And I say that the truth of the matter and the facts of the situation must and will speak for themselves. Now, whether they are helpful to one group or another — that’s definitely something that people are going to be concerned about. But, it’s just not going to change the truth of the situation.
The criteria for these matters must always be, is it true or not. The criteria must not be “does it help my side or not.” And with large agencies, organizations and political parties — it seems that the criteria is never “Is it true?” — it always seems to come down to “Does it help my agenda or not?”
That viewpoint is totally prevalent throughout the political system and the government and its agencies and with companies, too. One can find individuals with personal agendas, too — but these are much easier to deal with and understand and sort out. One can usually get to the bottom of that, rather quickly with individuals and sort out fact from fiction.
However, with political parties and government and agencies and companies and other organizations — their processes are so labyrinthine that it would take a gang of lawyers and researchers (along with a team of theologians) to get one sentence of truth out of them — which would be *absent* an agenda or an end-goal that they are trying to accomplish....
As far as a traveling companion, I doubt many of those (whom you consider “in opposition”) are traveling with me or my thinking. They would probably depart my path in short order...
.
And — “You protest wanting the truth, but instead you seem to want to believe the worst. To speculate on how a charge of lying that is unsupported is worthy of packing your belief in what the Military shares is just wrong. Its a very immature and naive stance and this is why this comes back to me each time we kick words back and forth.
Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus. This doesn’t mean that an objective truth doesn’t exist, it means that the more contentious the issue is, the more the spin can distort the facts by interpretation.”
Oh yes, I believe the worst all right. I think the Bible makes that pretty clear. It basically says there is not one bit of good in people. It says that their best is actually the worst — when one looks at what the best really is — which is the character of God Himself (who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). The book of Romans, in the first few chapters, give a clear view of that and how this destines each and every one of us straight to hell, because of it. The “best” of what we might consider, is to God the absolute worst that you can come up with. So, no doubt, the “worst” is easily believed, as that is the basic character of the human race, on its own, absent God working in a person, personally, in their life. And so, this is simply a general statement on the condition of mankind, pertaining to every sphere of life, and not exclusively to the Pentagon or one particular party or another. It pertains to all spheres of life.
When you say lying is unsupported and how it’s a naive and immature stance — well, it’s pretty clear that “lying” is the norm, in the human race. It’s the norm and it’s the standard. The Bible also makes it clear that this, along with several other behaviors (in mankind) is the *norm* and is the *standard*. That’s not naive, that’s what God says about it.
If lying were not the *norm* and the *standard*, we wouldn’t need courts or trials or examinations (or fact-finding) or “accountability” or many other tools and methods that we use (as a society) for rooting out the “rampant condition” of lying in all spheres of society in every imaginable form that it can take. If lying were not the standard mode of operation of every person, we would not need any “security” or cameras or “witnesses” or “ethics” to “guard” and “watch” everyone, all the time.
No, we wouldn’t need any of it. We would simply ask the person, straightforwardly, what the situation was — we would get a true answer and that would be the end of it. Nope, we have all this in operation in our system (i.e., culture, society, mankind) precisely because lying *is* the norm and the standard.
Going to the end of the paragraph I just quoted above, you said that “Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus.”
Truth is not by consensus. Truth is absolute and exists outside of what you or I or anyone else says (or what a committe says). Truth exists in its own right, independent of what a consensus says.
So, sorry, I reject that definition of truth. It’s *completely* and *totally* independent of anything someone says or a group says, by consensus or otherwise.
.
Lastly, you say — “At the end, the spin interpretation that the Democrats have been weaving is not accepted by the Vietnam Vets who lived through this crap once already, or by the current Iraq War Vets and their families. The Democrats and their traveling companions are doing everything they can to demoralize these groups and get them to accept defeat and get them to blame Bush for this defeat rather than the Democrats. This tactic is as old as time. The MSM is a willing accomplice, but some folks have the intellectual foundation to see these folks for who they are and the words they are spinning for the treasonous, bitter lies they are. YOU SEEM TO BE HAPPY SPREADING THIS CRAP. I don’t know why.”
The main problem with this — in general (but not necessarily the specifics) is that it sets up a standard in which it’s not the *truth* of a situation that matters (in whatever you’re talking about, personal, miiltary, government, business, etc...) — but rather, it’s always the outcome that matters. And thus, you “craft truth” (by “consensus” as you say...) — thus creating an “outcome” that is desired. Now, while I may desire a similar outcome, this cannot be the process, because it is a *corrupting* process.
The Bible, for one, makes it abundantly clear that it’s a corrupting process. No matter what the “end” — the truth of a situation must come out. And if the results are going to be bad, then they must be bad. *That* is the “rule” that God sets down on these types of things.
Unfortunately, people are not looking at this in that framework — but rather in the framework of political expediency and of “end results”. That’s a *process* that God rejects and totally condemns. That’s the bottom line of that.
I understand how the MSM and the political hacks from the opposition subvert things and also work towards a corrupt end (at least it’s corrupt from the way I see that the Bible presents things). So, it’s not that I think any one particular side or one of a particular political persuasion is better than another — it’s simply that it’s not relevant, when it comes to determining what is the truth of the matter and what is not.
I’ll continue to maintain the standard that the Bible upholds, as spoken from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. And that goes for any party, business, government, agency, organization or person...
You said — “Perhaps in some other thread, we can have a more productive discussion.”
—
I’ll try to set off the quotes better. I just don’t want to get into putting in the HTML because that leads to everything being coded, and I don’t want to do that.
But, from what you said, perhaps in another thread, maybe. However, this does represent my thinking and how I come at these things.
Someone one time said something about “being a conservative” and I said that I don’t come at these things from a conservative viewpoint. I don’t form these opinions from that framework. I form it from what I see as mainly Biblical viewpoints. So, that may confuse people at times, being on this forum.
However, from what I clearly see, the conservative viewpoint has its *underpinnings* pretty much in the Biblical framework. It could not exist without that underpinning and also — many of the people who are here — would not be here, if it were not for their own Biblical underpinnings.
So, I responded that I found myself here because I commented on things in that kind of framework (or “worldview”) and then, I found a bunch of people “standing around beside me” — saying that they were conservatives and espoused much of the same thing...
You said — “Garph.. you have sucked me into another round.”
—
Look, if you don’t want to go around and around, that’s fine.
Just understand that I’m not coming at a lot of these things from a political viewpoint. I’m here, on this forum, mostly talking from a “worldview” that is *primarily* from a Biblical viewpoint and from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that is very likely going to end up coming out differently that some from a political angle.
I can understand the political angle and analyze it as well, but that’s not my main viewpoint.
Of course, not every last thing I ever talk about is going to be strictly from that viewpoint, either. I do talk about computers and traveling and other stuff. I’m sure that those other things are not *explicitly* talked about in the Bible. However, pretty much *everything* is *implicitly* talked about in the Bible, in the ways we “use and interact” with all these things that we do.
So, please feel free to drop the whole discussion if you wish. I mean, I’m not going to come up with a “new worldview” because of this particular discussion... :-)
First...I don’t think this is a waste of tax-payer money. We are are on the tip of a huge iceberg here.
Second....I think the committee needs to bring up the topic of Captain America, and his recent death. I believe a massive conspiracy is at work here....where Marvel comics were taken over by evil Republican interests and perhaps even those DC comics folks....and Captain America....the only true hero in America was killed off. I believe the committee should bring in the Marvel crew, the Hulk, Batman, and maybe even that hot lusty gal Wonder Woman. I strongly suspect that Wonder Woman....an agent of the Republicans....was helping in the demise of Captain America. Only the truth powers of your committee can come to the proper conclusion.
Third....I believe that General Stonewall Jackson was not only killed by his own men during the civil war in 1863....but that a conspiracy was involved....where a certain private Rumsfeld was on duty that night, and eagerly shot the General....even after he repeated the proper password six times. I have been communicating with a fellow from Stone Mountain, Georgia...who says that the General was killed by right-wing extremists. General Stonewall Jackson....while not a hero....at least by your committee approval.....certainly needs to have the truth aired over who shot him and the vast conspiracy which engulfed the government....and eventually led to Donald Rumsfeld taking power in the pentagon.
Yes...here and now...the American anti-hero committee can fix and redo the history of this great nation. I’d also like to suggest a full review of Sgt Alvin York, the crossing of the Delaware, the Battle of Shiloh, the landing at Normandy, and perhaps even the supposed French assistance at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. There are lots of events to keep our great congressmen and senators busy throughout the summer. Surely...we don’t want to raise real significant subjects like social security reform. So praise the good and magnificent warriors in congress who fight for our freedoms.
mmmm.. Free Republic is primarily a political forum, not a religious one. Where do you stand on Higher Criticism? (The Documentary Hypothesis)
Why do you say that this viewpoint you are coming from is Biblical, it seems more Liberal Talking points to me.. many other folks in this thread have felt the same. Be careful about living faith as an affectation.
Some scholars argue that there are several disparate viewpoints represented in the Bible. The clash of these viewpoints is what makes the document so powerful and instructive. The document is a path to faith in God and living in a holy fashion, but not as much about successful Governance or Military strategy. These things operate on different levels. Our faith guides us in the decisions we make and the things we value. But, when faith itself becomes the lens then we can get lost in both our faith and our acts.
The basic rejection of God by many Democrats becomes a false faith like Communism that distorts reality keeping them from doing the very good they wish they could accomplish.
Going to the end of the paragraph I just quoted above, you said that “Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus.”
Truth is not by consensus. Truth is absolute and exists outside of what you or I or anyone else says (or what a committee says). Truth exists in its own right, independent of what a consensus says.
Facts may be objectively established, but the "truth" because it is the product of interpretation, may never fully be established.
God may know the truth, but the rest of us must keep guessing.
This is where you get to an impossible standard for truth in Public Affairs. We will not solve the issues of the day by insisting that our public institutions must be run by Saints or be dubbed unworthy. I was saying, look at the product of their works, the military. And judge based on that.
These specific hearings are part of a strategy to hurt the American Spirit. They are not concerned about getting to the "truth." Thus, giving them credence as a worthy exercise attempts to grant Waxman his victory. For these hearings themselves are simply exploitive and unenlightening. But, as they cause folks like you to lose trust in the people trying to defend our nation, this is a positive injury.
Your exposition in this posting comes finally to the point were someone could understand your point rather than just seeing you as a closet Troll. Good job.
You said — “mmmm.. Free Republic is primarily a political forum, not a religious one. Where do you stand on Higher Criticism? (The Documentary Hypothesis)”
—
One’s political viewpoints are an outgrowth of one’s “worldviews”. Everyone has a worldview, so it’s not a matter of “I don’t have one.” And one’s “worldview” is an outgrowth of one’s religious views.
Some may say that they are staunchly “atheist”, but that is also a “religous view” too. And this “religious view” forms other conclusions that they derive by various methods, which forms their worldview, which then forms their political views. In short, you have an outlook on life and how it works (and should work) that motivates you towards one political persuasion or another.
At the bottom of it all is one’s religious views (and even, as I pointed out, one that is staunchly “atheist”).
Furthermore, since the conservative viewpoint is *so populated* with Evangelicals and some others (i.e., what is colloquially known as the “religious right”), this also forms a good deal of discussion on Free Republic, as “foundational principles”. It’s not so for *all* members, but (as I said) since it’s a “huge proportion” of the conservative movement, it’s goingto be discussed. That’s because this particular “worldview” is the *very underpinning* of those Evangelicals and/or others of similar nature — to be here in the first place.
Now, while you may have quickly *bypassed* any such discussions on Free Republic, they are prevalent and can be found every single day, on their own distinct threads, plus mixed in with other threads as the “relevance” may bear. In short, you’re going to find *plenty of it* discussed here on Free Republic.
IN terms of “Higher Criticism”, I think the best answer for that (to make it short and to the point) would be for me to simply point to the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” as a defining document for our present culture and time. I think that should answer that issue.
Note a quote that I provide from one of the links —
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
Two links supplied here, one which is the primary statement and the second which involves the “interpretation” issue.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
And then, just some supplementary links regarding the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.reformation.net/cor/cordocs/inerrancy.pdf
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
.
Then you said — “Why do you say that this viewpoint you are coming from is Biblical, it seems more Liberal Talking points to me.. many other folks in this thread have felt the same. Be careful about living faith as an affectation.”
—
In terms of liberals taking on the Biblical view, I think it should be obvious by their view on family and marriage and homosexuals that they’re not taking on the Biblical view. I’m confident that this doesn’t need much discussion.
In regards to “affectation”. Let’s just get the definition out there for some others. The first two definitions were marked obsolete, so I didn’t include them.
Main Entry: af·fec·ta·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French affectation, from Latin affectation-, affectatio act of striving, conceit, from affectatus (past participle of affectare to aim) + -ion-, -io -ion — more at AFFECT
3 : the act of taking up or especially displaying a feeling, attitude, opinion, or desire not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt [his love of music was mere affectation] [his affectation of righteous indignation fooled nobody]
4 : manner of speech or behavior not natural to one’s actual personality or capabilities : artificiality of behavior especially in display of feelings [was there nothing in beautiful manners but foppery, prudery, starch, and affectation, with false pride overtopping all? — Van Wyck Brooks]
And so, in regards to that, one can only say that the Biblical view of faith in Jesus the Messiah of Israel, is one that is all-encompassing and nothing supercedes it. The God of Abraham, Isaac and jacob expects to have all things judged according to His Word and according to the faith that we have in Jesus.
Although this may seem foreign to some, who would put other things at higher priorities, all Christians are required to constantly evaluate all things in terms of His Word, at all times. And the only “truth” that exists, is never one by consensus or by agreement, but one which exists in and of itself and is true even when no one may agree to it. God is, by definition, that standard for all truth. Jesus, Himself says *He* is truth, incarnate, namely, in the flesh. This isn’t simply a religious concept (which some put “out there” while we “live here”) — but it is a concept that permeates all facets of what one does and understands and learns and decides upon — minute-by-minute, throughout the day.
This concept of Christianity is one that the Bible says you don’t leave at the church door, but you actually bring with you when you “go out into the world” in all things that you do.
And thus, here it is on Free Republic....
.
And then — “Some scholars argue that there are several disparate viewpoints represented in the Bible. The clash of these viewpoints is what makes the document so powerful and instructive. The document is a path to faith in God and living in a holy fashion, but not as much about successful Governance or Military strategy. These things operate on different levels. Our faith guides us in the decisions we make and the things we value. But, when faith itself becomes the lens then we can get lost in both our faith and our acts.”
—
The last thing you said, is the first here. Faith is not something that we are wishing for and/or something that we desire to emulate (i.e., “how to live a good life). Faith is not simply a “belief system” — but it is basic reality itself, the order of the entire creation, as God Himself said He made it that way and governs it directly that way, minute-by-minute and second-by-second.
Faith is simply knowing that what God has said, what He has said He has done and what He says He will do — will be accomplished exactly as He said and in the way He said.
And who is this God? It is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one that Jesus, the Messiah of Israel testified of. “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” [John 14:6]
Also, Jesus said — “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” [Matthew 5:18] A “jot” or “tittle” was the smallest mark on some letters in their alphabet. He was saying that exactly *all* of what has been written will be fulfilled.
And Jesus is the full and complete representation to us of the Father (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) — Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? [John 14:9]
Furthermore, this is not just about living an holy life or having an “example” to follow — it is about knowing that everyone is destined to go straight to hell and be forever separated from God — unless — they have accepted this Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as their Savior.
As Peter said [Acts 4:8-12] —
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel:
9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well,
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’
12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
And Paul said in Romans 10:9-10]
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
This is what forms the minute-by-minute existence of a Christian...
.
Finally — “The basic rejection of God by many Democrats becomes a false faith like Communism that distorts reality keeping them from doing the very good they wish they could accomplish.”
Well, if the people of this country do not change the way they are going, they are going to continue to reap what they have sown. They will sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. And, unfortunately, that will include the rest of us, as we are part of that corporate body.
I’ll show what Paul said about this kind of “faith” —
Romans 1:16-32
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
God will judge them for what they have done, and we see that here —
Revelation 20:11-15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
In the meantime, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel is coming back to this earth soon (it looks like anywhere from now to a mere months or years, according to what the Bible shows for the world scene). And when He comes back He will be replacing the government of the United States and the other countries (England or France or Iraq, Iran, China and so on) with His new government, the world-wide government that He will establish from Jerusalem.
Therefore, we’re in for a change of government pretty soon, I would say...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.