Saturday, September 29, 2007


People on the left in the blogosphere are feeling so helpless about the Iraq War and so fearful that we will bomb Iran, that they have come up with the following proposal on a Toledo blog,

Mud-rake wrote:
As I see it, only massive citizen action can awaken the sleeping masses.

Several months ago a friend and I were talking about such an action and we were struck by a very simple but highly effective method of getting the attention of the entire nation in a rather fast way. The automobile as an agent of action. Not a moving automobile but a stationary automobile. A 'stalled' automobile.
Stalled in rush hour traffic causing massive traffic jams all over America starting in Boston and New York, moving westward to Detroit, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Chicago. Then to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston. Further west to Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Thousands of stalled cars, millions of people brought to a standstill in 3 hours.

Americans would demand to know what was happening. The answer is simple: citizen action to stop the madness of George Bush and Dick Cheney. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"

I think Stall-out is a really dangerous idea, a terrorist act in itself --causing lots of accidents and disrupting peoples' lives the way only an enemy would want to do it. It would prevent emergency vehicles from getting to accidents and heart attack victims, and to hospitals and fires, etc. It is a blackmail tactic, "See what we can do if you don't do what we want?" driving bus drivers mad with cooped up and frightened school children. It would be like a soccer game crush in effect.

Seems to me that American Radicals typically think of "demonstrations" of some sort --instead of legitimately getting into power so they can call the shots --or legitimately having a letter-writing campaign to the Pres. on down and doing positive, informative, publicity to convey their fears and beliefs to the masses--rather than calling the pres. a liar and Cheany a mere war-monger for corporate interests, etc. They foment anger and hatred instead of good reasoned debate. Reason and genuine concern for the future would be a novel approach for the left-- as opposed to the usual smarmy-toned, attack vitriol of Who needs enemies with friends like the far left?

Interesting article in Citizen magazine about a new book by a woman journalist who says the dems aren't listening to women --many of whom went republican on the abortion issue -- nor are they hearing the black women who indignantly think gay marriage is unnecessary and literally nutty.
This author says women want the war to end --but ALSO REALLY care about the values/ moral issues. So the war is the one the Dems are focused upon to shore up their base because they want to keep their radical left social votes and agenda as well.

Victory in 08 is Dems' no. 1 concern for the sake of their social issues which trump all others--they are just as single issue as any conservative Christians are accused of being. And they literally despise the Bible-based world view and those who hold it --evidence was in the recently deleted posts by Mud-rake, accusing Christians of being mentally disabled or victims of OCD, etc.

This sort of civil war with demonization even at the Senate/Congressional level in America is counter-productive to good national debate on the issues. Of course, we do know really nasty people in life --and so it is too easy to infer that the other party's politicians are really hopelessly nasty and corrupt, too. We do need to appeal to the better natures in each of us --if possible.

The top 3 dems have, according to blog reports on recent debate? , backed down on the immediate Iraq withdrawal advocacy --saying we do have to stay around in Iraq awhile longer. (Must be polls to that effect.) Of course, they still maintain Iraq was just fine under Sadam and no threat to join forces with Osama since no WMD were found. Sadam WAS the WMD killing his opposition off en masse --and he WOULD have joined forces with al quaeda, I believe, had we not intervened, because Sadam had to love what osama achieved.

Why doesn't the Left figure out how to put the blame and the rhetoric for global mess squarely where it belongs --on radical Islamic groups --and there are a ton of 'em misinterpreting their "peace-loving Koran" --and warring with their own continually, seeking revenge against Israel (their bedrock motivation --along with a goal of global Islamic theocracy)

No, I'm not talking about all Muslims --just Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quadea, Taliban, Wahabi-style home-grown terrorists all over the globe --who, when in power, recognize few human rights of people who are not "with them" ideologically--and people who "sin" by the Koran.

American Christians DO share some faith principles with these people --but NOT the right to murder and terrorize, force a theocratic gov't --though some bloggers say social conservatives want theocracy just because we BELIEVE gov't should reflect the majority's view of what is good for society --restraints on evil --traditional definitions of right and wrong. These are not oppressive restrictions --unless you want to marry your own sex and kill your fetuses. That would be oppressive, of course, to promote heterosexual identification and normalcy in children --and cultivate a culture of life --that stressed sexual responsibility more than abortion as birth control, killing 45 million americans since 1973.

This was not vitriolic, by the way.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


mud_rake said...

Amazing how homosexuality and abortion always manage to slip into your Christian ramblings.

Barb said...

Not really so amazing when we are talking about the few main differences of concern to the right and the left in American politics. We're all concerned about Supreme Court and other judge appointments because the legislative branch is so powerless---we learned that in 1973 when the will of the people was thwarted by 1 vote on the supreme court in favor of legalized abortion--overturning the will of the majority at that time. Many Christians believe these issues are important to the character of our nation--and its security via God's favor and protection. Because "righteousness exalts a nation --but sin is a reproach to any people."

mud_rake said...

we learned that in 1973 when the will of the people was thwarted by 1 vote on the supreme court in favor of legalized abortion--overturning the will of the majority at that time

Majority? Spin, spin

Lake of Fire

Barb said...

No --at the time, the majority would not have voted for legalized abortion. It was shocking. all the states forbade it.

mud_rake said...

Liberalization of Abortion Laws

Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws. However, the right to have an abortion in all states was only made available to American women in 1973 when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining restrictive state laws with its ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Barb said...

OK, before 1967, all the states forbade it.

steve said...

I think we should take all these lefties and round em up as enemy combatants and ship em off to cuba or wherever they take enemy combatants to torture the bejesus out of them until they accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviours. And like our pastor in chief says: "If you aint with us, your against us".. So when our president wants to bomb some brown folks cause they look squirelly to him, well by God people need to just toe the line.. That's what patriotism is all about... Going along with whatever the commander and chief says... After all he is the decider.

Now there's some lilly livered lefties out there who talk about the Geneva conventions and what not, but damn it! we are at war and sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

I think that Ahmandenejad has the right idea. His country doesn't have any queers, he said so himself. We need to get a blue ribbon panel on this right away to figure out how Ahmadenejad did away with all them gays. That Iran, they seem to have the right idea on a lot of things. You know if ole Prescott and his pals over at Kellog Brown and Root had their way, we would of supported the Nazi's in WW2, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. Fags? Gas em.. Islam? Nuke em... Back in the day, we didn't torture over a bunch of pansy ass morals and what not.. men were men and did what had to be done.

Barb said...

You leave me speechless, Steve!

the problem with sarcasm is that it assumes it knows truth while distorting it --like the truth about Bush and his character and thoughts and intelligence, about Christians and their compassion or lack of it

"I'madinnerjacket" says no homosexuals in Iran. That's probably true --do they execute them? But it may be true if all the fathers father their sons and protect them from molesting clergymen.

I don't know Prescott and Kellogg brown and root.

steve said...

I'm sorry.

I get a little down in the dumps and a little ornery when my country consistently does not live up to all it's high sounding ideas found in such documents as the constitution and the bill of rights.

mud_rake said...


Having spelling problems again, dear? No one could imagine that you are using the politics of personal destruction...

Not a good christian woman like yourself.

Do you hate all Muslims?

mud_rake said...

no homosexuals in Iran. That's probably true --do they execute them? But it may be true if all the fathers father their sons and protect them from molesting clergymen.

...or Republican congressmen.

By the way, barbara, you don't actually think that gays become gay through adult liaisons, do you?

[I think she does]

I don't know Prescott and Kellogg brown and root.

Then why don't you Google the phrase and learn a few things about the subject of fascism?? You ought to expand your knowledge form time to time. After all, there is more to read than Deuteronomy.

Barb said...

O lighten up, Mudly. Names can be quite entertaining --even my own.

"I'madinnerjacket" was Microdot's aid for remembering the Iranian's name --and the pronunciation of it --and then he thought it would help me with the spelling, but obviously not.

Barb said...

I don't hate any Muslims. Do you hate any Christians?

If you say, no, I believe you are in deep denial with your muck.

Where are your substantive comments to the issues at hand?

About homosexuals, because you asked, I certainly DO KNOW that adult gays help to bring younger people and minors into their lifestyle --not all of them --but many. Look at the rate of teacher-student molestations. And the huge numbers of cloistered clergy and other clergy who involve the younger people. A much higher percentage of the teacher molesters were gay perpetrators in a 9-state study of student molestations --MUCH higher than gay percentage of the population. Likewise with the gay priest molestations.

Yes, adults lead the young into all sorts of sin. But peers do it also.

And parents can contribute to the self-image that leads one into the orientation and then the activities.

It's interesting that people who seem oriented and obsessed sexually toward children for sex --toward sadomasochism and bondage activities --toward prostitutes --toward adultery --toward sheep --toward porn rather than real people --toward close family members not spouses --toward teens and youthful people exclusively even in their old age (like Hugh Hefner) -- have no pride parades and no civil rights groups advocating THEIR obsessive orientation and "rights" to legitimate their activities. What is special about homosexuality which is no less abnormal than the above?

Lawyers see great possibilities in all the lawsuits they will defend for gays claiming discrimination in hiring if a certain new D.C. bill gets passed

mud_rake said...

Brain on hold, head in the sand, mouth eternally open.

Barb said...

And that, dear readers, was an example of "the ad hominem attack." Totally off topic and personal insult --rather than reasoned debate.

Barb said...

You are evading the question again--Do you hate conservative (fundy) Christians?

Mad Jack said...

You are evading the question again--Do you hate conservative (fundy) Christians?

He hates everyone to one degree or another. I suspect that he isn't all that fond of himself, either.

The stall-out protest proposal that I read about is... misplaced. By all means, protest US military action in Iraq or anywhere else. Take part in protesting anything you like, so long as your protest doesn't harm anyone.

Barb said...

Yes, I agree --protest is legit.

And Mud-rake may not like himself all that much.

welcome to my blog!

Don said...

Hey everybody,

Yeah, I mostly agree with Barb, at least about the "stall out" proposal. I DON'T agree that the "stall out" idea amounts to "terrorism," though, because it is non-violent.

I do see several problems with the tactic, though. For example, as Barb point out, how many pieces of emergency equipment won't get where they need to go because of these intentional traffic jams, particularly in urban areas? I am not convinced that this idea would do much more than anger people and discredit the anti-war movement. How would you feel if after participating in a "stall out," you learned later that some kid died because an ambulance couldn't get there in time?

I think that a better approach is for liberals/progressives to fight to regain much of the media turf lost over the last 20 years. For example, one could do more to (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) support liberal talk radio alternatives where they are available.

Don said...

"...they still maintain Iraq was just fine under Sadam..."

This is complete nonsense. NO ONE, except of course, the Baath party, argued that Iraq was "just fine" under Saddam.

Most opponents of the invasion believed, I think CORRECTLY, that containment was a superior strategic alternative. I've never heard an anti-war advocate argue that Saddam was some great guy.

Don said...

"Amazing how homosexuality and abortion always manage to slip into your Christian ramblings."

Yeah, and doesn't it seem like all of these outed GOP homosexuals, like Sen. Craig, Rep. Foley, and Mr. Haggard, are the ones who PUBLICLY rail the most against gays?

Barb, should we be drawing any inferences from this?


Barb said...

No you should not draw inferences, Don. Nice to hear from you, by the way --you you LIBERAL you!

I just have a good imagination and think I can understand how boys, in particular, could get into orgasmic addictions that contribute to the gay self-image and preference. I call it "arrested development." They didn't get out of the "girls have cooties" stage and "boys are best" stage --where they needed same sex belonging and affirmation from father-figures --and may have instead gotten involved with the wrong people who prey on young men -- and may additionally have a self-image problem due to over-id with mom.

But I think some guys may like women --as Sen. Craig claimed --but just like quick forbidden sexual release, like some do with prostitutes. Once a person goes down that forbidden path, it's hard to turn back --it's addictive.

I don't know from experience --i can imagine this is so.

Barb said...

There are also ex-gays who describe their journey thusly.

Barb said...

How do you do "containment" on a guy who is systematically torturing and murdering his own people and keeping the outside world OUT?

The former Iraq Air Force general has written a book and says that Sadam did have WMD and he trucked them to Syria in early 2003. He served under Sadam for years --was jailed by him --and then put back into authority by him. Google Sadam's WMD, I think.

Don said...

"How do you do "containment" on a guy who is systematically torturing and murdering his own people and keeping the outside world OUT?"

You mean like, say, North Korea? A big part of the answer is, guys like Saddam and Kim Jong Il are not "crazy," though they may be sociopaths. They are interested primarily in their own survival. To attack the U.S. or a U.S. ally with WMD's means a full retaliatory response from the United States, and these guys know it.

Remember, Barb, right before Gulf War I, Bush Sr. specifically warned Iraq not to use WMD's on American soldiers. Sure enough, Saddam declined to use these weapons, despite the fact that, at that time, Iraq had thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents.

Also, this "Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria" theory makes no sense. Here's why:

Chemical and biological munitions have a relatively short shelf life (1-4 years), even under optimum conditions. During Gulf War I, Iraq's industrial infrastructure for the manufacture of WMD's was destroyed.

So, if Iraq had WMD's to move to Syria in 2003, where did those weapons come from? Any remaining pre-1991 stores would have long passed their useful life. And, we've been in Iraq for almost five years, and no WMD manufacturing facilities have been discovered. If the old WMDs are no good, and Iraq had no facilities to manufacture new WMD's... could Saddam have WMD's to move into Syria?

Barb said...

Don, on the French blog --link on my blog --it was said that the Iraqi gov't was a legitimate gov't --and therefore, who did USA think we were to go in there (wmd or not, is the implication.)

I don't know that "seizing power" makes your gov't legit. And Sadam did that in 1979 --seized power. I think the majority of the country was glad to be rescued from him.

Don said...

..."I don't know that "seizing power" makes your gov't legit..."

Saying that Iraq's government is "legitimate" is a legal matter. I don't think it's ever been the case, as a matter of law, that a government must be open and democratic to be a legally valid sovereign.

To say that the Baathist regime was "legitimate" is not to say that the Baathist regime is "good" or "moral". In much the same way, a lawful marriage is not necessarily a good relationship between two people. I think almost everyone agrees that the people of Iraq deserve a better government than Saddam Hussein. I also think that most people, if given a choice, would prefer to live in some kind of constitutional democracy like the United States. However, it does not necessarily follow that a large-scale invasion by the U.S. military is/was the best way to achieve that goal.

I'd also add that Saddam Hussein's "legitimacy" was bolstered considerably throughout the 1980"s by official recognition and support from the world's preeminent superpower -- namely, the United States. Many members of the Bush II administration, such as Donald Rumsfeld, were part of the Reagan administration during those years -- you know, when Saddam caried out his worst atrocities, including "gassing his own people." People like Don Rumsfeld didn't seem to have any ethical issues with backing Saddam then.

Interestingly, many war supporters frequently cite Saddam's use of chemical weapons "against his neighbors" as a justification to invade. The only "neighbor" Saddam used chemical weapons against is Iran -- with, of course, the support of the U.S. government.

Now, the same people who supported Iraq War II can't wait to use military force on Iran. If Iran is so awful, why do we care if Saddam used chemical weapons on them? If it's so awful that Saddam gassed Iranians, why should we attack them now?

It just seems like one atrocity justifies the next, and it never ends.

mud_rake said...

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

mud_rake said...

I see that you have successfully hijacked the newest thread, Anna, yet another Russian Princess. How many threads on this blog have you successfully smeared with your holiness postings?

Barb said...

Truth lovingly given is never "smearing."

I'm glad you go there to read --since you would delete such posts on your blog. This way I can be sure you are getting "the Word!"

Barb said...

Don, I didn't realize that Sadam gassed Iran--I heard that he gassed the Kurds, his own citizens.
He used such WMD to control even his own.

I don't think life under Sadam was anything enjoyable --and the aftermath of his hanging is still a big mess --but if they outlast Al Quaeda, i think there is hope for them to have peace and a better life in the future.

Mud-rake, a nation of Christians is not a Christian nation? Well, it is in a way. We call Indonesia Muslim but it is governed by the Chinese, isn't it? Would you call it a Chinese or Muslim nation? MOst Europeans probably think they are "christian or Catholic nations." ITaly is a Catholic nation--also France and Spain. We are talking about the make up of the people --not theocracies.

America may not have a theocracy, a religious gov't per se, but Americans have their sense of rights from the Christian beliefs and Bible respect of the founders.

The same old argument between secularists and believers existed then as now --just as it existed in Jesus' day.

No one is trying to make a theocracy (except Islamic terrorists) --but policies that have a Chrsitian view of human rights are the best. Licentiousness as defined by Jews, Catholics, protestants and Muslims --should be discouraged.

Brownback said it well tonight --that the biggest problem with economy has to do with the broken homes --and the fatherless kids --so many children dependent on the gov't and barely supervised by single parents --such that we have more teen pregnancies, drug addictions, alcoholism, sexual confusion and activity, delinquency, crime, truancy, low expectations with low achievement --and all of these become governmental burdens, one way or another.

Don said...

"I don't think life under Sadam was anything enjoyable...i think there is hope for them to have peace and a better life in the future."

On the first point, I agree. On the second point, I hope you're right. There is a lot more than al Qaeda for the Iraqis to overcome. By now, that is obvious.

What I've been disputing is your earlier claim that Liberals/Democrats "still maintain Iraq was just fine under Sadam..." To me, this sounds like the old line deployed by some on the Right, accusing war opponents of Saddam apologetics.

Don said...

Barb, I've missed chatting with you. I've been busy with school and other stuff for two months, and have recently had a bit of free time to start blogging again. Feels good to be back. And, Chris and I are currently plotting our return to the airwaves.

BTW, ya never know, maybe noah's ark will stop by for a visit sometime soon...

Barb said...

O yes, Noah's Ark! I can't wait!

Say, tell him to drop in at my church some time when he's floating into our area -- I think our young intellectual pastor would be appealing to grad students like yourself. He has a sunday night bible study at his home. Has a wife and 2 babies. you could get converted and play string bass for our worship ensemble.

Anonymous said...

I am so happy majority doesn't always rule....because unfortunately we have close minded people who somehow want to stick their noses in other peoples personal lives and pass judgement. I hope you never, ever do anything that might prove "scandalous"....I mean seriously hon get a life and worry about your own moral values, not pushing them on everyone else. :P

Anonymous said...

By the way, I didn't mean to post as anonymous, because I certainly don't have anything to hide.

Barb said...

So who is anonymous? another Barbara? I don't get it.

Barb said...

Moreover, anonymous --what are you talking about??

steve said...

I love that picture that has a beaming Rummy shaking hands with Sadaam. That pretty much says it all. What sort of secret back door deals did they discuss? We know that much of the technology Iraq used to create their WMD program, as far as Chemical and Biological weapons, were provided by us. - the nuclear technology by France and Germany. We know that we provided the satellite intelligence that enabled the Iraqis to orchestrate their chemical weapons attack and victory at the al Faw peninsula over the Iranians.

The thing that really bugs me is that A LOT of people have given their lives for the ideas that we proclaim and preach to the rest of the world. But when our direct actions and our dirty and bloody hands come to light, well how can the rest of the world take us seriously? America needs to stand for something, not just the politics of the moment- the Turkey and Armenian genocide for example. We mock and deride Ahmadenijad when he claims the holocaust never happened, but then our President turns around and is UPSET that congress is considering claiming the Ottoman Turk slaughter of Armenians was in fact a "genocide". Why? -because it is politically expedient to not have the Turks in an uproar because they might attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. We need to get away from the philosophies of "Real Politik" and “moral relevancy” and stand up for something and live up to all those colorful words we've put under glass at the National Archives. The ideas contained in those sacred documents are worth dying for, not only for a select few, but also for all of us if we truly believe in America.

Maybe if we drop the President’s nefarious unlawful wiretapping scheme there might be an attack on a city and people may die. In my estimation that is a price worth paying ‘vs’ not giving up our soul and the ideas that countless thousands have died for. I want freedom, not the perceived fallacy of security.

We’ve always had a special zeal for bombing and shooting brown peoples. But I guess since the Japanese kicked us in the teeth at Pearl Harbor, we’ve been willing to slowly gnaw away at the soul of what America stands for by walking LOUDLY in the world and carrying the BIGGEST stick. The problem is, is that we just aren’t that good at empire and imperialism. All our misdeeds always come to light and we get a black eye in the process every time until our statue of liberty is just a garish statue of hypocrisy. How can we possibly ask anybody in the world to honor human rights and promote democracy when we are holding people against their will without any legal recourse and are allegedly torturing people, or standing by while other people do the torture. It’s time for America to stand for something other than it’s own selfish “American Interests”… or America is destined to be scrapped with the rest of the failed empires of the past.

Barb said...

I don't mind wire-tapping of people suspected of terrorist involvement --especially if they are plotting a plane ride.

There is no right to privacy for crime and planning crime. I don't care if they listen in on me to see if I'm plotting a terrorist act.

On the other hand, I don't want anyone eavesdropping to see if I'm a christian and also calling Christianity illegal.

I am more afraid of Mud-rake's call for the imprisonment of Christians of the Religious Right -than I am afraid of the gov't in search of terrorists.

Barb said...

As I said on someone else's blog about the Armenian genocide, Bush should denounce it --and did so at the beginning of one of his terms, I hear --but this isn't the time to step on the Turkish tiger's tail --when the Turks are volatile toward the Kurds in Iraq.

Diplomacy says this isn't the time --what's wrong with those democrats?

Barb said...

Steve --we're still the best country in the world. Yes, we have sinned. but I don't buy that we are eager to bomb all the brown-skinned people in the world. We tried to be very careful in the liberation of Kuwait --and to stick to the military targets --not civilian. Tell me which other countries are so particular about that? As for speaking softly and carrying the big stick --somebody has to do that because there are tyrants. The peace keepers need to be stronger than the tyrants --because tyrants intend to prevail.

Barb said...

Africa is an awful mess right now --and we can't go to that brown-skinned continent [as you put it] --because we are preoccupied in Iraq.

We've aborted too many potential troops ----

mud_rake said...

I read with great amazement the 3 comments of barb after Steve's very thoughtful statement. None of the three addressed the deep concerns that Steve lifted up. none!

That's why I seldom respond to you, barb, because you seem to dwell on another planet.

teeter1122 said...

Barb are you seriously that shelterd and unaware of the world as you seem to be?

What about the wall that is being built seperating Palestinian families. A 25 foot wall that circles all of Israel and serves to seperate Palestinians where the Jews see fit. A wall that makes it impossible for Palestinians to work, get food, or reach a hospital for those that are injured. A wall that seperated children from their schools.

Barb as a "christian" you should be outraged of the horror palestinians face just as much as you are simpathetic with Israel, and not for the simple fact that it is jews going through this but outraged at the loss of human life on both sides.

We are all God's Children, remember I said to read Galatians 3:28.

You are being a biased christian.

What about the fact that Israel attacks with an organized army and air strikes. While the Palestinians are forced to suicide bomb.

You still did not address the fact that you are a "Christian" with conflicting point of views.

And you also got your history all wrong. The Palestinians were given land by the U.N. and not the other way around. Israel decided to take over Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. This is what the fighting is about. Land given by the U.N. to Palestinians.

Let me ask you this what would you do if I took over your house simply because I had Heritage on the land it was built on. What if I kicked you out, bulldozed your house to the ground. Then built a house of my own while you were left out in the street with your family

Barb I love you because Jesus loved me first, but sister you are way off on both history and CHRISTIAN teachings.

Email me at

Old Swampy said...

Please save me Barb.

Barb said...

swampy--i visited your site and wondered what the point was of such satire. Your hooker stories that are fictional.

Save you? I can surely point the way --but I'm not the Savior.

mud_rake said...

you know, barb, you really ought to think up a new topic. You stole this one from me weeks ago!

I know it's not easy picking a topic so how about these suggestions:

• Apple pie and Jesus [seasonal]
• The Pumpkin Patch and the Bible Patch
• My favorite Christmas Songs for flute and Jews-harp
• Winter Storage for Your Seadoo
• Prayers and incantations for the Neighborhood Homo
• How Good Christians Get Rich

As i have said before, some days I get only a half-dozen ideas for a new topic. Don't be discouraged, though, we all start off slowly.

Old Swampy said...

Jesus married a prostitute.

mud_rake said...

barb- I know, you are in a dry spell so here's another topic.

It seems that one of yours was nominated by George to be Family Planning Coordinator of the HHS was quoted in a 2000 Weekly Standard article, as she railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives.

“It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Perhaps you would like to spend some time spinning this statement?

After all, sex is your favorite righteous crusade.

Barb said...

Perhaps this person is a pro-life Catholic? Because evangelicals aren't typically hard-core against contraceptives --unless they are really abortifacients --which some Catholics say all contraceptives are --but I believe many contraceptives affect ovulation and not the implanting of the fertilized ovum and I believe most evangelicals use birth control pills with a clear conscience. however, there is one large fundamentalist home school group that doesn't believe in contraception --and are like the Catholics in having big families of 7 to 12 kids. Mormons may be the same.

It's interesting to me how we view healthcare and family planning costs --we will pay to fix our cars, our plumbing, our roofs --but not our health. I think major medical coverage through our work place insurance or private coverage is essential --but should we really expect to pay nothing? --Gov't. would just shift the whole system from private agencies to government agencies and it's not clear that that would be an improvement.

I personally have nothing against insurance companies covering birth control.

I'm not having a "dry spell" --I have a box full of potential blog resources that I want to blog about --I'm just spending too much time on other people's blogs --because I'm interested in them and motivated.

Barb said...

Old Swamp--Jesus did NOT marry anyone.

You have listened to the fiction of recent years based on a discredited version of Jesus' life.

Jesus was respected as a teacher in the synagogues. No one accused him of violating the Hebrew teachings on sexual immorality. Old Testament scriptures were clear that men should not frequent prostitutes --or fornicate. Jesus' credibility as a Jewish spiritual leader would've been zilch if he had been sexually permissive/promiscuous. He's the one who said a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife --and what God hath joined together in marriage, let no man put asunder. And if a man looks on a woman to lust for her, he is commiting adultery in his heart. And "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he."

They crucified Him because of His claim to be the Son of God --because of His popularity --because He was an adversary of the self-righteous and proud pharisees and Hebrew leaders. Not because He wasn't morally righteous by their standards. They knew he had done no wrong by their moral standards.

mud_rake said...

Old Swamp--Jesus did NOT marry anyone.

You have listened to the fiction of recent years based on a discredited version of Jesus' life.

In denial of a possible truth?

Here's an interesting conundrum: What IF Jesus were married [Cana]?

How would a married Jesus differ from an un-married Jesus?

Would his married-state nullify his teachings?

Seems to me that, as God created man and woman...' a married Jesus would fulfill that directive of God.

Even further, we can relate better to a married Jesus because he is more real, more human, more fulfilled as a person.

What stops you from wanting a married Jesus?

Barb said...

I would not care if Jesus were married. The gospels speak nothing of a wife --just his mother and other women at the cross, at the grave.

Of course,being married would not have been a sin--but it just isn't part of his history.

Today's revisionists speculate and say, "surely Jesus slept with women as charismatic figures today would do --even some preachers in adultery and fornication." But I know men today who have never been with a woman or a man in their late 20's and early 30's --so the revisionists shouldn't project their sins onto Jesus except as the sin-bearer --not a sinner like they.

The whole point is that the sacrifice of Christ was worthy--a perfect lamb, without blemish or spot or stain of sin of his own--but in the stead of those who had sins. he bore OUR sins in his body on the tree --not HIS sins.

No religious Jew condoned sex outside of hetero-marriage. Had Christ done that, we would've heard about it in the accusations from first century onward.

Interesting that the early Christians weren't looking for a Messiah to sin with them, and to condone their sin, but one who would pardon them and teach them to "go and sin no more." "Live in the Kingdom. Bring your sins to Christ in confession directly to the Father through the Son, and receive the life-giving, joyous, peaceful, loving presence of the Holy Spirit within your soul."

They weren't looking for one who would now tell them that whatever they wanted to do sexually and with the unborn, was OK with Him.

And Jesus did not change the moral law of God regarding His design plan for sexuality, marriage and pro-creation.

mud_rake said...

I think he was married to Magdalene. Seems obvious and their wedding was at Cana, but the apologist gospel writers and later revisionists wanted him to remain celebate to be more 'pure.'

Yep, a married man, just like most men of his day and today.

Barb said...

Most scholars have debunked your myth of a married Jesus --as was reported in secular national media.

mud_rake said...

"Most scholars"

Really? I must have missed the writings of these 'scholars.'

Could you give me a link to some of the 'scholars'?

Don said...


I am intensely jealous of your 50-plus comment threads.


God Hates Liberals said...

"I don't mind wire-tapping of people suspected of terrorist involvement --especially if they are plotting a plane ride."

Right on. When will these hippies get it?

Barb said...

: D

It's just me and Mud rake mostly--he comes over to take a daily jab --and I respond. and if you don't write anything new, that gives one old thread a chance to receive more comments.

I appreciate you contributing to the number! I feel so popular!

Barb said...

GHL --I don't agree that God hates anybody--but thanks for agreement which I find so rare in the rarified circles where I blog.

Hippies! Yes, that's what they are!

However, I can't imagine Mud raker in bell bottoms and an afro -do you suppose????

Barb said...

The scholars were quoted in the secular news, in Newsweek, Time magazine --on this topic of a married Jesus. THEY found the scholars and concluded there wasn't likely any truth to the myth of a married Jesus.

mud_rake said...

I am intensely jealous of your 50-plus comment threads.

Don- here's the formula:

• sit on a thread for an entire month

• comment yourself in a tratio of 2:1

Dick Fitzwell said...

You should call this blog 'The Barb Glacier'.

Waitin' for some new material here, sweet-cheeks!!

Yankee Doodle said...

What is "comment yourself?"

That's not what this blogger did. All she did was responding to other people's comments. It only shows the dedication she has for her blog and the great respect she has for her readers' comments.

Barb said...

exactly, Yank! I do need to post a new thread, don't I, Dick F. (Sorry about your unfortunate choice of screen name.)

Mudrake, you post 2 to 1 also, but not usually out of respect, unfortunately.