Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Interesting Post at Mudrake's

I think there is a worthy post at Mudrake's since yesterday. I would like to comment on it here.

First of all, he alludes to me as a Calvinist --and said I dumped a load of manure on his doorstep. No, I just made one statement as a comment to his blog: "I am not a Calvinist." Since he said I was in the blog. I knew he wouldn't print it.

However, I agree with MUCH of the quoted article Mudrake posted by Rev. Andrew Sandlin. (Link above) I would like to read it more closely and respond to that and Ms. Diamond's view when I have some more time.

Obviously, Mudrake doesn't understand the terms or he would not call me a Calvinist --even though I share much of their perspective. Especially when I have tangled over this issue in past blogs with those who are "Reformed" "Calvinists." Mudrake has no apparent understanding of Arminian Weslyans and how they differ from the Calvinists in some respects.

He alludes to me as one of the so-called "stealth candidates," "reconstructionists" getting into politics --when I was on a school board.

I was NO STEALTH CANDIDATE! Nor a "reconstructionist, Calvinist, Reformed theology advocate." But I did come right up front with my concern for values. My campaign flier said, "Swing the Pendulum" --back toward traditional Judeo-Christian values and away from secular humanism as the ideology of America --and emphases on the Three R's in education, e.g. I was very clear in my church affiliation. I somehow had the misperception that being an evangelical Christian with a concern for public values and culture did not disqualify me from politics!!! Silly me!!! I didn't realize that I was supposed to be a persona non grata in America because of my religious beliefs and concerns for values and character in education and culture.

At the time, American schools didn't think they could search lockers, tell kids how to dress for school, advise on sexual values ("you should decide for yourself what is right and wrong for you!") Everything was "me-centered," self-esteem and "what's good for me and my future" as supreme values --and choice was to be determined with the help of non-judgmental teachers facilitating brain-storming sessions where there are no right or wrong answers. School libraries were awash with books for kids featuring witchcraft, native American beliefs --lauding all beliefs except Christian--in fact, Judy Blume's books were unacceptable to believers and promoted in schools --as the child character ponders that religions are like smorgasbord choices --a matter of preference --and the neighborhood peeping tom can't decide if he will peek in his friend's window anymore or not, "Maybe I will; maybe I won't." End of story.

Planned Parenthood told school board members that they should not promote abstinence until marriage because so many parents had not made that choice and we would offend them by telling their kids to do so. I countered that many women WISH the men in their lives believed in responsibility, fidelity, and marriage --and did not really enjoy being single, unwed mothers. That we would do ourselves and future mothers more good to promote abstinence until marriage, family and fidelity (even if those ARE traditional Judeo-Christian values) because strong, traditional families parented by both mother and father are best foundation for children's success, security and happiness. This is still true by all social measurements. It is still true that most of the guys in jail are from single-parent households.

I remember when one of the school's liberal educators, a colleague of Mudrake's, looked at me in a meeting about AIDS concerns and said, in so many words, "We thought we were doing the right thing to teach safe sex with birth control and condoms --and now we know that abstinence and monogamy are truly the only way to be safe." Her epiphany!

It is just so true that condoms don't protect our kids from broken hearts. I once read that teen suicide was most often a result of break-ups of intimate relationships. Like kids getting divorced. Bad enough when they are the children of divorce; worse when they are divorced couples as children. Yet, the revisionist advocates of gay life have claimed that most teen suicides were disappointed homosexuals --either disappointed in unrequited love or by lack of societal acceptance. The academic/sociological solution: approve homosexuality.

What we need is more traditionalists in politics --who know better than to throw babies out with bath water --and know better than to abort them as well.

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


Jeanette said...

I'm not going to discuss the family values statements re: sex, because the thing I find most fascinating about Mudrake and his lot is they just don't get it about Christians.

I, for one, am not interested in taking control of this government, as I know my kingdom is much higher than anything on earth and the King will be the most compassionate and loving.

In the meantime, I do have a responsibility to vote for the candidates I feel most closely represent my political and social beliefs, but that's a far cry from wanting a theocracy.

I don't know if he just doesn't get it or does get it and chooses to lie about it anyway.

I put a nice comment on his other post you mentioned but he didn't post it as I knew he wouldn't.

He called us treasonous and I told him the penalty for treason was death by hanging if I remember correctly.

I then told him since he had published my address numerous times he knew where I was and was welcome to come and hang me and I would not resist. After all, "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain."

I said nothing nasty to him and then he proceeded to lie about what I had said. Since he doesn't print comments except from his sheeple it's easy to say someone was hateful in a post.

And, Barb, I wouldn't have expected you to not tell your beliefs just to win an election, and you won anyway! Congratulations, even though I know you are no longer on the school board.

Barb said...

I managed to get elected twice --and announced a winner the 3rd time --but they said something was wrong with the "printer paks" and opened the machines and I went from winning by 100 votes to losing by 100. A slip of one digit. I should have had a rep at the machine openings and did not --I always suspected dirty politics in that unrepresented re-count. But I considered it a time to move on to other interests. I didn't want to hire a lawyer and wasn't sure there was anyway to prove the likely slipping of one digit after the fact. Dirty politics like that is not impossible on the local level.

I'm not interested in theocracy or state churches either --but I do think our sense of right and wrong varies in the different people groups of the world. Some believe in honor killings and killing infidels and public beheadings for hostages --and taking hostages to get their way. Some believe ends justify means --even lying and murder. Some believe gov't should do everything for them while they loaf during school and call in sick at work when they aren't. Some have no guilt about forging doctors' signatures to get drugs, etc. Some believe in sodomy and abortion as rights --despite the fact that both lead to death.

So we Christians do typically care about the religious formation behind a candidate --we know what being a Christian SHOULD mean to one's word and character. Not all cultures have the same religious foundation and thus don't have the same values.

We can still advocate for VALUES and candidates whose lives reflect good values --even if they ARE supported by a particular religion more than others.

I'm not interested in candidates who claim we can't determine good from evil, right from wrong.

I always think it's me who Mudrake accuses of dumping on his doorstep --but I guess it's sometimes you?

I think it's fine for him to hear other opinions, even if he doesn't have the courage to publish them but would rather CLAIM that fundamentalists dumped on him. Chicken!

Barb said...

BTW --I'm not saying that people of other faith traditions can't also be honorable holding to some of the same values as Christians --when it comes to honor, honesty, humane human rights, etc.

NOr would I say and atheist cannot --but admittedly, atheists are suspect when it comes to kindness --we see many blog examples.

Sad when we see Christians being unkind, too.

I think CA thinks I'm not kind to Mudly, but I don't think it's unkind to give him rebuttal and disagreement and point out bad blog behavior and deprivation of free speech. It's not really personal with me --as it is with him.

Christian Apologist said...

two comments.

As to abstinence we should teach to our young girls two insights into the male mind. "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" is one. I dont think explanation of that one is needed. The second is that the physical need for sex causes hormones in men to make them think they really love the girl but afterwards those feelings go away. Thus the boy may mean it when he says "I love you" but it only lasts till he gets what he wants from the girl.

As to me thinking that you are mean to mudrake. I think sometimes you can say things in a derogetory or condescending manner towards him, but mainly I think it is silly for you to communicate with him at all, as he clearly will never listen to a word you have to say.

mud_rake said...

Christian Apologist says, "but mainly I think it is silly for you to communicate with him"

It is her OCD, CA. She is obsessed with me.

I have a question fro you, Christian Apologist: What evidence have you gathered about Barb to accuse her of being a follower of Jesus?

Just because she calls herself a follower of Jesus, can quote Scripture and attends a Christian church, does not qualify as proof. Could you offer any further evidence that she is, in fact, following in the footsteps of Jesus?

In fact, I believe that I follow the teachings and examples of Jesus more often in my life than any evidence I have seen on this blog or on any blog to which she posts comments.

Jeanette said...

Let me help you out in your ignorance of Barb's Christianity.

She gives to charities to help the poor, sick, homeless etc.

She doesn't use God's name in vain, she tries to follow the teachings of Christ as she understands them to the best of her ability. I say that because we all have a human nature and have to actively ask God to prevent us from falling away, but yet sometimes we let ourselves do something we shouldn't do. I am speaking for myself there and not Barb.

She and her husband arranged for many children to go to a Bible camp where they could learn the Word of God and have a good time fellow shipping with other Christian children. I'm sure some of these children made decisions to commit their lives to Jesus and that's what the Great Commission is all about.

She has underprivileged children at her home for parties and swimming.

What have you done to advance the cause of Christ in your life? You think only the Catholic church is the true church, so I ask what you have done to advance the cause of your Catholic faith?

And since Peter felt he was not worthy to hang head up the way Christ was and chose crucifixion by hanging upside down, I doubt he would be pleased to be called the first pope where people kiss his ring and treat him as though he is God in the flesh.

C'mon, Mudrake, defend your faith, the only true faith.

Jeanette said...

And she doesn't accuse everyone who disagrees with her politically of being in need of psychiatric help or of having OCD.

I told you before what my psychiatrist had to say about you when he read some of your posts and comments, but in case you forgot here it is.

You suffer from a personality disorder, most probably schizophrenia and OCD yourself, along with an anti-social personality.

How's it feel to be examined by a professional just by the words of hate you spew?

Another Christian thing Barb does is to allow open comments from the likes of you on her blog and not censor everything and tell lies about what she says.

I'm going to ask Barb here to send a copy of the messages she posts on your site and I'm going to send my comments to her because you obviously send your lackeys here to disrupt any conversation taking place and criticizing her.

She's my friend and when you pick on my friends you may as well pick on my family. I get like a mother bear protecting her cubs.

And she also doesn't use your barnyard or vulgar language to get a point across.

That enough for you, Sonny Boy, or do you want to read more that you can't delete?

And, yes, I was on your site because I was reading all the crazy, stupid things you were writing and was trying to find one post that was intelligent and not full of hate. Don't like it? Then make members only again. That didn't last long.

Jeanette said...


Before you send the comment do a copy and paste of the post into an email and you'll have me to verify what you really said on his blog.

Jeanette said...

I'll send you the comments I made.

Jeanette said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeanette said...

You made a mistake, Mudrake, when you put in that post with my name and a fake profile at 10:05 am today. That's church time and I wasn't here.

Barb, please remove that post. He's also set up a fake blog spot blog for me with a fake profile. I don't want to be associated with what he has published.

Christian Apologist said...

I have a question fro you, Christian Apologist: What evidence have you gathered about Barb to accuse her of being a follower of Jesus?

Its not really up to me to judge. That will be done on judgement day when Christ will reveal who we have and have not obeyed. Those whose names are found to be in the book of life will go into eternal life, and those who are not will be condemned to the eternal fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.

In fact, I believe that I follow the teachings and examples of Jesus more often in my life than any evidence I have seen on this blog or on any blog to which she posts comments.

It is not our deeds that make us christians. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph. 2:8-10

Barb said...

Oddly enough, CA, Mudrake DOES listen --obsessively. I go to various blogs and he's right behind me --to comment on topic? No, just about me and what a ninny he thinks I am--hoping other blog hosts will shut down to me as he does --and share his opinion of me.

Condescending? O I don't know. I think he's got me beat there for "'TUDE." I have a little fun just trying to keep up --cleverly if I can.

Jeanette, I'll be glad to delete when I figure out who's who.

thanks for the vigorous defense --very sweet and Christianly sisterly of you.

I would hope that one thing that could be said of all of us as Christians, including me, is that we were forgiving --and we surely don't hate anyone because they disagree with us. And that we were honest --and trustworthy--and kind--and patient --and longsuffering --and joyful --and unselfish-- I think Christians of the Bible all have the same goals for our character. And we don't go around saying that our opposition should be muzzled and locked up!!! Right? that's why our value system is a good one, compatible with the freedom of the constitution --without advocating licentiousness and saying that "anything goes in a secular gov't."

Barb said...

BTW, for the real Jeanette, I think you said I don't say Mudrake has OCD --like he says of me. Well, yes, I confess I do --since he started obsessively calling me obsessed. I began to suspect HE was the one obsessed with the topic of OCD --ever since he spammed my blog with articles on the topic -- and that he probably had it where evangelical/fundamentalists are concerned, as he says his father did toward protestants.

CA, was that the best you could do?? Gee willikers!

steve said...

I'm confused.

Barb said...

Steve, about just what are you confused??

About why someone would create a phony blog and profile for Jeanette? So her name would be used for nefarious posting and link back to a profile purporting to be the REAL JEanette --a christian from her state, etc. Check out the phony profile and blog in the 10:05 AM comment by the phony Jeanette on this thread.

Obviously, someone had plans for posting phony posts as Jeanette --which has been done before to both of us. If he can't get us to say what he THINKS we really think, he'll do it for us in our names!!! creating caricatures of his idea of an evangelical/Bible-believing type of Christian. And that does create confusion--as other bloggers don't realize that all the posts by Jeanette are not HERS, since the name appears identical to hers --and they start to respond to the phony blogger who is depicting her as a loon. I believe this phony post here was just a test with a nonsensical message tying in to previous posts of Jeanette's --to see if his system worked.

Now is that akin to obsession or what?? to go to such extremes in verbal blog battle? Would it be Christian behavior even by a Catholic's standards??? Of course not.

Mudrake said, In fact, I believe that I follow the teachings and examples of Jesus more often in my life than any evidence I have seen on this blog or on any blog to which she posts comments.

He has two reasons for making such an unchristianly judgmental statement besides his blinding spiritual pride -- my Biblical and other defenses of traditional marriage--my belief that transgendering and homosexuality in future generations can be avoided to a greater degree than currently in how we parent--how we teach--in what we celebrate and encourage in our culture (education and media now push secularism and licentiousness in the name of church-state separation) --and in a spiritual revival with return to the God of the Bible and His creative purposes for our sexuality.

His other main reason is that he detests any people of the religious right who want to see past and present laws for a culture of decency and morality upheld in the US --laws which recognize marriage as a hetero unit of one man and one woman, laws which inhibit porn manufacture and sale, laws which are not an affront to a holy God --and laws protecting life in the womb.

Barb said...

Slavery allowance was a great wrong in the history of the world--but it was universal and even part of Bible-times culture --part of the transition of sinful life after the Fall to the Gospel light of Jesus Christ. Now we have other issues regarding definitions of right and wrong and human slavery to degrading addictions.

Mudrake (and so many like him) has the mistaken notion that a secular, constitutional nation with a separation between church and state must favor hedonism and indecency and abortion--and an atheistic approach to life and law.

I say if the majority of people believe in the God who created life and the universe and believe Him to be a God to fear in reverential awe --and believe Him to have revealed Himself in Christ and the sacred texts --then such a people ought not ignore their God in the kind of nation and laws they have. They do have a higher allegiance than to the secular state --and a wise and good secular state "respects" the faiths of the people --and has a right to favor the definitions of right and wrong for the law of one group over another --while protecting rights of minority faiths. But we'll never please everybody and true religion is always backed up by common sense and reality of results.

E.g. we have reasons of common sense, public welfare, future economic stability, national security and equality of persons as reasons to favor the traditional marriage unit via law--even though the minorities of homosexuals and polygamous religious groups like Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons disagree with our laws. They are free to believe whatever they want --and our nation does ignore private consensual sex of adultery and sodomy between adults --though prostitution is still illegal in the US for public health reasons --still considered "vice" to discourage by law.

But our lack of discouragement of internet and other porn is contributing to a breakdown of American families --later marriage as fellows date their computers --more sterility as a result of late marriage, more teens in trouble as they post their promiscuity on line, more infidelity and divorce affecting children and family economics adversely.

Barb said...

In other words, in summary, our national view that the constitution means we have to protect immorality --and have no way to define good and evil --is going to ruin us.

Jeanette said...

The above post, claiming to be me~ is the fake Jeanette. Please remove the comment.

Barb said...

Done, Jeanette.

Jeanette said...

Thank~you, Barb. Maybe that piece of scum will leave me alone now that I left a nice comment on his blog, which as usual, he failed to post ~but I think he got the point.

Barb said...

Now Jeanette, don't let him get your dander up! Mudrake meanders knee-deep in muck, but I know you don't want to call him "scum" --upon reflection.

God loves and wants his salvation and you and I do, too, really! And we don't think of ourselves as "better" than he, as he claimed in his phony Jeanette post which I just deleted. We know that compared to a holy God, none of us is good. But we can surely do better --repent and be cleansed -AND SO CAN HE!

comeon, Mudly, be nice!!! Quit impersonating other bloggers!

kateb said...

Well, I haven't been by in a while but I see that Muckrake is still up to his tricks. I was told by my legal retainer that once he's been given notice - which I did - that this conduct was menacing, he was open to both criminal and civil action.

And certainly since he's known so long not to menace people as he is doing, he is clearly open to punitive damages as well - this is for a Judge to decide. These awards are made by the Judge hearing what has happened to people and deciding what monetary compensation could be given as if it were his or her own sensibilities that had been insulted.


Barb said...

Hi KateB! Are you firmly established in a church right now? We are still there! As for legal remedies --- : D