For the Benefit of Valerie and Woman of Marseilles-- (WOM) More Soap Opera, Steve

Well, I see we've been having French bloggers over here. I followed the French poster who commented here and her name links back to the infamous French blog --which Kristina, the Russian student, wants everyone to know is a World Blog --since she and some Americans contribute there also.

I found that I'm still a topic over there, with chunks of my blog taken overseas and apparently translated from English to French to English again --or something!! It was pretty garbled.

With the French writers who don't read English --and because I do not read French --even with the Google translators, I don't think we are going to communicate clearly.

HOWEVER, to Woman of Marseilles(WOM), I want you to know that I didn't say that the Bible says having sex is worse than murder. The Bible does not say that. Nor do I think sex is only for making children, as you said of me. It is the union of male and female, soul with soul, for intimacy and child-bearing; God built in a pleasure factor, as well. Marital sex is God's creation for His purposes and our good.

He, however, did not give the gift to us for casual recreation between any numbers of people outside of hetero marriage. It is more than a physical recreation or release. MOre than entertainment. It is for married hetero couples only. It is ordained by God and the marriage bed is undefiled. But sex outside the marriage commitment is risky, dangerous to body, mind and soul. Like others have said, you can't put a condom on a broken heart.

God's Word tells husbands to love their wives like their own bodies --and wives are to respect their husbands. And both are to mutually submit one to another -as unto the Lord --and love one another. St. Paul wrote that they ought not deprive each other of sexual intimacy.

Jeanette was chided for apologizing on the French blog but criticizing certain ones of them on this blog. What's wrong with this picture? They have NEVER apologized to any of us for any of the egregious verbal wounds they have inflicted. Why do they expect that Christians should never get angry with them or say anything insulting? Isn't that interesting? We are held to our own high standard of kindness, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek; but there is no standard too low for them. They hold themselves to no standards of kindness, propriety, apology--and certainly not honesty. The harshest and most distorting things have been said --and the crudest artwork posted. But there is no apology from any of them. Only peer group solidarity --like a teen-aged clique patting each other on the back at the expense of the persecuted minority.

It does indeed illustrate that old scripture, "Judge not --for you do the very same things." I have been temperate in calling a spade a spade over there. It was not my intention to be defending myself all the time. But I felt it was needed for honesty. E.G. When someone says I've told them that the Bible says sex is worse than murder --that ANY kind of sex is worse than murder, that's a gross mischaracterization of my words and the Bible. I've never thought such a thing, much less said it -and the Bible doesn't say that either. So much that I wrote at the French blog in the worst days was an attempt to tell the truth regarding Christians, the Bible and the Christians on the blog.

BTW, I was called lazy for not translating. But I wasn't welcome over there by the time the French writers came, so why would I translate?

I do believe they miss us, Jeanette! Isn't that your interpretation!? No more fun crucifixions and no more Christians in the amphitheatre! Tsk Tsk.

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

A SON'S DEFENSE OF HIS MOTHER ~ yes, you'll be in my will, you dear boy!

I was impressed by the eloquence of the following:

Whynot had said to my son Rob on the French blog where he went to defend his mother like "the good son" that he is (as he is always reminding me, with respect to my will):

"I have nothing against you personally at this stage."

Rob wrote: I was sharing a little bit of this situation with one of my roommates and mentioned that there’s this French blog where they were photo shopping a picture of my mom in humiliating ways. Immediately he responds, “Oh, so it’s personal.” As western individualists, we tend to forget that the personal connections that aren’t available to the immediate situation are still there, that when we insult someone,when we are verbally violent (and conceptually, in the case of “artwork”), we are striking at someone who loves and is loved by people who are personally concerned. You didn’t intend anything personally against me, but what you didn’t intend is there.

"Your mom created hell on earth here on this blog. To the point where she publicly said she was going to kill this blog by bombarding it with her s---. That was after I accepted her offer (public one) to go away, but she is such a compulsive liar she just cannot respect her own word."

[I, Barb, did none of the above -don't even know what he's referencing. I did say I would leave --and stayed away several weeks --saw my name and religion were still being mischaracterized, so popped back in with another name and email address to get around his block. The compulsive liar reference is because he says I "promised" to "never come back" to his blog. I didn't make such a promise. I said I'd leave if he asked me --I left --and like General MacArthur, I returned! upon provocation, noting they were still at it.]

Did she? That is terrible. What did she do? Did she post pictures with the purpose of insulting people to the extreme.. like pictures of anyone’s head pasted into an image of humiliation and torture, excrement, mocking physical appearance? That might be like a little slice of hell. Does she distort what people say? Hmmm. Does she turn hostile in bipolar fashion at the drop of the dime?

So she’s a compulsive liar? How can anyone tell? Now that you’ve taken to editing her posts, your blog has no integrity. You used to have some inviolable principle against censorship. Seems to me that changing someone’s words is even worse.

"but she is such a compulsive liar she just cannot respect her own word"

I beg your pardon, but long before Jeanette or allegedly, my mom, ever violated a trust, you did it first. I told her you people could not be trusted with her image. You’re proving it in spades.

"I wish her no harm. [WITH THAT PHOTO?] I just want her to stay away from here. What’s so f------ hard to understand? Do I go harrass her on her blog? No. So why can’t she stay away from here?"

Did she harass you? I can’t tell. Her posts are edited in a way that does not speak well of the editor.

You gave an ultimatum. I don’t feel like telling her she should kowtow to the bullying of an observably verbally abusive man, especially when your abuse doesn‘t carry that much power to begin with. But I’m not without understanding here. She gave you a condition. Why should she leave just so you and your friends can gossip. I’m sorry, that hardly seems fair to me. Her condition is quite honestly easy for anyone with a minimal amount of self-control. What’s so Effin hard to understand about that? Granted, Mom said she wouldn’t comment, except rarely. I might be inclined to tell her not to come back even rarely, but not with a situation where she is constantly reviled in your public blog (like it or not, it’s out in the public,) with no recourse to explain her side of it. But I don’t control her.

By the way, how’s that striving for peace and justice going? Would you say that your actions here are in line with that effort. Somehow, I don’t see Ghandi taking this approach, hatefully intimidating the opposition away.

No, real pacifists are confrontational yet in a pacifistic way. You asked my mom to leave you in peace, but there is no peace here. Whether or not she leaves, I don’t believe that strife will permanently walk out with her. It is at home in your heart.

Rob

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

MY DEFENSE ON THE FRENCH BLOG

Blog Host, Whynot, Philippe Maire, of the French blog, said to Rob, yesterday:

"I don’t have the time to explain why your mom is such an a–h–. Ask her. She f---g well knows what she did to harrass me and others here."

He would say I “beat the blog over the head with the Bible.” That was my harrassment.

No, I never EVER harrassed you, Whynot. I just cared enough about you to post some cherished, powerful Bible stories to you over the past year--[usually with a good segue or in context of the discussions at hand.] And to inform you lovingly of what the Bible says it will mean to the unbelievers if the Bible is true. And to assure you that belonging to God as His Children as brothers and sisters in Christ for Eternity and going to Heaven is not that difficult– starting with repentance –asking God to make the Truth clear to you –being willing to know what truth is available to us about Christ –and to know Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, Savior, Resurrected Lord, Redeemer, Comforter, Holy Spirit, Divine Son of God and Friend, Prince of Peace, Immanuel–God with Us, “closer than a brother” –the resurrected Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

You didn’t like the same message that Jesus gave. “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh.” You didn’t like His message that we are all sinners who need a Saviour. Your bloggers called my faith in the Bible mere “arrogance.” I clarified continually that I wasn’t claiming to be more righteous than your bloggers, that we are all equals at the foot of the cross. But my claim to believe in Truth or to know Truth about Jesus was intolerable.

However, that’s not ALL I posted about here –you didn’t like it if I had American loyalty or Capitalist sympathies instead of Communistic/socialistic sympathies. You didn’t like it if I said that America wasn’t as horrible in healthcare and regarding the poor as your bloggers said it was. You didn’t like it if I didn’t agree that the Christian religion was only a blight in world history. I was not to join with 2 others to sympathize with Israel over Palestine if it offended the Muslim, Romeo (that was recent)[who had ranted on that topic one day.] I was not to say that prostitution was not safe or good for Stiletto (or you), if it offended you and Stiletto and Kristina –who all think it is a humane public service–even though Stiletto often speaks of hating her "white male pig" customers.

I used no hate speech on you, no foul language, no personal insults–except in teasing “give and take” of blog orneriness. Believe me, I took more insults than I ever gave and only jibed in humor --and was credited now and then by your bloggers for that.I took the Big Red Bloomers insult of me with humor and it became a running joke with my help.

My main insults were to Microdot with his name –and he should not have chosen such a name if he didn’t want it toyed with. [So easy to say Microdevolved to an evolutionist --or Macrodeleterious --or Microdolt --which also became an appreciated
humor gimmick when I was in favor.] As for Mudrake, he only came to this blog to harrass me, which is his career and calling. [In turn,] I only told the truth about his blog harrassment of me, i.e. posting the personal info. [Wherever Mudrake goes in blogging, Microdot kowtows to his sour negativity and buys into it --when he is otherwise very funny even in disagreement. It was Microdot's eventually hateful and humorless tirades that made it totally unpleasant for all as he encouraged a blog boycott until the bloghost Whynot asked me to leave. I had said I would leave if he asked me to --but I didn't promise to stay away forever if they continued to talk about me and my faith with error. And it did make the host angry because the little prostitute gets angry at me. But she is the one who told me how to get around the block.]

From the start, you were the tolerant one, Whynot –and you held the vicious wolves at bay –until Microdot got offended over his ego –he didn’t think I had introduced him to the new blogger, my friend, Baldspot, with enough praise. Baldspot was brilliant, shared common knowledge and interests with Microdot and Kristina–but even though you had encouraged me in emails to bring friends to this blog so I wouldn’t be alone ideologically–when he came, everything [took a nosedive and]went sour really fast –though he was faultless in his pleasantness. But Kender, Jeanette, Baldspot and I were starting to reinforce one another –and something had to be done. I was blamed for people leaving the blog who really did not leave because of me –or JUST because of me.

There is nothing like a little crucifixion when you want to keep control against a religious or ideological minority. Nothing beats simple hate as a weapon, does it???

Rob is right about peace. You didn’t have it before I came –that’s why Jeanette left 2 years earlier and Diane left before I came. You had Stiletto and Ugly American and Kender at each other’s throats before I came. And they didn’t even TRY to get along in those days.

So peace will elude this blog because your bloggers believe it’s ok to hate people with whom they disagree –especially Christians who share their faith and their idea of truth with you. It’s OK for you to share your hatred of Christianity, the Bible, traditional morals –but it’s not OK to hear the other side –even when kindly expressed.

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

Why I Follow the French Blog and Post There --Though Unwelcome and Harrassed

I have been banned, asked to leave 3 blogs (all related blogs sharing bloggers) -- all extremely left wing. Mudrake's is one, and he blocks all the religious right-wingers when they are too persistent and effective in opposition to his views. But he keeps coming to MY blog. (His, by the way, is www.manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.com)

In general, when I peek at a blog, I have reserved the right to jump back in --even though unwelcome, if I or Christians are being unfairly maligned. I feel justified in going to Mudrake's because he goes to mine even after blocking me on his and then writes about me libelously --or just re-posts my perfectly good comments as though I should be embarrassed about them --which I never am.

I have likened the blog to a living room in which people of divergent views should be able to politely exchange those views with the tolerance so touted by liberals. They are the tolerant ones, they think --but in fact, I could stay in the living room with them; they could not with me. I know this was because of the impact of the Holy Spirit on both sides. When the Hound of Heaven pursues one's soul, he runs because conviction is not a pleasant feeling. Initially, he hates to be reminded of mortality --of the need to "choose this day whom you shall serve."

Of course, they claim they just don't believe in God or the Bible --so I said, then, "Why don't you just scroll past my posts when I post on that topic?" They could not. Too much work for their scrolling finger, I guess.

The link to this French blog is on my blogroll on this home page to the right --but beware --because there are posts of my face--a picture exchanged in pleasanter times --and a picture of me from younger days --on top of an anonymous nude female crucified on a cross. So don't go there if you don't want to be shocked and deeply offended as a Christ-follower. However, anyone can post there until hounded off or blocked--but you had better have a thick skin and ears and eyes that can bear the obscene. It is as Mark Twain said (paraphrased): Man was created a little lower than the angels and has been slipping lower ever since --somewhere between the angels and the French."

Granted, the Americans on that blog can trash-talk and create obscene art as well as the French. Lately there are two women who can't write English --two of the host's new girlfriends, I understand --and so there is more French language than previously. They go to the Google translator and come up with these nonsensical translations. I don't have time to bother translating with such inane inaccuracy, judging by their results.

Porquois Pas professes to be a welcoming place of tolerance for diversity. But it never was that, welcoming, that is, though they sometimes tried --if I would stay away from Biblical quotation and just banter and have silly talk with them which I did often. About Monty Python goofiness, a running "dead parrot" joke, e.g.

There was probably NO serious topic on which our world views didn't clash, though I would agree with the basic premise: yes, war is bad; Christian and Biblical and American histories are not all good; poverty is bad and the rich should be compassionate and sharing; racism is bad --but the compassionate conservative and capitalist view on poverty and other social issues is just not welcome there.

A couple of us WERE able to share some mutual appreciation for classical and jazz music as musicians --and I could appreciate and commend the pleasant art work by several who were artists. There was some friendly, benign humor at times --like about Microdot's wife making him move the bushes around every fall, just doing what he was told--he didn't ask questions. And we all enjoyed Ratatoille, the movie. Romeo, the Muslim engineer from Texas, provided comic relief saying he couldn't fix Parisienne Valerie's washing machine because the security police always stopped him at the airport for his tool belt under his vest --and took him off to jail. I was the one who suggested he come to Paris to fix her washing machine which was always leaking and being overworked as she has "urge incontinence" (the medical term) when she laughs. He would always flirt with the single girls, professing to be single himself.

A couple of us were accused of bragging about our charitable impulses. Understand, we only told about Christian charity, ours and others, because we GOP Republicans were accused of having no compassion for the needy. That just wasn't true --so in defending ourselves, we were accused of boasting.

I was also accused of boasting when I revealed we had a lake cottage. NO matter how humble it is or how I described it as humble, they considered it an offense that I owned one. I was actually telling about a calamitous vacation at the lake where one thing after another went wrong and my husband landed in the hospital. Instead of giving sympathy, a couple of the Americans focused on me telling these allegedly poor people --2 of whom had such tiny apartments --that I had a 2nd dwelling.

Like a bunch of school peers, they followed each other's lead in taking offense --and giving offense. Always, they would pat each other on the back for expressing egregious intolerance in the vilest language.

But I like them anyway --because God puts that in my heart. I marvel at it myself.
Even Mudly. I'd like to meet him --and I could greet him with a big smile. But I don't believe he could rise to the occasion in a similar spirit --YET. Maybe some day...after all, we visit daily!

Why do I do it? Because the BIble says, "How shall they believe if they never hear?" and "Faith comes by hearing the Word of God."

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