The infamous Mud-rake has posted today, a blog topic which is all about me and Jeanette, challenging us on the issue of our Christian love. For sure, he picked out quotations from Jeanette when she was angry. (She's a Baptist, after all--it's just us Free Methodists who don't get mad! (joke, Jeanette!)--actually I have gotten angry at times in Blogville also.) The challenge is to "Be angry--but sin not."
In case you come over here, Mudrake, thanks for giving me more exposure for my well-reasoned views on homosex on your blog today. I would answer your charges over there, but as you know, you have blocked me and Jeanette on your blog.
About your question on vengeance and 9/11. About "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay." NO to your question; I don't think we went to Iraq for God's vengeance or our own; we went to eliminate a WMD named Sadam and we believed he had WMD's --and we can't be sure that he didn't have them and just got them into Syria before we arrived --which is what one of his former official co-horts claims.
About my school board re-election--you say I'm the only board member to lose an election. That's not true; if memory serves me correctly, I beat out one when I got elected. There were also some one-termers who knew better than to run again. I won twice --and I think I won the 3rd time --because I was announced as a winner in 2nd place out of 5, remember --until a recount without any observers from my campaign --after which I lost by exactly 100 votes --an easy manual slip of a digit in the old voting machines.
By the recount, I went from 2nd place to 4th --out of 5. But it was ok with me --I protested weakly to the election board and could've made a stink with a lawyer but I'm too cheap--and we could not probably have proved the probable fraud which was politically motivated by haters like yourself who went door to door with flyers against me that were filled with lies like the ones you post.
AS for me trying to affect what the children were taught --you betcha! I certainly didn't want them to be shown any more R-rated movies in jr. high and reading books with graphic, humorously portrayed incest incident in the 9th grade on the supplemental reading list. I didn't appreciate the social studies teacher who said we aren't particular about the "what's" and "when's" of history but more concerned about the "why's." Great. His students would be the ones on Leno's Jaywalk that don't know the Civil War from the Rev. War or have any clue when they occured.
Another concern I had for schools was the life-skills courses with their authority-undermining, faith-undermining, decision-making model --"Well, now, class, no one can tell you what is right for you except YOU!" O great! Value-free "brainstorming" for any solutions at all: no right or wrong answers.
THEN the children were to apply THEIR values --"according to what is best for YOU and your future." (Well, for sure, sometimes telling the truth, not cheating, not aborting --don't seem like the best decision to a kid, but they are best in the long run according to GOD. Without God or any absolute right and wrong, this decision- making model was all about ME, Me, Me --what is best for me, not what is right or wrong for all. And the very year I protested the self-loving self-esteem exaltation in education, national media came out questioning "The Cult of Self-Esteem." I was vindicated for my views (just like Dan Quayle was eventually vindicated for saying that fathers are necessary.)
Mudly, you wrote of God's love, so I wonder if you are a Christian who feels obligated to love everyone --or if you just feel that Jeanette and I should love everyone because we claim to be Christian. I have many times offered you an olive branch and you have unrespectfully declined, preferring to keep up the war. So I'm not sure why you challenge us in this area of loving. We can do it. Or as Obama would put it, WE CAN! Meaning, Jeanette and I. I don't know if you can if you really don't believe that God has commanded you to do so. Change starts with faith. I'm pretty sure you don't love me now.
As for Jeanette calling you Dung Head, should that bother you --considering all the cow dung photos you posted that day when you gathered up many of my blog comments and printed them together as a blog topic? You surely don't think that her reference to excrement disqualifies her as a lover, now, do you? Or are we in agreement that dung used by you was NOT a loving gesture on your part, any more than on her part. Jeanette admitted that she was tempted to do wrong with knowledge she had that someone would not want revealed --but you don't resist temptation. She did. That's the difference between us. She knows it's just plain wrong --and unloving-- to post people's private info if it might bring them harm. You don't seem to realize that yet.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Posted by Barb at 7:26 PM
Labels: Mudville's Mud-slinger
Jeanette said...
Good post, Barb, but futile. He won't stop.
I saw his post about us early this afternoon and his comments were miraculously open now instead of just to his team members.
I'm not going to take the bait and respond on his blog. He's not worth the energy or the time for me to give.
He craves attention even if it's negative attention. He surely has a hang-up about born again Christians, yet he told me in an email he is a Catholic who goes to church at a university in Toledo or that area because it is liberal.
He likes to talk about tolerance, but tolerance to people like him is "you tolerate me but I don't have to tolerate you if I disagree with you."
Typical liberal hatred that has been going on since President Bush was elected in 2000 and will continue after President McCain is elected in November. His Messiah is Obama but the way Obama and Hillary are acting they are going to tear the democrats asunder and the election the Republicans are supposed to lose they will win.
I also predict we will come close to taking back the House if not doing so outright and pick up a couple of seats in the Senate or losing just one or two at worst.
This is what angers him. That and the fact we haven't yet become the complete socialist utopia he so longs for.
Pay him no mind. He thrives on it.
March 25, 2008 10:03 PM
Barb said...
Ignoring Mudly is sort of like ignoring the elephant in the room --or rather, the donkey!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
