What?
More obsessing about obsession from the obviously obsessed. In response to the post here, Mark Shea responds:
Rod:
This is not fair. Now that ConCrunchy is gone you don't have anybody to freak out and call you an America hater for suggesting that God might even be sovereign over *us*.
When I speculate on this stuff (and that's all it ever can be since I do not know the mind of the Almighty on such matters), I have the Rapid Response Team over at We Really Really Despise Mark Shea.com there to assure the world that my guesses and pondering are the mark of an fevered, lying, and quite possible sick or evil mind. When you do exactly the same thing, it's crickets.
I think you need to lobby some of your readers to set up an obsessostalker site devoted to you again. It's not fair that I should be the only one with obsessostalkers! Or maybe you could just ask the folks at WRRDMS.com to expand their horizons a bit to attacking you for pointing out that profound sickness of our culture and remarking on it.
Mark P. Shea Homepage 02.15.07 - 9:49 pm #
When some people are trying to be funny, they really are funny. That's why I keep reading these comboxes. It's like a reality show comedy. Or something.Dudes!! it's such a downer, you know, 'cause like we can't freak out anymore over at the Contra Crunchy site, man, about, like, how other people hate America because they believe God punishes evil-doers.
I must have shed the brain cells containing the memory of the posts anyone did doubting God's sovereignty. I think there were a few swear words over there....
I've always been irritated that Falwell and Robertson never mention sacrificing domesticated cats in the woods even once in their numerous diatribes about the sins of America.
BTW, my wife is always singing that "Awwwwww FREAK OUT!" song and now, thanks to Mark Shea, it's stuck in my head once again.
"So all liberal business men treat their employees perfectly well?"
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the unspoken assumptions that got me into the whole "crunchy" debate last February on Welborn's blog. That conservatives have the most wealth and influence in the business community is an old liberal canard that isn't even worthy of the barbershop anymore.
Been there, seen that, Diane.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know who Josiah is? I really like him. He writes in the same thread:
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that before God "judged" a nation, he always sent a prophet, someone specifically chosen and called by Him, to call the nation to repentance and to warn them of what would happen if they did not.
Does Falwell claim that God spoke to him and told him that 9/11 was God's judgment? No. So he should shut up about it. Both the book of Job and the New Testament make clear that the ways of God are often inscrutable, and it is wrong to assume that when something bad happens that it is God's judgment (it was for making this assumption that God rebuked Job's friends).
Whenever someone is tempted to act like a prophet, they should remember that most of the prophets in the Bible were false prophets. A false prophet is someone who acts like he's been called by God to deliver a message to mankind when in fact he hasn't. If God hasn't told you to act like a prophet, don't.
Josiah | 02.16.07 - 11:44 am | #
animal was always my favorite muppet.
ReplyDeletebut seriously.
ReplyDeletei just got an afternoon break and saw Breach, a movie about the opus dei spy Hanssen. huge ego. very religious (in a manner which was portrayed as quite sincere). had issues surrounding human appetites. pretty much an a-hole to everyone. thinks he is the smartest guy on the block and mad as hell not everyone else thinks so. all these factors kind of syngergizing with one another to create a very dysfunctional personality in toto.
it REMINDED me of someone. .... i can't put my finger on it .... hmmmmmmm...HMMMMMMM
Re: Animal the Muppet, here's a t-shirt demonstrating a reason to have a drumkit around if you have a bad temper.
ReplyDeleteBubba:
ReplyDeleteI believe the particular issue Rod and Rich Lowry were discussing was whether nuking some Arabs was an appropriate way of responding to some Arabs nuking the U.S. An added wrinkle was whether announcing such a doomsday policy was an appropriate deterrent.
Unless you believe Arabs is Arabs, it's pretty much a non-starter as a policy.
But I don't understand your objection to the quoted reason why nuking Mecca would be a bad idea. Clearly, there are lots of other reasons why it would be a bad idea -- for one, it would be an obscene sin that would snuff the divine life right out of everyone responsible -- but isn't it true that every Muslim on the planet would be enraged unto ages of ages against Christianity and the West, making things worse everywhere in the world, not only for ourselves but for our children's children's children? Isn't "because it would solve nothing and make everything much worse" a good reason not to do something?
It's dangerous to take anything off the table from the get-go, including nuking mecca. you don't want to walk softly and carry a small stick.
ReplyDeleteKathleen:
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know that nuking Mecca would be an obscene evil, then you should re-read your catechism.
If you still think it should be on the table, then you don't understand what evil is.
i'm talking about foreign policy, not the catechism. but thanks for the advice.
ReplyDeleteNuking Mecca would be wrong AND it would be stupid. That's why I think Tom Tancredo is stupid, along with his illegal alien hysteria, that is.
ReplyDeleteBut why do we (our gov't) have to go around say "we won't do this, we won't do that"? There's nowhere in the catechism that I know of that stipulates that a government has to announce what they will or will not do.
IOW, the radical Muslims think we're evil to the core and will do anything. OK, we disagree, but let's use that.
ReplyDelete