Roundup

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, violence hasn’t primarily stemmed from religion but against religion (the Roman Empire, Russia, China, etc.).  Read about the incredible violence in France in 1793.

Is it OK for Christians to marry non-Christians? — Short answer: No.  Click the link for a great story and conclusion:

The level of influence of a significant other in a non-platonic relationship greatly impacts your ability to achieve the vocational task that the Lord has set for you. My recommendation is to avoid engaging in any romantic relationship in which self-sacrificial service to the Lord is not the main focus. And remember, physical contact greatly reduces your ability to make objective evaluations.

Today, Christians treat the Christian life as a hobby that we engage in for our benefit. And this includes romantic relationships. One way of screening prospective mates is by assessing how well prepared they are to defend the Lord’s reputation, when it is called into question. An authentic Christian should care enough to have prepared to defend God’s existence and character in public.

The Folks At The Dallas Tea Party Are A Bunch Of Racist Whites! — Uh, except that they were not.  CNN and Janeane Garafalo must not have heard about this gathering.  Oh, they dislike President Obama, but because of his awful policies and not his skin color. 

Managing money in a financial crisis: Great advice from Randy Alcorn and others.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Great topic on the Christian/non-Christian subject. While there is nothing in the scripture that condemns it (in fact, Paul writes about what you should do if you are married to an unbeliever), it definitely is not a good idea.

    The biggest problem I see is when a couple like this has children. Should they be raised Christian? Of course, but the non-Christian parent may have other ideas.

    Personally, I am ecstatic to have a Christian spouse because that helps me in my Christian walk.

    Like

  2. SST — I’d consider it!

    Lonewolfarcher — yes, it really makes a mess of things if parents aren’t the same faith. It basically tells the kids that it was important to agree on where to live, how to raise your kids, how to educate them, where to vacation, etc. yet it isn’t important enough to agree on your perception of God. It basically teaches that God isn’t something you’d take that seriously.

    Like

  3. I have to agree with CNN and Jeanene on this one.

    Looking at the video and background, its obvious to me where in Dallas she is from and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    I’m from Texas and I do a lot of business in Dallas, so I know the back story. Texans always want to secede from the Union when they can’t get their way. What’s really sad is I told my husband it would happen if Obama were elected. I didn’t think it would happen within the first one hundred days though.

    You and SST may not be able to see the subtext, but I do. Who better to counteract Obama than an angry biracial female abandoned by her “dehddy” just like him.

    I’m ready for the haters to bring some better ideas to the table. So we disagree, duh we figured that out when Cain murdered his brother. Now what?

    Like

  4. Whoa! Are you saying, Mizclark, that you agree that those who attended these “Tea Parties” are just a bunch of racist Obama-haters? The Texas secession angle is irrelevant to the overall tone of these gatherings. Yeah, they highlighted a black female. So what? There are lots of vids of others so why not a black female? Garafalo is an incredible idiot and you do yourself no service by giving her any credibility, particularly on this particular bit of opinion with which you agree.

    Like

  5. How do you use a term like “redneck” in the same sentence you are accusing people of racism?

    On another forum I post on a guy started saying that Garofalo is a total nut case, then went on to say he agreed with her.

    I asked him “so you agree with a total nut case?” He flubbed around with that one. 🙂

    Like

  6. Oh, and as far as demanding solutions from the opposition, I have found that is completely disingenuous. They want to deflect the debate away from the failed policies of “their guy”. You realize that by taking that stance you’ve basically given up on Obama being able to offer real solutions, right?

    Like

  7. Garofalo is the racist? That is too funny.

    Why didn’t these Southern states threaten to secede while Clinton was in office? Clinton, by all metrics, is more liberal and progressive than Obama. It all boils down to race, yet again. Very sad. 😦

    Like

  8. Joanne,

    We could go on at length about why we dislike Obama’s policies, his lack of qualifications, his radical pro-abortion views, etc. I know a “few” conservatives and have not heard one make a comment on his skin color. Not one. It isn’t the color of his skin, it’s the thickness, and it is his awful worldview.

    If we opposed Hillary then you and Garafalo would probably say we were sexist, but of course our support for Palin pre-emptively annihilates that argument.

    In the same way, I’d happily vote for a black person if they held views roughly the opposite of Obama’s.

    So to call us racists for disagreeing with him is just petty, childish racism on the part of Garafalo and you.

    Like

  9. Again, Neil, then why now for the outrage? Why weren’t there tea-parties when Clinton raised the tax rate to well above what Obama is proposing? Why weren’t Southern states threatening to secede while Clinton was in office?

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Like

  10. Joanne, that is a false dichotomy: “You didn’t oppose Clinton with a specific action (TEA parties), so you must be racist for opposing Obama with that specific action.” Are you serious?

    Clinton ran into a “little” opposition. Remember 1994? Remember Hillary’s health care plan? And more? The ’90’s were good primarily because of what Clinton didn’t do. The Republicans did some good but got entrenched and complacent and blew it.

    Obama has all sorts of tax plans, and his unbelievable defecits will certainly result in more wealth-destroying taxes.

    Like

  11. Neil, start being honest with yourself. You know full well that threatening to secede from the Union is vastly beyond what Clinton experienced while in office. Also, the “opposition” you speak of in 1994 was 2 YEARS into Clinton’s administration, not 45 DAYS. You do see the difference here, yes?

    Like

  12. Joanne, so now you “know” I’m a racist liar? Indeed.

    Again, you are presenting a transparently false dichotomy. Obama is way worse than Clinton with all he is proposing. And Clinton was opposed from day 1. I just used 1994 as an example, and you act as if it was an isolated event or happened overnight. There was obviously a big build up to that election.

    I wonder if people as prejudiced and bigoted as you ever catch the irony of calling others racists just because they oppose someone’s views.

    Like

  13. “Joanne, so now you “know” I’m a racist liar? Indeed.”

    Neil, I made no such accusation. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    “Obama is way worse than Clinton with all he is proposing.”

    Interesting that you make this claim given that Clinton’s policy proposals are all more liberal than anything Obama has yet suggested. What makes Obama “worse”?

    Like

  14. Joanne, when you insist that I’m not being honest with myself that sure sounds to me like you are accusing me of lying. And all your comments are defending Garafalo and saying this is about race (” It all boils down to race, yet again.”) So how about if you are honest and admit what you are saying?

    I’m not a Clinton fan, btw, but he is far to the right of Obama. Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Clinton was not the lone voice against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which sought to stop infanticide. And Clinton didn’t propose the most insane budget deficits ever — http://lonestartimes.com/2009/04/20/you-never-complained-before/ . That’s just for starters.

    So back to your original points: TEA parties aren’t racist. What is racist, prejudiced and bigoted is assuming any white person that opposes Obama does so because of Obama’s skin color. And that’s you and Garafalo and her interviewer.

    Like

  15. As an African-American woman, having a white man in Texas call me a racist bigot is more that adequate to illustrate why the Republican Party is in the condition it is in.

    Best of luck to you.

    Like

  16. Now that is interesting. I had no idea of your skin color and would have responded the same way regardless of whether I knew it. I’m just color-blind that way.

    Yet your comments are influenced by my skin color. Very interesting.

    Really, Joanne, anyone can be a racist bigot and prejudge people. It isn’t just some whites, and it definitely isn’t all whites.

    Like

  17. Joanne, if you’re still reading,

    It would be helpful if you would, unlike Garafolo and other lefty chuckleheads, realize that these events are not just to bash the stupid policies of our current president, but reflected a build-up of sentiment that began sometime ago. Obama’s actions and proposals only brought it to a head and his administration thus far has been a clear example of what is opposed by the attendees of these events. That would be government intervention where the government doesn’t belong. George Bush did a lesser version and was criticized as well. Indeed there’s a bit of it all the way back to Theo Roosevelt. Obama has no Constitutional mandate for hardly anything he’s doing (if at all) and with his stated feelings regarding the Constitution, there is cause for concern.

    As to what his skin color has to do with any of this I have no idea. I believe the accusations are being made by those who don’t really understand the ramifications of Obama’s actions. Libs rarely do.

    Like

  18. Joanne, Joanne, Joanne…..

    If memory serves me correctly, Bill Clinton led the Democratic Leadership Council which was described as the more…..ahem….conservative wing of the party. In fact, the DLC was founded with the sole purpose of supporting conservative Democrats. Barack Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a member of the DLC and has always made his home in the liberal wing of the Democratic party. With all due respect, to maintain and argue that Bill Clinton is more liberal than Barack Obama is completely absurd.

    On to the matter of seccesion. Please feel free to enjoy today’s column from Dr. Walter Williams (link: Parting_Company), a noted economist who is well versed on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
    The take home message is as follows:
    Finally, here’s my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

    In closing, please allow this black man to tell you what you are not ready for a white man from Texas to tell you: “TEA parties aren’t racist. What is racist, prejudiced and bigoted is assuming any white person that opposes Obama does so because of Obama’s skin color. And that’s you and Garafalo and her interviewer.” Jus keepin’ it real my sista!

    Respectfully,
    Joseph

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s