Archive for May 1, 2009

Lets talk “the end times”

Posted: May 1, 2009 by datechguy in catholic

Got an e-mail from a protestant friend (it was part of a blast e-mail to acquaintances of his) It was a long e-mail concerning final judgment quoting various Biblical verses. I thought it wasn’t bad but was incomplete in several ways. Here is the reply I sent:

A good passage but never forget that everyone will face their own judgment day at the hour of their death. It is more important to remember to prepare for that day. If you look too far ahead you can trip.

Also don’t forget that two other passages that are significant:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’ 12 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matt (7:22:27)

And Paul echoes Christ in terms of action:

Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. 9 (1 Cor 9 24-27)

Both Christ and Paul are not talking about physical death; that happens to all men (and I of course use men in it’s broadest sense as the species) So one should remember to follow up. Remember it was the apple of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected. Once they understood the difference the responsibility of salvation fell on them. That is why the paragraph concerning judgment begins with those who obey the gospel. When you know something you have a greater responsibility that if you don’t.

Now here is the e-mail I received. My comments are in Bold italic: (more…)

I’ve always been a DC comics kind of guy, but on occasion I would really enjoy a marvel story and after reading John Hawkins article I thought of What If 43: What if Conan was stranded in the 20th century?

The story was interesting and if you want more detail to the story you can check out this blog, but there is one particular moment that really strikes home.

During the course of the story Conan forms a gang and they break into a museum. When the alarm goes off Captain America shows up and the fight begins.

Captain America being Captain America kicks, punches and hits Conan with his shield. It rocks Conan something nasty. Conan being Conan has a different strategy.

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

Conan and his gang escape and Captain America is left bleeding at the scene.

This comes back to the Jacksonian way of combat:

Jacksonian America has clear ideas about how wars should be fought, how enemies should be treated, and what should happen when the wars are over. It recognizes two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off.

Our friends on the left tend to use jacksonian tactics against us on the right while trying Wilsonian tactics abroad. We tend to do the opposite because frankly we see our countrymen as…our countrymen.

Politically this can’t continue as Hawkins notes:as Hawkins notes:

For example, look at the media jihad that was shamelessly launched against Sarah Palin’s family. There was a not-so-subtle message being sent: if you’re a Republican woman, you better stay in the shadows or we’re going to destroy your family to get you. The left gave the same kind of intrusive, public scrutiny to “Joe the Plumber,” a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama. While conservatives defended both Sarah and Joe as we complained incessantly about the way they were treated, the reality is that the Democrats paid no price whatsoever for the out-of-bounds attacks.

Instead of continuing to complain, here’s a better idea. Why don’t conservatives do opposition research on the journalists endlessly running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe the Plumber? Have they ever been arrested? Whom do they own property with? Have they ever been paid to do a speech for someone and then run a favorable news story about him? Certainly Keith Olbermann’s personal life is just as newsworthy as Joe the Plumber’s, and the details of Maureen Dowd’s life are just as noteworthy as those of Bristol Palin — are they not?

I think Hawkins is right it’s time for us to be a lot less Captain America politically and a lot more Conan. Otherwise we are going to get a sword in the arm.

How does the congress prevent Arlen Specter’s defection from allowing republicans from blocking judicial nominations? You change the rules of course but Legal Insurrection says not so fast:

I don’t think it is likely that the Rules will be amended for a particular nomination. First, the rule requiring a minority vote only comes into play if Republicans decide to fight a nominee to the bitter end. Assuming Souter is replaced with a roughly equivalent moderate liberal, I don’t see Republicans picking this fight. The existence of the rule itself should have a moderating effect on the choice made.

Second, changing the rules mid-session would itself be the cause of opposition to a candidate, and would taint any nomination before a vote of the full Senate. Remember, as of now the Democrats still do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the entire Senate, and even if Al Franken eventually gets seated, it would take only one of the handful of moderate Democrats to oppose a nominee for the filibuster to succeed. By forcing a nominee through committee by changing the rules, the administration would be increasing the likelihood of a problem.

Third, Harry Reid shot himself in the foot on rule changes by insisting that Roland Burris could not be seated without presenting the necessary Secretary of State certification. Reid’s words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him if the Senate changed the Judiciary Committee Rules just to force through a nomination.points out this is a statement that Harry Reid should have taken to heart.

Harry should have taken President Coolidge’s words to heart but the real killer is #1. Every left wing pressure group will be looking for the big payoff in judicial nominations. They will be pushing the president to nominate someone as far left as possible. That increases the chances that republicans with frankly nothing to lose will play every card they have in the deck.

Via Laura at the Green room come a link to this incredible story:

The cause gained momentum in August 2007 when Obama, then an Illinois senator, introduced Pigford legislation about six months into his presidential campaign.

Although the case was hardly a hot-button political issue, it had drawn intense interest among African-Americans in the rural South. It was seen as a way for Obama to reach out in those areas, where he was not well-known and where he would need strong support to win the Democratic primary.

The proposal won passage in May as sponsors rounded up enough support to incorporate it into the 2008 farm bill.

Except for now the president is opposing his own bill and trying to limit claims. As Laura says:

If Obama gets his way, those black farmers who he himself said were unjustly victimized by the USDA will now get about $1500.

He’s just blown over three trillion dollars and is poised to spend even more. Another three billion is a drop in the bucket. He could allow banks to pay back their TARP funds if he’s too short on cash to repay debts that he said just a year ago the federal government legitimately owed.

He disproportionately taxes the poor. He didn’t race to the scene of a natural disaster. He refuses to spend money on black students and now on black farmers. So according to the rules and standards set by the left over the last eight years, doesn’t Obama qualify as a racist?

The head of the National Black farmers association John Boyd is confused:

“You can’t blame it on the Bush administration anymore, I can’t figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn’t want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator.”

I can. This president has been compared to Abe Lincoln an awful lot but he is like Lincoln in only one way; Lincoln was famous for keeping a promise only as long as he considered it was worthwhile: “Bad promises are better broken than kept.” he said.

A lot of Americans are going to be finding out over the next 3 3/4 years how many of this president’s promises he considers “bad”.