« Implications: CNN Engages as Censorship-Agent for President Obama to Omit Pro-Life Content | Mike7Woodson's Blog | Replenish against denial »
Facing God, god, and self
The never-ending quest to reach, and negate God continues.
No one has negated God, or else God would cease to be an issue. Some jealously grasp for this objective and fail. The irony is that to negate God, one must negate self. Each of us is made in the image of God. Meaning?
The children. In them we see the closest to the image of God. "Of such is the kingdom of God." That was each of us, once. What happened?
The simplicity, innocence and purity of children is what we miss. We miss the image of God in us that brought so much love. Is that God's fault? To many, yes. How is that? God is at fault, but not the decision makers who lost the image by their own choices? Is this reasonable?
God gave the image in the first place: the capacity for immortal goodness and love. He has not taken that away from us. We have driven it away with false sophistication and neglect of loving truth.
Do we miss God? Not really, but we miss God in us. We want the blessings of God in our lives without God. We want the benefits but not the benefactor's supernature with and in us. We want the power of the Grace, but not the Grace with and in us. That's because it is easier to go for the power instead of the goodness and love of relationship.
No wonder some wish to kill the unborn. It is attempted revenge against God by taking His most innocent. They are closest to Him. Christ, who remained as a child at heart through adulthood, then gave Himself in response to the demand "Crucify Him." No arguments for his innocence. Just innocence silent before power. Love giving of His eternal life to the grasping hearts of stone no matter the pain demanded of Him to do so.
We negate God because we hate what we have become and what we were reminds us too much of the terrible significance of what we have become. However, nothing that ever went wrong, or any problem of life, ever was solved by denial of the problem. Nothing was ever resolved by denial of responsibility for the problem. The path of God is no less than Love. And that is too much for us. Yet there it is. We simply must do what is too much for us.
If we fall, get up again, say the wise.
God's goodness is such that He chooses to restrain His power that all may eventually be saved. Unlimited power must have the power to limit itself or it is not unlimited. And self-restraint is part of Love. Unlimited power exercised must eventually destroy to effect unlimited power by some ideological necessity of legal proof. God has no need for that.
Some fathers on Mt. Athos believe that God will even save the demons and the devil. The Love of God will outlast and overcome the grudge and power worship of the devil. Why doesn't God destroy the evil people and entities of this cosmos? Wouldn't that be more merciful to all? No. Not if Love must cease to be Love to serve power.
Destruction gives up on the beloved. And God is Love, so He doesn't give up on us. What of us, then? God involves all who suffer with Him in the work and rewards of saving their fellows and the rest of the cosmos with His Love. That's a tall order, but happens only by the painstaking life by example. There's no time to look ahead. There's only time to live Love now, ever presently.
That is the privilege of living and suffering for Love's sake, even for the sake of the one(s) inflicting the suffering. We can't believe that there is such Love, and are nearly embarrassed to tell others that we believe in that kind of Love. Of course we are embarrassed: we fall so short! We can't believe in that caliber of Goodness. And that's our downfall. We must believe it, get up in that belief, and go forth in Love to those who happen into our lives.
Goodness is generative and regenerative. It is intrinsically perpetual. Its opposite, power, is intrinsically destructive, and destruction destroys itself without Love and goodness to give it self-restraint and meaning.
Advertisement












.
If he says so . . .
OK ... Makes as much sense as...
. . . ǝʍ ǝʇɐɥ ʇɐɥʍ ǝʍ ǝʌɐɥ ǝɯoɔǝq puɐ ʇɐɥʍ ǝʍ ǝɹǝʍ spuıɯǝɹ sn ooʇ ɥɔnɯ ɟo ǝɥʇ ǝlqıɹɹǝʇ ǝɔuɐɔıɟıuƃıs ɟo ʇɐɥʍ ǝʍ ǝʌɐɥ ǝɯoɔǝq.
I see things haven't changed much 'round the ol' Woodson funny farm.
~OGD~
March 18, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back.
March 18, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did you do that upside down thingy? Or did you just pray?
March 18, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I find funny? A person who would write this:
is, most often, the same person who will do whatever it takes to prevent children from getting health care coverage to children. You know, the things that could help prevent chronic disease and other health problems among children AFTER they're born.
The person who wrote that statement above is, I would presume, also somebody who is vehemently opposed to comprehensive sex education, family planning, contraception, condom distribution, and other non-abstinence measures that can and do prevent unplanned pregnancies (and thus abortions) from occurring in the first place.
Hypocrisy, even for those who claim it in the name of God and piety and righteousness, is still hypocrisy.
March 18, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The hypocrisy that you discuss is hypothetical, because you really have no data about what "the same person" you use in your hypothetical actually believes and does about health care coverage for children.
Most are forced into a camp to have a voice, yet do not agree with the other ideological platforms of that camp. These folks you fail to distinguish. Or isn't that what so many here complained about in GWB administration foreign policy: that it bludgeoned distinctions among enemies and allies was and so more enemies were made. What you criticize, you do.
Add the fact that the two parties have alleged that the other side has made sure that neither of their health care "visions" have ever come true, and that forces everyone to choose among party monopolies as to whose speculation is true. And this merely because there are party monopolies.
March 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder some wish to kill the unborn. It is attempted revenge against God by taking His most innocent.
And your data for this bizarre statement is what?
This entire post makes no sense as an argument against abortion, Mike. Actually, it just makes no sense.
March 18, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abortion was just an example of an extension from the negation of a good God. When there's no good God, the people find evil ones to follow.
March 18, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's that workin' out for ya?
March 18, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a good God.
March 19, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then, if my hypocritical person is so hypothetical, I'd very much appreciate it if you told me exactly what your positions are on each of those things. How do you feel about the government expanding health care options for children? How do you feel about comprehensive sex education, family planning, contraception, birth control, and condom distribution?
In fact, while we're on the topic, tell me how you feel about abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Should women be forced to carry a child to labor if they were raped? And how do you feel about embryonic stem cell research? Was your blog written in response to President Obama's decision to overturn Bush's decision on it?
I'd like to hear your answers.
March 18, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've answered those questions in other comments multiple times.
March 19, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are some of those answers:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mike7woodson/2009/03/facing-god-god-and-self.php#comment-3412117
Have lots of questions being asked of me at present. Help me out if you can in finding answers elsewhere, or reminding me where I haven't answered you. For now let's start with the above link until I can find the URLs of my other answers.
Thanks for asking these straight questions. They make for more solid discussion.
March 19, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me that quote sounds like pseudo-psychoanalysis.
March 18, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I found a Mike-like group on youtube. Their logic is astounding.
Abortion should be illegal because it is taking of a life? Right?
So what punishment should be given to women who get them? - Jail time, Death penalty for murder? The pro-lifers answers may surprise you. Check out the video below, it will have you scratching your head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
March 18, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you asking me? Or just throwing out a non-sequiter. They certainly didn't interview me.
It's easy to find people who intuitively know something is wrong but haven't gone to school to complete the rationale. Not every believer is a theologian and not every partisan is a political scientist. For many, it is enough to know that destroying an unborn baby is wrong, and the procedure should be outlawed somehow. Exactly how isn't the point. Deterring the behavior is the point. Keeping the issue alive in the conscience of their fellows is their point. They leave other tasks to others. The same is true on the left or right, wherever people are used for partisan ambition. But that goes to fallacies of method.
On the merits, jail time wouldn't solve the problem of a woman's choice to abort her unborn son or daughter. Going to jail doesn't improve the conscience or make someone a better, more responsible citizen. Worst case, it's crime college. Best case, they come out behind the eight ball.
And so the false premise of the street interviewer (if the persons polled weren't planted) is that jail time would make a difference. Based on a false premise, the apparent inconsistency is trumped up at best.
What would make a difference? Stripping physicians who conduct abortions of their licenses? Putting them in jail will only make them strange martyrs for the strange logic of pro-choice.
What is the strange logic of pro-choice: if you don't believe in God, play God. If you want to be compassionate, kill someone you can't see based on your tragic future projection of their life.
Here's the reality of the situation:
Like people in prison, many pro-choice extremists will go to great lengths to argue that they're doing nothing wrong. Eliciting passing comments from protesters that they don't believe women should be given jail time and aren't sure what deterrent or approach is needed on that side, is yet another length in the endless need for self-justification.
March 18, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an "ends justify the means" argument, one that doesn't consider the consequences of its actions. It isn't enough to say that "deterring the behavior is the point." It's HOW you do it that's important. George Bush often spoke very bluntly about good and evil, that evil must be confronted, and that there can be no compromise in between. And look where that got us.
Remember, if you outlaw the practice, you are telling women everywhere, even the ones that are raped, what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You're not in favor of letting rapists choose forced parenthood for women, are you?
You're also confusing what it means to be pro-choice. Being pro-choice does NOT mean being pro-abortion. Nobody likes abortions. And even those of us who are pro-choice would rather that women never had to get any. The difference is that we don't think a woman should be forced by the government to carry a child that she didn't plan for or didn't want -- for a variety of reasons (health care costs, maternal and psychosocial health, and also that sticky issue of separation of church and state, since many in the GOP try to use their anti-choice position as a bludgeon from the Bible).
March 18, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That entire line of thought assumes that when abortions were illegal they never took place, and that if they were to be outlawed again all abortions would stop.
That is of course historically false, naive, and even more, dangerous.
It's easy to love an unborn child. For Mike and other anti-choice advocates, I would ask that they try harder to love the mothers.
March 18, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it isn't so easy to love for millions who elect non-life saving abortions each year against their fellow unborn human beings.
Loving this great majority of aborting persons (and all their enablers and aids) who elect to dismember and chemically poison their unborn daughters and sons doesn't mean enabling them.
Growth comes with work, as I'm sure TheraP can tell you. It comes by facing responsibilities.
I am for public and private aid to single mothers to help them get the job done. I am for funding of empirical studies on how to help single mothers get the job done. I am for early child support for mothers by bio-fathers. I am for civil rights cases against abandoning fathers which charge them for civil rights violations against single mothers if they abandon (by forcing involuntary servitude in raising, caring for and paying for one's child and gaining monetary gain from not having to do so himself). I can think of many other creative means to bring about justice and mercy without using the same old dead tired systems.
March 19, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it isn't ends-justify.
Look, you've missed the illustration from Youtube altogether. Those folks can protest the evil that is abortion and have no position about what ought to be done to a woman who aborts a child.
Christ was against adultery, but He didn't call for the stoning of the woman caught in it.
March 19, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If people in the pro-choice movement didn't like abortions they wouldn't spend so much defending them. They'd spend all of their budgets on prevention (such as abstinence and contraception) and abortion alternatives like efficient adoption.
March 19, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that you will believe this, but only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services were abortions. 36% of them were directed towards birth control.
The NY Times ran an editorial in January that showed what was behind the abortion decline. Turns out that in that in the states with the least restrictive abortion laws, abortions declined because they also made greater efforts at making contraceptives available and provided real sex education.
The reason there is a defense of abortions is because of the offense that takes place against it.
March 20, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be willing to look at that data. I'm not sure if you're asserting that there is a correlation or a causation between the approach in those states and the decline. I'm also not sure if abortifacients are included in the definition of contraceptives.
March 20, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't, because if the "behavior" is having an abortion, you would be a strong advocate for contraceptive education, morning after pills, and condom distribution.
What is the point is punishing women for having sex, and that punishment is an innocent [BORN] baby. It is the babies that are born who suffer if they aren't wanted or loved. A mass of cells does not.
Nice try, equating pro-choice people as extremists and criminals. Abortion is LEGAL. The extremists are on your side of the street.
Self-justification? Your entire blog was nothing BUT self-justification.
And it is not unreasonable to ask people who are out protesting for a cause to define what the results of their cause (making abortions illegal) should be.
There are some questions upstream about YOUR personal viewpoints on a variety of issues I'd like to see. Regardless, though, you should be aware of the company you keep, because MOST of your compatriots Don't want health care expanded for people -- I personally don't favor just giving it to children; why should children's parents not have health care? -- They also don't want realistic sex education or birth control information, or morning after pills, etc, etc, etc....
March 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
March 18, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cite a study on what most of 'my compatriots' want. You're claiming to know all of these folks' viewpoints on these other issues without data. You say most.
As the Youtube video shows, many don't have opinions on those other issues. That proves how bankrupt partisan education is. It doesn't mean those people are in bad faith.
With education you begin where the student is. With partisan education, you either keep the ignorant (GOP in some cases) or ridicule them as ignorant (Democrats). They never come to the table but stick with what they know. They know aborting babies is wrong.
March 19, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't need to cite a study; Republicans are against Universal Health Care. Their platform includes being against abortion and many forms of contraception, including sex education. The Bush administration witheld money from groups that are fighting HIV/AIDS if they even discuss abortion as an option with their patients.
Your "compatriots" are Republicans because everything you say is part and parcel of their talking points.
March 19, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Republican.
March 19, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is irrelevant. Everything you stand for is what Republicans stand for. It is the company you keep. Many republicans (Tucker Carlson comes to mind) claim to be libertarian so they can say they aren't republican. Who do you think you're fooling? Not me.
March 19, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Everything I say.." writes CVille Dem.
CVD, that assertion alone puts you in the non-credible category. Either you haven't read all I've written and speak in ignorance, or you have read it all (Lord help you) and are deliberately mis-characterizing it.
Either way you lose credibility with such extreme qualifiers. An extremist writes to the extremes.
March 21, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides that, the video smacks of classism. It's taking a couple of uneducated people from a demographic and ratcheting up the bias against them personally without offering alternatives itself.
March 19, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not wish to kill anybody. God won't talk to me. You sound pretty lucky. I mean, out of 6-7 billion people on the planet and he/she/it speaks to you.
Why not just speak your opinion. That is all we have.
We can only seek to find God's wisdom and it is hubris to think that any one of us already has attained it.
March 18, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't opinion implied since one person wrote the piece?
Did I say "God said"? No.
You've got other sources to look to for that.
Your opinion is welcome here too. What is it?
March 18, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd add, what are your observations and what is your experience? Our opinions involve our observations and experience. Those are welcome too. Or should we censor people who perceive communication of God in the loving conduct of some, and the absence of that communication in those whose conduct is not loving? That is at least one way that God's voice is detectable.
Anyone who has to call to public attention the good they've done, as seems a political formula among the partisans, has been manipulated not to be busy with goodness to others, but busy with proving their goodness.
March 18, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 18, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've experienced the joy of the opportunity cost. I met my baby alive and kicking after she was delivered. I felt her kicking while all of what she is was forming up in the womb from her genetic 'blueprint' (God's blueprint) and watched her heart beat on ultrasound long before she was born. From that experience I know what abortion kills.
And I know it shouldn't be everyone's responsibility to resole partisan involved economic inequities (gender or otherwise) before we call a stop to it.
March 18, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"resole" should be "resolve" above.
March 18, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so on, and so on...
Your characterization of women making the choice as "wish[ing] to kill the unborn ... is attempted revenge against God" is a false one. The truth is that every woman makes the choice for a different reason, reasons you can and will never understand.
Further,
I think most women who make the choice to have an abortion would say they are in fact taking responsibility for the problem -- making the hardest choice, ultimately, but often the correct one.
You have a strong faith in God, and many women who have abortions share your faith. Just as it's not your place to cast doubts or aspersions on their faith or lackthereof, it's not your place to judge them or make assumptions about or for them. You show little of your God's love when you speak as you do about women who resort to abortions.
March 18, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for according me some good faith. I appreciate it.
One thing you may have missed. I haven't referred specifically to women. I wrote "some" wish to kill the unborn. That certainly doesn't mean all. I suspect many are manipulated into it, deceived, and or in denial.
However, the hardened activists who work hard at keeping the abortion business going, that's another story.
March 18, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Yeah? Sure . . .
it's the same old broad brush all encompassing blanket statements.
Full of bull as per his long known MO.
He might get there some day.
Wherever "there" is.
If he works on it.
~OGD~
March 18, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something you missed about my original post:
I spoke of abortion in terms losing innocence and then coming to hate or even negate innocence using abortion.
It has all the features of denial: so long as the person cannot see what is happening, it is tolerable to kill the innocent. Talk about the silence of the lambs. And yet this insane thinking has become institutionalized with euphemistic words like "choice." It's a sham. The only reproductive choice for the great plurality of cases which are elective abortions, was to risk pregnancy. If it happens, it is a direct result of that choice. Pretending as if it just happens spontaneously and the first choice happens after pregnancy is a fraudulent sleight of hand.
March 19, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want euphamism? Try this one on:
PRO-LIFE! What a joke!
Pro sperm & egg, pro fetus, pro Terri Schiavo, and screw everyone in between is more like it.
March 19, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not using pro-life in the sense of any organization or political party. I'm using it in plain meaning and speaking for myself. As to the rest of your prosecutions of others' hypocrisy, this or that organization or party, please try to tie it into this thread more effectively.
March 19, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The plurality of cases are elective.
Rape is a circumstance I've addressed elsewhere on another thread on abortion in the past month. You can find that there, as it is going to far afield of the topic here. I do address it fully.
March 19, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, Mike. Is this supposed to be a sentence? I can't make any sense out of it:
Do you mean that people who get on a soap box about how good they are, are hypocrites?
Because I agree with that. I just passed a bunch of them in front of Planned Parenthood last weekend.
March 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speech against what is wrong utilizing the First Amendment in public is an important duty and cannot help but be public because getting the message out is the point.
To be hypocrites the abortion demonstrators you speak of would have to obtain abortions themselves or counsel others to do so while protesting the abortion. Also, if that were the case, if you call them out on hypocrisy, then you reinforce the argument of the wrongfulness of abortion.
You, and others, have said pro-choice doesn't mean "pro-abortion". If that were true, those activists for "pro-choice" would focus funds and energy on preventing abortion between conception and viability and from viability to partial birth as much as they push for abortive techniques and drugs. I urge them to move in that direction as it would better support the representation that they aren't pro-abortion.
March 19, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I asked you what your convoluted sentence meant. Rather than answer, you tried to correct what I said about people protesting a legal medical procedure. Yes, it is hypocritical because of all the things I and others have said over and over again. You're not listening.
March 19, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, mike, there is a spiritual path called the "way of negation". Which means that you need to deny every image, everything that you think God "is" - because God is always beyond whatever we can imagine or think or know. It has a long history beginning at least with Pseudo Dionysius, as you likely know.
I know you're hoping to convert people here. But if you really trust God, then you need to respect that only God can change people's minds and hearts. And God - which is way beyond what you or I know or can think or imagine - knows how to "reach" each and every person (and is with them, whether they recognize it as you want them to or not). We can't "contain" God in our categories or even think that we know what is in the hearts of others. They may not profess what you want them to, but you need to respect where each person is coming from.
In my view anyone who sincerely seeks Truth and Goodness is responding to Holy Mystery. Maybe not the way you would, mike, but even in negation, people can be led. Think of the Cloud of Unknowing.
And stand in awe of all the many ways that people seek to Love and do Justice and seek Goodness and Truth.
March 18, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks TheraP for sharing your theological knowledge of negation. Should I negate it to accept it?
You've written that I am trying to convert people here. No. I'm barely holding the line on some fundamentals of community.
Spoken by another kid popular on the TPMcafe playground, I'm sure you would enter ecstatic flourishes of agreement with what was written as yet another view from the beautiful diversity of views. However, I'm not that kid and it wouldn't get you any followers.
I know children are in the image of God. I know God is love. These things I know and believe, without characterizing percentages on them; how much is knowledge and what kind; how much is faith. It doesn't matter. These are truths higher than my own condition, yet it would be false of me to say I didn't believe them or didn't know them to be true because they are.
If one had to be perfect before speaking of something higher than themselves, who would paint? Who would speak? Who would argue for a higher standard? Should we ask those of the "other party" to be silent? I'm not a member of a party, but aren't they your neighbors? Aren't they part of the great diversity? Or is the diversity thing just a partisan vehicle for more clubbish abuse of power?
March 18, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like we're on a similar page then, mike. I agree that we can't really discuss it! And I accorded you the likely knowledge of what I was saying. But realize others may not have known that.
Peace be with you. :)
March 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't discuss what we choose not to discuss. We can't resolve what we choose not to resolve.
March 18, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace to you too, TheraP...thanks for imparting your knowledge.
March 18, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, what I'm getting is that your posts on this issue aren't open to the benefit of any discussion other than your 'side'. Your sole purpose is to shoot down every opinion but your own. I get it. So, I don't have to visit your blog anymore. I appreciate not having to waste my time here.
March 18, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where nearly every comment isn't an opinion or discussion but a non-sequiter or partisan attack, I'm not surprised you think that's my purpose.
March 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Flower, I think it is good to visit Mike's blog, if only to post refuting links that others reading can copy and use again. These subjects will be argued for some time to come.
March 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides that, a discussion goes at least two ways, and only the lily livered would expect discussion to be free of differences.
Carry on your wayward...shun.
March 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed that on one hand, commentators like a poster to be involved in the comments on their blog. However, if they disagree with you and you don't give in easily to those disagreements, I've noticed people attack you for being involved with the blog so it doesn't become a 'drive-by posting.'
With me, it's often like defending a paper whereas with Dem partisans there's usually a love fest or some kind of cocktail party conversation. How fun.
Every time I am misidentified as a GOP partisans, I realize how strong the partisan distortion on perception is.
March 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, when asked specific questions:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mike7woodson/2009/03/facing-god-god-and-self.php#comment-3411011
you are strangely silent.
March 18, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
This fella ought to go back . . .
. . . and write for the Soldiers for The Truth folks like he did back in 2004 . . .
It was all so well written:
Oh, that's right, that's not a high priority pressing issue anymore and it doesn't get his rocks off for the notoriety factor.
There it was military and guns.
Now it's "God" and culture.
Next?
~OGD~
March 18, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
H, yes, the Culture of Life! It is Sacred, no?
Well, I guess we now know why he wants every possible child to be born -- regardless of how hopeless and unhappy their lives would be. At least they're good for something: killing out enemies!
Thanks, OGD.
March 18, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, OGD, I think you scared him away from his very own blog. Truth -- painful!
March 18, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warriorcraft ---> pro-life?
Does the warrior really want to kill God? And that leads to guilt. And a conversion. And the need to tell women what decisions to make?
Or is that the warrior is bent on forcing people to behave certain ways - "or else" - and then's it's just one more step to being a pro-life warrior or you could call it an abortion-warrior, fighting the forces of darkness, warring against the God you once wanted to kill.
Maybe there are other explanations....
March 18, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the whole article before you armchair psychoanalyze it. The entire attempt here is to hijack the thread because you all don't like the direction it is going.
March 19, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not new. OGD has been quoting this one piece of mine out of context for some time here at TPMCafe, and he does it to disrupt discussions by introducing false controversy unrelated to them.
Here is the balance to his quote-out-of-context from that same piece in quotations below:
"American culture must help our children replace the toy-store fixation with plastic war heroes and enable in them the empowering realization that they can defend their people, their country and their freedoms. Men are not plastic and life is no game. Yet for some interests, it has been profitable to treat them like plastic game pieces at expense to life and limb.
As our population ages and immigration increases, we will need a mainstream warrior cohort integrated into civilian schooling that blends new immigrants with established citizens dedicated to the common defense of our nation. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to develop into a nerdy, yuppie techno-class that is protected, fed and clothed by a perpetual immigrant force of people who must take lower pay simply because they are newer and less educated.
To accept the status quo is to increasingly make military recruiting just another commercial industry, and that is an art that democracy cannot afford to make mercenary and factional: the art of war."
March 19, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
OGD has been quoting this one piece of mine out of context for some time here at TPMCafe, and he does it to disrupt discussions by introducing false controversy unrelated to them.
Oh my, finally you caught on. :-) (Just say no to barroom brawling for entertainment.)
March 19, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
When commenting on the phenomena of some American schools forcing the kids to wear uniforms to prevent gang violence:
"I've seen movies of school children wearing uniforms, from the 1930s. The problem was, I couldn't understand the narration, because it was in German."
--George Carlin
It does not matter the context of the passage OGD quoted from you Mike. You are advocating military training in grade school. The public schools were created to give at least a minimal education to create a more unified society (reading) and lower crime and poverty.
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html
To hijack that purpose to create good little soldiers is beyond contempt...it is actually treasonous. What exactly do you think the military is for? It is to fight for the freedom to think for yourself..not have dogma forced down you throat..especially in grade school.
March 19, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's the other way around. Currently, corporate conglomerates pay millions to back toys, products, cartoon media and other social shaping tools to teach children that war is a video game, or a robotic enterprise of killing others. My approach seeks to end that false indoctrination by having qualified combat veterans teach kids what it is like to encounter physical hardship, and about the human cost of war. They need to be taught not to take it lightly, or as a game of killing.
Folks with sensibilities (and false premises) like your own make the military a separatist culture by which an us-them attitude arises. In my piece I did not say and did not intend that children would be required to serve then or in the future. I did mean that children should be educated about the reality.
My biggest mistake in that piece was failing to say that the dollars may come from recruiting budgets, however, that the teaching function would have to be much more integrated with civilian purposes of education.
In other words, it should be as tobacco settlement dollars going to preventive health care. The DoD funds, but civilian education hires the retirees and has full supervisory authority. Legislation would have to cut all power of the purse string to DoD.
Ultimately, DoD anticipates using fewer troops to do the same job. However, those fewer troops should be better informed, better prepared, and more well-rounded before they should choose to step into what is now a glorified sales office. I'd like to see that change. I think it would be much harder for the DoD to engage in mercenary exploits and expect recruiting to work if the recruit field is well-informed about what they are asked to do.
It would also be a de-incentive for those who would like to attack the US, to know that its population is not soft and can adapt to defense pretty quickly. This capability reduces the PR effectiveness us-them fantasy that if our military goes out and wipes out our enemies abroad they won't come here for revenge.
March 19, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that this is a pro-life position because it "keeps it real." That is, there is not allowed to be the commercialization of killing that recruiting has been. It would have to give up those dollars so that from a young age, children get the real deal about warfare.
It's counter-intuitive to many, but if people want our military to be less adventurist, with its hands everywhere, and still have a military, guess where they have to live, work and train? At home. And if we make them an us-them community at home, that is an unhealthy schism.
March 19, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that the US military is adventuristic all on its own? My impression was that the Commander-In-Chief, aka the President, sent the military out to do battle.
March 20, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read Eisenhower's warnings on the military-industrial complex. Remember presidents have limited terms but careerists in implementation of policy may outlast many.
March 21, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post (Facing God, God and Self) I concur; what amazes me is that we have distinct choices in our lives, to choose God or not to. Not all those who do not choose God are evil in their actions or in their ideology or daily lives. However, by turning away, they have chosen what is intrinsically evil. God’s love and Grace extends itself to all including those who do not know him. I find it somewhat ironic that when we face the profound catastrophes’ in this life such as 911, and countless other atrocities that occur on a daily basis worldwide, we also see people turning their eyes to the heavens. When 911 occurred Churches were full, and we experienced a very short lived religious revival. In this country we are too distracted by hedonism to focus on humility and thanksgiving. Kalo Pascha Mike
March 19, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Parakalo and thank you for your friendly tone and good observations.
At times it is hard to make a point without being mistaken. Other times it is permissive to fight or fail to contain judgment. The amount of responding and the law of entropy make it a struggle.
Have a spiritually profitable lent. Keep me in your prayers so that I don't judge individuals but discern well and seek understanding to truth.
March 19, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a strong Christian, but I have many doubts about what "the church" is saying and doing in God's name. There are many times when I see our Christian leaders doing and saying things that have to leave our Lord cringing in embarassment.
There are many times when I see the Bible being enterpreted in ways that I find unfathomable.
The part of this post that disturbs me the most is the part about abortion. I find nowhere in the Bible where it says that life begins at conception. In fact, I would contend that if that was the case, we would have Christian burials for the product of miscarriages in the 1st trimester, but we don't. I hold to the belief that "life" begins when the "baby" begins to move, or at "quickening."
I don't think there are many people on the planet who LOVE abortion. I think most would hope that it could be avoided. But let's face it. Unwanted pregnancies occur. Back in the olden days, girls got married when they reached puberty. It was not unusual to have 13 year olds marry and begin popping out babies immediately. My grandmother, who died last year at the age of 89, was one of them. There was no need for "abstinance." By the time you were feeling the desire for sex, you were getting married.
Today, 13 year olds are considered children, yet they are faced with having to "resist" their sexual impulses (one of the most powerful impulses on the planet!)for many years, at an age when impulse control is NOT one of their strong suits. So, Biblically speaking, it makes more sense to have them marry at the age their bodies tell them they are ready to bear children, yet I doubt many who are "pro-life" are ready for their 13 year old daughters to get married. They'd rather torture them with forced suppression of natural, God-given urges. And worse yet, deny them the information that would help them prevent a pregnancy should they not be able to resist the urges. It is totally illogical.
March 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree wholeheartedly stillie. I believe that there is a middle ground. Moderate people of faith can still have their beliefs without infringing upon the rights of others.
http://obamaspeeches.com/081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htmTo quote our new President Barack Obama (I just love saying that):
March 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
MAGE, I LIKE SAYING THAT TOO. PRESIDENT OBAMA. I SWEAR I SMILE AT LEAST ONCE A DAY, WHEN THOSE WORDS ARE PUBLISHED OVER THE AIRWAVES.
March 19, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL..I do that too DD :)
March 19, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abortion is an infringement on the right of others.
March 21, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the olden days, obviously, and the political-economy has altered time lines for settling down. Educational expectations have too.
Sexually active kids don't do very well in school. They're distracted. Your representation that sexual repression is unhealthy for minors begs the question of whether Freudian repression theories are valid (along with penis-envy, for example).
March 21, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink