For I Was Hungry
Around the nation a larger percentage of the people are talking about the money that President Bush is pushing for them to get. This rebate from the IRS. As one of the many citizens of this great nation who sits at the poverty level, I can understand why this is a big deal to them. Perhaps so much so that they don't understand what a big deal this is to the President and his party.
You see, I can't buy that this is being done out of benevolence on his part. I can't buy his stories about economic stimulus (perhaps because many economists will point out that this won't work, since the splurging will be done on foreign made products), no, all I can see is the President trying to do something incredible in a feeble attempt to overshadow what he has done in the past eight years. Not so bad an idea. Many wonderful things Clinton did were forgotten when the question of adultery was raised. Why not try the reverse?
Soon we will again be making a decision between the parties of two groups with decidedly different agendas and I find the whole process making me sick to my stomach. Outraged that we moved to impeach a President over a blowjob, but have yet to do so over war crimes. Outraged that this President and the Right that pulls his strings make decisions contradictory to their own bibles in alienating people and getting our own people killed for no good reason.
The title of this post references Mark 25. (I believe, I may be a little bit rusty. I am fairly certain of the 25, it could be Matthew.) Most of you Christians will understand what I reference, and you non christians won't care.
Think over and read over that verse and its context and think of the following potential, reasonable, replacements:
"When I was loyal, you sent me off to die."
"When I was sick, you refused to allow the person who knew me best to see that my wishes were met."
"When I loved, you condemned me for it."
Any of these sound like things you want said in that same judgement day scenario?
I brought up the concept of caring for our own in the last post, and I carry on with that theory now. In keeping with the above, I will offer another parable.
Two sets of parents left on a lengthy trip. Each leaving an elder son to care for a younger son.
In the first family, the elder son spent a good part of his time preaching to the younger about all of the various ways he needed to clean up his life. He lectured about how he should live, and then when he was sure his brother had gotten the message, he went on to similarly educate his neighbors.
In the second family, the elder son spent most of his time drinking and smoking pot. He had parties and slept around and made full use of his independence.
When the two sets of parents come back, what do they find? In the first home, they find that the eldest son has been too busy teaching his morals to care for his brother. They find the brother malnourished, and very sick.
In the second they find the house trashed, beer cans, roaches and condoms everywhere. A very hungover brother is watching his younger sibling eat cheerios in front of his cartoons even as the noise of the latter hurts his head.
In the first, the brother is righteous, in the second most certainly not. I blanketed religions in my last question and condemnation of the human nature, now I turn back directly to the Christians, for your god addressed the very question:
"When I was hungry...."
Do you good Christians vote for the same group who ban relationships between those "horrible sinners" who wish to live in homosexual realtionships that hurt nobody? The same righteous group that is responsible for our sons and daughters, neighbors, sisters and brothers coming home in boxes? Do we vote for those "righteous" folks who are destroying life after life? Or do we vote for the human race? Those who want our soldiers alive? Those who want loving relationships to thrive regardless of whether they fit the mold?
Yes, I know some generalization goes to both sides. Yet there is that thought "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren."
"I came to you as a homosexual just looking to live in peace, and you......"
"I came as a soldier, not wanting to die, but ready to do so to defend my fellow man, and you....."
A) Abandoned me.
B) Saw me safe and secure in a loving home.
Which do you choose? Which gets you into heaven? Which simply makes you a decent human being?
Just some thoughts on life, or something close to it.
You see, I can't buy that this is being done out of benevolence on his part. I can't buy his stories about economic stimulus (perhaps because many economists will point out that this won't work, since the splurging will be done on foreign made products), no, all I can see is the President trying to do something incredible in a feeble attempt to overshadow what he has done in the past eight years. Not so bad an idea. Many wonderful things Clinton did were forgotten when the question of adultery was raised. Why not try the reverse?
Soon we will again be making a decision between the parties of two groups with decidedly different agendas and I find the whole process making me sick to my stomach. Outraged that we moved to impeach a President over a blowjob, but have yet to do so over war crimes. Outraged that this President and the Right that pulls his strings make decisions contradictory to their own bibles in alienating people and getting our own people killed for no good reason.
The title of this post references Mark 25. (I believe, I may be a little bit rusty. I am fairly certain of the 25, it could be Matthew.) Most of you Christians will understand what I reference, and you non christians won't care.
Think over and read over that verse and its context and think of the following potential, reasonable, replacements:
"When I was loyal, you sent me off to die."
"When I was sick, you refused to allow the person who knew me best to see that my wishes were met."
"When I loved, you condemned me for it."
Any of these sound like things you want said in that same judgement day scenario?
I brought up the concept of caring for our own in the last post, and I carry on with that theory now. In keeping with the above, I will offer another parable.
Two sets of parents left on a lengthy trip. Each leaving an elder son to care for a younger son.
In the first family, the elder son spent a good part of his time preaching to the younger about all of the various ways he needed to clean up his life. He lectured about how he should live, and then when he was sure his brother had gotten the message, he went on to similarly educate his neighbors.
In the second family, the elder son spent most of his time drinking and smoking pot. He had parties and slept around and made full use of his independence.
When the two sets of parents come back, what do they find? In the first home, they find that the eldest son has been too busy teaching his morals to care for his brother. They find the brother malnourished, and very sick.
In the second they find the house trashed, beer cans, roaches and condoms everywhere. A very hungover brother is watching his younger sibling eat cheerios in front of his cartoons even as the noise of the latter hurts his head.
In the first, the brother is righteous, in the second most certainly not. I blanketed religions in my last question and condemnation of the human nature, now I turn back directly to the Christians, for your god addressed the very question:
"When I was hungry...."
Do you good Christians vote for the same group who ban relationships between those "horrible sinners" who wish to live in homosexual realtionships that hurt nobody? The same righteous group that is responsible for our sons and daughters, neighbors, sisters and brothers coming home in boxes? Do we vote for those "righteous" folks who are destroying life after life? Or do we vote for the human race? Those who want our soldiers alive? Those who want loving relationships to thrive regardless of whether they fit the mold?
Yes, I know some generalization goes to both sides. Yet there is that thought "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren."
"I came to you as a homosexual just looking to live in peace, and you......"
"I came as a soldier, not wanting to die, but ready to do so to defend my fellow man, and you....."
A) Abandoned me.
B) Saw me safe and secure in a loving home.
Which do you choose? Which gets you into heaven? Which simply makes you a decent human being?
Just some thoughts on life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 8:10 PM
24 comments
