Disqus - Friends of BuckeyeDon

Re: Fair Questions for Sarah Palin

squeaky — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:10:09 -0000

Hey Canucklehead! I was so glad to see you post! I was thinking "who are all these newbies?" I felt like I had walked into the men's room or something!

So, yes, I found my way over here.

And Michael/Mick/littleroundtop, what's with the new handle?

Sheesh--does this mean we are going to have to figure out who moderatelad/bigguy is when he makes his way over here too?

Cheers!

Re: Fair Questions for Sarah Palin

squeaky — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:04:42 -0000

He's really not an anchor, though. Countdown is his take on the top 5 stories of the day, and so it is not so much a news show, as it is a one hour editorial. News people are allowed to give editorials. But we need to recognize the format when we see it and realize we are getting one person's opinion, not a balanced treatment.

Re: Fair Questions for Sarah Palin

squeaky — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:07:53 -0000

Yes--nice. Although, perhaps a little more confusing to follow the thread, as I see people add to each other's comments in the middle of the thread.
Cheers

Re: Fair Questions for Sarah Palin

squeaky — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:00:26 -0000

I don't think I like this new format--anyone else finding it difficult to follow?

Re: Fair Questions for Sarah Palin

squeaky — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:23:15 -0000

Click on options in the comment section (at the top). They are probably just folded in somewhere.

Re: God’s Politics Has Moved!

squeaky — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:54:06 -0000

I agree--especially since people added to other's comments in the meantime, so you have to go all the way through the thread to see if discussions have developed. I like that we can follow the discussion easier, although I think it actually flowed better the other way.

Re: God’s Politics Has Moved!

squeaky — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:55:07 -0000

Awesome! If I figure out how to post an avatar, mine will be of Stravinsky...a female stravinsky...can't remember if he was married or not...hmmm

Re: Two Options for Weathering Economic Storms: Wealth or Simplicity

squeaky — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:18:00 -0000

I'm reminded of the adage "live simply so that others may simply live". The issue of consumerism isn't only an issue that affects Americans who live outside their means and who are now feeling the results of not living within their means. But using the amount of resources we do affects people all over the world.

Check out this video:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Re: A Satirical Sermon Mocks Mammon-Worship

squeaky — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:43:46 -0000

fatman--did you even watch the video? What was he trying to say? What exactly did you think was so offensive in his message? What was so un-Christian about it? Why did DBB think it had an important message for us?

You know, we can gain wisdom from people who we don't think are Christians or who don't line up with our political ideologies. All it takes is listening and thinking about what they have to say. Sometimes people outside the faith have some amazing insights that people of faith should not dismiss just because they aren't "in the fold."

Re: A Satirical Sermon Mocks Mammon-Worship

squeaky — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:25:46 -0000

What I got out of it, ignoring the political undertones (although I admit I enjoyed them nonetheless), is his satirical statement that we should just trust and have faith in the Capitalist Free Market system. He said (satirically) that things may look bad now, but if we but trust in that system, it will all get better. Where is our trust as Christians? In the free market? If we put our trust in that free market, rather than in the Lord, is that not idolatry? That's what I got from the video. Not sure why you would think that message is problematic.

I suggest that if you did not catch that message, which really was pretty clear, you were focussing more on the political jabs than the truthiness of what he was really trying to say.

And having read many of your posts on other threads supporting the Biblical mandate to trust in God for our security, I certainly don't understand how you missed Colbert's message, especially because it essentially agrees with what you believe as far as where our security should come from.

Again, you can find truth in what people of different political ideologies have to say . And finding that nugget of truth doesn't mean you have to agree with the political jabs or the ideology.

Concerning your last paragraphs. You are back to your old tricks of putting words into my mouth. I really wish you would stop that. Please stop assuming you know what I think, especially when I hadn't even talked about what you said in those paragraphs. You assumed you knew what I got out of the Colbert satire.

In fact, a better way of conversing with me would have been to say "hey, I don't know what you liked in that video. This is what I got out of it. What did you get out of it?" See how asking such a question invites conversation? This is why I asked Fatman the questions I did, rather than just assume why he didn't like the video. I wanted to know what he found problematic.

Re: A Satirical Sermon Mocks Mammon-Worship

squeaky — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:20:33 -0000

Where did I say anything about putting trust in government? I thought I clearly explained what I got from the Colbert commentary, and I thought I also clearly explained that one doesn't have to agree with everything he says in order to gain insights from him. I'll say it again:

"Again, you can find truth in what people of different political ideologies have to say . And finding that nugget of truth doesn't mean you have to agree with the political jabs or the ideology. "

What you quoted from me in your post above is exactly what I got from Colbert, no more, no less. I have no opinion on the bailout because I haven't researched enough about it to form one. I do know that it didn't fail only because one party didn't vote for it. It was a bipartisan failure, and both dems and reps in my state voted against it. So, you assumed I agreed with a point you think Colbert was making, even when I told you clearly what it was I got out of it, especially when I had said nothing about the point you thought I had gotten out of it.

In fact, in the beginning of the video, I wasn't even sure what point he was making or who he was even blaming and for what he was blaming them, that's how little I understand this crisis. What I did get, however, was his satirical jab at our trust in Mammon.

"You claim to read what i write ? You assumed to know what I believe . I suggest you don't ."

Give me a specific example of where I have assumed to know what you believe. I point out that I wish you wouldn't do that to me (for the umpteenth time, mind you), and you turn around and tell me I do the same to you. Give me an example. You know, the correct response to my request of you to stop assuming you know what I think is this: "I'm sorry. I'll try not to do that from now on."

But I've made that request of you many times before, and you don't seem to want to honor it. If that's how you want to converse with me, fine. But don't expect much response from me from now on.

Re: A Satirical Sermon Mocks Mammon-Worship

squeaky — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:22:42 -0000

Thanks Don--as you can see, my patience is wearing thin.

Mick, it's just that it seems you judge every comment I make through preconceived notions you have of me, thinking me a liberal or whatever. I have seen you make some very thoughtful, balanced comments on this forum to others and to me as well. And then suddenly will be these comments where you introduce material that was not discussed by anyone and assumptions of what I (or Don) believe.

In the past, you have thrown in comments about what you assume my stance on abortion is, and you have done this (and this is important) within the context of a thread that has nothing to do with abortion and (this is also important) in response to comments I have made that include nothing about abortion.

In this case, my comments had nothing to do with political ideology, yet you insisted on assuming it was for political reasons I liked the Colbert video, even when (and this is important) I explained that it wasn't.

In doing this, you show very little interest in learning what I really think, and are more interested in broadbrushing me as a liberal. You seem to be more interested in arguing than in discussing and respectfully exchanging ideas and learning from each other. Which is a shame because I have seen you do the latter very well, and I think we could have a nice conversation and learn from each other.

I do suspect that the problems you have with me (and Don) has more to do with the nature of this forum than anything else. I think if we were having a face-to-face conversation, it might be easier to express our views, and much less easy to make assumptions about each other, especially seeing a living, breathing child of God in front of us. Instead, it seems all you see in Don or me is a 1-dimensional liberal, so you have set up a liberal strawman which you attack at every opportunity rather than having a true discussion with us.

In light of that, I'll repeat that if you are not willing to honor my requests, I suggest it may be better not to converse with each other because we don't seem to be able to communicate effectively in this forum. I mean no malice in that statement, and I wish you well. Sometimes it is just better not to say anything when it is clear we don't communicate well. I do think we would do better face to face, and next time I go to Bellingham, if you want to meet for coffee, I would enjoy that.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:28:51 -0000

kevin47--you should know better than that.

Kevin47--
If you don't like the post, explain why. Don't just insult the author. You're just being rude, and it is unbecoming of any Christian. Remember, people other than Christians visit this site, and we are witnesses to them. They will know we are Christians by our love for one another, and there was not one shred of love in your comment.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:56:40 -0000

Hey--you forgot Bach! Ahhhhh....Baaaaaaach!

Actually, as far as contemporary Christian music goes, one exception is Rich Mullins. We lost a good musician there. Phil Keaggy is quite a good musician as well. And I'm a big fan of Switchfoot.

I think you make a lot of good points about the separatist nature of Christian artistic ventures. Many Christians, it seems, feel a need to separate themselves from the world--if something is of the world, we shouldn't engage in it. For example, my brother for quite some time would not listen to secular music, and preached to me how I shouldn't either. If he had had the opportunity, I'm pretty sure he would have smashed all my Elvis and Manilow records (OK, many would smash the latter, but for very different reasons).

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:13:29 -0000

'Tis true. I've been a closeted Barry Manilow fan for years. I would go into the closet and sing Mandy and Can't Smile Without You.

But isn't there tolerance in the Christian world for diverse musical tastes? I will not be discriminated against any longer! I'm out of the closet singing Copa Cabana loud and proud!!

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:16:42 -0000

OH-my bad...I got caught on your mention of John Tavener, not to be confused with John TavERner.

Although...I would argue Bach could be considered contemporary because his music is being played by contemporary instruments that didn't exist in his day, particulary the marimba. Ahhh...Bach on marimba. If he had had it in his day, he would have composed for it....ahhhhhhh....Maybe not a strong argument, but it's all I have, so I'm sticking to it.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:21:16 -0000

I agree--he would have done both.

If I had a time machine, I would love to bring Bach and Beethoven into the future to see what they think of the music and how they would draw from all the sources out there they didn't have before, including the contemporary composers, world music, jazz, and, yes, even Barry Manilow. Hopefully we'll get to hear it in heaven. If that's what heaven is like.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 2)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:28:04 -0000

I agree in principal. However, there are also a lot of predatory ministries out there--broadcasts that implore their viewers to sew a "seed" (aka, usually at least $1000) of faith, which they back by twisting Biblical scriptures to fit their greedy ministry.

It is true that even these "ministries" can lead people to Christ, and thank God He uses even these greedy ministries in that way. However, I do wonder at what cost? It's probably very difficult to determine, but I wonder how many people have been turned away from the Gospel because of these ministries giving them the impression that Christianity is all about fooling people into sending money in exchange for the promise of prosperity.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:53:41 -0000

This comment

"Your post is solipsistic drivel. Humor that. "

is insulting. When I grade papers, I would never write such a comment, even if it was true, because it is not the least bit constructive and doesn't help the person understand what the problem is.

"I explained why I disliked the post"

No, you did not. An insulting comment is not an explanation of why you didn't like the post. All it is is an insult, and nothing more.

Your post above actually does explain why you didn't like her article, and is what you should have written in the first place. It is a post that actually invites discussion rather than turns it off. I hope you can see the difference.

As for your comments, I agree with Don that you need to pay attention to the Part I and patiently wait her next report. In Part I, she set up the dichotomy to express her own biases and prejudices in preparation for Part II.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:07:02 -0000

Apparently you only think sarcasm is funny when it is you who is writing the sarcasm.

Read her second post--she is setting the scene for where she stood before writing her second post, and extends a great deal of charity towards those with whom she doesn't agree.

What is EWTN, anyway, and who are Paul and Jan? It would be helpful to refer to people by their last name. I apparently don't watch enough Christian TV to know who they are.

I can appreciate the work these ministries are doing for the Gospel, but certainly you can understand the cheese factor she is reacting to?

And also, certainly you can understand there are ministries who bilk their viewers out of thousands of dollars to sew a "seed of faith"--many who fall for that are people who cannot afford it. Often I have heard them tell the viewer to use their credit card if they don't have the money in their checking account.

There is room for praise, but there is also room for criticism of TV ministries, and we as Christians need to hold these ministries to higher standards, especially those who clearly are not on the up and up.

That is not to say that all TV ministries are like that, and I have nothing but respect for Billy Graham and the work he has done for Christ. I also really enjoy the Day of Discovery broadcasts.

But in your defense of TV ministries, be careful not to make the mistake you think she is making. You think she is calling all TV ministries crooked and distasteful. Don't make the same mistake by defending them as all being worthy of praise, for that is not the case at all.

Re: Whew!

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:16:16 -0000

Ummm--the thing is, Wallis post seems to agree with you that the Couric interview was getting old. Which is why he said "enough already!" Not sure what you are complaining about here.

The Republicans knew for months about Ifel's book, and they had the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the moderator, but they did not. She asked fair and balanced questions to both candidates, showing favoritism to none. What's the problem? She has shown herself to be a professional in her career, and I suspect Republicans know that about her, or they would have asked for a change in moderator.

Re: Whew!

squeaky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:19:33 -0000

I agree, Payshun. She did fine in the eyes of her supporters, but she only had to do fine to be considered successful.

She is great at avoiding giving straight answers to questions. She did it more eloquently than in the Couric interview, but she still did it.

Re: Whew!

squeaky — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:36:21 -0000

"But the post to which I was responding insinuated that Biden was spontaneous and independen"

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again."

Always putting words into my mouth, Kevin. I insinuated nothing. I said nothing about Joe Biden. And there was no intent whatsoever to insinuate he was Mr. Perfect in the debate.

Certainly I thought he got off topic as well, and even announced such to the person I was watching with. But Palin did it on the majority of her questions, and that has been her modus operandi in all her interviews. She even said as much in the debate, basically saying she doesn't have to answer any question she doesn't want to.

Re: Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television (Part 1)

squeaky — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:52:38 -0000

"Take a look at the store front ministry in your city or town. "

What do you mean here? Store front ministries as in churches? Money being bilked from parishiners? It's called a tithe, and it is biblical.

And why are you justifying those TV ministries that get people to send them money in exchange for some huge, blessing, a blessing they have no business promising? Why do you point to something worse to show that what is being complained about isn't that bad? Can't you just agree that it is bad and wrong and unChristian? Why do you defend these cheats and charlatans?

Yes, as I said in my previous post, there are good ministries out there. But just because there are doesn't mean we give a pass to those who are just trying to make money off of gullible people. We need to hold these people to higher standards. Not only because they are cheats, but because they are giving those who really are working to do the Lord's work a bad name.

No--I don't watch that much Christian TV. When I was in Indiana, the Christian station had broadcasts from LeSea, and if you watched them, you might know why this concerns me so much. And hopefully you would see that not every Christian ministry is on the up and up, and we shouldn't just turn a blind eye to them. We do that, and we are justifying them.

Re: Whew!

squeaky — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:44:27 -0000

This is a good point, Moderatelad. You are not happy that Biden didn't refer to Pres Bush as president. Now you perhaps understand why many of us here think you are being disrespectful when you refer to leaders in the Democratic party by their first names, as in Nancy, rather than Speaker of the House Pelosi, and even the good ole BHO discussion we had awhile back. Hopefully now that you understand how that is disrespectful, you will stop doing it.