rimbaud: "You are right, it is terribly biased of me to point out parallells between this article and imagery of Christ that has been used for ~1700 years. I notice you are very selective in your response." <b>RR: I didn't have time to take you on point by point. If there is something particular you would like me to address, point it out.</b> rimbaud: "The article mentiones him being unruffled, un-daunted, etc on many occasions, despite all of these liars, actors, cheaters, etc going against him. Obviously, you did not pay much attention to the original article, much less my responses." <b>RR: The liars and cheaters remark is pointed at his predecessors in office I do believe. There is an opening derogatory remark about the Democratic machine that was attempting to influence the outcome. Check it yourself.</b> rimbaud: "Where did I ever criticize Bush for wanting to learn from the bible? You are just being silly." <b>RR: You wrote: "Comparing Bush's situation to biblical events, with all of their same implications. Bush is learning truth from/about God just as the holy men of the Bible." I take that as criticism of his being,say, pretentious enough to act like a Holy Man of the Bible. Isn't that what you were driving at? Reading the ispired word of God is the way that every Protestant learns from the Bible, therefore it is hardly worth mentioning much less criticizing, yet you insist on doing so. Since you know your Christian history so well, I'm surprised you don't know this. (Rimshot)</b> rimbaud: ""Fancy" words, huh? Again, you are being silly and juvenile. Words are words, they are descriptive. What makes these so fancy? The fact that you don't know about Christian history? Sorry, I thought you would be familiar." <b>RR: Am I going to have to make a poll here and find out how many knew what caesaropapacy was? Why would you think anyone here would be famililar with that minute a detail of Christian history. Get off your high horse! And stop trying to be insulting about it. We may send you to detention OR make you tutor the jocks.</b> rimbaud: "If the author of this really did not understand the imagery upon which he/she was playing, these are terribly amazing coincidences. Learn a little more before you accuse me of bias." <b>RR: Perhaps s/he is using common language? Perhaps s/he is not "playing off imagery" with any intent? Have you noticed that only you are calling the author out on this? For the rest of us it just reads like any other old tribute-- a bit to melodramatic for haven, though. Are you denying your bias about this?!!! Gee whilackers.</b>
Max, How long has Dubya been in office? Certainly not as long as FDR was when World War II started. He's only about 8 years behind him in that regard. I know what you are saying and you have a point. But my point is let's don't get crazy and proclaim Dubya to be this great leader just yet. Let him finish one term and see if he gets re-elected. This author could had said the same thing about his daddy because of the Gulf War. I wouldn't doubt if there was drivel like that article about Dubya Sr. at one time. Yea, Dubya Sr. turned out to be a great leader--too bad he didn't get re-elected for a 2nd term.
fair enough, manny...i would agree. did the article actually compare him to them or just say he was facing a situation like they faced?? i just don't remember. but i would agree...you can't write the story of his presidency until it's complete.
Max, The article didn't come out and compare Dubya to them, but the language is there. Maybe I'm reading more into it than that is actually there. I just think that articles like this one don't serve much purpose. It seems to be a self-serving one, and I don't like reading or hearing about articles like that in a time like this. But, I agree. We will find out about Dubya's place in history when his presidency is over.
Rich, I feel that these are some of the most important comparisons I made earlier: "But I firmly believe when the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees." Obviously, Bush will lead us to a kind of "holy land." "It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him. "He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place of God, just him and the Lord. "In that brief time it took him to return to his seat, I believe he heard words to the effect of, "You can do this, George. I am with you always. And you can do this well, because I am going before you. And don't worry about the weight. I've got it." And I saw in his eyes a quiet acknowledgment. "I know. Thank you, Lord."" This is some great stuff...the hand of God imagery is always to announce Christ, it has never been used for mortals. The closest would be its association with Mary, but that is only because of her role in Christ and her own form of intermediary status. Not only that, but God is talking to Bush...and he answers back. He has been priveleged, he did not die. According to many passages, mortals would die in that kind of presence. Indeed, this insults Catholocism (the original Christianity, the reason it is still around, etc), as there is no direct communication with God...or Jesus for that matter. Bush, apparently, transcends this. Also, Christ is at the right hand of God in heaven. Whil side is not proclaimed, there is clearly a comparison with Bush sitting alone with God. "who never once gave in to the temptation to get in the gutter with his foes" Use of the word temptation is obvious here...Bush does not sway, that is Saint-like, at the least. This is where I feel obvious comparions are mad that had to be known. I cannot explain why no one else is pointing out these similarities. Perhaps they: 1. are not familiar 2. think that they are right 3. do not care 4. feel it will not do any good...the list goes on and on...I do not presume to kow the minds of others. RR: You wrote: "Comparing Bush's situation to biblical events, with all of their same implications. Bush is learning truth from/about God just as the holy men of the Bible." I take that as criticism of his being,say, pretentious enough to act like a Holy Man of the Bible. Isn't that what you were driving at? Reading the ispired word of God is the way that every Protestant learns from the Bible, therefore it is hardly worth mentioning much less criticizing, yet you insist on doing so. Since you know your Christian history so well, I'm surprised you don't know this. (Rimshot) I think you are misunderstanding me here. First, I have never criticized Bush at all...he really has nothing to do with this (directly). My issue is with the writer. Also, biblical holy men such as David did not learn from the Bible, as Bush would do now, they learned because they were holy people, David being really the first in the Christ lineage. Actually, reading the Bible is the way for all Christians to learn, but that is not what is going on here, in this text, Bush is chosen in that he converses and "sits alone" with God. This to me is a big difference and, as I have triedto show, is blasphemous to the original concepts of Christianity. In regards to strength against the forces agains him. The liars, actors, etc, are politicians in general, you already mentioned the beginning paragraph, but there is also the attempt (which I already poited out was inaccurate) to show that Bush is a man of God in the face of these anti-God prevailing environments. That only he is strong enough to do so, apparently no one else has ever mentioned God or Jesus in public life and doing so "hrt" Bush in the eyes of infidels. That is incorrect and over-dramatic stacking of the deck. RR: Perhaps s/he is using common language? Perhaps s/he is not "playing off imagery" with any intent? Again, it would baffle me greatly if this were troo. There is too much religious symbolism to ignore. This person seems to be very religious and I would like to give him/her the benefit of te doubt. Also, it is very efective and well done in this respect. I also go back to the "this is the man" having very close similarities with Christian non-biblical sources. If this is all not true and there is no understanding of them, then I would lose respect in the author. As far as my bias that you keep trying to pin on me, I will answer with a laundry list. 1. I am not a Bush fan (but I do think he has handled these events fine). 2. I do not like the casual use of religion in this manner (as I read it) and do not like the corrupting of Christian tenents to meet political gains (of the writer, not Bush). 3. I do not like writings that distort facts. 4. I think that any president would be doing the same thing in these events and Bush being religious does not mean that he is special. There are - and have been - many religious presidents and other government officials. Jimmy Carter was extremely religious and he has always been portrayed negatively. Sure, he wasn't a very good president, but according to this author, he should have been because of his strong faith. Al and Tipper also have a lot of faith - based connections. 5. I do not like the arrogant, all knowing tone of the article. Come to think of it, this author seems to know a lot about what is in Bush's mind and about his conversations with God...hmmm. This is all I feel like writing...there is no point. My bias has already been externally assessed. Rich seems to know more about my mind and motivatios than I. Mais vrai, j'ai trop pleuré! Les Aubes sont navrantes. Toute lune est atroce et tout soleil amer: L'âcre amour m'a gonflé de torpeurs enivrantes. O que ma quille éclate! O que j'aille à la mer!
rimbaud -- i think it's possible you've spent way too much time with this!! i think ultimately the author is a Christian who is simply relieved that during this time of crisis, she/he perceives the President to be a man whose heart is pulled by God. Or at least a man who tries to acknowledge Christ as the center of his life. We could try to compare this letter to scripture or compare George W. to David, and even though there are some analogies, such analogies are never perfect. But I think this has taken up much more of your time than it probably deserves....just my opinion.
Max, you are probably right. I guess I should have dismissed it for what it was instead of analysing it. I knew I was wasting time, but saw things that I wanted to point out, anyway...I appreciate your help.
This is one of the most disturbing things ive EVER read. The person who wrote this is using God for their own political beliefs and as a Catholic that makes me sick. Yes, I believe that George Bush has done a decent job so far, but this article makes it seem like God has chosen him as the savior of America which is also disturbing. Also one more thing from your "great" article : "Our President needs Christians around the world to be praying for him. " So only Christians can pray for him or what ???
Had I known that this would create such a stir, I would have explained this piece was not written as an article. It is a tribute that was written and meant to be distributed via email to "fellow Christians" whom the recepient knew would enjoy receiving, reading, and passing it on. I doubt it is thought it would be definitive. It's not the inside authority on George Bush. It is a tribute and an admiration penned by someone who wanted to share it with like-minded people and create a prayer chain for President Bush in this hour of need.
rimbaud: I never claimed to "know" your bias but I could smell it a mile away. On to your points: <b>"It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him.</b> RR: Having God's hand guiding you is nothing new to me and thousands of people that I know. <b>"He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place of God, just him and the Lord.</b> RR: I read this as emphasizing President Bush's isolation with the enormity of God and the enormity of his task as President. Prayer is a personal matter. <b>"In that brief time it took him to return to his seat, I believe he heard words to the effect of, "You can do this, George. I am with you always. And you can do this well, because I am going before you. And don't worry about the weight. I've got it." And I saw in his eyes a quiet acknowledgment. "I know. Thank you, Lord."</b> RR: That is just one woman's opinion and it's not out of line with the kind of things people will talk about when they feel that they have had their prayers answered. <b>This is some great stuff...the hand of God imagery is always to announce Christ, it has never been used for mortals.</b> RR: That is BS. Than hand of God imagery is used constantly by modern Protestantism. <b>The closest would be its association with Mary, but that is only because of her role in Christ and her own form of intermediary status. Not only that, but God is talking to Bush...and he answers back. He has been priveleged, he did not die. According to many passages, mortals would die in that kind of presence.</b> RR: When was the last time you set foot in a church. In my life, people commune with God all the time. Now, meeting God is a different matter! <b> Indeed, this insults Catholocism (the original Christianity, the reason it is still around, etc), as there is no direct communication with God...or Jesus for that matter. Bush, apparently, transcends this.</b> RR: This is the ultimate PC copout. Do Catholics go around being insulted because Protestants do not worship as they do? I know that Protestants are not insulted by Catholic rituals and practices. They simply don't subscribe to most of them. <b>Also, Christ is at the right hand of God in heaven. Whil side is not proclaimed, there is clearly a comparison with Bush sitting alone with God. </b> RR: Stretch. In my opinion, the author is simply cultivating an image to stress the aloneness of prayer and the isolation of Bush in his immense job. <b>"who never once gave in to the temptation to get in the gutter with his foes"</b> RR: This refers to, what, a 2-week period between 9-11 and the service at which this behvior was obsreved. It is not the "near-deification" that you are striving to assert. You are making a finite observation infinite and distoring the meaning. <b>Use of the word temptation is obvious here...Bush does not sway, that is Saint-like, at the least.</b> RR: Have you ever resisted temptation? Good, then I'll start calling you Saint Rimbaud. Or shall it be saint rimbaud? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nowhere does the piece indicate that Bush is the only one capable of such tempered and spiritual response. That is YOUR contribution. It expresses a deep appreciation that he IS such a man who can and who has. That's all. The language here is very common. It's your language that is not. In everyday language, people use words that perhaps once had a very potent and specific meaning but have come to lose that meaning completely or have it changed, i.e. kids singing "Ring Around the Rosey."
I cannot smell bias. I know the difference between a guiding hand and a hand resting upon. I just threw out the Catholic angle for fun. It would have been so easy to go farther. I am good at abstaining (drip, drip, drip). Protestants, by definition, are offended by Catholocism. Discuss. If I am adding things because of my horrible bias, you are excluding them...apparently you will not admit that. I admitted that I might have tried to make this writer smarter than he/she really is, with all of the imagery. Again, I would be disappointed if it was all non-intentional. "You are making a finite observation infinite and distoring the meaning." Are you trying to get fancy on me? This, as of now, is not finite, anyway, because Bush is continuing to be...the rest just makes me smile. I am sorry my fancy language is hurting your head. I assumed that even if no one had heard certain words they could understand them just by looking into roots. Now we can play a game. What were caesars, czars, kaisers...? Political rulers. What are popes? Religious leaders. What do you get when you combine the two, both linguistically(sign) and physically(signifier)? Hmm... Christomimesis? Chrsit+mimic=? I do feel sorry for you, though...you are always so innocent. You start a thread with a "tribute" that is meant for "like-minded christian and Bush supporters" on a worldwide-read board with christian (many different kinds), muslim, jew, buddhist, hindu, agnostic, atheist, and satan worshipping (achebe) readers and think everyone will love it, not be offended, and not challenge it? Of course you did... And then it happened again in your innocent christian bumper stickers thread. Poor Jimmy Carter. God did not put his hand on him because he was a democrat. eva/ave. exegesis. pantocrator.
rimbaud: I cannot smell bias. RR: Figure of speech. rimbaud: I know the difference between a guiding hand and a hand resting upon. RR: Tell us then. rimbaud: I just threw out the Catholic angle for fun. It would have been so easy to go farther. I am good at abstaining (drip, drip, drip). Protestants, by definition, are offended by Catholocism. Discuss. RR: I am Protestant and am not offended by Catholicism. Most I know are not. Only you academics, I guess. rimbaud: If I am adding things because of my horrible bias, you are excluding them...apparently you will not admit that. I admitted that I might have tried to make this writer smarter than he/she really is, with all of the imagery. Again, I would be disappointed if it was all non-intentional. RR: I add or exclude nothing .. except in my defense.. and I try to keep that minimal which you do not. rimbaud: "You are making a finite observation infinite and distoring the meaning." Are you trying to get fancy on me? This, as of now, is not finite, anyway, because Bush is continuing to be...the rest just makes me smile. RR: The piece had a limited time frame of reference. It observed a short period of his presidency. I'm not trying to be fancy; I'm just trying not to let you get away with twisting the meaning. rimbaud: I am sorry my fancy language is hurting your head. I assumed that even if no one had heard certain words they could understand them just by looking into roots. Now we can play a game. What were caesars, czars, kaisers...? Political rulers. What are popes? Religious leaders. What do you get when you combine the two, both linguistically(sign) and physically(signifier)? Hmm... RR: These insults are getting childish. My head is fine. I had a very good an accurate idea about what your words meant. I do know some roots, you know. You assigned the words (caesaropapacy et al) based on a distortion of her tribute. I think I sufficiently countered your accusations. rimbaud: I do feel sorry for you, though...you are always so innocent. You start a thread with a "tribute" that is meant for "like-minded christian and Bush supporters" on a worldwide-read board with christian (many different kinds), muslim, jew, buddhist, hindu, agnostic, atheist, and satan worshipping (achebe) readers and think everyone will love it, not be offended, and not challenge it? Of course you did... RR: We post. You decide. I don't give a rat's ass what you think about it. I only trouble to counter your misrepresentation because I think you do a dis-service to the author and to the others reading here. I didn't ask for or expect everyone to love it. I am surprised that anyone would be offended by this. It comes from a valid perspective. Anyone offended needs to be more open-minded. Challenges are fine so long as they are fair-minded. I find yours not to be for the most part. rimbaud: And then it happened again in your innocent christian bumper stickers thread. RR: Yeah, kind of disappointing there. People of little or no faith tend to be vitriolic to things that bespeak faith. rimbaud: Poor Jimmy Carter. God did not put his hand on him because he was a democrat. RR: Do you know that for a fact? Call CNN.
Protestant=one who protests. I thought I was supposed to be childish since we were playing ring around the rosey. OK, enough games for today. Everyone must permit me my moments of weakness. To all, Rich is right in all of his comments. I am very biased, I suck, and am apprently not very thorough (I was afraid my posts were too long). I attempted to place powerful and good symbolism in what was just an "insider" fluff piece. I am sorry. Academics do not belong in dsicussions with the masses. I should hold true to said truism. BGM, Max, I appreciate you guys for understanding what I was doing, or at least trying to do.
rimbaud: "Protestant=one who protests." RR: Since when does protesting equal being offended? That IS what you are saying. rimbaud: "I thought I was supposed to be childish since we were playing ring around the rosey. OK, enough games for today. Everyone must permit me my moments of weakness." RR: Good. I'm tired of your incessant mind-games. rimbaud: To all, Rich is right in all of his comments. I am very biased, I suck, and am apprently not very thorough (I was afraid my posts were too long). I attempted to place powerful and good symbolism in what was just an "insider" fluff piece. I am sorry. Academics do not belong in dsicussions with the masses. I should hold true to said truism. RR: How melodramatic! You make a fine victim. Yes, you are biased as we all are. You just pretend not to be and hide behind academic jargon. Snore. Your attempt to place "powerful and good symbolism" was nothing but an attempt to demean and ridicule the piece. How disingenuous. I doubt it was an "insider" piece. It probably was written by someone sitting at a home computer. "Fluff" -- your bias is showing again. I found it to be fairly powerful though imperfect; thanks for trying to ruin it. You are welcome to bring your "academic" perspective-- just do it in such a way that it is instructive and fair-handed. Oh, they don't teach you that do they?!!! rimbaud: BGM, Max, I appreciate you guys for understanding what I was doing, or at least trying to do. RR: Don't forget me. I understood what you were trying to do as well; I just chose not to let you get away with it!!!!! Nor did I agree with your butchering.
outlaw: No I don't think that the opposite holds true as generally as what I asserted. There are always instances. The Lambs of God do go over the edge a lot, but they are a minority. Here a simple tribute is made out to be heretical and politically incorrect for no reason that I can find to be valid in spite of rimbaud's incessant search to prove it. He twists and distorts what was said to try and prove his point. He makes grandiose accusations which the actual text cannot back-up. As rimbaud pointed out, the same thing happened to my "innocent" post about the Christian bumper stickers. Is that a pattern or coincidence?
This piece of pure propaganda addressed to the benighted followers of the Rev. Jerry Bob bin Falwell is not a a serious piece. It deserves the ridicule that was given the other post a while back in which the poster speculated whether GWB might go down as the greatest leader in history.
I agree with Glynch (pinching myself now), this piece is religious propaganda. A lot of the things in that piece could be said about bin Laden. Allah is guiding him, the Koran explicitly tells what's right, and so on. If GW derives strength and confidence from his faith then that's great, but let's leave it right there. This piece should be shredded for it's out and out lies and misrepresentations.
