Thursday, April 10, 2008

Lessons for the Strong and the Weak

Life is Full of Contrasts and each one of us is unique. We each have our own journey to travel, tasks to perform, lessons to learn, crosses to bear, mountains to climb and obstacles to overcome. Below are a few scripture verses that relate to the Strong and to the Weak.

For the Strong

"1) Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2, KJV.

"But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says, 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'" James 4:6, NIV.

"For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" 1 Corinthians 4:7, NIV.

”34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Take your inheritance; the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35) For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36) I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37) Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38) When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39) When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41) Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42) For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. 43) I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44) They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45) He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46) Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:34-46, NIV

"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12, KJV.

Summary: Be humble and do not judge. Give to the poor.

For the Weak

"14) Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15) To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16) The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17) So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18) But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19) After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20) The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' 21) His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 22) The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents. See, I have gained two more.' 23) His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 24) Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25) So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' 26) His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27) Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28) Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29) For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30) And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" Matthew 25:14-30, NIV.

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings as eagles. They shall run, and not be weary, and they shall walk, and not faint."
Isaiah 40:31, KJV.

"And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."
Galatians 6:9, KJV.

"For verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20, KJV.

Summary: Share whatever talents you have no matter how small or insignificant they may appear. Do not ever lose heart and don't ever, ever give up.

Here is a message for Republicans and Democrats...

When it comes to Democrats and Republicans it is so hard to find the middle ground. Sometimes Democrats stress love, forgiveness and grace so much that they exclude responsibility, yet sometimes Republicans stress responsibility so much that they forget to love.

I've often heard it said that "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, he will eat for a life time.”

The problem with Government is that so often things are done in accordance with one extreme or the other. The big Government Assistance Programs that are pushed by the Democrats too often only give men fish. The programs offered by the Republicans, however, sometimes do not go far enough, because sometimes there are just as many emotional obstacles to success as there are lack of skills. Republicans too often only teach skills and than expect people to go out there and either sink or fly. And sometimes they will even go so far as to beat up the injured and fearful by accusing them of stupidity, lack of discipline and laziness. I happen to believe in Counseling and Encouragement and it is also important to remember that while they learn how to fish, they do need to eat.

Life is Full of Contrasts; Contrasts between two extremes budding heads with each other. Can’t we all just realize that the truth lies in the middle?


The Griper said...

very nicely written, lista. thoughts both on the group level and on the individual level. i liked it. discipline without love is not discipline of the behavior but punishment of what you be.

Lista said...

Glad you liked it, Griper.

Even though the date posted is yesterday, I put this on the web only a moment ago. Apparently, the date reflects when we start a post, not when we finish it.

The Griper said...

you asked me in another post why i think individual over groups maybe this can answer the question best.

you can have individuals but not have a group but you cannot have a group without individuals for a group cannot exist without individuals.

while groups have greater power than individuals the power of that group is limited to the number of individuals within that group.

and even then the power of a group can be dependent upon the power of the individuals in the group.
that is the basis of the dominant/minority theory.

we must also remember that groups begin and end with the individual.

lastly, in order to say that something affects the group it must first affect the individuals within that group. and it must affect enough of the individuals to say it affects the group.

make it a little more clearer?

BB-Idaho said...

Rather expected in the contrast of weak and strong with relevant biblical verse, the "blessed are, etc"? Especially since most early Christians were indeed poor, meek and often persecuted. Regarding the 'battle between conservative and liberal, Oswald Spengler's 'Decline of the West comes to mind (Wiki summarizes pretty good, if one wants to avoid both huge volumes!)
His view was that the rise and fall, cycling of civilizations, was the interplay of popular opinion with the progress of the state...and as is usually the case, those who took the middle road are always reviled by the strident minorities on either side.
Yet the middle opinion, somewhat in contradiction, is slowly influenced by one extreme or the other...thus the drift of a society from fresh, patriotic and vibrant to bickering, close-minded
and stagnating. Not that I agree with old Oswald S..I'm a trifle more optimistic.

Lista said...


There are so many verses that I could have used, but it's never possible to really say all that can be said.

Strident Minorities are so verbal and obnoxious. Aren't they?!

As to the bickering, one thing that I've actually been getting a little frustrated with is this "slippery slope" idea. Take the Abortion Idea, for example, the Pro-Abortion side has been so reluctant to give in even in the area of Partial Birth Abortion, which can be done right up until the due date of the baby. The Abortion Industry doesn't want to compromise because they are making money on Abortion, yet those who are caught up in the movement, don't want to compromise because they are afraid this will start a "slippery slope" towards over turning Roe vs. Wade.


You've really got me thinking about this Individual vs. Group idea. I still have thoughts on it, but it's taking me a little time to get them out of my head and on to the page. I'm really sorry that I so often side step you when you bring the subject up. I don't think I'm even finished with the two posts that I've been talking to you on within your blog. Let me take another pass at it either tonight or sometime tomorrow.

If anyone else wants to follow some of this dialogue, it's on two of Griper's Posts; "Freedom means Individualism" & "Government, Behavior and Change". Just click on Griper's name to get to his web sight.

Gayle said...

Excellent post and summaries, Lista! I'm sorry, but although I do find much middle ground with some liberals, like BB for instance, I doubt if I can ever find middle ground with the extreme left or the extreme right. *sigh* It's an impossible task!

Blessings. :)

Lista said...

That's the thing, Gayle. Don't you see? If you're in the middle and not out on the extreme, than they need to come in to you. You've already come half way, by being a moderate, rather than an extremist.

The Griper said...

"than they need to come in to you. You've already come half way, by being a moderate, rather than an extremist."

unfortunately, lista, that is not how compromise works. and that is the idea you are trying to portray here.

Lista said...

I guess that would explain why I start with an extreme argument at times that is more than I'm expecting to get. That is how bargaining is done.

Lista said...

And anyway, the compromise needs to take place between the parties supporting the opposite extremes, not between one of the extremes and the moderates.

BB-Idaho said...

Interesting the tie-in between "the strong & the weak" and the follow-up about "extremes & comprimise". Naturally, one thinks of the old saying 'never negotiate from a position of weakness/always negotiate from a position of strength. Pragmatically, compromise entails
trade-offs..I'll give up proposition A, if you will give up proposition B. Such is human nature that we will not 'give up'
unless we feel we gain something, which is why compromise is difficult to achieve, and why we see negotiation as a seemingly endless process. Classical cases
were labor-management negotiation, where 'strength' was typically of near equal portion. Legislative bodies exhibit similar negotiation to compromise: the results leaving
those on the extremes often frustrated and disappointed. Failure to comprimise can lead to revolution (Louis XVI taxing his peasants into starvation..subsequently losing his head) or war (Saddam refusing
arms inspectors..slavery issues in
1860 US). And there are times when compromise is beyong events
(Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms..weak, but protected by powerful entities). Finally, compromise/negotiation are commonplace tools in day to day
business operations (As a manager, I submitted a yearly budget in the millions..this led to rounds of 'negotiations' as to what was
required, what the consequences of
non-funding in certain instances would result in, etc). Current anthropological thinking is that
the human brain applies most of it's power and memory to 'social'
issues..'reading' the other person's opinion and feeling, that we learn to do this from the time we are infants, that language and sociability is to a certain extent "pre-wired" in the newborn.
That this developed in the dawn of history, when the group had to share a 'kill' or a berry patch, or organize a hunt...or even come face to face with some new group they had never seen. So, agreed
there are 'weak & strong' and compromise & negotiation: one of the natural conditions of our species. Surely, I have bit off
a lot of bytes here, and will close before hitting the end of the byte allotment!

The Griper said...

"And anyway, the compromise needs to take place between the parties supporting the opposite extremes,"

therein liees your problem lista, extremes will not compromise. they are called extremes because of the zealousness of their beliefs. and that is why moderates are not true moderates. they are only leaning to one side or the other. and if they are influenced it is further toward the extreme of what they were.

Lista said...

"Therein lies your problem, Lista. Extremes will not compromise."

Actually, therein lies the problem of America. Usually moderates are closer to the truth than extremists and should try to not be swayed by them. You are making it sound as if there is no such thing as a person who changes parties, but this is not so.

Lista said...


I tried to submit this comment last night, but for some reason it didn't go through. I must of hit the wrong button (Preview, instead of Publish). Oh well.

You mentioned the beatitudes and once I got thinking about it, I realized that the reason I did not use the beatitude verses is because the theme in them is blessedness, which is a benefit or reward, not an instruction and the theme of the verses in this post was God’s instructions to the strong and to the weak, not how blessed they are.

The words “Strong” and “Weak” in the above context refer mostly to those with the ability to succeed or not succeed in a Capitalist Society. Oppression and Persecution can occur as well, yet that was not the focus.

If you live in a highly Republican state, BB-Idaho, than it may appear that the “Middle Opinion” has drifted right, yet it seems evident to me that in the country as a whole, the “Middle Opinion” has drifted way left, especially in the area of family values.

I only mentioned “bargaining” because Griper and I have talked about it before and I have compared the debates between individuals and also political groups to a “bargaining” process because it seems to be something that he can relate to.

When you said “Never negotiate from a position of weakness”, I was thinking of how weak individuals have just as many needs, or actually even more so, as the strong and therefore, need to find a way to negotiate. A person can’t always wait till he or she is strong before seeking out what he or she needs. One example of this is that someone with emotional problems may not have the emotional strength to stick up for oneself and negotiate for what that person needs, yet the needs are very real and being in a position of weakness, does not make these needs go away. It only makes them worse. Unless someone decides, out of the compassion of their own heart to take pity on this weak and non-efficient negotiator, the needs will just remain unmet. This is why the Bible tells us to simply give to the poor, not wait until they’ve earned what they need through skilled negotiation.

I don’t know if that made sense of not. I’m using the word “poor” broadly to include poverty of spirit, emotion, energy, strength, skill, motivation, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that social skills and the “reading of the other person’s opinion and feeling” (Perception) is “pre-wired” in the newborn is debatable. If this is pre-wired, we were not given an equal share of this gift. Disfunctional families can also do havoc on a child and later adult’s ability to read others correctly. Inconsistencies and unpredictable behavior in parents teaches the child not only mistrust, but also confused perception.

I guess my concern is over people who think that anyone can just go out there and bargain and negotiate in order to get what they need and want. Democrats are generally more sensitive to things like this than Republicans are and are more willing to offer governmental assistance, but than again, I’m talking to a Democrat now, aren’t I?

Don’t worry. I’ll eventually turn on you as your ideas become too liberal for my liking. The Democratic Party appears to be moving towards socialism. I’ve heard such negative things about Socialized Medicine. I do believe in expecting some things, even from the weak, and I am very Republican in my thinking on the moral issues.

Don't worry about the number of bytes, BB. You can write as many as you like. Though, you will need to do so with patience because longer entries take me longer to respond to.

BB-Idaho said...

Regarding "The idea that social skills and the “reading of the other person’s opinion and feeling” (Perception) is “pre-wired” in the newborn is debatable." Yes, very much so.
I was thinking more of language acquisition by the very young, as well as how they pay such attention to what us oldsters take for granted. As far as the "5 attributes", the Chomskey conroversies, nature vs nurture,
genetic phenotypes: all arguable
(as are most of the social sciences). Not sure if it was Stephen Pinkers' "The Blank Slate" or some similar book, but read that
of the nurture portion, we are influenced 25% by parents, 25% by siblings and 50% by peers. Most in the field (which I am definitly not) believe that there is much interaction and feedback between
our inherited tendency and how
we acquire knowledge, personality, etc. Enough so, that it is currently an active research area.
All of which supports to some extent those anomalies of everyday life: the rich or professional parents with the terrible kids and the person who struggles to greatness from unpromising beginnings.

Lista said...


Thanks again for your comments. The percentage numbers you listed no doubt vary with age groups, as well as individuals. Teenagers being very high in the peers area, those who are close to their siblings would be higher in that area and so on.

Boy! There's a lot of IQ in this room. You probably read more books than I do. Your information may even be more current.

I like to think that I have a lot of wisdom sort of knowledge, so you just tell me what you know and I'll probably have an option on how the knowledge should be applied to life.

For example, if nature is a factor or even if past experiences can greatly mess us up, than we shouldn't judge each other, but instead try and help in any way possible and that is exactly what God has asked us to do.

Lista said...


Sometimes I think it's funny what my first reactions are to things. I read comment after comment of you quoting from something that you've read and my initial reaction to it is to feel inadequate and wonder whether or not I can actually compete with such a thing, yet I forget one of my own principles on the matter, which is that that's not really what matters.

Perhaps we shouldn't view every discussion as a debate in which someone has to win or loose and not every discussion is a negotiation or bargaining ploy either. Instead the idea is to learn something.

Once I've got that out of the way, I begin to realize once again that though I'm not a total genius, I really don't do so bad either and when I look at your last comment now, I'm thinking, "Come on, Lista. It's not really that hard."

I know that quite a bit of what we learn in "Social Sciences" is arguable. It is really difficult to find good research in which the samples used are not biased in some way. For example, if a study is done in a Conservative state, the results may be different that if done in a Liberal one or if a study is done in a retirement community, the results will be different than if it is done in a college town, etc. etc.

When people know that they are being observed, they act differently than they would if they were not being observed, but because of privacy issues, they have to know that they are being observed.

I also know that "Most in the field believe that there is much interaction and feedback between our inherited tendency and how we acquire knowledge, personality, etc." The whole nature vs nurture debate is silly because it is quite obvious that both are at play.

Too often the nature part of the equation is ignored and because of it the very existence of "the person who struggles to greatness from unpromising beginnings" causes the genetically gifted to judge all others who for some reason are not succeeding at doing the same.

Beth said...

Hi Lista, I read through your comments at my blog as well as your writings here. I get the feeling that you are not comfortable with what you consider extreme views, and feel that people should all compromise to get to some middle ground position. I really couldn't disagree with you more. If I feel strongly, as I do, that conservatism is the right path to follow, I cannot see where giving into ideas that are based in anything even remotely liberal is a good thing. You may think I am extreme, I call it being true to one's priciples.

That being said, as a Christian, I do feel that conservatism and compassion can co-exist.

Lista said...

Hi Beth,

Of course conservatism and compassion can co-exist and they are supposed to. All I’m doing is urging whoever is listening to do exactly that. It's just like I said in the last comment that I left on your blog and I will say it again; “When I say stuff like that, Beth, I’m not addressing it to the author of the blog. I’m simply making a statement to all of the masses out there that this is something that we need to be careful of.” By “Stuff like that”, I mean when I make comments about things such as “judgmental Republicans that just expect stuff, but don't show love”. So what is the conclusion of that statement? Well, that conservatism should include, or “co-exist” with, compassion, just as you have said.

I’ve actually just started as a blogger, Beth, so I do not have pages and pages yet explaining my point of view, but I’d like to draw your attention to a few things about this post. First, the subject of the above post was not the moral issues, but the financial ones. This post has more to do with Government Assistance Programs than with things such as Abortion and Gay Rights.

Secondly, the verses quoted for the strong and the weak could be taken as instructions for individuals, not necessarily for the government and how the government should be run. For example, when it comes to giving to the poor, some of this can be done on a governmental level, yet we are also instructed to do it as individuals. Unfortunately, when the government takes too much away from the private sector, charitable donations go down and this isn’t good. It makes more sense to allow the individuals in society to donate to the causes that they choose to, than to have the government trying to do all of it for us.

The next thing that I need to say may surprise some of the people who have been following me so far, for as I was writing one of the above comments, I was realizing that I’ve changed my mind about something that I used to believe in and I realized it as I was writing it. This happened when I wrote a comment on April 11, 4:08 P.M. in response to BB-Idaho. When I was writing about the “Slippery Slope” idea, I wrote about the Pro-Abortionists being reluctant to give in in the area of Partial Birth Abortion “because they are afraid of the ‘Slippery Slope’ towards over turning Roe vs. Wade.” Originally, the comment included a paragraph starting with the words; “Likewise Christians...”, but I ended up deleting the paragraph before hitting the Publish Button because I realized that I’ve changed my mind, at least in relation to Abortion. Mostly, this is because of what I’ve learned since I’ve began to council Pregnant Teens and I’ve read all kinds of things about Abortion that the common public is not aware of.

By this, I do not only mean information about Fetal Development and the like. The fact that what’s killed is definitely alive and definitely a baby is only the tip of the ice berg. I’m going to eventually do a post on the subject.

I never said, Beth, that people should ALL compromise. My current thoughts, at least on the subject of Abortion, are that there are some things that simply can not be compromised, which is basically what you are saying.

What it comes down to is that TRUTH is often in the middle, but not always.

With that said, I need to revisit something that Griper said. In his comment on April 12, 10:57 A.M., he stated that when Moderates are influenced, “it is further towards the extreme of what they were.” Well, to this, I’ve just got to say “not always and it depends” and even if I myself am swayed more towards an extreme than I used to be on a certain issue, this doesn’t mean that I have done so on all of the issues.

I used to believe that the answer was just about always in the middle, yet as BB-Idaho said in his first Comment, submitted on April 11, 2:07 P.M., “The Middle Opinion is slowly influenced by one extreme of the other.” Since the “Middle Opinion” in any given society can move towards one extreme or the other, this obviously can not be our sole measurement of what’s true and what’s not.

There’s one last thing before I close. My discussions with Griper has had a lot to do with Political Activists Groups, which is actually a little different subject than the Group verses Individual idea in relation to Republicans and Democrats. After reading your blog entry, Beth, entitled “The Individual Spirit”, I saw the issue in a whole different light and for this I want to thank you.

Thanks again for dropping by. Please keep coming back. You are welcome here any time.

BB-Idaho said...

"I read comment after comment of you quoting from something that you've read.." Apologies; a couple reasons for it: I used to do a lot of technical papers and everything required justification & documentation; subsequently, in
blog comments, some people are curious as to where our ideas come from. For example, 'people are born liberal or conservative' sticks in my mind, I ran across it somewhere..were I to argue that position, I would return and find the source. [rest easy, I won't :)] Our political opinions
are just one aspect of our 'being', and be assured, there are really nice conservatives and really nice liberals; if you read enough blogs, you will find the converse as well. Regarding political POV, one blogger lists on his sidebar, Us, Them & Common Ground..sort of counterpoint to your strong, weak & compromise.
Regarding abortion, your work with
pregnant teens certainly gives you insight and supports your pro-life position. Unfortunately, legal or not, it has been around forever:
worse, tribes such as the African
!Hmong and even the so-called civilized Greeks practiced infanticide. The morality of the issue is exemplified in US foreign aid, which forbids abortion (since Reagan) and we have primitive parents with HIV passing it on to children who will die a horrible death before puberty, unless they starve first. Does that justify
abortion? From a moral standpoint, no. In my neighborhood, we had two young women, one a class president, who shot themselves in their parent's home, rather than
carry their unborn to term. They received church counseling, etc, but felt compelled, (driven?) to the ultimate act of desperation. Apparently, the
liberal position centers more on
'a woman's right' POV..sort of like gov't in the bedroom thing.
In fact, there are some who are so consistent they reserve the right to bear arms along with the right to abortion..liberatarian types.
So, when you write of compromise, strong, weak and extremes, you tread in pretty complex areas.
Complex in that there are rights
and wrongs and moral imperatives.
Fascinating. But, back to the beginning, sorry for throwing out
books and refs [heck last month I read a fat textbook on Immunology
just for pure delight]. I am not
pedantic, pretty stupid, in fact..
that's why no comment on your poetry..just don't understand poetry..still embarrassed by my
college grade in the subject!
Here I go, pushing the byte limit once more....

Lista said...

Hi BB-Idaho,

I’m so glad you came back.

Maybe I’m the one who should Apologize for the “Comment after Comment” remark. That was just me feeling inadequate, like we all do at times, yet just like I said, Competing is “not really what matters”. “Instead, the idea is to learn something.”

I don’t really mind that you quote from books. I’m just surprised that there are so many smart people on the web. I don’t know what I was expecting, but between you and Griper, there are times in which I don’t feel all that qualified to teach much to either one of you. That’s my own inadequacy talking, though, and I know it’s at least partly nonsense, so you can ignore it whenever I talk that way.

That quote “People are born Liberal or Conservative” is nonsense. Though there are genetic tendencies towards genius or slow learning, as well as certain skills such as music, art, math, social skills, introvert, extrovert, etc., all of which could contribute to success or failure in a Capitalist Society, even so, there are nurture factors as well and often people initially take the position opposite their parents out of rebellion.

I’ve really been torn about what my next post should be. I’ve considered another poem, a Word Picture/Allegory, some more discussion of Individuals verse Groups and even my Testimony and then of course, there is the subject of Abortion, which I appear to be avoiding because of the controversy and also because there is such a large amount that I could say. I guess I should just stop dragging my feet and just post something.

It’s too bad about those two girls you mentioned that committed suicide. Apparently, the fact that Abortion is legal didn’t prevent this from happening. Most of the Laws written to restrict Abortion include the option of pleading one’s case before a judge and if the stress in the girl’s life is significant enough, the judge will allow the Abortion to take place.

You mentioned “a Woman’s Right”. This is usually stated as the “Woman’s Right over her own body”, yet the unborn baby is a separate individual, with a whole separate set of chromosomes and his or her own Unique Genetic Make up.

My poem really doesn’t have any hidden meanings, BB. It just means that life is not all positive and good all the time, but it’s not all bad either. There are both Positives and Negatives in Life. The phrase “Can you not see the love present here among the ones who believe?” puts a Christian slant on it, in that the love of fellow Christians, as well as God Himself, helps us to see the good in Life.

One thing I am quite certain of, BB, is that you are not “stupid”; not even close, so don’t go calling yourself that.

Also, even your longer comments are considerably shorter than some of mine, so stop worrying about bytes.

Beth said...

Lista, I just went ahead and added your blog to my listing of ones to check out. I kept getting here through your profile page, and we seem to have a few things in common from seeing your profile.

I will add to this discussion, too, when I have a bit more time.

Lista said...

Thanks for the Link, Beth. I returned the favor. Come back and comment when you have time, yet there's no rush. Though I probably will post again soon, this is a relatively slow moving blog.

Beth said...

You shouldn't feel pressure to blog, I don't post to mine every day, I blog when something I am thinking about moves me to blog about it.

As for the original topic of the strong and the weak, I do agree as a Christian we are called to use our talents for our own self, and to also help those who need it. And I think we agree that it should not be done on a large scale by the government.

As for people who hold extreme views, for politics and social issues, I think the problems we have stem from people not looking at them objectively, and also not being consistent.

Rush talks about people who take liberal premises and try to tweak it towards conservative. This is not conservatism! Your comments about working towards the middle made me think of this, and I agree with Rush, we shouldn't compromise our principles.

As for the comments on abortion, it seems like you plan on doing a separate posting on it, so I will save my comments for that time.

Lista said...

Your attitude about blogging makes more sense than this posting daily thing. I was reluctant to start a blog at first because I was quite certain that I would never be able to keep up with such a pace and started only when I was able to give myself permission to post less often. I thought that I might post a couple of times a week, though, and sometimes I fall behind even in that goal.

Even as a reader, I feel frustrated when some of the bloggers that I like post daily and if I miss visiting their blog in too many days, I can fall so far behind that I miss reading some of what they've posted. What's the point in posting more than some of your readers are even going to have the time or take time to read?

As to the rest of your comment, you said "I think we agree that it should not be done on a large scale by the government." Well, not on as large of a scale, as to lead to socialism. I believe in programs that both educate and encourage. Free hand outs should be reserved for the handicapped that genuinely can not work.

People have a tendency to form opinions based on how the things in government are going to effect them personally and most people can not see beyond that. Yes, we need to be consistent, yet also willing to change our views if new information supports a different position than our own.

Since I've been hearing so much talk lately about the idea that "We shouldn't compromise our principles.", I'm beginning to wonder if I should try and redefine what I mean by "Compromise" and "Extreme". Perhaps all "Extreme" means is beyond what is reasonable and true, such as expecting more than we should and doing so without love or assistance or on the other side, giving more than what's needed.

The only "Compromise" that's really needed, if it can in fact be called "Compromise", is returning to what is true and being reasonable about it.

Getting back to the not feeling pressured to blog idea, I blog when the conversation seems to be moving towards a certain issue that requires more than just a brief answer in the comment area, or when someone seems to be waiting for my next one, such as your comment "I will save my comments for that time."

I am planning on doing my next posting today, though, and was planning to before you said that.