Preface
Winter by Bob Ross
Under construction November 2024, for a reworked version for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.
In the past on this website, back when I had fewer readers, I pondered on the concepts of blessings that last, in comparison to blessings that do not. Here are some revised concepts.
At Thanksgiving in October in Canada, and November in the United States, as well at Christmas and New Years, the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print.
I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) μακάριος/makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).
From
Matthew 5:3
"Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
μακάριοι (36) μακάριος (114) Adjective blessed, happy
Parsing Nominative Plural Masculine
Related Words None found.
Context in Matthew 5:3 αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων ... οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι
Strongs # 3107 supremely blest; by extension, fortunate, well off
Thayers at Crosswalk Thayer's
LSJ (from Perseus) Click For LSJ
Middle Liddell (from Perseus) Click For Middle Liddell"
Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air'. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).
It can be seen through the works of Strong, Bauer and the Zhubert Greek Project that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.
Secular happiness in our present realm can be somewhat synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death.
A related argument:
Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.
Premise 2: The deduction is made that a famous and respected billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.
Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.
Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.
Premise 5: The respected billionaire's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy his legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with the billionaire's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember him or experience his impact.
Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.
Explanation:
Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and substantially everlastingly meaningful.
The historically based gospel through divine regeneration of a person and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to the same, offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
Under construction November 2024, for a reworked version for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.
In the past on this website, back when I had fewer readers, I pondered on the concepts of blessings that last, in comparison to blessings that do not. Here are some revised concepts.
At Thanksgiving in October in Canada, and November in the United States, as well at Christmas and New Years, the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print.
I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) μακάριος/makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).
From
Matthew 5:3
"Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
μακάριοι (36) μακάριος (114) Adjective blessed, happy
Parsing Nominative Plural Masculine
Related Words None found.
Context in Matthew 5:3 αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων ... οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι
Strongs # 3107 supremely blest; by extension, fortunate, well off
Thayers at Crosswalk Thayer's
LSJ (from Perseus) Click For LSJ
Middle Liddell (from Perseus) Click For Middle Liddell"
Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air'. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).
It can be seen through the works of Strong, Bauer and the Zhubert Greek Project that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.
Secular happiness in our present realm can be somewhat synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death.
A related argument:
Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.
Premise 2: The deduction is made that a famous and respected billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.
Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.
Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.
Premise 5: The respected billionaire's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy his legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with the billionaire's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember him or experience his impact.
Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.
Explanation:
Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and substantially everlastingly meaningful.
The historically based gospel through divine regeneration of a person and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to the same, offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
Blessed Article:
ReplyDeleteGod gives us days and years but sometimes we live our lives in moments, and these moments can be filled with incredible blessing and joy, but like many things in our lives, seasons come and seasons go. Reflect on these things.
-Wise Guy-
My friend, that reads like a greeting card. You should write a book or something.;)
ReplyDeleteHi, Russ. I like your explanation at the end there. In a very big way, the very fleetingness (fleetfulness?) of our earthly life is what drives us to seek something more. Jesus said that we should store up treasures not on earth, but in Heaven. I think there is no greater treasure or legacy than to have led someone to the Lord. That is where our lives get their meaning and purpose.
ReplyDeleteGreg, thank you, those are helpful comments.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the quick comment soon after the article was posted!
Russ:)
I read some while ago, by some puritan or other, that it is easy for us to be blessed, and happy when we have termporal comforts. We only really find out if our happiness comes from God and a state of blessedness, (divinely) when all those comforts are taken away, by if we are still happy now they are gone.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand your point. I reason we basically agree. The peace and joy of knowing the true God is beyond the happiness of other circumstances which include fulfilment and happiness.
"Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God"
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to how I understand the Bible speaks of "blessedness", especially in Matt. 5. Our Pastor says it this way:
"Though 'blessedness' is often associated with good fortune and the happiness it produces, its biblical meaning is richer and more theologically significant: Blessedness speaks of the condition of being approved or highly or uniquely regarded (cf. Gen. 1:22, 28, 14:18-19, 31:55; Ex. 20:11, 39:43). Either men or God can be the subject or object of blessing, but here (in Matt. 5) it seems to indicate primarily God's favor toward and approbation of those being described. In turn, this divine approbation results in a personal, inward state of 'blessedness'--settled contentment or felicity--for those thus approved (ref. esp. vv. 11-12)"
With this understanding, and in light of Jesus' message in the Sermon on the Mount, this "state" of blessedness is declared on those who even now participate in the substance of the Kingdom of Heaven in Christ (it's our present "status" now, not a future "potentiality"); the blessedness of the Beatitudes describe the essential (new) nature of those who are citizens of the Kingdom and not personal disciplines by which we can hope to enter into it.
Of course, as your article suggests, the perfected "state" of blessedness will come in our "perfected" state of humaness in the consummation at Christ's return. We have the first-fruits, so-to-speak, of the "blessedness" that will be ours for eternity in the consummated Kingdom.
Good stuff, Russ!
GGM
Thanks, Jason.
ReplyDeleteWe agree.
Russ:)
News from Canada:
ReplyDeleteCBC
'Liberals, NDP, Bloc sign deal on proposed coalition
'We must try to make this Parliament work,' Dion says of accord
CBC News
The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois, if they are successful in ousting the minority Conservative government in a coming confidence vote.
The accord between parties led by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe came just hours after Liberal caucus members agreed unanimously that Dion would stay on to lead the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support in the House of Commons from Bloc MPs.
Duceppe, Layton and Dion signed this document securing a coalition deal among their three parties. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
The six-point accord includes a description of the role of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, which would meet separately and sit next to each other on the government benches in the House of Commons, Dion told a news conference alongside Layton and Duceppe.
Dion said he has advised Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean in a letter that he has the confidence of the Commons to form the government should Stephen Harper's Conservatives be defeated in a confidence vote.
The Liberal leader said the parties reached the accord after watching the "sad spectacle" of other countries' governments acting to counter the "unprecedented" global economic crisis while Harper's Conservatives "sat and did nothing."
"Given the critical situation facing our fellow citizens and the refusal and inability of the Harper government to deal with this critical situation, the opposition parties have decided that it was now time to take action," he said.
"We are ready to form a new government that will address the best interests of the people instead of plunging Canadians into another election."
Details of the deal
The proposed coalition government includes:
24 members of cabinet and Dion as prime minister
18 Liberal cabinet ministers (including a yet-to-be-named Liberal finance minister)
6 NDP cabinet ministers
6 NDP parliamentary secretaries
The 2 caucuses would sit side by side in the House of Commons
The agreement between the NDP and Liberals would expire on June 30, 2011, unless renewed. The Bloc is only committed to 18 months.
Dion, who previously announced he would step down as Liberal leader, also pledged he would hand over "a strong government for a stronger Canada" to his Liberal successor on May 2.
"I am honoured to do that," Dion said.
Layton said the accord's proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy, which includes support for the auto and forestry sectors, is "prompt, prudent, competent and, most important, effective."
"This Parliament has failed to act, and it falls on us to act," Layton said.
The NDP leader also called on the prime minister to "accept this gracefully" and not bring further instability by fighting the verdict of his colleagues in the House.
"Prime minister, your government has lost the confidence of the House and it is going to be defeated at the earliest opportunity," he said.
Following the opposition news conference, Harper dispatched Environment Minister Jim Prentice to address the "serious" situation.
Prentice called the opposition pact "irresponsible and undemocratic" and said the government will consider all options.
He wouldn't rule out the government's asking Jean to suspend Parliament until late in January, when the Tories have promised to introduce a new budget.
The proposed coalition cabinet will comprise 24 ministers and the prime minister. Six of these ministers will be appointed from within the NDP caucus. The position of finance minister would be held by a Liberal, while the NDP would be allotted six parliamentary secretaries.
The accord between the NDP and Liberals will expire on June 30, 2011, unless it is renewed. The Bloc is only committed to 18 months.
It includes a "policy accord" to address the "present economic crisis," which states that the accord "is built on a foundation of fiscal responsibility."
An economic stimulus package will be the new government's top priority, while other policies include a commitment to improve child benefits and childcare "as finances permit."
There is also a commitment to "pursue a North American cap-and-trade market" to limit carbon emissions.
Accord 'in the best interests of Quebec': Duceppe
The Bloc would not officially be a part of the coalition, but the new government's survival would depend on its support.
Duceppe said his party entered into an agreement that is "in the best interests of Quebec, of Quebecers during this time of economic difficulties."
"We chose for the time being to give priority to the economic situation and to the assistance we must provide to people," he said.
He added he did not agree to support the coalition beyond the 2011 date because the various parties could not agree on "concrete action to recognize the Quebec nation."
Parliament is due to vote on a Liberal no-confidence motion on Dec. 8. If Harper's government were to lose a confidence vote, Dion would request that Jean approve the proposed plan to form a coalition government.
But the Governor General, who is currently on a state visit in Europe, could also decide to send Canadians to the polls for a second time in less than two months. The prime minister could also still block coalition efforts by proroguing Parliament — that is, suspending it without dissolving it.
Dion has support from Liberal leadership candidates
Liberal leadership candidates Dominic LeBlanc, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, left to right, throw their support behind current party chief Stéphane Dion for a coalition government after a caucus meeting Monday in Ottawa. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)
Dion, who has been blamed by some for the Liberals' poor showing in the October election, had agreed to step down as party leader in May.
However, in the hour-long meeting on Monday, Dion received support from all three Liberal MPs vying to replace him, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, the CBC's Susan Bonner reported from outside the House of Commons.
The three leadership candidates emerged from the meeting together and told reporters they agreed to Dion's presence, but insisted the campaign to replace him will continue "in the normal fashion."
Ignatieff, who is the front-runner to succeed Dion in an upcoming leadership convention, said the three candidates were "at one" in their belief that "the only leader who can lead us in this context is the duly elected leader of the Liberal party."
"I support the accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in," he said.
Rae described the caucus meeting as "historic" and "moving," while also saying the deal was "perfectly constitutional" and would present for Canadians "the very best possible government."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion on Monday of "playing the biggest political game in Canadian history." (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Since then, the Liberals had been in negotiations to form a coalition with the NDP, planning to oust the Conservatives in a confidence vote.
During question period in the House of Commons on Monday, Dion challenged Harper to allow his government to face a vote.
"Does the prime minister still believe that he enjoys the confidence of this House?" Dion asked.
A fiery Harper, in turn, accused Dion of "playing the biggest political game in Canadian history," saying the Liberal leader would recklessly attempt to govern the country amid a global economic crisis under threat of veto by "socialists and separatists."
Dion reminded the House that in 2004, in a letter to the Governor General, Harper — then-opposition leader — proposed that he be allowed to form a government if Paul Martin's Liberal minority government were to fall.
NDP would hold 25% of cabinet spots
Earlier Monday, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who took part in the talks, told reporters that "a very constructive, positive agreement has been reached between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party that will bring stimulus to the economy, which is badly needed."
"There are going to be a lot of jobs, a protection of pensions and I think we can look forward to a very constructive period," he told reporters, saying the deal included aid for the suffering auto and forestry sectors.
The Canadian Press reported a source saying mid-Monday that the parties had agreed to present a $30-billion stimulus package that would offer substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries.
The source said the deal also calls for the formation of an economic advisory panel of experts that would include Paul Martin, John Manley, Frank McKenna and Roy Romanow.
Details of the agreement were fleshed out Sunday night.
PM 'has no one to blame but himself: Rae
If the prime minister moved to prorogue Parliament, the Conservative government could not be defeated in the current session of the House. But Harper would also need the approval of the Governor General to do that.
But Rae said a move to prorogue would lack legitimacy, as it would clearly be to avoid a vote of confidence.
"Mr. Harper has no one to blame but himself for the fact that he's not been able to gain the confidence of the majority of the House," he told the CBC's senior parliamentary editor, Don Newman.
On Sunday, Flaherty said the government would deliver the budget on Jan. 27, about a month before one would normally be tabled in the House.
Shortly after Flaherty's announcement, Transport Minister John Baird said the minority government wouldn't try to eliminate federal civil servants' right to strike over the next couple of years, as pledged in last week's economic update.
On Saturday, Baird also announced the government had shelved its contentious plan to eliminate political party subsidies that are based on the number of votes received during elections.
With files from the Canadian Press and Reuters'
END
So, three quite socialist parties including the one socialist/ separatist Bloc Quebecois may defeat our newly elected minority Conservative government, and form a coalition government if it is accepted by the Governor General.
I think this will likely backfire in public opinion in English Canada.
In my view, the best thing for our fragmented country is a further decentralized government. In other words, give all the Provinces something similar to what Quebec has, and would like more of. We can share a military, currency etc. The proposed coalition being propped up by Quebec separatists is legal but is in my mind politically unacceptable.
Great Kingpin comic!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments here and at Dumb Ox.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
I am embarrassed to be a Canadian! I cannot believe that we just had an election and we are now faced with such ignorant self interest politics!
ReplyDeleteCome on people give me a break!
-Walter Thomas Franklin-
Russ,
ReplyDeleteSince you have already posted a comment regarding political issues, I hope you don't mind if I bring up the Obama citizenship thing again, and post the following e-mail which I just received:
"Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that "no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect's birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg's suit and held that the question of Obama's citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation's President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama's policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator"
Cheers, Jeff.
ReplyDelete"The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office."
ReplyDeleteHmm...courts take "constitutional" action when the will of people pass a bill/referendum/law etc. that they don't like, they reinterpret the constitution in order to "make" laws that they do like against the will of the people, but now they say that they should not enforce the constitution but let the people decided this matter for themselves.
Hmmm...something smells fishy in the Sunshine State! :-)
And how can the congressman make this statement with a straight face: "The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President."
I thought the constitution provided the "qualifications to hold the office of President"? Has this guy even passed a high-school civics class?
GGM
Cheers, Jason.
ReplyDeleteHello Russ,
ReplyDeleteI have always thought happiness to be conditional. ex. A person is happy when they buy that new car that they have always wanted, or a person is happy when he gets that job promotion. But Joy goes much deeper, in other words it doesn't matter what conditions or circumstances might be, their joy comes from the Lord it's an inner contentment no matter the outward conditions.
Tamela :)
Well stated, and a very good point, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteI understand the peace and joy of knowing the Lord as in trusting in him regardless of circumstances, temporal happiness and fulfilment. We have a deeper fulfilment in Christ.
Russ:)
Tamela Said
ReplyDeleteHello Russ,
I have always thought happiness to be conditional. ex. A person is happy when they buy that new car that they have always wanted, or a person is happy when he gets that job promotion. But Joy goes much deeper, in other words it doesn't matter what conditions or circumstances might be, their joy comes from the Lord it's an inner contentment no matter the outward conditions.
I believe happiness is, making grown men cry, yet as Russ told me, some grown men cannot handle my happiness.
As far as Joy goes, here is the way to view Joy.
J Jesus First
O Other second
Y Yourself Last
That is the meaning of Joy.
Russ, as to this women that wanted her name removed, I believe their are deeper issues than what she told you, and she is simply not being Honest with you. Rick b
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you got the plug in for Happiness.:)
The woman that is attempting to villainize me has some quite serious problems, but is still a committed believer. She needs to show me more respect.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteEven though I plugged "happiness" Many will still not know what it is.
As to the women, Like you said, she simply could stop reading your blog(s), How hard is that? Rick b
Rick, your common sense prevails.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Russ:)
Please check out Rick's site
coffeehouse-journal in my links.
A topnotch site.
Great Googly Moogly! (Jason):
ReplyDeleteRegarding the e-mail from Senator Martinez:
A fellow blogger responded:
"Hi, Jeff. Maybe I'm shooting from the hip here, but your Senator's explanation makes no sense. Since when do voters have the power to override the U.S. Constitution? If he saying that we can put Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot and legally elect him to office, even though we know he wasn't born a U.S. citizen, and the courts cannot stop us? What about courts reversing gay "marriage" bans that were voted for by wide majorities? And since when are voters qualified to determine whether a presidential candidate is 35 and natural-born U.S. Citizen, who's lived in the U.S. for at least 6 months (or is it longer?)?
The responsibility rests in the political party that nominated him and whomever accepted his candidacy paperwork."
And here is how one of my cousins replied:
"My immediate thoughts regarding Martinez' response are: Do we adhere to the Constitution or don't we? The people may have voted Obama in, but most of those who did are almost surely in ignorance of Obama's past, character, beliefs, etc. This includes ignorance as to his citizenship, as is everyone since he has not produced proof of it. That fact alone seems to prove that he is not a citizen because if he were, why not simply show the proof?
And if the court cannot decide whether he meets the citizenship requirement to be president (and why are they suddenly pleading "hands off" when by and large the courts spend their time legislating from the bench about so many other issues), then the U.S. Congress should seek out the truth about his citizenship. As with the courts, Congress (the Democrats, that is), have never been squeamish about overstepping their bounds about anything else they wanted to stick their noses into.
But, of course, the Democrats want Obama to be president, whether by hook or by crook. And so many of the Republicans lack backbones and principles. As for Martinez, he lost my respect long ago. His stance on illegal aliens, his peremptory staffers (when you call his office, they all speak with Hispanic accents and are just short of rude), and his overall legislative history have given me cause to think no more of him than I do of Bill Nelson.
Thanks for forwarding this response to me. Though I thought there was little chance that Congress would seek to uphold the Constitution, I had to do what I believe to be right. We must fight for our country regardless of the likelihood of victory."
And here is the reply a friend of mine gave me:
"Personally, I find the senator's logic (as well as the court's logic) lacking, but it does help to explain how the senator was elected, and how he justifies staying in office.
Cheer up, Jeff. There is a brighter day on the horizon when the King of Kings will reign and rule."
My same blogger friend, after reading the previous responses, said this:
"Good to know I'm not alone in my frustration. I told my wife about this, and she reminded me of the question of McCain's citizenship (he was born on a U.S. base in Panama). She believes there must have been an unspoken (or under-the-table) agreement between the parties and the candidates to not attack the other side's citizenship.
Until I read Sen. Martinez' reply, I thought the Obama citizenship question was being ignored because it was a frivolous claim. But his refusal to confront it (for illogical reasons) makes me doubt Congress more than I doubt these claims.
Anyway, the King is on the throne, and He knows what He's doing. :)"
Cheers, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteFunny, my friend Ron just did a post on his blog about a similar instance of a person unhappy with his email list on his family. I only set up to send email notification to those who had me in a Blog List because it isn't working and I figured they might not mind the notice. You are right, no one need read our Blog, our comments or our emails. Unwanted emails are easily deleted unread, no big deal.
Nice article on "blessing". I see the "Beatitudes" as speaking to the Kingdom, not to the world. Each blessing seem to be progressive, one building on the other and have no relationship to the way the secular often quote them.
I liked your comparison of the billionaire to the drug addict. Actually this kind of summed up much of Ecclesiastes -- All is vanity (or nothingness) without God.
Canada's government sounds as bad as ours. Somebody please read the constitutions. But, nut that I guess I am, I think we are just headed for that "one-world system" and you know who.
Larry E.
I really appreciate your words, Larry.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Russ:)
Bobby Buff sent these to me, thanks, Bobby.
ReplyDelete'ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY : Voo doo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty.
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you for real? Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS : Huh...are you qualified to ask that question?
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.'
OUCH!!! Now THAT has GOT to hurt!
ReplyDeleteApparently he was over 500 pounds, Greg.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Russ:)
appreciated the post on "blessed" - thanks for stopping by and I will most certainly keep you and your dissertation defense in prayer between now and january.
ReplyDeleteRobert, thanks kindly.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
That chicken in the video must be a shark. I'll bet many people have lost money to him.
ReplyDeleteI once played pool against a guy who had one arm in a cast, and he beat me! I'm not sure whether I was that bad, or whether he was just that good!
Also, on one softball league I was in years ago (for a church), we played a team (from another church) who had one guy with only one arm. Boy, could he hit that ball far! And he would catch the ball in his glove, put the glove under his stub, pull out the ball and throw it...all very quickly. He was good, despite only having one arm.
I think I still have an old article of this kid who was in a Judo competition, and he broke his arm during the competition. But he went on to fight more opponents, and won first place, despite a broken arm.
I knew a guy from High School and college (named Russell) whom I watched in a martial arts competition (fought in a ring). He had one arm in a cast, and he fought this super-huge, super-bulked-up, massive bodybuilder. That bodybuilder was short, but looked like Mr. America. He had to be on steroids. The bodybuilder just knocked Russell to the floor with the first two punches, but Russell finally ended up winning, despite a broken arm (using repeated, powerful roundhouse kicks to the thigh). The bodybuilder pulled a hamstring when doing a front kick, so was handicapped after that (so that now they were both handicapped).
Russell was both a professional kickboxer and a professional plumber (he is now an MMA fighter). After the fight, they interviewed him for the newspaper, and they commented to him that kickboxing must be a dangerous sport. He replied, "Kickboxing is nothing. Now plumbing, that's dangerous. That's how I broke my arm!"
That Lochness Monster guy wouldn't stand a chance against Chuck Norris.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThat Lochness Monster guy would have been scary to fight.
With that much mass and strength, he needed little technique.
Andre the Giant or The Big Show could have taken him. Maybe even The Undertaker.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeff that Big Show and Andre the Giant would give Lochness Monster a run for his money, but The Undertaker is too small as is Chuck Norris to beat this wrestler in a street fight or brawl.
ReplyDelete-Bobby The Brain Heenan-
I like the Lochness Monster against the famous movie martial artists.
ReplyDeleteRemember: If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
ReplyDeleteAlso: Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck Norris met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
And also know this: Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.
Now WHO is too small to beat that Lochness Monster punk?? Be careful how you answer, because Chuck Norris could be right behind you!
Plus Chuck Norris has a Christian/political blog with Townhall.
ReplyDeleteYeah, so since Chuck Norris is teamed up with God, you KNOW you got a problem!
ReplyDeleteRudolph has a red nose because he gave some smart remark and Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked him across the face.
A Handicap parking sign does not signify that this spot is for handicapped people. It is actually in fact a warning, that the spot belongs to Chuck Norris and that you will be handicapped if you park there.
Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross. Just never his own.
Chuck Norris owns the greatest poker face of all-time. It helped him win the 1983 world series of poker despite him holding just a joker, a 2 of clubs, a 7 of spades, and a green number 4 from Uno and a Monopoly ‘Get out of jail free’ card.
Chuck Norris doesn't have normal white blood cells like you and I. His have a small black ring around them. This signifies that they are black belts in every form of martial art and they roundhouse kick any viruses that dare enter Chuck Norris' body. That's why Chuck Norris never gets ill.
And finally, the Loch Ness Monster is rarely seen because he's always hiding from Chuck Norris. The Loch Ness Monster won't come to the surface because of what Chuck Norris did to the rest of his species.
And if anyone wants more Chuck Norris, they can go to the twin blog site, Satire and Theology's Chuck Norris on Chuck Norris or Political Advertisements.
Gasp, you linked with my evil archnemisis.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Sorry, thekingpin68, but Chuck Norris threatened to destroy Florida if I didn't. We've survived hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning storms, but we would never survive a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick. Pompeii told Chuck Norris he was just bluffing, and look what happened to them.
ReplyDeletePompeii or Popeye?
ReplyDeleteNot even spinach would be enough to save Popeye if he ever dared challenge Chuck Norris.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Chuck Norris once forced Popeye to make a tribute video to Chuck Norris, using Popeye's own theme song to promote Chuck. It still survives, and it is HERE. THAT's how tough Chuck Norris is.
The one You Tube comment is funny...
ReplyDelete'this is retarded'
The one You Tube comment is funny...
ReplyDelete'this is retarded'
Yeah, that comment was made 2 weeks ago. The guy who made the comment goes by the name 'Cwiseman123.' Chuck Norris found out he made that comment, and the guy's funeral was yesterday.
Chuck Norris just told me to stop hogging all the blog comments. I told him, "But I'm writing about YOU!" He said, "Are you questioning Chuck Norris??!"
I think I have to go now.
I guess I can say something about what you did correctly. You did not say who it is you are angry with. And, you have invited and given opportunity to communicate who would like visits from you and to receive updates.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I will tell you I desire to be neighborly. I also would like you to continue sending me updates.
It has been a week since I have last commented on your blogs, Russ. I've been busy working. The job I work is demanding. But, in times where work should be appreciated, I have to go with it. So, I don't have much time to visit and read everyone's blogs. Especially when they require thought to give intelligible responses. I say this because I worked two fourteen hour shifts, one twelve and one ten. They wanted me to work this evening. However, it is Vicki's birthday, so I chose to take Vicki to a musical.
Continue to send updates and emails. This gives me a chance to reply and inform you of my intent to read your blog when I have time and am not falling asleep attempting to catch up.
Thanks,
Jim
Thank you, Jim.
ReplyDeleteI will keep you and Vicki posted.
Happy Birthday, Vicki.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind comments on my blog. I enjoyed looking through both The Kingpin 68 and Satire and Theology.
Blessings,
Tim