----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Brin: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: Brin: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:48 AM > > Subject: Re: Brin: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing... > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: Brin: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing... > > > > > > > > > > I talked with my wife about this, gave her the quote; and asked > her > > > two > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > 1) Is Moore calling for the deaths of Americans? > > > > She answered "no" > > > > > > > > 2) Is he acting as if he were one of the OT prophets calling out > the > > > doom > > > > of America for her sins > > > > She answered "probably yes." > > > > > > > > I realize that I'm the only one on the list that has to accept > my > > > wife's > > > > words as absolutely authentic :-), but I think her independent > > > analysis > > > > indicates that folks quite familiar with scripture (like > seminary > > > students > > > > and me, I guess) see a lot of precedent for that type of > statement. > > > > > > > > > > I think you wife is very close to correct here if not spot on. > > > > > > > I'm very confused. If this dog don't hunt, why is it spot on? > > > > Quite simple really. I disagree with your assessment of what Moore is > trying to convey in the quote. I think you and to some greater degree > Gautam are taking the most negative and polemic interpretation of a > statement that is more ambiguous than definitive (at least in terms of > our current discussion). I used the same set of criterion I use for interepreting Trent Lott's or David Duke's words. In many ways, I am using the same historical/literary critical methods that I always use to parse meaning out of the writen word. > But I also agree with your wife (hope she is doing well!) that Moore > is not explicitly calling for American deaths, but is most likely > playing the role of doomsayer. (And that is what I got out of that > portion of your post) Well, she and I both got the real OT prophet stuff out of it; not just a generic doomsayer. > As a note, I don't think that the mere mention of God neccesitates the > invoking of blood payment for sin, but is just as likely the hope of > forgiveness for making a mistake. It wasn't just the mention of God. That alone would not have been enough. And, BTW, by definition, only sins require God's forgiveness. We know that Moore has stated that the only reason for the war was theft. Supporting such a war is evil. The idea of simply predicting a bad outcome ignores the meaning of the words used. It may be possible that he wrote something stronger than he meant. But, in order for that to be shown, I think one must. 1) Show that Moore thinks the Iraq war is simply a mistake, not morally wrong on principal. (Other writing could certainly be referenced. 2) Explain why mistakes need to be forgiven by God...can we go to hell for typo's? 3) Explain how blood spilt will earn forgiveness for making a mistake? All of these are easily explained by the idea of blood payment needed to atone for evil done. That is why I chose it; it is the meaning that best explains the use of the words. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
