Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Anniversary Of Katrina
It just seems that the proper attitude following a disaster should be one of contrition. One should come to God asking if one's life is in order, or if anything ungodly preceded the disaster to bring any kind of judgment, or if sin brought consequences. The attitude of blame against the government is not the proper one, as if the government is God and can and should do all sorts of miracles to restore things to what they were. Hurricane Katrina is said to be the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States. The attitude that follows is not the one that I would hope for from my fellow Americans. Hopefully there are Americans that are not reported by the media who have the fruit of repentance and godliness that God is looking for in the face of this disaster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'd contest the idea that the problems with Katrina qualify as a "natural" disaster at all, let alone the idea that it's the worst one to hit our country. You put a city below sea level and spend levee money on a casino, and when the storm breaches those levees, it's a "natural" disaster?
We humans are so pathetic!
When faced with extreme hardship or a natural calamity or similar things, we turn to God but when things are going well we don't even give Him a thought.
I would email you this, but I don't see any contact information, so I'll post it here. Feel free to delete. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I saw the film which stoked your ire so hotly you felt compelled to lambaste the blogger who'd recommended said film. You asked why HE wasn't responding to your harangue when the idea of comments was for debate. Did you ever consider that perhaps there is enough conflict in his life - he deals with the very worst of our society and sets it right as a profession - that perhaps contention is not something he seeks in his blog? He saw a film he enjoyed and light-heartedly recommended it to his others he thought might enjoy it.
Also, did you ever consider that rather than wagging a finger of acrimony at people and coming off so smug and superior, that there might be a more gentle approach? I understand what you were saying, but you have your own blog on which to proselytize - why set your cap to find fault with others because they have a different view? Do you think the high-and-mighty approach actually appeals to anyone?
I saw the film recently and found you mis-characterized the events, and I thought the young man was lucky to escape the clutches of a chilly, grasping, conniving woman who would have been a misery to be forever joined in matrimony. This clearly was not meant for children, but I did not find it inherently evil as you seemed to portray it.
Sometimes a work of art can deal with unpleasantries and still remain edifying and not diminish those who view it. In fact, the film shows great personal growth of the young man who acts irresponsibly at the behest of the first woman, but he evolves into a truly caring and protective man in short order - he grows up. I think this shows something about infatuation vs. love, and that is a huge thing people need to recognize and deal with in our society where so much emphasis is placed on the superficial appeal of potential marriage partners.
Would you steer people from "It's A Wonderful Life" because George Bailey contemplates suicide, and gets a bit drunk?
Anyway, you'll want to delete this immediately, as the link through my name will lead folks to my wordly blog which is about a thousand times more specious in content than that film was. I just wanted to say this, and I think the other guy has been bored enough by the volley of inanity in his comments. I don't expect a response, and won't be back here. I honestly don't mean to offend you with this.
I wish you well, in your quest to convert people to a more you-like existence, but I really wish you'd tweak your approach so it made people want to play your reindeer games, rather than to avoid you.
Dear phlegmfatale (what a name!)
I just felt that Lawdog's interpretation of the film Stardust showed me a lot about him, and why I was disappointed. The film starts out in such a non-romantic vein. Starting out by forgetting one's quest to go and find a ring for one's true love, only to end up having sex in a covered wagon instead....it totally loses the romantic element, because it becomes animal, and not gentle.
I can't even explain why that's not romantic if you can't see it. I can hear what you're saying, how the story comes out to something else, but when I left, it was awash in dark themes.
You see, I was disappointed in the guy, and was angry at not being able to trust his judgment. I appreciate your boldness and courage for coming on my blog and expressing yourself.
I thought there was an e-mail address. It's gabrielle_eden@yahoo.com
Dear Bike - interesting spin. Bill - I just hope for a major turning to God in our country....
Me too.
There's a similar conversation on another blog I read.
Check out this link:
http://ichilly.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/you-wonder-why-.html
Thanks, Bill. I read that guy's blog. He has such a compelling photo.
He's awesome. I've never met him in person but I really enjoy his blog.
His heart is all about Jesus and it comes out in his posts.
The City of New Orleans is in a vulnerable situation, lying mostly in a bowl with water on three sides. But aren't we all vulnerable? Each of us would be hard-pressed to say that we are immune from a natural disasters. Aren't we all here through the grace of God? If tragedy were to beset us, wouldn't we ask for help? If we're in a position to help, shouldn't we help?
Catastrophes like the devastation of a major city due to a major hurricane requires a response on a very large scale, a scale that few entities other than the one the size of the US federal government can address. As a taxpayer, I think our government could have done better by New Orleans.
I grew up in an area that was devastated by a major flood over 30 years ago. It was part of the most costly disaster in US history before Hurricane Andrew. The federal government stepped in and the recovery was fairly swift. We had a powerful congressman to ensure that funding came our way. It's sad to see how New Orleans has been left to languish. I'm not saying that rebuilding the city exactly as it was is the answer, but it seems that there hasn't even been a conversation regarding what should be done.
Lea,
I finally visited your blog. I am just saying that sometimes we go to the government before we go to God, and we depend on the government more than God, expecting the government to do everything as if it is all-powerful. That is not to say that the government shouldn't step in to help heal the situation.
Gee, I'm embarassed you visited my blog -- there's nothing on it! Yours is great, BTW. I like how you touch on so many different topics.
Thanks, Lea. To say "great." It's just an outpouring of boredom and passion. I just forget that people are connected to something out there when they come here and forget to click on their names.
Actually, the funding provided for the recovery of NO has exceeded all other disaster recovery efforts by the federal government by a long shot, and this includes the Marshall Plan--for which only $13 billion was spent to help all of Europe.
Let that sink in a minute. We spent more to help a city of less than a million souls than we did to help a whole continent with hundreds of millions.
Now let this sink in; the areas of Europe that recovered the most quickly were those that received the least aid after WWII.
It's arguable that government aid actually prolongs the pain because it discourages private incentive in favor of sitting and waiting for a check. Counter-intuitive, but nonetheless true.
Interesting...and New Orleans has received help from so many organizations such as Samaritan's purse, the Billy Graham organization, which is as it should be...see, it depends on who you listen to!
Post a Comment