I have to admit, I’m still trying to figure out what this blog is doing on Beliefnet. I’ve read the posts for the past week, and all the author is doing is expressing her personal disdain for the president and his policies and staff. Nothing AT ALL “from a Reformed perspective” — just her personal distaste. Isn’t Beliefnet supposed to be at least tangentially religious?
I was interested in reading about “politics and current events from a Reformed perspective,” not someone’s personal tirades.

Andrew, to indulge in personal tirades IS the Reformed perspective. Being a Reformed Christian is all about being able to be selfish, ugly, spiteful, and ignorant, and knowing God chose you from the foundations of the earth over some nice person.

While I weary of Michele using what is ostensibly a theologically-oriented commentary on contemporary events, for often petty rants against Obama and others whom she glibly stereotypes as “lefties,” I don’t think those who oppose her need engage in equally stereotypical and judgmental rants.
That’s “eye-for-an-eye” thinking and it can make us blind to our own propensities toward self-righteousness…a sin which Jesus especially condemned.
I say this as someone who has absolutely no interest in defending the doctrine of predestination. I’m an Arminian, through and through.

But I was only stating the facts as I see them. Every person in the Reformed Christian tradition I have ever met is a great deal like Michelle. So why shouldn’t they all have their voice, if, say, Luciferians are free to praise Lucifere, too?

And, Robert Morwell, if you’ve been reading my other posts, you know what I’d think of sins Jesus condemned….

I have to agree with Karen the Luciferian on this one. Sometimes stereotypes are apt even though they are stereotypes. The self-identified Reformed Christians, Eugene for instance, do get pretty venomous in their comments here, not just for the rest of the world but also for others of their “faith.”

The Satanists and Luciferians who read this blog aren’t kidding when they say Michelle turns people to their cause. I would not, however, dignify Michelle with the label “Satanist.” She is just mean. And lost, not even Satan knows her, certainly not Jesus.

Karen:
Yes, I know what you think of Jesus, but he is my “go to guy” so I choose to quote him. And, as you noted, we all have the right to say what we wish.
Bottom line is this. Adopting the rhetorical tactics of those whom you condemn is simply to continue the same objectionable process. As each side insults the other, they simply become more certain of their own rightness…and the result is a compounded self-righteousness.
I think Michele has said a number of indefensible things (that whole inane “Obama is a perv” thing is a prime example) and she has generally refused to recant, which is a prideful response that actually undermines her credibility.
But one of the practicies to which I have objected most streunously has been her rather glib stereotyping of people with whom she disagrees as “lefties.” (She has her own little amen corner in Guy Arthur Thomas who actually seems to think he is being witty using goofball terms like “libtards” amd sprinkling his posts with HAHAHA which he seems utterly unaware makes him look doofy.)
If I find stereotypes pointless and generally unhelpful with one group, I don’t see them as helpful or constructive when coming from others.

Robert Morwell, I hear you. But do remember I am a Luciferian. And I really do believe stereotypes are sometimes apt–but thank you for not applying them inaccurately to me.