Punish the petunias!

So the White House florist got the boot, or she resigned over disagreements regarding flower arrangements. Whatever.  What got my attention was the following observation made by a writer Helena Andrews:

Image result for petunias

In this town, matters of taste — much like positions on marriage equality — can “evolve” over time. Just ask Dowling, who left because her “fussy style” was not in line with the first lady’s emerging modern and clean aesthetics, several sources said.

Apparently, there was an ongoing spat between Dowling and Ms. Obama over style, and the final straw hit the fan.  Maybe it was as simple as a verbal catfight, since Ms. Dowling was escorted ‘from the building.’  Time will tell.

Sneaky how this writer compared gay ‘marriage’ to differences of opinions on how petunias should be arranged. Uh, no ma’am, you may be able to fool some, but others are not buying the bouquet.

Matters of taste? Marriage equality? Evolution of thought? Why punish the petunias putting them in the same bed with decadence; they have done no harm… My thoughts need no evolution regarding same-sex ‘marriage.’

What was right yesterday is right today, and will be right tomorrow. The partner of the nut has always been the bolt. Ask any man if he can construct the kid’s red radio flyer using bolts only.  The new ‘evolution of thought’ will try to convince you that yes, you can construct the wagon using only bolts, as long as you understand that the nuts are another way of saying bolts. Doublespeak works every time.

Just change the meaning of words, and presto, the petunia may as well be a daisy. But why punish the petunia? Leave it alone, let the daisy be a daisy, let the bolt be a bolt, and let the nut live its days being a nut.

And marriage? Oh yeah, leave it alone, for the two (man and woman) shall be one flesh. Two women can never be one flesh. Two men can never be one flesh. If they cannot be one naturally, then it is impossible for them to be one spiritually, so the voice of nature, common sense, and spirituality all protest and say ‘Begone’ to the new wave of thought.

Some things are matters of taste indeed, as in the way petunias are arranged but please, marriage is not a matter of taste to be defined by the first lady or the chief florist. You want to engage in same sex relations? Go for it, but leave the word ‘marriage’ alone. In the spirit of the French florist, I have suggested in the past the better word is  ‘le mirage  (myrra-zhe.’

But Ms. Andrews creative arrangement of same sex stuff with the departure of Ms. Dowling will be applauded by the ‘intellectuals.’ Ugh.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Daily news and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Punish the petunias!

  1. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Didn’t your Jesus punish a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season? Wouldn’t it have been “unnatural” for a fig tree to do otherwise? After all, there’s a season for everything – “a time to sow, a time to reap, yada, yada, yada –“

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      It is remarkable how you can miss entirely the point of a post, then try to steer the ship to YOUR desired port.

      Remember the captain and his compass? You cannot take this truth off course, try as you may.

      As to the fig tree itself………… aw never mind.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        It is remarkable how you can miss entirely the point of a post” – But you don’t get it, you didn’t get it then and you still don’t – the theme of a good post has to have continuity! You can’t say it’s wrong to punish petunias, and worship a guy who punishes fig trees. You can’t say that anything is “unnatural,” when you worship a guy who punishes fig trees for NOT behaving unnaturally! When your imagery is inconsistent with your belief system, it damages the credibility of the entire post.

        Why don’t you lay out for a year, take some classes in a writing school, then get back to us?

        Like

  2. Planting Potatoes says:

    good words – in a world that has grown increasingly difficult to answer with words – especially like this: “The partner of the nut has always been the bolt.” Mind if begin using that one? 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  3. thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

    I for one am not concerned with protecting the “word” marriage in broader society, because even to do that is to cling to the idea that we can ultimately preserve some vestige of God-defined culture in a culture that does not know God…

    The can call it love, or marriage, or “equality”, but these are all just linguistic symbols in the end, and do not make them true in the grand scheme of things. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a fake plastic counterfeit is still a poor substitute, no matter how many times one might call it a rose….

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Sorry truth, but can’t give ya an amen here. It is not ‘protecting’ the word marriage. It is standing with what is right.

      Forget the agenda of the miscreants, and judge the word on its own merits. Words mean things, your ‘rose’ is nice poetry, but it misses the mark.

      I’ve written many posts on this theme, and its not ambiguous in the least, and to compromise is, well, lowering a regard for God as well as nature.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

        I don’t think you get what I’m saying. (at least I hope so…) Obviously, words mean things! Am I advocating a compromise of the definition of “marriage” within the Body of Christ?? No. no. a millions times no! That is the real “battle” from my perspective, if it still one to be fought on any “social level” outside the home. But what are we doing, when we are stepping out and trying to correct the Lost in their definition and misappropriation of the term “marriage”? Do we do this same thing when it comes to the definition of “love”, or of “selflessness”, or anything else? No, of course not. But when it comes to marriage, we suddenly feel like it’s something that must be “defended” in the way that non-Christians apply it, because it is this “institution” and somehow this sort of bizarre, hybrid anomaly. Half sacred gift from God, half government-licensed contract.

        Why wasn’t the Church making a fuss when the secular culture started defining marriage in such a way that it quickly became completely normal and acceptable to get divorced and remarried as many times as one wanted? Is that a “biblical definition of marriage”? Not at all. Of course, Christians today might still be divided today as to the matter within the Church itself, but nobody for a second imagines going out and preaching down at someone in the world because they went and got another divorce….(!?)

        Do you not see the disconnect there?

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I don’t think you get what I’m saying.” – I have that same problem with him, you have to speak slowly and use very small words.

          But you DO bring up an interesting point regarding the “biblical definition of marriage” – exactly what was that definition during Solomon’s day? Isn’t he reputed to have had a thousand wives? That’s one way to resolve the problem of divorce, keep the first wife and go shopping for another! New wife, without that messy divorce! (Kinda throws that “one man, one woman” thing into a cocked hat though, doesn’t it?)

          Like

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          If anything arch, Solomon’s example (and David’s too) serves as a perfect example as to why the “one man, one woman thing”, as God designed it, really is the best way to go. All Solomon and David (and the other polygamists of the Bible such as Abraham) ever ultimately saw as a result of their multitudinous wifery was heartache, pain, jealousy, and strife…

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          heartache, pain, jealousy, and strife” – But those things never happen outside of a polygamous relationship, do they?

          Like

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          Nobody said that. You’re missing the point. (what’s new…)

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          As I’ve tried to get across to CS, when telling a story, consistency is all-important – think before you type – I know, you’re a theist, and as such, haven’t had much practice at actually thinking, but give it a shot, it only hurts for a little while.

          Like

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          “consistency”… Indeed, I suppose I must be “consistent” in stopping to explain what I thought was readily apparent, i.e., that a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman is but ONE God-given parameter of a successful marriage. There are of course many others, and so I imagine it’s really not a shocking revelation to anyone that even monogamous, heterosexual married couples of course can, and do, also experience plenty of strife, pain and brokenness…. 🙂

          (you really can’t go more than say two comments without reverting to ad hominems, can you…?) It’s like a tick.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          I think ColorStorm’s point is that to fight for the concept of marriage we must also protect the meaning of the word we use to convey the concept.

          Consider the Bible. So we could understand it, scholars translated it into English. The Bible defines marriage, but if the word marriage means something else — sex with whoever — then what is the Bible defining? If scheming Democrats and opportunistic Republicans render the English language useless for communication, mind-numbing noise, in their escapades to manipulate us, in what language will we read the Bible. If we don’t fight back, don’t you realize our grandchildren will have to learn another language then can read the Bible and understand it?

          Liked by 3 people

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          “I think ColorStorm’s point is that to fight for the concept of marriage we must also protect the meaning of the word we use to convey the concept”

          Yes, I get that. But to me, the question is also one of what context are we talking about preserving the meaning of this word?

          I completely agree with your point about how the Bible defines marriage, and so that is why I would argue that “Biblical marriage” is really only something that can be appealed to in the context of people who already all agree that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, i.e., the Body of Christ. When talking about things like the White House décor, or editorials in the media etc., we are obviously not speaking in the context of the Church, but the “culture at large”. This, I realize, is very much at the core of the whole debate, because I understand how so many Christians feel convicted that marriage between a man and a woman is something that needs to be adhered to in the broader cultural context, and in the scope of government definition etc. I simply don’t think this is either Biblically mandated, nor realistic.

          After all… The Bible defines “marriage” far more in depth than simply being between a man and a woman, but puts many clear boundaries around how that relationship is designed to work. Why is there is no outcry towards “defending the definition of marriage” when it comes to say, divorce, or infidelity, especially when looked at through the standard which Jesus Himself provides concerning how even looking at another woman lustfully is the same as committing adultery?

          We don’t get up in arms if someone in the World is married, and then also nurtures a pornography addiction, being reassured by the broader culture that such behavior is acceptable and “normal”…(?) Such a “lifestyle” is equally sinful according to scripture, and equally an “assault on the Biblical definition of marriage”, but I think most people agree that it makes no sense to try and go out and “legislate morality” regarding something like pornography in marriage, when dealing with people who don’t even know God in the first place… Does that make sense?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Does that make sense?” – If you’re expecting anyone on this board to understand “sense,” clearly you’re on the wrong board. Watch out for flying scripture —

          Like

        • Citizen Tom says:

          What most people in our culture do not realize is the extent our Christian heritage has affected this nation. When bloggers like archaeopteryx1 make fun of Christianity, they have no idea what the alternative means. They don’t stop to think how little difference there is between us and the Romans who worshiped the Emperor, Canaanites who sacrificed their own children into the arms of red hot iron idols, the Nazis who adored Hitler, and Communists who worshiped the state. Yet in our own nation tens of millions ignorantly worship sex, stuff, state, science, and self. They don’t stop think of things they put before God. Meanwhile, they look on in confusion as barbaric Muslims in Middle East practice what the ignorant here call a 7th century religion. No, that is not a 7th century religion. It just doesn’t conform to our Christian heritage. What the vast majority of Americans call evil is what the Bible calls evil. Unfortunately, the vast majority doesn’t know the Bible well enough to realize that.

          What is required is a Christian revival. How can we make that happen? I don’t know exactly, but I do know we have to get Americans to start reading the Bible. I also know the American Establishment will fight us tooth and nail. The people who rule us don’t want us putting God before sex, stuff, state, science, and self. They sell us stuff with sex. They run the state. They define what is scientific. They manipulate the man who full of himself with flattery. They just tell him he deserves it, and whatever he believes “he deserves” he can be persuaded to buy or vote for.

          But a man who puts God first is difficult to manipulate. He does what Gods says, not what the Dear Leader says.That is why Christ said the Truth will set us free. When we are free from sin, we are free.

          Liked by 2 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          Can’t add too much to this, but the 5 ‘esses’ are spot on.

          Liked by 1 person

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          I agree with a good deal of your points here, particularly the one about the real thing that is needed being revival. As for how that is accomplished, I can think of no other way than the manner in which it has occurred every other time in history, through the preaching of the Gospel itself, and the changes that then start to be felt in “society as a whole” after more and more people truly repent and submit themselves to God. This is precisely why I don’t believe the conversation, either on an individual level or addressing larger audiences, starts with pointing people back to the definitions of scripture, when their very hearts are still in opposition to God Himself. That is simply putting the cart before the horse. For this reason, I would never attempt to engage in a conversation with someone who has embraced homosexuality with trying to get them to submit to the Biblical definition of marriage, but rather, simply share Christ with them. Once a person has been brought back into a relationship with the Father, through the Son, only then does it make sense to try and point to the Word to demonstrate how the Father has called us to live…

          I must admit though, I didn’t quite follow your comments about ‘barbaric muslims’ and 7th Century religion, etc. If you are talking about things like “ISIS” and other such “terror groups”, I think we in America must face the sobering reality that the bulk of all of that is indeed being fostered, funded and manipulated by “Western” intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad, etc.) in order to further agendas which are really not Islamic at their core….

          But like you said, if we are truly being obedient to God above all else, then this should come before even deeply-rooted seeds of “patriotism” which are used so effectively to blind Christians in America to the very real Babylonian elements of the empire in which we are living…

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          @thetruthisstrangerthanfiction

          I like your attitude, but I have two points of disagreement.
          1. We don’t have to spread the Gospel to the exclusion of doing everything else. In fact, if we don’t fight for a just society and for clarity in the language, we will be less effective when we try to spread the Gospel. Moreover, we have to take an active stand against sin. When someone comes into a relationship with the Father, when they are born again, they repent of their sins. To be made free of sin, we must repent of our sins.
          2. I briefly checked your blog. It seems you are something of a conspiracy theorist. I subscribe to Occam’s razor. I suspect you know of it, but someone else may not.

          Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means ‘law of parsimony’) is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. (from => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

          I suppose it is possible that “the bulk of all of that is indeed being fostered, funded and manipulated by “Western” intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad, etc.) in order to further agendas which are really not Islamic at their core….” Nevertheless, the last century was the bloodiest in history, and I fear this next one will be worst.

          Various organizations, including some in the United States, subscribe to ideologies that lend themselves to violence, Islam being one of the worst. Muslims, beginning with Mohammed, have been beheading, enslaving, and butchering people since the seventh century. What we are seeing in the Middle East now is not that much different from what Muslims have been doing for over a thousand years. Have western intelligence agencies have been around that long? No.

          The Apostle James offered this explanation for the strife that exists among us.

          James 4:1-3 English Standard Version (ESV)

          4 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

          Because we are nasty creatures, we need to repent of our sins and ask God to give us the Holy Spirit to strengthen us.

          You know that, and I know that. That is our common ground.

          Liked by 1 person

        • thetruthisstrangerthanfiction says:

          Yes, Islam has been around a long time, and has quite a history of violence, which really shouldn’t be too shocking when we realize that Mohammed was “inspired” by a demonic encounter. Even the “kabba” in Mecca was originally a pagan shrine. They may worship one god, but it is not the God of Abraham…

          And speaking of which, yes I have come to believe in various “conspiratorial” things, but really this is what the Bible itself talks about when it mentions “the spirit of anti-christ, which even now is at work in the world. The same Luciferian spirit is what ultimately drives things like Islam, but also a great deal of secret occult devotees in the highest positions of American and global government as well. I did not always believe in these things, but the more you look into it all, the more the evidence becomes quite overwhelming. Events such as 9/11 were without a doubt not caused by “muslim terrorists”. This is insanely easy to prove, yet most people simply don’t want to look. We are much more comfortable with the idea that the “bad guys” are “over there somewhere”…

          Anyhow, yes I think we probably agree for the most part on essential Christian doctrine, it’s more just a question of what is the true historical/political/spiritual context in which we all are living…

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          What a great idea! How about an old-fashioned tent revival? We could get someone to pass among the crowd selling snake oil, and take up a big collection! It wouldn’t hurt to invite a few faith healers and some shills who could pretend to be sick – let’s bring ’em all back to Jeeeeesus! Mississippi would be a great place to pull this off, it’s the most religious and educationally backward state in the Union.

          Like

  4. LOL! Nuts, bolts, and petunias, well done. 😉

    Helena Andrews is wrong about a number of things, one being “matters of taste.” Matters of taste do not “evolve.” Good taste is the same thing in ancient times as it was in my grandmother’s time as it is today. I have watched the gossip girls try to claim things like, “the first lady’s emerging modern and clean aesthetics.’ Stuff and nonsense. There is no New Coke when it comes to good taste. It not something you can reinvent in your own image.

    Her connection to gay marriage is rather chilling, actually. “I don’t like fussy flowers…..so now let’s re-engineer the entire structure of society.” That is a smelly bouquet indeed, sure to be applauded by those who can no longer think critically.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Eliza says:

    No matter how hard they try the intellectuals will never understand what truth and righteousness are all about and they will continue to be drawn to vagaries that enlighten no one to what is really going on but continue to lead the blind into deeper darkness. God bless us.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. archaeopteryx1 says:

    <

    blockquote>”When I became convinced that the universe is natural………………………

    EDITORS NOTE: A long winded quote by your hero, having NOTHING to do with this post, and irrelevant to the points raised, yet, you cut and paste to put forth your agenda, which by the way, is seen for what it is, to promote endless dialog.

    May I suggest that ‘pastes’ like this may be more suitable for your friends place, so you can have ‘fun’ in your playground of 500 comments, saying nothing.

    Like

    • Hmm, a playground of 500 comments all saying nothing. I believe King Solomon may have said very similar words at some point. Vanity, all is vanity, even 700 wives. We do not want what we think we want. Heck, half the time we don’t even know what we’re seeking.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Citizen Tom says:

        Can you guess why he wrote this?

        Proverbs 25:24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

        24 It is better to live in a corner of the roof
        Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

        I forget who pointed out to me why King Solomon might have written this, but now I have the utmost pity for the poor man. A young man might want to rule over a household with 700 women. An old man would shiver in delight at the thought, and then he would think of his wife and shake with fear.

        Liked by 3 people

  7. Pingback: Jesus the “Conspiracy Theorist”..? | thetruthisstrangerthanfiction

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s