Thursday, June 15, 2006
The Clerk’s Tale
Chaucer in one of his Canterbury Tale’s made a thought provoking scenario in the Clerk’s Tale, a young women of poverty married a cruel Lord. One who tried and tested her very unnecessarily. Regardless she was always faithful. How much more for those who serve the kind Lord of Christ. Who are we as vessels to say to the potter “why have you made me without handles?” Can that which is formed question he who does the forming? I don’t like my test, trial and current circumstance but I know my Lord kind. Do you really think the $3,000 you think you lost is turning heaven upside down? Maybe its worse, and you’ve lost home and reputation. When can you say with knowledge you have a cruel Lord? When can you say He is not in control? Perhaps we forget from what low estate we come from. Maybe our hearts have lost our first love. Is He not wise to chastise us as loved children that rebellion not enter our hearts again? Do your words give away your true state? I’m asking myself can I tame my soul to respect and trust my Lord solely on His reputation when the trial is painful? Read this tale and see what you would do. I had to repent and recalibrate: “Not my will Lord but Thine.” It is the only way we are better than the evil ones that attack us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes;
and I shall keep it unto the end.
Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law;
yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
Make me to go in the path of thy commandments;
for therein do I delight.
Incline my heart unto thy testimonies,
and not to covetousness.
Psalm 119:33-36 KJV
imbigo said...
whyudothat said...
Flying Gringo said...
I just read on Pacer that guilty pleas were entered on 6/13/06. Anyone know what that's about??
I say again its the KURT JOHNSON and SCOTT HIENEMAN (STRAWMAN) NOT Kurt Johnson and Scott Hieneman (HUMAN) THAT FILED THE GUILTY PLEE
Here's my two cents worth on it. My thought is that if the state accepts the Guilty Plee and it was presented with regard to the "Strawman" being the persentors then they have given life to the stawman as a valid property. This along with at the same time they have induced a difference between Scott H & Kurt J living and in so doing have to set standards for the court proceding to witch the jury or judge has to be instructed to follow (I say the jury more for the fact that JD Al-soupy has shown us that his dose what he want's & forget the rule's) as of the momment this court is beginning to look overly predictive about the course of action and is in fact looking to delay by unnessesary motion's no doubt guided by the dear Judge out of veiw of course.
I'll bet that any motion that the FED's bring up is quick to responce as if knowing what was coming.
I'm sure that he's no psychic or... maybe he has that old gypsy blood huh? Ya Right!
so in a nut shell this in my OP is KURT & SCOTT'S way to seperate the two even further for the court to show on record it see them as such.
Just my take on it could be wrong.
would'nt be the first time and sure wont be the last if I am.
Well said again mogel!
;)
And therein lies the vile heart of the doreanite.
Post a Comment