Posted on 09/01/2009 12:20:43 PM PDT by MosesKnows
I often have the opportunity to get to know someone through personal and business relationships. However, when I don’t have a personal or business relationship knowing them by the company they keep has served me well.
The advice remains in good stead but I was curious of its origin. I have not found a direct connection to the advice but I did find several indirect references.
As early as 1541, or there about, H. Bullinger’ “Christian State of Matrimony” provided some sage advice. I consider this particular advice to mean you can know a person by the company he keeps.
“So maye much be spyed also, by the company and pastyme that a body vseth. For a man is for the moost parte condicioned euen lyke vnto them that he kepeth company wythe all.”
H. Smith’s Preparation to Marriage in 1591 contained this advice. “If a man can be known by nothing els, then he maye bee known by his companions.”
Around 1912 Hector Hugh Munro, or Saki’s “Chronicles of Clovis” contained this observation, “A man is known by the company he keeps”.
Proverbs 14:7 suggest to “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge”.
I also believe it is fair to judge a person by the company they keep as it is fair they in turn may judge me by the company I keep. I bring this up because Barrack Hussein Obama provided very little information that would have allowed me to get to know him as a candidate for President. Having only what the media offered about his close associates I learned of Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko. Not a pretty picture.
That was candidate Obama. Today I have President Obama. Candidate Obama discarded those whose council he received as a candidate. Who advises President Obama today? The media provides a new list of people whose advice Obama sought and seeks. Saul Alinsky, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd. Still not a very pretty picture.
I ignore hand shaking pictures and passing introductions and concentrate on those relationships that indicate intimate involvement, especially monetary involvements or a long time personal or spiritual relationships.
???
Words are deeds. They're deeds which are used to persuade others and influence their deeds.
Would you excuse Adolph Hitler because he didn't personally murder Jews? Words were Hitler's tools.
It’s funny you mention it, but ALL of Barach Obama’s friends are America-hating leftwingers who want to destroy capitalism. I wonder if Obama agrees with them?
He has no known friends who love America.
Words are NOT deeds.
A person's words are his utterances and remarks or his writings meant to convey a thought to others.
Deeds on the other hand are the carrying out of words by some act or action. Hence the familiar expression; Deeds, not words, matter most.
In the context of my concerns about the words and deeds of President Obama it has become a matter of asking if the deeds can be reconciled with his words. In simple terms, does our President keep his word? These same questions apply to those who President Obama selected to advise him.
I can admire President Obama’s basketball action to fake right and then move left. This admiration does not extend to his presidency or to this administration.
Do you think it is unfair to question the President and his advisors words and deeds?
Our grandmothers knew that “birds of a feather flock together.”
Good, then it's settled.
Adolph Hitler didn't DO anything wrong, since it was all just words.
I'm sure everyone's relieved to hear that.
What? Hitler ordered the murder of Jews, and his subjects had to obey those orders. Orders are deeds.
Hitler is a superb example. Hitler provides an excellent illustration to make my point that deeds indeed do matter more that words.
Hitler's words :
Germany signs a non-aggression pact with Russia on August 23, 1939.
Hitler's deeds :
Three million German troops invade Russia at 4:00 AM June 22, 1941.
Yes, it is settled, words are NOT deeds.
You're playing fast and loose with your own words, FRiend.
Hitler personally did no such thing. The army he commanded, with his WORDS, did.
You've made my point, again. Hitler's WORDS caused unspeakable horror, because others heeded those words and acted.
Words are deeds. They are deeds intended to influence others to do or think something.
Using your definition, Obama’s words are his deeds. Can you reconcile Obama’s words and the subsequent actions? Can you do this in all cases without using the word lie?
If words are deeds then are deeds words? If deeds are not words then what are they? I am curious if deeds even exist in your world.
I can only imagine what manner of deeds you would find befitting your own words.
I will end my side of this by declaring my position that deeds are more important than words remain and I disagree with your position that words are deeds.
Why? Reconciliation of them has nothing to do with what they are. Sure they can be contradictory, dishonest, deceptive, dangerous and damaging. So what? Both words and deeds can be those things.
Can you do this in all cases without using the word lie?
Why? Is "not using the word lie" some sort of requirement for this debate?
What's your point?
If words are deeds then are deeds words?
No.
If deeds are not words then what are they? I am curious if deeds even exist in your world.
Umm... Deeds.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Deeds are actions. Deeds are things you DO. Words are a subset of that category.
It's like saying that squares are shapes, but not all shapes are squares. Words are deeds, but not all deeds are words. Get it?
Of all the things one can DO, words (spoken, written, etc.) are among those things. You speak words; you have DONE something, you have spoken. You write words; you have DONE something, you have written.
My point is that it's silly to separate "words" and "deeds" because one is a subset of the other. One can say that words are INADEQUATE, in many cases. One can say that words are dishonest, contradictory to other actions, etc.. All of that can be true and still not deny the basic nature of words and deeds.
"Judge a man by his deeds and not his words?" Absurd. It's like saying "Judge a man by his clothes and not his pants."
Words are deeds, and many HUGE things have been brought to pass in this world by the words of an individual.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are WORDS. The speeches, writings and military orders of Adolph Hitler were WORDS. The speeches of Ronald Reagan were WORDS. Shall we ignore those words when measuring those men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.