tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682602026991971643.post4520284698474631704..comments2023-05-19T03:43:25.789-07:00Comments on hipgnosis: Today's Tom Sawyerhipgnotisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13345899001401169647noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682602026991971643.post-56842279218753565862014-10-14T08:13:30.339-07:002014-10-14T08:13:30.339-07:00So, sadly, Stephen Johnson has abandoned our littl...So, sadly, Stephen Johnson has abandoned our little game and i'm only having a conversation with myself when i mention this now. I was going to say i don't know why the business of taking God's name in vain irks me so, but i guess i do. God, being Love, possesses a specific character, even though we have trouble parsing its finer points. When we divert our concerns to silly bullshit we miss the one boat that actually still holds water--follow? My friend Ken has simply insisted during conversation that it matters not what i say, he will continue to believe that cursing: "God damn it," amounts to the taking of the Lord's name in vain. If you've read all the way down to here you may understand that it does indeed, but not because that curse defines the phrase. It does, however exemplify an abandonment of Love. How can one beseech God to damn another out of Love? One simply cannot. This bit helps add flesh to the notion; from Proverbs 30: <br />7 "Two things have I required of thee;<br />deny me them not before I die:<br />8 remove far from me vanity and lies:<br />give me neither poverty nor riches;<br />feed me with food convenient for me:<br />9 lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord?<br />or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.hipgnotisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13345899001401169647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682602026991971643.post-26700228459040138822011-10-31T18:48:56.796-07:002011-10-31T18:48:56.796-07:00Steve, thanks for coming by again; i think you may...Steve, thanks for coming by again; i think you may have missed the significance of this statement:"This is not about organized religion--it's personal, you see, and directed at people I know, among others including myself where it applies, by which I mean, 'where it applies.' Not, 'where it applies unless it's uncomfortable to apply it there like Mercurochrome or something.'" <br /><br />Truly, this was a bit of pretty strong writing, and i could have been more...diplomatic. I have been aplenty though, to no avail, and if nothing else the aggression in those words established a dialogue between the two of us. <br /><br />I am indeed pointing out that ALL Christians are hypocrites, though you missed my suggestion that this is supported in the Bible. "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" did Paul bewail in Ro 7:24. Why so, do you suppose? I suggest that he knew his own soul well enough to recognize its essential hypocrisy. I further suggest that the overall state of Christianity is very much in the vein of the relationship of "The Pharisee [who] stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican," in Lu 18:11. <br /><br />If you fall under none of the applicable definitions, why there is no need to apply them, eh? I'm a bit suspicious, granted, but my opining affects your position in the overall Universe not one iota, nor does it contain hatred or its expression.<br /><br />Frankly I strongly suspect that Christians often court hatred, at least unconsciously, by failing to deliver their points with any tempering of Love whatsoever. in fact this is at the core of the premise behind "Today's Tom Sawyer." Don't overbroaden that statement when you personalize it though--I did note that your position with the crowd at the streetcorner there shifted substantially toward the favorable when you changed your presentation at the end, when i last saw you there. <br /><br />Finally, for now, the comment boxes are probably not the best forum for a necessarily much longer discussion about why i see no reason whatsoever to assume the Bible is any closer to the Source than any other sacred writing, and that falling back to that eroded fortress is a very poor means for effecting a reasoned stand indeed, even if i am utterly wrong in former assessment. I'll get to that beyond the bare mention i've given the thought elsewhere in the blog in subsequent posts. <br /><br />For now--the invitation to talk stands. I mean to make it to your church if i ever find time, but you are welcome to contact me through the messenger at https://www.facebook.com/sbass777 to set up something privately, (which i can be more likely to attend). I promise, i don't hate you. I won't promise not to issue strong statements though, given that after all i'm kind of an asshole.hipgnotisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13345899001401169647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682602026991971643.post-32337524942977139242011-10-26T08:04:47.727-07:002011-10-26T08:04:47.727-07:00Oh, Steve. We need to talk, brother. Point out tha...Oh, Steve. We need to talk, brother. Point out that spot where you find me saying i hate you. I don't see it. It's not explicit here, but allow me to make it so: the common conception of the Gospel is crap, and fosters hatred all around. You have claimed this "gospel." I hate that you've missed the boat, and i hate you not one jot or tittle. And the world does not hate you because Jesus said they would. You know where to find me--do come visit. We'll get away from all the noise some, if it will help.hipgnotisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13345899001401169647noreply@blogger.com