Replies

wank = episode of masturbation

Why should you be listened to if you have evidenced slamming others you don't agree with? Do you think this may make people who otherwize have been brought about to your argument view you as a poor debator, and certainly, if you you consider yourself Christian, are we not to encourage our brothers and sisters, rather than discourage them? Is this not inconsistant?

I never slam anybody. In fact, YOU are slamming ME.

I was responding to a FReepmail enquiry as to what those terms mean, since you already know their meanings just skip on over them.

A reasonable question. And a fitting point, imho.

However, some people have little chance of being awakened--seemingly. And, their SEEMINGLY ONLY chance of being awakened is to be hit upside the emotional/intellectual head with some of their own inconsistencies.

I think it is quite reasonable to point out the glaring contradiction involved when someone purporting to be a very strict, straight-laced, narrow, rigid--perhaps even prissy--type in their theology and Biblical interpretations--chooses such a glaringly contrary screen name.

It just may be, that there are also blind spots in their construction on reality as there are about their own screen name. And if there are no blind spots about that screen name--then there are some BIGGER PROBLEMS of cognative dissonance involved that SOMEONE would do them a service to wake them up over.

I don't detect any negative emotion in Chris anything near the hostility we have had dumped on us by those of that ilk.

He's making a fairly calm observation. I consider it even charitable because it shares the truth with someone evidently seriously needing it about their own screen name.

imho, of course.

This touches on one of my abiding pet peeves about FR.

A lot of us TRY VERY HARD AND MOSTLY SUCCEED MOST OF THE TIME to

AVOID slamming someone's PERSONHOOD.

However, there are a lot of people who hold their questionable to idiotic notions soooooooooooooooooooo closely to their hearts and identities that unless one agrees with them in kowtowed contrition on the floor, they are offended and consider their personhoods to have been viciously assaulted.

Personally, I can receive someone's assertions about an idea or statement of mine being idiotic without having to throw a hissy fit kicking and screaming on the floor trying to sound as though I'm throwing God's lightening bolts in the process. Sometimes I make idiotic statements.

Sometimes I'm careless, flipant, casual. Sometimes I'm to hasty. Certainly I'm still a flawed human.

When I share things in a public forum, I expect them to be challenged at least, if not shredded or at least that there will be attemts at shredding it. I expect a few to many to have little clue what I meant and less to have a clue about the heart it was shared out of. So what. That's life.

I do respond forcefully, sometimes fiercely, sometimes very energetically and with intellectual, to emotional slaps upside the virtual screen name face because I think that's the most loving thing I can do in however feeble an attempt to wake some folks up who need desperately to see the world outside their grave pit born ruts of thinking.

Other times, I verbally slap someone upside the head just so they don't get they idea that they can go around doing that to others without any fitting response.

I used to be a timid mouse afraid of my own shadow. I'd cry (as privately as possible) if someone looked at me even at my BA university and somewhat even later in the Navy. God eventually succeeded in getting across to me that such timidity didn't help me or anyone else. That, in fact, cowardice was ranked with homosexuality as a reason for some being hellbound.

Still, I prefer to be patient, long suffering, doing unto others as I'd prefer done unto me--and to be loving to even my enemies. And, I'd actually prefer people to slap me upside the head if I was being terminally idiotic. I need all the help I can get.

FR is a wonderously vigorous free-for-all in many ways. But certainly as long as people are talking about someone's post, ideas, logic or what have you--THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THEIR PERSONHOOD, THEIR ESSENCE, THEIR BEING MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE. Blurring that boundary, being fogged about those distinctions is not wise, nor accurate, in my opinion.

It's also immature, even infantile, imho.

If one hasn't the self-esteem, self-confidence--or if one prefers--the confidence in God within one--to face such vigorous give and take--then perhaps one had best be careful about how much time and in what manner one stays in the kitchen.

And from a psychologist's perspective, if one is determined to keep a death grip on brittle, narrow, rigid constructions on reality--one might be seriously in need of a good long spiritual retreat until one can hear God's exhortations and edifications about abandonment unto Him and GOD ALONE.

GOD ALONE, regardless of all else. God has said clearly in His Word about our times and repeatedly in recent years that ALL THAT CAN BE SHAKEN WILL BE SHAKEN.

All our pet theologies will undergo adjustment as God brings increasingly His Perfection upon this sin-ravaged world. The cleansing process will be horrendous. Yet He has promised to never leave us nor forsake us.

BUT HE MAY WELL REQUIRE US TO FORSAKE OUR PET THEOLOGIES JUST AS HE CHALLENGED THE PHARISEES OF HIS DUSTY PATHED DAYS TO DO. The wisest one, Gamaliel did.

A lot of narrow, rigid, arrogant, selfish pharisee idiots did not.

Perhaps someone did not slap them upside the head enough. Christ was most stark, stern, and intense with them. He even assaulted their personhoods as being from their father the devil. I hope none on FR are that bad off.

Christ had lots of compassion and patience with folks who were merely stumbling around trying to grow up in Christ or even just blindly ignorant but teachable. It was the rigidly unteachable He had the strongest words for.

I do try to be Christ-like. I hope that on occasion, it shows.