Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I will be the first to admit that I will not be as forthright with my opinions when I am speaking to someone face to face. My opinions and beliefs do not change, but I will reserve saying them in public, because I am a "back pew" type. My wit and humor do not come off right a lot of the time, but I am a pleasant person and have been told by people that have known me since I was a child, that I was "sweet" (blush) and shy. I figure most of you that I do not agree with on the internet are decent, easier to get along with people than it seems on here. I really don't get angry with any of you, just frustrated sometimes.
 

Hi, Mom2. I am certainly not as vitriolic online as I was a couple of years ago -- I mean toward individual people. And I continue to work to keep my ire directed at ideas.

For example, EL has a particularly furious rant up right now about some obscure lefty, godless columnist who roasted the late D. James Kennedy; in his rant, EL drags Democrats into it, baselessly, IMHO; awhile back, I'd've taken personal offense. No mas.

EL has to fight his own demons, like everybody else, and if his all vote Democratic, I reckon that's his cross to bear, not mine.

Here's EL's rant:

http://pocketmumbles.blogspot.com
/2007/09/dollars-to-doughnuts-he-votes-democrat.html
 

I love a good discussion: I learned to love it as an exchange student in Germany at the age of 14. All the young people at that time were great political debaters, and when I moved there at 20, that same generation (me included) was boycotting Nestle (worked!) and South Africa, and demonstrating against the American Pershing rockets in the eighties, and wearing the Afghan scarf to make a statement against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Great learning for a timid North American - but there is a fine line between heated, yet fertile discussion and just plain pig-headed meanness and ignorance.

The greatest education is coming away from a discussion thinking "now why exactly do I believe what and how I do?" , or "could the other point of view have some good points as well?", and "that person could be right, it really isn't all black and white, let me think about the gray areas for a while..." - and ultimately, "so Lord, what do you think about all this?"
I wouldn't trade that for the world!

And a positive adrenaline rush once in a while can be a great thing.
 

Gee thanks for directing me to "amyproctor".
I read through about six of her blogs and stopped at the August death rate one.(The death rates goes, as her own chart shows, down every August in Iraq. It's 120 degrees. Nobody is going to bother to do anything in a 120 degrees heat) Gee what a dufass.

I try not to engage people who are blogging from mental institutions, hospital psych-wards, or lifer housing units. Some people are bent, some are broken, and some are seperated from reality. (the first two are often found here with ER) I stay away from blogs of the third type. She qualifies for the last catagory

After all you can't reason with people who know not what the word means.
 

Well, AP puts the regulars around here, includin' regular detractors, in perspective!
 

Seeing your reference to the Lambs Book of life, brought two thoughts to mind.
1. The Lamb of God and his Book of life are also direct references to Mithra as well as Jesus.
2. Patmos had a history of a strong Diana/Isis cult that delt in hallucingenic(sp) trances induced by viper toxins and sycamore fig tree anti-toxins.(the pharmacology for these trances was several thousands of years old by John's time) I kind of wonder if John, being old and bored and living in a cave, may not have tried out some of their stuff.
Escatology, may be the end product of a bad trip.
 

I bet there was some toad lickin' involved, too.
 

Just occured to me that "toad licking" might be where that "kissing the toad and it turns into a prince" thing came from. I mean after you licked the toad, how would you know what you were consorting with?
 

I would be ashamed, obvioulsy. But no less so (and no more so) than by my non-online life (or, as you are wont to put it, the real world). We all struggle with these issues, as I have most recently. I guess for me I have realized that I can only do what I do the best way I know how to do it. I believe I am being faithful - but that is true in all areas of my life, not just my humble little blog. I am more than aware of the mistakes I have made, and regret every single one of them. Yet, what should I do, surrender to failure? Sin only wins that way.

I move forward knowing two things - I have little choice but to do so, and I will fail as often as I succeed and believe that God's grace makes up the difference.

For Mom2 - let me just say that I know we disagree, especially on an issue on which you feel such passion and conviction. But you know what? I also know you are a sweet (no blushing now!), kind, gentle person. I would dearly love to make your acquaintance because the world needs more Mom2's and fewer (ahem!) ornery people like me. The Lord has touched your life, and you touch others. I shall always remember our first controversy, and the gracious way you ended it. No matter what else happens, I carry that with me. I do hope that the peace that passes understanding rests upon us, even in the most heated controversies. Blessings.

BTW, ER, how'd that paper go? I do hope the Sioux didn't end up in Oklahoma . . .
 

The difference is you're not anonymous, Geoffrey. You don't have the freedom to be a REAL jerk that anonymity affords. :-)

I sent you a different paper, BTW, the one that sidetrakced me from the Sioux for most of yesterday. And um, many (most?) are on reservations in South Dakota, BTW.
 

I can't access my email effectively until I get my own computer back, but I at least have something to look forward to. The comment about OK was more a bit of a slight dig at your home state than anything, ER. I am well aware of the tragedy of the Lakota.
 

Ha! Well, I thought so. And see, the very IDEA that someone would poke at OK is so foreign to me I didn't even catch it! ;-)
 

What? No, can't be. No one would make fun of us!
 

But if the Book's a metaphor, what difference does it make what we say online? If it's a metaphor, what consequences do we face for our online snarkiness? I'm just askin'.
 

You seem to be assuming that a metaphor lacks meaning, or truth. It doesn't. It's an attempt to explain something that is hard, if not impossible, to explain. In this case, I think, to hang a human concept on something we can barely grasp the meaning of: That God knows us intimately, and that, in one way or another, we'll fully realize how transparent our lives really have been.
 

Mark said: " If it's a metaphor, what consequences do we face for our online snarkiness? I'm just askin'."

The Bible is not a metaphor itself, metaphor are used in it to give us the Truth.

Metaphors are are use to carry or transport a "meaning". Metaphors are the containers in which you may bear the truth. (That's the original Greek meaning of the term) Think of them as packages, that when you open them, the turth is in inside.

Parables have a near exact use, except the parable is more the story containing a truth rather than a package containing a truth.

Should your children or friends ignore what you say because you use a metaphor or a parable or a similie or whaterver to deliver your meaning. Of course not. Nor would it mean that if you used a metaphor you would expect it to be translated as a literal. Our kids are good at doing that, taking us literally. But Dad, you said......
is a frightening phrase some times.
I have no dobut that God often looks at us, like we look at our children, and says "Oh My!" (Is that a metaphor)
 

When Relgions crap on each other, and Government gets involved, even in America, you get this from our Justice Department.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?th&emc=th