My fun for the afternoon!

[Denny]

Are you calling me...French? *gasp*

moi?

[harpmaker]

Brings back a line from an old Billy Joel song:

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners
Than cry with the saints.
The sinners are much more fun...."

[Tyler]

Oh, my goodness! What in the world??

[djm]

I may look crippled, but beware: I use my cane as a weapon like an old lady uses her purse.

Apparently, they use their canes, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

djm

[anniemcu]

I may look crippled, but beware: I use my cane as a weapon like an old lady uses her purse.

Apparently, they use their canes, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

djm

The 52 yo man couldn't bring himself to move over and let the 76 yo woman pass ... and he's offended ... cripes, but what a situation! I dare say I'd have cacked him myself!

[djm]

A boob by any other name ....

djm

[Bloomfield]

Not all judgement is bad. For example, when I look out the window to see snow, I reasonably judge that it's cold enough for my heavy coat. When I see a person outside on that same day without any clothes running around screaming, I judge that there's something wrong with that person.

Judgement in and of itself is not what God condemns. It's judgement which is harmful ("Burn, fag!" type of proclamations) and serves no real purpose except to harm the other person. God judges (and forgives) over and over in the history of Israel and in the New Testament and if you believe that humans are supposed to be like God, that necessarily involves judgements of many sorts. But there is a difference. And it's not even that subtle of a difference, but so many people don't understand it. All those of us who believe can do is pray for them, and in turn try not to pass the same kind of harmful judgements onto them, it seems.

I wonder whether the judgment of them who "don't understand" and us "who believe" qualifies as anything but harmful. But never mind.

Anyway, good luck, Cranberry.

[Jack]

Not all judgement is bad. For example, when I look out the window to see snow, I reasonably judge that it's cold enough for my heavy coat. When I see a person outside on that same day without any clothes running around screaming, I judge that there's something wrong with that person.

Judgement in and of itself is not what God condemns. It's judgement which is harmful ("Burn, fag!" type of proclamations) and serves no real purpose except to harm the other person. God judges (and forgives) over and over in the history of Israel and in the New Testament and if you believe that humans are supposed to be like God, that necessarily involves judgements of many sorts. But there is a difference. And it's not even that subtle of a difference, but so many people don't understand it. All those of us who believe can do is pray for them, and in turn try not to pass the same kind of harmful judgements onto them, it seems.

I wonder whether the judgment of them who "don't understand" and us "who believe" qualifies as anything but harmful. But never mind.

Anyway, good luck, Cranberry.

You know what I'm getting at, Bloomfield.

It's nice to see you posting more again.

[Bloomfield]

Not all judgement is bad. For example, when I look out the window to see snow, I reasonably judge that it's cold enough for my heavy coat. When I see a person outside on that same day without any clothes running around screaming, I judge that there's something wrong with that person.

Judgement in and of itself is not what God condemns. It's judgement which is harmful ("Burn, fag!" type of proclamations) and serves no real purpose except to harm the other person. God judges (and forgives) over and over in the history of Israel and in the New Testament and if you believe that humans are supposed to be like God, that necessarily involves judgements of many sorts. But there is a difference. And it's not even that subtle of a difference, but so many people don't understand it. All those of us who believe can do is pray for them, and in turn try not to pass the same kind of harmful judgements onto them, it seems.

I wonder whether the judgment of them who "don't understand" and us "who believe" qualifies as anything but harmful. But never mind.

Anyway, good luck, Cranberry.

You know what I'm getting at, Bloomfield.

Actually, I don't.

I think we both don't want to start a religious debate. So just do me the favor and listen when I say that I have seen too many arguments that started from the premise "obviously it can't mean all that it says [whatever that is]" and then progress through seemingly innocuous nibbles until suddenly the truth is eaten up, or at least the spiritual thrust of an insight is consumed, with only a hollow distinction left in its place; some sort of distinction that condones doing what we've always done and that removes the uncomfortable sting of the original insight: it is always about us, not about them; it is about the beam, not the mote.

It's nice to see you posting more again.

Sorry, gotta run.

[Jack]

I wonder whether the judgment of them who "don't understand" and us "who believe" qualifies as anything but harmful. But never mind.

Anyway, good luck, Cranberry.

You know what I'm getting at, Bloomfield.

Actually, I don't.

I think we both don't want to start a religious debate. So just do me the favor and listen when I say that I have seen too many arguments that started from the premise "obviously it can't mean all that it says [whatever that is]" and then progress through seemingly innocuous nibbles until suddenly the truth is eaten up, or at least the spiritual thrust of an insight is consumed, with only a hollow distinction left in its place; some sort of distinction that condones doing what we've always done and that removes the uncomfortable sting of the original insight: it is always about us, not about them; it is about the beam, not the mote.

But it's not always about the "us." That's where the tension lies. If it were only about "us," there would be no "them" to cause conflict with. We have to acknowledge the other people as well as ourselves.

[Jack]

I wonder whether the judgment of them who "don't understand" and us "who believe" qualifies as anything but harmful. But never mind.

Anyway, good luck, Cranberry.

You know what I'm getting at, Bloomfield.

Actually, I don't.

I think we both don't want to start a religious debate. So just do me the favor and listen when I say that I have seen too many arguments that started from the premise "obviously it can't mean all that it says [whatever that is]" and then progress through seemingly innocuous nibbles until suddenly the truth is eaten up, or at least the spiritual thrust of an insight is consumed, with only a hollow distinction left in its place; some sort of distinction that condones doing what we've always done and that removes the uncomfortable sting of the original insight: it is always about us, not about them; it is about the beam, not the mote.

But it's not always about the "us." That's where the tension lies. If it were only about "us," there would be no "them" to cause conflict with. We have to acknowledge the other people as well as ourselves. I don't think I understand what your "favor" is at all.

[Bloomfield]

No matter. Good luck, anyway.