So, when you listen to the Counting Crows, do ever just want to move back to Los Angeles and get drunk? Or is that just my own personal thing?
And to borrow a Monty Python title, “And Now For Something Completely Different.” I had some blogwatchdogbloodhounds whatever the term is, find my post about cussing and decide to warn others abut the evils of the Emerging Church, and more specifically me.
I’m okay with that. At first, I wanted to explain myself and debate, but decided that responding above the line was the best and most Jesus like approach. Bless those who curse you kind of thing; which is rather ironic considering the subject at hand.
Anyway, for a group of people who are coming from a modern mindset – which let me be clear - IS PERECTLY FINE, I thought this was interesting (and not that unusual):
Modernity is based on reason. The more rational we are, the better the world will be. The church adopted this same philosophy (and it’s not wrong; it just is, just like post-modernity is not wrong; it just is) determining that reason was the best way to advance the kingdom of God, study scripture, share the good news of Jesus, etc. So if reason is the philosophy of the practice of their faith then why are these statements so unreasonable? I’m just curious. Please understand, I’m just trying to think this through myself because I would have flunked “Argumentation” in college if I reasoned like these statements below (I got an 'A-' by the way).
Next you are gonna tell me that homosexuals are going to inherit the kingdom of God. PLEASE!
Our society is in a shambles because everyone wants to do what they want. No community (society as a whole) standards of anykind, will result in anarchy.
The Christian light is dimming.
A quick note: If you want to read these comments in context (because I don't like anyone taking things out of context including myself) please go to the "The Art of Cussing and Suggestions on Proper Cussing Etiquette" and read the comments there.
So, can anyone help me understand these two things:
1. Why do I want to go L.A. and get drunk when listening to the Counting Crows?
2. Do these comments make sense to you? If so, why?
Honestly I’m more curious about the first.
10 comments:
1. I don't know ... I've never listened to Counting Crows, so now I think I need to ;-)
2. The comments used to make sense to me, when I lived in a state of fear. But now I don't. So they don't.
I hear ya on the Counting Crows, altho I never lived in LA.
For the other question...it's a slippery slope, don'tcha know. "Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
Seriously, I've probably said some of those things in my past life as a conservative evangelical. For that I am truly sorry.
Look at the source: Christian Research Net. They don't allow comments, thereby making whatever they say the "last word", at least in their eyes.
When dealing with them, I prefer to treat them in much the same way Robert Heinlein felt about choosing for whom or what to vote ...
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.
If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
Well intentioned fools. Gotta love them, cause Jesus told you to! :)
LOL
Sonja - Yes, I think you'd like the Counting Crows - esp their mellow stuff.
Erin - Yeah. Well, I'm truly sorry too. Over the past few years even before I left the mainline Evangelical Church, I had mellowed out, but those first few years I did much offending. Nothing against any specific churches; for the accountability that falls on me, I alone am responsible for. :-)
Jeff - Awesome quote. With the upcoming elections I'm going to remember it well!
I don't beleive you can engage since the people who have posted those comments have failed to engage. The fall into the trap of calling out the type of paint used rather than what was being painted. It kills me that the issue raised was "homosexuals," a lack of faith that God is faithful in sustaining his body, and poor reasoning that "swearing=poor intelect."
All of these don't address what you were writing about and really aren't a good cogent example of modern/rational thinking. The modernist would discuss how one determines what swearing is, and why this was a problem in society. Even the person that tried to bring up the Rousseauian idea of the social contract. However, there is no parsing out of what dictates that contract, as it is obvious that if swearing and linguistics is part of the social contract, the exact words are cultural bound. Fuck isn't s swear in French, just as merde is not a swear in English. In the UK, I can use the word Cunt, but I am abhorred by that word in the United States. Thus, if swearing is causing the dimming of the Church,(I guess Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough), then what is the universial definition. What culture determines that? what generation's view of uncouth language is the end all and be all of swearing.
It is sad that the most vocal of those that try to hold a modernist/rational view of the world on these blogs have poor reasoning ability. Thus, that's why one cannot reason with them. In fact, they really are not modernist and rational. The hold their beliefs and hold up the idea of manifest destiny. Conform to an opinion or we will react in violence.
So don't engage. Encourage them to believe that we do not believe the same, and that we all should move on. Talk to the honnest and the real modernist, they may not agree, but the actually challenge, and engage.
So i am now going to listen to Mr. Jones, and drink a Vodka Tonic. I too miss the music scene of the West Coast. And the reason I do is because my experience was great and my experience tells me that there is magic in the expression of the Divinity in good music coupled with hip dressers and salt sea air.
I dunno, the idea of going to LA and getting drunk appeals whatever the soundtrack :)
Well ... I have now listened to one 30 second sound track of Counting Crows. I love them!
But the song (all 30 secs of it) didn't make me want to go drink in L.A. ...
Of course, I've never gone drinking in L.A. ... so I'm not certain what that soundtrack might be. ;-)
Just so everyone is aware - I never even suggested that profanity has anything to do with intellect or that I never swear. The distinction I'm trying to make is that the same scriptures that taught us about Jesus and our Father also teach us about self discipline and controlling our tongue. If you want to pick and choose what scriptures to pay attention to, that is your business and do what you will. However, expect that followers of Christ who still read and regard scripture as God's word will get upset when you teach heresy and proclaim it as "Christian." David, you asked for scripture regarding profanity and controlling your language, and I gave it. Now how about you give me a passage that says its okay to lack self discipline and use whatever speech you want?
My intention here is not to start an internet debate or be whatever it is you mocked in your post. I hate this, to be honest. But am I really all that different from you? You posted a blog entry in response to people challenging you on this because it touches your faith. Here I see a group that seems to be straying away from the scriptures and still claiming it as biblical. Is it really wrong for me to challenge that? And if you say yes, how can you call yourself a Christian? I know it is such a pain when somebody comes along and pees in your cheerios, but just remember that you and I claim to be brothers in Christ.
Leason
So if you "hate this", why bother?
Speaking of language, I would encurage you to look up the definiation on Christian Heresy and the historical context from which it came. That word is thrown around a lot and most people are using it when it's not appropriate.
And I hate pee in my Cheerios, but since I don't like Cheerios anyway, I guess it's okay!
Leason, I'm sure you're a reasonable nice human being who loves Jesus and somehow I touched a nerve.
Now to follow what Paul exhorts us to do which is to "avoid vain and foolish arguments", I'm going to let this lie and move onto to other more important things.
If you would like to continue in this vein of conversation, start your own blog and write about it. But for now, I have nothing more to say on a matter that is really quite trivial.
It's fun to discuss and a disagree (I like being challenged in that) but when we start going around in circles and not really saying anything new, it's time to stop.
Blessings and thanks for the challenge. You've caused me to think deeper about this issue than I probably should. :-)
Dear Leason,
you bring up good questions of what is Paul talking about, and my question is Paul talking about what "you" consider culturally asorbic? Really nothing in the Greek and Hebrew touches upon the narrow view of "swearing" that modern-American Christians define this language as. (Note: this is not including the using the Lord's name in vain, and the curssing of Holy indignation and judgment that we are called not to use). However, collequalisms and salty language are really contextual to where the person is.
For example. I work with incarcerated populations. I do not dare use the adjective "goof" with my clients. This is much harsher than calling a person a motherfucker in the population. The reason is tha motherfucker is a common nomenclature, and really holds no significant meaning.
However, the lable of "Goof" does.
This is a prime example of what Paul writes about in the deferance speech. One should not do what causes another man to stumble. I shouldn't call someone a "Goof" in the culture i work in, but really the inanane english idiom of calling someone a motherfucker has no negative, or stumbeling meaning. However, I choose not to use this in my meetings with the "Rich young rulers" because it causes them to stumble.
I encourage you to explore the text and understand the importance of Language and the contexualization within cultures. Because you know at one time the King James Version was also profane.
Post a Comment