Carman Again...
Jerry B. Ray
I'm having a bad day. I've been away from my church for two weeks,
one week for a homecoming at an old church, and the next week for
a trip out of town for the weekend. I go back this morning to find
that the College and Career Sunday School class that I go to has
been effectively dissolved, and going into the godforsaken Singles
class is my only recourse. I won't be going to Sunday School anymore.
Yes, it's that bad.
Then I go into the service only to find that the music minister, who
is a Cool Dude, has left the church unexpectedly (and unexplainedly,
since he always said that Metro was the place he wanted to be) and
taken a job at another church. That sucks mightily.
So I'm in a mood. Then I go back to church tonight, and this guy
that just ANNOYS me in every way (he's the perfect guy, does
missionary work, all the women swoon over him, went to the
University [sic] of Georgia) gets up to sing, get this, Carman's
"America Again." He sang it once before, the first time I'd ever
heard it, and I was sickened by what I heard. This time I recognized
it, and walked out and stood in the lobby for the duration of the
song, and came back in when the ovation ended.
Words cannot express how distasteful I find that song's pandering
jingoism, which mixes half-truths and short-sighted, naieve suggestions
about the Way Things Should Be in the perfect way to get a screaming and
clapping rise out of the brainless sheep who make up the modern church.
That was JUST what I wanted to hear...
Then, luckily, a guest preacher got up and gave some historically
accurate Christian history ranging from Emperor Constantine to
Martin Luther to the Crusades, and told a story of two young
missionaries he'd married in a service at a conference in Germany
or somewhere. They were from Libya, where apparently Christianity
is a capitol offense, and they were trained in how to share their
faith in a hostile environment safely. Unfortunately, the
newlyweds forgot to remove their wedding bands and were drug
off their plane in Libya, stripped naked and tied up. The bride's
finger was cut off to remove her ring, and they were executed by being
shot, starting with the feet and working their way up slowly as the
rest of the passengers disembarked, as an example.
And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"You can't second-guess ineffability, I always say. There's Right, and
there's Wrong. If you do Wrong when you're told to do Right, you deserve
to be punished. Er." -- Gaiman and Pratchett, _Good Omens_
Mike-E
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
<buck-wild snip>
> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
guy!
Peace.
Mike
Jerry B. Ray
In article <01bb9d6e$a61cf6a0$0100...@demond.pixi.com>,
Mike-E <dem...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
>guy!
It relates in that we have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited
religious freedom in the USA, while people are being killed for wearing
wedding bands ("a Christian custom") in other countries, and Carman's
got to tilt at windmills of condoms in schools and that "lifestyle from
the pits of Hell," homosexuality, and send out fliers to hold the
"largest Christian concert in history" and so forth, all for the purpose
of putting "God in America again." It all just makes me sick.
MelodyKewl
Hello Dearies,
vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry B. Ray) writes:
[ industrial-sized snippage...]
>It all just makes me sick.
::: SIGH ::: Yeah. Been there, done that. Still here, still doing it.
I'm due for a sympathy "disgusted and beyond pissed" mood.
Hell, it won't even be for sympathy. I'm with you brother.
Ruby Kisses
Melody
Kevin Riggs
In message ID <51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu> on 9/8/96,
vap...@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
v>
v> Words cannot express how distasteful I find that song's pandering
v> jingoism, which mixes half-truths and short-sighted, naieve suggestions
v> about the Way Things Should Be in the perfect way to get a screaming and
v> clapping rise out of the brainless sheep who make up the modern church.
v> That was JUST what I wanted to hear...
v>
v> Then, luckily, a guest preacher got up and gave some historically
v> accurate Christian history ranging from Emperor Constantine to
v> Martin Luther to the Crusades, and told a story of two young
v> missionaries he'd married in a service at a conference in Germany
v> or somewhere. They were from Libya, where apparently Christianity
v> is a capitol offense, and they were trained in how to share their
v> faith in a hostile environment safely. Unfortunately, the
v> newlyweds forgot to remove their wedding bands and were drug
v> off their plane in Libya, stripped naked and tied up. The bride's
v> finger was cut off to remove her ring, and they were executed by being
v> shot, starting with the feet and working their way up slowly as the
v> rest of the passengers disembarked, as an example.
v>
v> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
What does that last line have to do with the rest of the story? BTW, maybe
next Sunday will be better...Kevin
Larry C. Ables
Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>
>
> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
*edited for length*
>...It all just makes me sick.
>
> JRjr
> --
With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
respect your opinion.
~Lisa
bev
In article <32343C...@EriNet.com>,
Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
>*edited for length*
>
>>...It all just makes me sick.
>
>respect your opinion.
That's terribly disconcerting.
"Gosh, you said a word I don't like. Therefore, your opinion is
utterly without merit to me."
*sigH*
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e v.
<mailto:wedn...@tezcat.com> <a href="http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday/">
Sometimes the answer that love gives is the hardest one to take. - VoL
Susan E Stone
Larry C. Ables (lca...@EriNet.com) wrote:
: Jerry B. Ray wrote:
: >
: > >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
: >...It all just makes me sick.
: >
: > JRjr
: > --
: With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
: respect your opinion.
Just for the record, I'm with Jerry on this one. His use of the f-word
seems like a perfectly appropriate response to what he saw at church on
Sunday. And even if it's not, it's a shame to be so bothered by a word
that you discount everything else the person has said.
--Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan E. Stone * "Support bacteria: It's the only
Penn Biology Dept. Academic Office * culture some people have."
sst...@sas.upenn.edu *
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sstone/ *
Jerry B. Ray
In article <32343C...@EriNet.com>,
Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>>>> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>*edited for length*
>>...It all just makes me sick.
>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>respect your opinion.
Thanks for a perfect illustration of exactly what I was ranting about:
the obsession with surface appearances to the exclusion of anything
that really matters that pervades today's churches...
Chuck Pearson
Susan E Stone (sst...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Just for the record, I'm with Jerry on this one. His use of the f-word
: Sunday. And even if it's not, it's a shame to be so bothered by a word
: that you discount everything else the person has said.
what was it that campolo said? "millions of people are going to hell and
you don't give a damn, and i know you don't give a damn 'cause you're more
concerned that i used the word 'damn' than anything else i said..."
anybody responding to the language, YHBT and jerry didn't even mean to
troll you, i bet.
chuck. carman makes me want to register as a democrat.
--
1ismensheartsthatarefailingforfear2seethecarnagestrewnontheshore3arethelife
boatsfulltocapacity?4isthereroomforjustonemore?5youwillfeellikethegreatwall
enda6ashesteppedoutovertullulahgorge7iwillbindmyselftothetruthandspeakitlik
ebalaamsassoncemore.........................cpearson@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Jeffrey Parks
In article <51292r$r...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>, bev <wedn...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>>chuck. carman makes me want to register as a democrat.
>
>
>He had been slapped with the label of "liberal" and what's more it had stuck.
Yeah, but I don't think chuck has that big of a nose.
J Robert
the kumquat kuriosity
In article <511ml9$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>, sst...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(Susan E Stone) wrote:
> Larry C. Ables (lca...@EriNet.com) wrote:
> : Jerry B. Ray wrote:
> : >
> : > >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
> : >...It all just makes me sick.
> : >
> : > JRjr
> : > --
>
> : With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> : respect your opinion.
>
> Just for the record, I'm with Jerry on this one. His use of the f-word
> seems like a perfectly appropriate response to what he saw at church on
> Sunday. And even if it's not, it's a shame to be so bothered by a word
> that you discount everything else the person has said.
i'm not bothered by the word; combinations of letters hold no meaning in
and of themselves. i'm bothered by what was meant by the word.
we who would say such things to Carman are no less hypocrits than we accuse
him of being. think about it, people.
carman makes me groan and roll my eyes. this makes me shake my head and
walk away, saddened. sure, flame me for not jumping in and giving a
rousing "yeah, stick it to 'im!"... but i find this response just as
sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
--the kumquat
--
[=----- the kumquat kuriosity ------ <http://miso.wwa.com/~eaton> ----=]
there's nothing here ... been tricked again
there's so much promise ... in such a little sin
--mortal, 'scalawag'
bev
>chuck. carman makes me want to register as a democrat.
sigh.
He had been slapped with the label of "liberal" and what's more it had stuck.
--
Matthew C. Laswell
In article <01bb9d6e$a61cf6a0$0100...@demond.pixi.com>,
"Mike-E" <dem...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
><51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
>
><buck-wild snip>
>
>
>guy!
And in mine.
I would guess the stuff about Libya makes two points:
1) American Christians seem to think they're being persecuted, which is
utterly incorrect. The Libya example demonstrates that, despite
what Carman say about our having kicked God out of America, this nation
is _very_ friendly to Christians.
2) It shows what can happen when a nation officially supports one religion
(and before you say that we'd be different, 'cause we'd be a _christian_
nation, consider what Christians did in the Spanish Inquisition. Yes,
to persecute people because they don't accept Christ is anti-Biblical,
but there will always be "christians" who would do such things...).
--
matthew c. laswell - my opinion, not Motorola's - mat...@comm.mot.com
"Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships.
That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic
interests, and other people who can't handle the truth." - Scott Adams
austen's dad NiCk
In <51287g$t...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) writes:
>
>Susan E Stone (sst...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: f-word seems like a perfectly appropriate response to what he saw at
>: church on Sunday. And even if it's not, it's a shame to be so
>: bothered by a word that you discount everything else the person has
>: said.
>
>and you don't give a damn, and i know you don't give a damn 'cause
>you're more concerned that i used the word 'damn' than anything else i
>said..."
>
hmmn, when i saw campolo, he used the word _shit_. it made quite an
impact on me.
the word, that is... =|
peace,
NiCk
soulbelly.
*****************************************************************
"...herds of wild felt hogs roaming the countryside" - muffinhead
NiCk - drummer - computerer - austen's dad - all-around wuzzy guy
sit back. relax. you are in soulbelly country.
the world of soulbelly can be reached at 818.562.1491. thank you.
visit http://www.wavenet.com/~wtmilkmn/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i'm a little teapot, short and stout | it takes a big man to
here is my handle | cry, but it takes an
here is my other handle | even bigger man to
oh crap, i'm a sugar bowl | laugh at that man.
*****************************************************************
Logan Shaw
In article <51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu>,
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I'm having a bad day. I've been away from my church for two weeks,
>one week for a homecoming at an old church, and the next week for
>a trip out of town for the weekend. I go back this morning to find
>that the College and Career Sunday School class that I go to has
>been effectively dissolved, and going into the godforsaken Singles
>class is my only recourse. I won't be going to Sunday School anymore.
>Yes, it's that bad.
:
>Words cannot express how distasteful I find that song's pandering
Jerry (and everyone else, since I'm posting),
That really sucks. It reminds me of a similar thing that once happened
at a church I went to. The executive summary:
- the political/theological current of the church basically went off
in a completely random not-so-healthy direction (it was kinda
the opposite of singing tacky Carman songs)
- the church leadership did things which were against the wishes
of most of the congregation
- all but one member of the church staff quit within a few months
- people on both sides handled the conflict in an un-Christian manner
- lots and lots and lots of people left
Prior to that, it had been probably the best church experience of my
life. Needless to say, when it went to pieces, I was just a TAD BIT
bitter about the whole thing. In fact, I had lost so much faith in the
church afterward that I basically went around hating all people who
didn't agree with or who weren't aware of my criticisms of the church.
The bad news is that lots of churches are really screwed up, and it's
painful and disappointing to become aware of just how extensive it is.
The good news, though, is that the situation is not without hope. God
can operate in situations like this, and he can use churches even when
they are messed up. This is not to say you shouldn't be angry about
what is going on at your church (it sounds like you're right to be
angry). The point is to encourage you and everyone else by letting you
know that you're not the only one who has felt this way, and by
reminding you that God can take bad things like this and make good come
out of them.
- Logan
--
Logan Shaw, Unix Systems Administrator
"everybody / loves to see / justice done / on somebody else" (Bruce Cockburn)
Jerry B. Ray
In article <1996Sep10....@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov>,
Logan Shaw <lo...@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Prior to that, it had been probably the best church experience of my
>life. Needless to say, when it went to pieces, I was just a TAD BIT
>bitter about the whole thing. In fact, I had lost so much faith in the
>church afterward that I basically went around hating all people who
>didn't agree with or who weren't aware of my criticisms of the church.
Dig. My previous church, the one I attended from age 14 until about
1991 or 1992 (age 21 or 22) split several times while I was there, but
I stuck it out despite the hurt I saw inflicted on many of my friends
about the whole nasty thing. When my increasingly long hair and loud
music got to be too much for them, they pressured me out ("perhaps your
needs would be better met at another fellowship") and I wound up at
the church I'm at now.
Jeff Holland
the kumquat kuriosity (ea...@wwa.com) wrote:
: In article <511ml9$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>, sst...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
: (Susan E Stone) wrote:
: i'm not bothered by the word; combinations of letters hold no meaning in
: and of themselves. i'm bothered by what was meant by the word.
: we who would say such things to Carman are no less hypocrits than we accuse
: him of being. think about it, people.
: carman makes me groan and roll my eyes. this makes me shake my head and
: walk away, saddened. sure, flame me for not jumping in and giving a
: rousing "yeah, stick it to 'im!"... but i find this response just as
: sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
I have to agree. I am no fan of Carman, but the man wants a country
devoted to God. While his approach (a govt. fully endorsing Christianity)
is horrifying, I can't say that I'm optimistic about our present direction
towards a totally God-less society, either. I disagree with Carman and question
him, but I can't endorse roasting the man.
Jeff
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie can change, but not the truth." KERRY LIVGREN - A Hero's Canticle
Jeff Holland jhol...@cc.gatech.edu
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt5276b/home.html
Jerry B. Ray
In article <513qk3$b...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>,
Jeff Holland <jhol...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>: carman makes me groan and roll my eyes. this makes me shake my head and
>: walk away, saddened. sure, flame me for not jumping in and giving a
>: rousing "yeah, stick it to 'im!"... but i find this response just as
>: sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
> I have to agree. I am no fan of Carman, but the man wants a country
>devoted to God. While his approach (a govt. fully endorsing Christianity)
>is horrifying, I can't say that I'm optimistic about our present direction
>towards a totally God-less society, either. I disagree with Carman and question
>him, but I can't endorse roasting the man.
I'm not "roasting" Carman. But I don't expect anybody to understand that.
Edgar Rockenstien
On 9 Sep 1996, Mike-E wrote:
> Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
> <51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
>
> <buck-wild snip>
>
> > And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
> I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
> guy!
<CHURCHLADY>Well, isn't THAT special.</CHURCHLADY>
Edgar Rockenstein ercr...@email.unc.edu http://ias.ga.unc.edu/~ecrab/
"Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."
--Feodor M. Dostoyevsky as quoted in Hal Hartley's _Surviving Desire_
Dan Temmesfeld
Mike-E wrote:
>
> Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> <buck-wild snip>
>
> > And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
> I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
> guy!
Yeah, I agree with Mike, Carman needs to be in our prayers... (however,
something tells
me that's not what Mike meant)
> Peace.
> Mike
Dan
---+
Dan Temmesfeld --- email: dan...@erinet.com
http://www.cedarville.edu/student/s1133627/gcowboys.htm
"Home of the Unofficial GALACTIC COWBOYS Page"
---+
Dan Temmesfeld
bev wrote:
> >With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> >respect your opinion.
>
>
> "Gosh, you said a word I don't like. Therefore, your opinion is
> utterly without merit to me."
Gosh, you just said 'gosh,' now i can't listen to what you just said.
:)
Jim Stephenson
On 10 Sep 1996 09:49:48 -0400, vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry B. Ray) wrote:
>In article <513qk3$b...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>,
>Jeff Holland <jhol...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>>: carman makes me groan and roll my eyes. this makes me shake my head and
>>: walk away, saddened. sure, flame me for not jumping in and giving a
>>: rousing "yeah, stick it to 'im!"... but i find this response just as
>>: sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
>
>> I have to agree. I am no fan of Carman, but the man wants a country
>>devoted to God. While his approach (a govt. fully endorsing Christianity)
>>is horrifying, I can't say that I'm optimistic about our present direction
>>towards a totally God-less society, either. I disagree with Carman and question
>>him, but I can't endorse roasting the man.
>
>I'm not "roasting" Carman. But I don't expect anybody to understand that.
I think I understand you. Carman is playing in a sandbox in the middle of an
oasis, complaining about a lack of water, while people like the couple you
mentioned are stranded in the desert with no idea where the closest oasis is.
Another analogy is that Carman is looking out over his well manicured lawn,
upset that there are fleas and mosquitos breeding in the damp grass, while the
next door neighbors have swamps instead of lawns, where the fleas are
alligators and the mosquitos carry malaria.
It's a matter of perspective, and instead of bemoaning our plight here (which
_is_ bad, don't get me wrong, just not in relation to what is outside our
borders) we should be doing something about the plight of others. Until the
day a representative of my government shoots me for acting religious in public
I'm gonna worry about the big picture.
Besides, we all need to vent sometimes, and that was your venting time.
--
Jim
(.sig under [re]construction ...)
Will McDonald
In <323544...@erinet.com> Dan Temmesfeld <dan...@erinet.com>
writes:
>bev wrote:
>> >With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>> >respect your opinion.
>>
>> That's terribly disconcerting.
>>
>> "Gosh, you said a word I don't like. Therefore, your opinion is
>> utterly without merit to me."
>
>Gosh, you just said 'gosh,' now i can't listen to what you just said.
>:)
Jeez, won't 'you people'(TM) stop using that freakin' offensive
language!?!? You sons of guns better learn to shut your darn mouths!
Isn't it ironic?
Will
--
"The face of a child can say it all, especially
the mouth part of the face." -- Jack Handey
Mike-E
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<5115ro$3...@acmey.gatech.edu>...
> In article <01bb9d6e$a61cf6a0$0100...@demond.pixi.com>,
> Mike-E <dem...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
> >I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
> >guy!
>
> religious freedom in the USA, while people are being killed for wearing
> wedding bands ("a Christian custom") in other countries, and Carman's
> got to tilt at windmills of condoms in schools and that "lifestyle from
> the pits of Hell," homosexuality, and send out fliers to hold the
> "largest Christian concert in history" and so forth, all for the purpose
Yup. I totally see your point now, and it totally makes sense.
It's so easy to judge, isn't it? I almost pointed out that speck (the
f-wurd) Jerry, but, praise God, I didn't. It's up to him to point out
right? God's sooo kool.
Oh well.
Praaaaaaaaise Hym.
Mike
Not Ashamed!
Jerry B. Ray (vap...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
I'm sure what Jerry was trying to say was, "Go forth and multiply."
bev
By CARMAN?????
For those who know me, the following statement will have buttloads of impact:
I'd rather go without sex and children for all eternity.
And a day.
-=- bev, who is not quite that easy. :)
Dan Temmesfeld
Chuck Pearson wrote:
> what was it that campolo said? "millions of people are going to hell and
> you don't give a damn, and i know you don't give a damn 'cause you're more
> concerned that i used the word 'damn' than anything else i said..."
i love that...too bad that's the way the church operates. arggh! now i'm
getting pissed
again...
> chuck. carman makes me want to register as a democrat.
me too...well, perhaps not democrat, but maybe communist or something...
:)
Dan Temmesfeld
bev wrote:
>
> >chuck. carman makes me want to register as a democrat.
>
>
> He had been slapped with the label of "liberal" and what's more it had stuck.
yeah, but i don't really see him as a liberal. i see him as an
extremist. he's way
right wing...i prefer to align myself somewhere in the middle...maybe a
nudge to the right...
Dan
Edgar Rockenstein
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Larry C. Ables wrote:
> Jerry B. Ray wrote:
> >
> > >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
>
> >...It all just makes me sick.
>
> With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> respect your opinion.
With that kind of understanding and compassion your opinion don't get
any respect 'round these parts.
Anybody wanna go whitewash some tombstones?
Chuck Pearson
Not Ashamed! (chee...@netaxs.com) wrote in response to Jerry B. Ray
(vap...@prism.gatech.edu):
: I'm sure what Jerry was trying to say was, "Go forth and multiply."
all right, o mighty CheefDan!. out with it. you're not really a
Christian nudist.
your real name is "dick morris," isn't it?
chuck. there was so much positive spin on that statement, it rolled off
the green...
Edgar Rockenstein
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Larry C. Ables wrote:
> With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> respect your opinion.
Yeah, I realize I've already replied to this, but there's still something
nagging or gnawing somewhere. What *is* your desired response to this? I
just wonder what makes people feel that have to point out everytime
someone uses language they don't like. I personally offended by knee
jerk fundamentalism, but I don't tell each knee jerk fundamentalist I
meet that they make me sick and I can't respect their opinion.
DISCLAIMER: I am not in the least interested in re-opening the cussing
debate. It's useless as it can be and I'm just not interested. If you
want to know my feelings, use Deja News... it is your friend.
Larry C. Ables
the kumquat kuriosity wrote:
>
> In article <511ml9$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>, sst...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
> (Susan E Stone) wrote:
>
> > : Jerry B. Ray wrote:
> > : >
> > : > >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
> >
> > : >
> > : > JRjr
> > : > --
> >
> > : With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> > : respect your opinion.
> >
> > Just for the record, I'm with Jerry on this one. His use of the f-word
> > seems like a perfectly appropriate response to what he saw at church on
> > Sunday. And even if it's not, it's a shame to be so bothered by a word
> > that you discount everything else the person has said.
>
> and of themselves. i'm bothered by what was meant by the word.
>
> we who would say such things to Carman are no less hypocrits than we accuse
> him of being. think about it, people.
> sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
>
>
My point exactly.
~Lisa
vcooley
> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
> JRjr
How dare he sing a song like that when people die in Libya!!!
Now wait, how did that relate?
V
Dannyboy
In article <32343C...@EriNet.com>, "Larry C. Ables" <lca...@EriNet.com> says:
>
>Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>>
>
>
>>...It all just makes me sick.
>>
>> JRjr
>> --
>
>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>respect your opinion.
>
Oh please. Yea, it's a bad word, but that's a really pathetic reason to
throw out someone's opinions. If you would take the time to _listen_ to
what Jerry's trying to say you'd see that he's got a very good point to
be made.
How come nobody listens anymore?
Dannyboy
http://www.io.com/~dkd d...@io.com
I saw the moon as it was sinking low still higher than a dream had ever
dared to go. I looked again and it turned to rain, feelin' the sting and
wondering from where this came. Do you know? - Dogs of Peace
austen's dad NiCk
>In article <32343C...@EriNet.com>, "Larry C. Ables"
<lca...@EriNet.com> says:
>>
>>Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>>>
>>
>>*edited for length*
>>
>>>...It all just makes me sick.
>>>
>>> JRjr
>>> --
>>
>>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>>respect your opinion.
>>
>>~Lisa
>
you _can't_ possibly mean that. you're ignorant to dicount someone's
feelings because of a _word_? did you pay _any_ attention to what jerry
was saying? sure, it's an offensive word, but there's pain and/or anger
behind it. maybe look at that instead of some surface thing. please?
Michael A. Vickers
In article <3235F7...@EriNet.com>, "Larry C. Ables"
<lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>the kumquat kuriosity wrote:
[some rants on the eff word deleted]
>>i'm not bothered by the word; combinations of letters hold no meaning in
>>and of themselves. i'm bothered by what was meant by the word.
>>
>>we who would say such things to Carman are no less hypocrits than we accuse
>>him of being. think about it, people.
>>... i find this response just as
>>sickening as anything carman has ever dreamed of.
>My point exactly.
okay, i've thought about it.
if you apply the visualization of the 'common' definition of the word
itself, and only that word, to carman then yeah, it can be considered
sickening in a sexual sort of manner. however, if you take the two-worded
phrase together and apply it to carman (which is what i believe was
jerry's intention) then, to me, it means something completely different.
it means something to the effect of 'kiss off', 'bugger off', 'get out',
'get lost', etc. and the reason that the word was prob chosen instead of
any of these alternatives is because jerry wanted to convey his attitude
in the clearest possible manner - that is, strongly.
i think before accusing people of being hypocrites, here, we should
consider the various definitions that even slang can be used in. not only
that, but consider colloquialisms and the meaning of those. just taking
the word by itself and creating the visualization out of it is something
that we often accuse those who are trying to pick the bible apart of -
taking things out of context.
Michael
========================================| Michael A. Vickers |==
'there is a place in space beyond our | vicke...@aol.com |
sense of time, there is a time beyond | mvic...@mindport.net |
space! sea of tranquility!' - g.c. | www.mindport.net/~mvickers |
John VandenHeuvel
Dannyboy (d...@io.com) wrote:
:
: How come nobody listens anymore?
:
requires too much thought and effort. It's much more fun to jump around
screaming about a moot point.
John v.
`4GiVeN
Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>
> In article <32343C...@EriNet.com>,
> Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>
> >*edited for length*
>
> >>...It all just makes me sick.
>
> >respect your opinion.
>
> the obsession with surface appearances to the exclusion of anything
> that really matters that pervades today's churches...
oh man here we go again it seems that this thread gets new life breathed
into it every
so often :(. surface appearances me thinks perhaps you should read
ephesians, there are
some expliciate guidlines in there as to how christians are to act, and
it seems to me
that it speaks of course language and so forth but who am i to judge
just thought i
should point that out as for carman lets give this subject a burial
Jason and Heather
Michael A. Vickers <mvic...@mindport.net> wrote:
>
> okay, i've thought about it.
>
> if you apply the visualization of the 'common' definition of the
> word itself, and only that word, to carman then yeah, it can be
> considered sickening in a sexual sort of manner. however, if you
> take the two-worded phrase together and apply it to carman (which
> is what i believe was jerry's intention) then, to me, it means
> something completely different. it means something to the effect of
> 'kiss off', 'bugger off', 'get out', 'get lost', etc. and the
> reason that the word was prob chosen instead of any of these
> alternatives is because jerry wanted to convey his attitude in the
> clearest possible manner - that is, strongly.
*Grin*
Here we have a perfect example of why context is everything. A whole
thread is started over the use of the word 'fuck', yet I doubt that
your use of the word 'bugger' will get any comment other than from
myself and perhaps one of the few Brits here, even though the advice
to 'bugger off' is by far the more disgusting and offensive of the
two if you consider original definitions.
But here you've even included it in a list of fairly innocuous phrases!
jason "Obscenity is the refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker" steiner
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Larry C. Ables
austen's dad NiCk wrote:
> >>
> >>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
> >>respect your opinion.
> >>
> >>~Lisa
> >
>
> you _can't_ possibly mean that. you're ignorant to dicount someone's
> feelings because of a _word_? did you pay _any_ attention to what jerry
> was saying? sure, it's an offensive word, but there's pain and/or anger
> behind it. maybe look at that instead of some surface thing. please?
>
> peace,
> NiCk
> soulbelly.
Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
off to me as being very irreverant to God. Disrespect of my God is
something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
that. Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So call
my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
his anger on. Personally, I don't think Carman really cares what Jerry,
me, or anyone else thinks of him. _I_ don't really care what anyone
else thinks of him. I have no reason to defend his point of view. But
that's the way Jerry's comments appeared to me so if I'm wrong than
please let me know Jerry. I can tell that you don't agree with Carman's
philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
slandering them. You have no right to put him down the way you did.
Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
every aspect of our lives?
~Lisa
Mike-E
Dan Temmesfeld <dan...@erinet.com> wrote in article
<323541...@erinet.com>...
Sniperoonie!
>
> Yeah, I agree with Mike, Carman needs to be in our prayers... (however,
> something tells
> me that's not what Mike meant)
That's what I meant! Pray pray pray! If you see something wrong, don't
take it to man, take it to _THE Man_!!! God's soo kool. He's got
_everything_ planned, including when we see our own faults. It's so
awesome!
Pray pray pray!!!
Peace.
Mike
>
> > Peace.
> > Mike
Scott Fincher
"Larry C. Ables" <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
>the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
>off to me as being very irreverant to God.
Why? First off, the "f-word" is a vulgarity, not an obscenity. While
generally it has extremely negative connotations, it is not
blasphemous in itself, which you seem to imply.
>Disrespect of my God is
>something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
>that.
Well, he's my God too. And Jerry's. And the Lord of several others on
this list. And BTW, basing your opinion of Jerry on his vocabulary and
not his meaning is fairly short-sighted.
Frequently, he has a lot of interesting things to say.
>Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
>Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD.
Poor choice of words? Really? Which is the worse - to say what you
really mean in your heart (in this case, "fuck you") or to water down
your words to the point of being dishonest? Is there really any other
way to convey Jerry's feelings other than the way he did it?
>He can handle it. So call
>my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
If He can handle it, why can't you? It's not like Jerry sinned against
_you_. Holy Indignation? How about self-righteous pretentiousness?
Are you somehow better than Jerry because you spell "fuck" with
asterisks?
>Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
>with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
>yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
>his anger on.
Obviously, you haven't read some of the threads in the past relating
to Carman. Jerry will let you know for certain, but I'm fairly sure
your impression is quite incorrect.
>Personally, I don't think Carman really cares what Jerry,
>me, or anyone else thinks of him.
Oh really? Caraman has gotten awfully defensive in interviews when
questions about r.m.c come up.
[deletia]
>I can tell that you don't agree with Carman's
>philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
>slandering them.
True.
>You have no right to put him down the way you did.
According to... you? We've already established you're not too well
informed about past Carman discussions around here.
>Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
>do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
>every aspect of our lives?
No, no, and yes. But then again, use of the f-word is apparently much
more offensive to you than to others. To say that the use of "fuck" is
blasphemous... well, that's a stretch, at best.
It's amazing that Jerry is getting strung up for the use of one word
rather than what he was actually trying to get across. I thought his
general ideas about Carman were much more controversial than how he
ended the post.
*********************************************************
Scott Fincher
Sfin...@tamu.edu
http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~sfincher (Still awful!)
"...the bluffing is easy, and I haven't seen your hand."
-Ty Tabor
*********************************************************
snail
"Larry C. Ables" <lca...@EriNet.com> writes:
>Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>*edited for length*
>>...It all just makes me sick.
>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>respect your opinion.
What sort of attitude is this !? You may not like the language but
the point is valid! Some people around don't like the way Jerry
phrases things but he argues his case damn well. As has been said
before 'attack the arguments, not the man'
--
//
\X/snail sn...@pobox.com.au
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
austen's dad NiCk
In <518di1$l...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au> snail <sn...@pobox.com.au>
writes:
>"Larry C. Ables" <lca...@EriNet.com> writes:
>>Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>>*edited for length*
>>>...It all just makes me sick.
>
>>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>>respect your opinion.
>
>What sort of attitude is this !? You may not like the language but
>the point is valid! Some people around don't like the way Jerry
>phrases things but he argues his case damn well. As has been said
>before 'attack the arguments, not the man'
well, i'd agree with you, but you said damn, so naturally your opinion
goes out the window, and nothing you ever say again will have any merit
with me...
=P
Mark Robertson
> Disrespect of my God is
> something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based >on that.
Little melodramatic, aint it?
Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
> Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So call
> my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
Holy indignation...I'm sorry to be so rude, but to refer to one's self
as holy...you take yourself kinda seriously, dontcha?
> Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
> do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
> every aspect of our lives?
wow...
Michael A. Vickers
In article <32377E...@EriNet.com>, "Larry C. Ables"
<lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>austen's dad NiCk wrote:
>>>>With that kind of language you make ME sick. Sorry, but I cannot
>>>>respect your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>~Lisa
>>you _can't_ possibly mean that. you're ignorant to dicount someone's
>>feelings because of a _word_? did you pay _any_ attention to what jerry
>>was saying? sure, it's an offensive word, but there's pain and/or anger
>>behind it. maybe look at that instead of some surface thing. please?
>>
>>peace,
>>NiCk
>>soulbelly.
>Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
>the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
>off to me as being very irreverant to God.
i dont follow the logic there. how is using 'that language' being
disrespectful towards god?
>Disrespect of my God is
>something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
>that. Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
>Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So call
>my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
may i call it something else?
>Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
>with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
>yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
>his anger on.
er, i didnt see it as making carman out to be the scapegoat for anything.
carman has a philosophy, and jerry didnt like it. jerry didnt like it
alot. and in the unlikely event that carman rushes home every evening to
read rmc, jerry let him know what he thought of that philosophy.
[...]
>I can tell that you don't agree with Carman's
>philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
>slandering them.
i think you need to look up the definition of slander.
>You have no right to put him down the way you did.
jerry did not put him down. a put down is 'carman, you couldnt count your
(eye)balls twice and come up with the same number.' a put down is slander.
i didnt read either of those into what jerry said. shall i repeat what
jerry said for you?
>Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
>do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
>every aspect of our lives?
people often forget about a really pissed off man throwing people and
their junk out of his house. the fact of the matter is that you really do
not know that jesus _wouldnt_ use that word and words like it.
Chuck Pearson
Scott Fincher (Sfin...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: It's amazing that Jerry is getting strung up for the use of one word
: rather than what he was actually trying to get across. I thought his
: general ideas about Carman were much more controversial than how he
: ended the post.
well, jerry's just that controversial type of guy. 8-)
look, in retrospect, jerry [and anybody else who tries to use "eff" on
this newsgroup] should know better. when you use one of these taboo
words, there is so much in evangelicalism that teaches that these words
are signs of a heathen good-for-nothing satanist that we ought to expect
that element to ignore everything else that's said. that's why i,
personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls 'round here and i
don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a newsgroup like
rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter what words i use.
people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
i just typed that in response to a gut reaction, but when i go back and
read that paragraph, the implications are absolutely staggering. and they
say absolutely nothing good about american christianity, and
evangelicalism in particular. in fact, it's downright depressing.
chuck
Chuck Pearson
[please note: under normal circumstances, this post would merit my
"language included, hit 'n' now if you don't want to read it" disclaimer,
but i think this post is important enough that you should be able to deal
with the ess-word for once in your life. so consider yourself warned.]
Larry C. Ables (lca...@EriNet.com) wrote:
: Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
: the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
: off to me as being very irreverant to God. Disrespect of my God is
: something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
: that. Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
: Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So call
: my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
lisa, i'm still very curious to see how you react to tony campolo's
comment on this topic.
to paraphrase [and i'll use the harsher version], "millions of people are
going to hell and you don't give a shit, and i know you don't give a shit
'cause you're more worried that i used the word 'shit' than you are about
anything else i said."
like i said before, if our entire judgement of people boils down to
whether they use this word or that word, american christianity is in Heap
Big Trouble. i would really hope that we are more honest than that. but,
as bill mallonee says, "i thought we'd made some progress, but then again
i could be wrong..."
Susan E Stone
Larry C. Ables (lca...@EriNet.com) wrote:
: Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
: the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
: off to me as being very irreverant to God. Disrespect of my God is
: something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
: that.
Why is it irreverent or disrespectful to God? He wasn't talking about
God, and saying "fuck" isn't taking the Lord's name in vain. And it's
not like Jerry is one of these people my mother would say needs his mouth
washed out with soap. He used a strong word to express a strong
feeling--here we are in America, where we can worship as we please and
say what we please, while our brother and sister Christians in other
parts of the world can die for the smallest sign of Christian commitment,
but do we lose sleep over that? Nooo! We whine about putting God back
in *America* again. I don't think Jerry's language was at all out of
place, under the circumstances.
: Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
: with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
: yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
: his anger on.
I saw it as using Carman as an example of a widespread problem in the
American church.
: Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
: do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
: every aspect of our lives?
As I recall, Jesus saved his harshest language for legalistic religious
leaders who were teaching the people false things. As for Jesus saying
the f-word, I have no idea if Aramaic even *had* the concept of a certain
set of words being "cuss words" that English has. Right or wrong, it
seems to me a very minor issue compared to right doctrine, showing
compassion and mercy, etc.
--Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan E. Stone * "You're not going crazy, you're
Penn Biology Dept. Academic Office * going sane in a crazy world!"
sst...@sas.upenn.edu * --The Tick
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sstone/ *
Jerry B. Ray
In article <51924n$3...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Chuck Pearson <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>like i said before, if our entire judgement of people boils down to
>whether they use this word or that word, american christianity is in Heap
>Big Trouble.
I'm offended by your stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans, chuck.
I'm kidding.
>i would really hope that we are more honest than that. but,
>as bill mallonee says, "i thought we'd made some progress, but then again
>i could be wrong..."
Now, before anybody starts ranting that we're ADVOCATING the use of
strong language, let me say that I'm not, and I'm pretty sure that
chuck isn't. But I am of the view that such language can be viable
from time to time, and that it's pointless to write people off
because of a word that they said. We (_all_ of us) need to get
past our obsession with maintaining appearances.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"You can't second-guess ineffability, I always say. There's Right, and
there's Wrong. If you do Wrong when you're told to do Right, you deserve
to be punished. Er." -- Gaiman and Pratchett, _Good Omens_
Jerry B. Ray
In article <32377E...@EriNet.com>,
Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
Sigh. I've been sitting this out for the most part, but I guess
I might as well address a few things.
>Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
>the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
>off to me as being very irreverant to God.
Why? That wasn't my intent, and I don't see it that way at all.
>Disrespect of my God is
>something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
>that.
Your opinion of me is based on a faulty interpretation of something
that I said.
>Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
>Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it.
Right. But why can't WE?
>So call my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
Y'know, that's kind of how I would describe my original post.
>Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
>with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
>yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
>his anger on.
I wasn't venting AT Carman per se. But the mentality embodied by Carman
in "America Again" and elsewhere played a large part in what led to my
feelings when I posted that article. As I've told others in e-mail, my
anger really begins and ends with myself and how lousy a Christian I
am. But all the JUNK I see us cheering for and getting upset about just
makes me wonder why I bother sometimes.
>I can tell that you don't agree with Carman's
>philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
>slandering them.
It wasn't slander in any sense of the word.
>You have no right to put him down the way you did.
I didn't put him down in any way.
>Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
>do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
>every aspect of our lives?
Dunno if that's what He'd say or not, but I imagine that He ticked a few
people off when he cleansed the temple. I am no Christ, but I believe
that at the heart of what I said, my motives were pure. How about
we discuss the paragraphs that preceeded that closing line and move
beyond the closing line itself?
Dan Temmesfeld
Larry C. Ables wrote:
> Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
> the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
> something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
> Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So call
> my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
This whole paragraph comes off as very self-righteous, yadda yadda...
Where in the Bible does God say not to say "fuck?" The context of our speech and our
heart's motive is what God judges. The context in which Jerry said "fuck" had about the
same meaning as saying "buzz off" (or something)- telling Carman to go figure out why
he would be complaining about all of the absence of God in America (something we know
nothing about). Saying "fuck you Carman" was the strongest/best way that Jerry knew how
to say what he wanted to say at that time. I think Michael Vickers already touched on
this subject...
> I can tell that you don't agree with Carman's
> philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
> slandering them.
Saying "fuck you" is not slander...
> You have no right to put him down the way you did.
How did he put him down? Maybe I'm missing this...
> Here's another question for you to chew on: Is that what Jesus would
> do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
> every aspect of our lives?
How can you tell? The word "fuck" can be in context and not be wrong. *If* Jesus said,
"Pharisees, you don't know the fuck what you're talking about!" I don't see that as wrong
or inconceivable as a remark coming from Jesus...
> ~Lisa
Dan
David Marvin
One of my Bible College (conservative, evangelical, etc.) professors said
that the best translation of Isaiah's comments on the gods of his day would
never be published in an English language Bible. As I recall (sorry, don't
have my Bible by my PC) the NIV translates Isaiah's description of them as
"made of dung." I'll let you figure out what the better translation would
be... I'll let it suffice to say that the simplest answer here would be the
best.
--
David Marvin
Computer Projects Coordinator
Aims Community College
Greeley, CO
dma...@aeolus.aims.edu
Chuck Pearson <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote in article
<51924n$3...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
> [please note: under normal circumstances, this post would merit my
> "language included, hit 'n' now if you don't want to read it" disclaimer,
> but i think this post is important enough that you should be able to deal
> with the ess-word for once in your life. so consider yourself warned.]
>
> Larry C. Ables (lca...@EriNet.com) wrote:
> : Okay, let me clarify something here. Yes, I do take extreme offence to
> : the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
> : off to me as being very irreverant to God. Disrespect of my God is
> : something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
> : that. Now, I don't think God was shocked off His throne because of
> : Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it. So
call
> : my anger Holy Indignation if you like.
>
> lisa, i'm still very curious to see how you react to tony campolo's
> comment on this topic.
>
> to paraphrase [and i'll use the harsher version], "millions of people are
> going to hell and you don't give a shit, and i know you don't give a shit
> 'cause you're more worried that i used the word 'shit' than you are about
> anything else i said."
<DELETIA>
Scholar and Fool
Dannyboy <d...@io.com> lividly interjected:
>>> >> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fvck you, Carman.
>>*edited for length*
>>>...It all just makes me sick.
>>
>>respect your opinion.
>
>throw out someone's opinions. If you would take the time to _listen_ to
>what Jerry's trying to say you'd see that he's got a very good point to
>be made.
Come on, Danny - you should know that there's no reason to listen to some
pottymouth person that doesn't quite speak or act in a manner that you
personally find acceptable. I mean, you think someone who would even
consider using a word that is unacceptable in certain social circles could
actually have valid and rational arguments and beliefs? I think not! We
all know that outward things such as hair, dress, accent, skin colour, and
personal choice of words are tantamount in the black and white evaluation
of someone's thoughts.
>How come nobody listens anymore?
What's the point in listening if you might hear something you disagree
with, or you might disagree with the way it's presented?
--
"You don't need theological training to witness effectively.
All you need is a supply of Chick tracts."
- (taken from the Chick Publications web pages)
@#$% Terry Leifeste, Scholar and Fool / hatf...@phoenix.net %*&$@#%&$%*#$#@
Scholar and Fool
Jason and Heather <stei...@primenet.com> lividly interjected:
>Here we have a perfect example of why context is everything. A whole
>your use of the word 'bvgger' will get any comment other than from
Oh, come on, Jason! All of us Americans know what the real cuss words
are. Those words like: bugger, arse, bloody, sot, bastich, bum, zounds,
and the like, are just funny words that don't mean anything too bad.
They are just like using: dang, darn, shoot, freaking, man, whale, etc.
Or alternative like using: puta, cabron, wey, mierde, etc. when you don't
know Spanish. We know what words have the real meaning and shouldn't be
used - certain words are foul no matter what the circumstance or how they
are used. It just happens to work out that they are all American slang.
Larry C. Ables
Scott Fincher wrote:
> Frequently, he has a lot of interesting things to say.
I agree. Jerry has plenty of interesting things to say. I'm only
referring on his opinion on this particular subject.
> Poor choice of words? Really? Which is the worse - to say what you
> really mean in your heart (in this case, "fuck you") or to water down
> your words to the point of being dishonest? Is there really any other
> way to convey Jerry's feelings other than the way he did it?
What does watering down you're words have to do with anything? I have a
very bad temper, my biggest fault, but I've never used vulgar language.
Does that make me dishonest? Christ lives in my heart. Anything that
comes out of my heart should reflect Christ.
> If He can handle it, why can't you?
I'm a human being, not God. So I took more offence to Jerry's language
than some of you did. Do you think God took offence to it? Isn't there
something in the Bible about that?
>
>
> Oh really? Caraman has gotten awfully defensive in interviews when
> questions about r.m.c come up.
>
I must have missed that somewhere.
>
> According to... you? We've already established you're not too well
> informed about past Carman discussions around here.
No, I'm not very informed about past discussions and we're not talking
about past discussions.
> No, no, and yes. But then again, use of the f-word is apparently much
> more offensive to you than to others. To say that the use of "fuck" is
> blasphemous... well, that's a stretch, at best.
I didn't say he was blasphemous, I said he was disresectful.
> It's amazing that Jerry is getting strung up for the use of one word
> rather than what he was actually trying to get across. I thought his
> general ideas about Carman were much more controversial than how he
> ended the post.
>
Agreed. I wasn't stringing him up for his language. I said I couldn't
respect his opinion becasue of the way his opinion was presented. And it
came across to me as just a way for him to blow off steam. Now, that
may not be true, maybe Jerry just didn't express himself very well and I
receive a mixed signal.
Roger Diercks
In article <51969j$q...@acmey.gatech.edu>, vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry
B. Ray) wrote:
(deletia)
> Dunno if that's what He'd say or not, but I imagine that He ticked a few
> people off when he cleansed the temple. I am no Christ, but I believe
> that at the heart of what I said, my motives were pure. How about
> we discuss the paragraphs that preceeded that closing line and move
> beyond the closing line itself?
Jerry, I agreee with you entirely about discussing the paragraphs that
proceeded the closing line, so I'm going to try to get the discussion back
on that track with a thought.
A friend of mine who is a Christian and a grad student in psychology once
made an excellent point about people like Carman who keep talking about
how the 1950's and early 1960's were the "good ole days". He said that
maybe those people should go talk to an African-American who lived through
those times and ask that person what it was like to live under a system of
blatant discrimination endorsed and sponsored by governmental bodies in
some places. People who talk fondly about that time ought to ask
themselves if those were really the "good ole days" for everyone.
Another thing that some of these people seem to ignore is that sin and
rebellion against God are not new things. Some of them seem to think that
America was such a moral, righteous nation (something it has never been
and never will be, IMHO) at that time. Let's face it, certain sins were
swept under the rug and were less obvious than they were now. Sin has
always existed since the fall in the Garden of Eden, regardless of how
"moral" things might appear to be.
Hope this steers discussion back to the real issue...
Roger
the kumquat kuriosity
In article <5191oo$2...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) wrote:
> look, in retrospect, jerry [and anybody else who tries to use "eff" on
> this newsgroup] should know better. when you use one of these taboo
> words, there is so much in evangelicalism that teaches that these words
> are signs of a heathen good-for-nothing satanist that we ought to expect
> that element to ignore everything else that's said. that's why i,
> personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls 'round here and i
> don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a newsgroup like
> rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter what words i use.
> people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
> the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
of course, a non-religious group probably wouldn't care, as a whole, if
you're seducing 16 year olds, either. While I don't wish to compare that
with using what many consider "foul language," it's simply not about
"honesty."
--the kumquat
--
[=----- the kumquat kuriosity ------ <http://miso.wwa.com/~eaton> ----=]
lie to a liar, for lies are his coin; steal from a theif, for
that is easy; lay a trap for the trickster and catch him at the
first attempt, but beware of an honest man.
Chuck Pearson
Jerry B. Ray (vap...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote in response to me:
: >...Heap Big Trouble.
: I'm offended by your stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans, chuck.
: I'm kidding.
gad. i even forgot that that was a stereotypical native american phrase.
my old roommate and i used to swap that phrase around all the time. of
course, dave works outside these days, and he is red enough that he LOOKS
like a native american...8-)
anyway.
Chuck Pearson
the kumquat kuriosity (ea...@wwa.com) wrote in response to me:
: > that's why i, personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls
: > 'round here and i don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a
: > newsgroup like rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter
: > what words i use. people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all
: > else. unfortunately, the evangelical movement is nowhere near that
: > honest.
: of course, a non-religious group probably wouldn't care, as a whole, if
: you're seducing 16 year olds, either. While I don't wish to compare that
: with using what many consider "foul language," it's simply not about
: "honesty."
okay, i'll bite, kumquat. what IS it about?
and i'll argue about a non-religious group not caring about if you're
seducing 16-year-olds, too. i don't think you're giving the "non-
religious" enough credit.
but anyway. defend yer' point, son. you ain't convinced me.
Jerry B. Ray
In article <eaton-ya02308000...@news.wwa.com>,
the kumquat kuriosity <ea...@wwa.com> wrote:
[chuq sed]
>> people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
>> the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
>of course, a non-religious group probably wouldn't care, as a whole, if
>you're seducing 16 year olds, either. While I don't wish to compare that
>with using what many consider "foul language," it's simply not about
>"honesty."
There's a remarkable amount of point-missing going on around here.
Darrell Scott Delaney
In article <323833...@EriNet.com>,
Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>I agree. Jerry has plenty of interesting things to say. I'm only
>referring on his opinion on this particular subject.
It hasn't been his opinion that's been argued about. It's been one single
solitary word.
>
>> Poor choice of words? Really? Which is the worse - to say what you
>> really mean in your heart (in this case, "fuck you") or to water down
>> your words to the point of being dishonest? Is there really any other
>> way to convey Jerry's feelings other than the way he did it?
>
>What does watering down you're words have to do with anything? I have a
>very bad temper, my biggest fault, but I've never used vulgar language.
>Does that make me dishonest? Christ lives in my heart. Anything that
>comes out of my heart should reflect Christ.
The language was not vulgar in this context. It was direct and blunt and
completely in line with the rest of the post. It was an honest expression
of what Jerry was feeling and communicated that idea beautifully.
>> If He can handle it, why can't you?
>I'm a human being, not God. So I took more offence to Jerry's language
>than some of you did. Do you think God took offence to it? Isn't there
>something in the Bible about that?
About what?
>> No, no, and yes. But then again, use of the f-word is apparently much
>> more offensive to you than to others. To say that the use of "fuck" is
>> blasphemous... well, that's a stretch, at best.
>I didn't say he was blasphemous, I said he was disresectful.
Why? Why would God be upset with that one word that was an integral part
of the larger argument? It wasn't directed at God. It was directed at an
ugly and hypocritical situation in today's church. As others have pointed
out, Jesus took a cat-o-nine tails to the folks inside his own temple when
it was called for.
>> It's amazing that Jerry is getting strung up for the use of one word
>> rather than what he was actually trying to get across. I thought his
>> general ideas about Carman were much more controversial than how he
>> ended the post.
>Agreed. I wasn't stringing him up for his language. I said I couldn't
>respect his opinion becasue of the way his opinion was presented. And it
>came across to me as just a way for him to blow off steam. Now, that
>may not be true, maybe Jerry just didn't express himself very well and I
>receive a mixed signal.
Of course he was angry and blowing off steam! Now why was he angry?
Well, I suppose you'd have to read the rest of the post to figure that
out. I didn't see anything in that post that didn't contribute to the
point Jerry was trying to get across.
Darrell
--
lots of people crying for a little rain
whole nation learning how to live with pain
I don't know how I'm gonna clean this little stain I complain -King's X
Darrell DeLaney <http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt4689g/>
Lisa Reid
`4GiVeN wrote:
> oh man here we go again it seems that this thread gets new life breathed
> into it every
> so often :(. surface appearances me thinks perhaps you should read
> ephesians, there are
>
> some expliciate guidlines in there as to how christians are to act, and
> it seems to me
>
> that it speaks of course language and so forth but who am i to judge
> just thought i
> should point that out as for carman lets give this subject a burial
I have several problems with your post:
1) What are you doing with this thread by posting to it? Breathing new
life into it, to use your own words. Don't add to it if you want it to
die.
2) More than "surface appearances," JRjr needs to worry about his heart
and where it is. And that, my friend, is between him and God. I am
going to make a wild guess here and assume that you're not very well
acquainted with Jerry. If you were, you would know that he usually has
a reason for what he posts and that he thinks before he posts. He
picked the word that offended you on purpose, for a purpose. If you
don't like that, I'm sure someone around here can help you set up a
killfile, and Jerry can be the first item in it. That might just make
you and him much happier in the long run.
3) If you want people to take you seriously and consider your words
carefully, look over your spelling, grammar, and line wrap function.
You seem to be having probems with all of these. I count at least 2
misspelled words and exactly one period in your post.
Lastly, I know this may come off sounding harsh, but I think I've sat
back and let Jerry be abused for entirely too long. Truly, I think
Jesus would agree with Jerry's opinion if He were here, and although He
might not have used *exactly* that language, I haven't seen much
evidence to show that He often pulled punches verbally when he had
something to say that was harsh. He was fairly graphic when he wanted
to say something harsh, and I think there are any number of passages
that would back me up there (I don't keep a Bible at work, so at the
moment I cannot quote chapter and verse). Jerry got his point across
rather well, as far as I can see, which is what he intended. If that
word and others like it offend you so much, you'd better stay at home,
lock your doors, and please don't ever turn on your TV or radio.
Lisa
Jerry B. Ray
In article <5191oo$2...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Chuck Pearson <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>well, jerry's just that controversial type of guy. 8-)
I suppose.
>look, in retrospect, jerry [and anybody else who tries to use "eff" on
>this newsgroup] should know better.
I know what you're saying, chuck, but I don't like the way this is
phrased. Something more along the lines of "shouldn't be surprised
at the reaction they get" is more what I would say. Of course, it's
"what I would say" that seems to be causing the problem in the first
place...
>when you use one of these taboo
>words, there is so much in evangelicalism that teaches that these words
>are signs of a heathen good-for-nothing satanist that we ought to expect
>that element to ignore everything else that's said.
See, I'm a good ol' Southern Baptist myself. I'm a fairly conservative
guy, by and large, though I've for whatever reason gotten away from
the "surface mentality" in recent years. I think growing long hair and
being on the "other side" of that whole "appearances" thing is something
that everybody should do at some point. Certain uses of certain words
bug me, or lower my opinion of the user to an extent, I will say. But
by and large, I'm not offended by "language" of the type that I used
in my original post, though at the same time I don't use it all that
often.
>that's why i,
>personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls 'round here and i
>don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a newsgroup like
>rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter what words i use.
>people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
>the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
Y'know, I kind of like the group of people I hang out with most often
at my church, some single some married, ranging in age from early
20's to early 50's. These are sincere Christians, but very few if any
aspects of life are taboo in our conversations. Some of our conversations
would probably get us excommunicated, but by and large I think that having
the liberty do discuss certain touchy issues or to speak freely is a good
thing.
>i just typed that in response to a gut reaction, but when i go back and
>read that paragraph, the implications are absolutely staggering. and they
>say absolutely nothing good about american christianity, and
>evangelicalism in particular. in fact, it's downright depressing.
Which ties back in to the words that preceeded the "fvck" in my post, in
a sense. We spend a lot of time getting hung up on some really unimportant
things.
Jerry B. Ray
In article <5194g0$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Susan E Stone <sst...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>He used a strong word to express a strong
>feeling--here we are in America, where we can worship as we please and
>say what we please, while our brother and sister Christians in other
>parts of the world can die for the smallest sign of Christian commitment,
>but do we lose sleep over that? Nooo! We whine about putting God back
>in *America* again.
I'm continually amazed at the number of people who are saying what I was
trying to say and doing a much better job of it. :-)
>I saw it as using Carman as an example of a widespread problem in the
>American church.
Yep. I bear no ill-will toward Carman himself. I have some of his
CDs, and there are some aspects of his whole "thing" that I like. But
there are a lot that I have problems with. Something's wrong when
you can be sincere and genuine and be flogged for saying "fvck" or
having long hair or whatever, but you can spout half-truths and
weak theology and get standing ovations.
Dan Temmesfeld
Larry C. Ables wrote:
>
> > Frequently, he has a lot of interesting things to say.
>
> I agree. Jerry has plenty of interesting things to say. I'm only
> referring on his opinion on this particular subject.
...which you really didn't listen to, because you were too worried about the
word "fuck."
> What does watering down you're words have to do with anything? I have a
> very bad temper, my biggest fault, but I've never used vulgar language.
> Does that make me dishonest? Christ lives in my heart. Anything that
> comes out of my heart should reflect Christ.
"fuck" is not vulgar, in and of itself. Jerry's use of "fuck" was not vulgar.
> I'm a human being, not God. So I took more offence to Jerry's language
> than some of you did. Do you think God took offence to it? Isn't there
> something in the Bible about that?
again, in what way was Jerry's use of "fuck" offensive to God? I don't see it...
> > Oh really? Caraman has gotten awfully defensive in interviews when
> > questions about r.m.c come up.
>
> I must have missed that somewhere.
...along with Jerry's ORIGINAL point.
> I didn't say he was blasphemous, I said he was disresectful.
you *implied* that what he was saying was blasphemous...
> I said I couldn't
> respect his opinion becasue of the way his opinion was presented.
Does anyone else see this as really idiotic. I won't quote it agian, but Campolo's
statement fits perfectly with this situation...
Dan
Larry C. Ables
Jerry B. Ray wrote:
>
> In article <32377E...@EriNet.com>,
> Larry C. Ables <lca...@EriNet.com> wrote:
>
> I might as well address a few things.
>
> >the "bad word" he used. And by using that kind of language Jerry comes
> >off to me as being very irreverant to God.
>
>
> >something I can not handle and therefore my opinion of him is based on
> >that.
>
> that I said.
>
> >Jerry's poor choice of words, I mean He's GOD. He can handle it.
>
>
>
>
> >Also, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending Carman or agreeing
> >with what Jerry said, but my impression after reading his post was that
> >yes, he was upset but he just singled Carman out as a scapegoat to vent
> >his anger on.
>
> I wasn't venting AT Carman per se. But the mentality embodied by Carman
> in "America Again" and elsewhere played a large part in what led to my
> feelings when I posted that article. As I've told others in e-mail, my
> anger really begins and ends with myself and how lousy a Christian I
> am. But all the JUNK I see us cheering for and getting upset about just
> makes me wonder why I bother sometimes.
>
> >philosphy but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and
> >slandering them.
>
>
>
>
> >do? Is that what Jesus would say? Aren't we supposed to model Christ in
> >every aspect of our lives?
>
> people off when he cleansed the temple. I am no Christ, but I believe
> that at the heart of what I said, my motives were pure. How about
> we discuss the paragraphs that preceeded that closing line and move
> beyond the closing line itself?
>
> --
Thank you Jerry. All I asked for was clarification. Please, let's move
off this subject and back to Jerry's argument.
Everybody was ranting at me for missing Jerry's point and no one was
getting mine.
~Lisa
MelodyKewl
::::: YAWN :::::
Mark Robertson
> Oh, come on, Jason! All of us Americans know what the real cuss words
> are. Those words like: bugger, arse, bloody, sot, bastich, bum, zounds,
> and the like, are just funny words that don't mean anything too bad.
> They are just like using: dang, darn, shoot, freaking, man, whale, etc.
Really? Arse is just another way of saying *ass*, and I've been to
England a couple times. *Bloody* is considered crass by "proper"
types.
> Or alternative like using: puta, cabron, wey, mierde, etc. when you don't
> know Spanish.
Some of those Spanish words are quite crass, so do I understand you to
mean that if we don't understand the language, the words aren't as
bad?
It's a forest and trees thing. Some guy was trying to make his point,
which no one commented on (the point, that is), instead we're
discussing wether he articulated his point properly.
You people need to get out more...
Or maybe it's because I worked construction for so many years...
-Mark
bev
In article <323835...@earthlink.net>,
Mark Robertson <thet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Oh, come on, Jason! All of us Americans know what the real cuss words
>> are. Those words like: bugger, arse, bloody, sot, bastich, bum, zounds,
>> and the like, are just funny words that don't mean anything too bad.
>> They are just like using: dang, darn, shoot, freaking, man, whale, etc.
>
>Really? Arse is just another way of saying *ass*, and I've been to
>England a couple times. *Bloody* is considered crass by "proper"
>types.
*pokes Mark*
Babe, he's kidding. :)
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e v.
<mailto:wedn...@tezcat.com> <a href="http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday/">
Sometimes the answer that love gives is the hardest one to take. - VoL
Mattias G. Hembruch
In article <51015c$n...@acmey.gatech.edu>,
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I'm having a bad day. I've been away from my church for two weeks,
>one week for a homecoming at an old church, and the next week for
>a trip out of town for the weekend. I go back this morning to find
>that the College and Career Sunday School class that I go to has
>been effectively dissolved, and going into the godforsaken Singles
>class is my only recourse. I won't be going to Sunday School anymore.
>Yes, it's that bad.
<LOT's o' STUFF deleted>
>And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
>JRjr
All I can say is: Revive us again.
Mattias
--
Mattias Hembruch, University of Waterloo. Where time has no meaning,
BASc Computer Engineering, MASc Candidate our reason does not apply.
Parallel & Distributed Systems Group K. Livgren
mghe...@dictator.uwaterloo.ca http://www.pads.uwaterloo.ca/~mghembru
Dan Temmesfeld
Larry C. Ables wrote:
> Thank you Jerry. All I asked for was clarification. Please, let's move
> off this subject and back to Jerry's argument.
> Everybody was ranting at me for missing Jerry's point and no one was
> getting mine.
Nice cover up...
IMO, your point was quite ridiculous, and LEADING AWAY FROM JERRY'S POINT anyway.
So, don't go blaming everyone else for ranting and getting away from his point...
> ~Lisa
Dan
Not Ashamed!
Jerry B. Ray (vap...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: There's a remarkable amount of point-missing going on around here.
Okay, here's this month's nomination for the RMC official slogan.
In any case, it's SIGGABLE!
The Visible Man
Quoth Roger Diercks (die...@students.uiuc.edu):
: A friend of mine who is a Christian and a grad student in psychology once
: made an excellent point about people like Carman who keep talking about
: how the 1950's and early 1960's were the "good ole days". He said that
: maybe those people should go talk to an African-American who lived through
: those times and ask that person what it was like to live under a system of
: blatant discrimination endorsed and sponsored by governmental bodies in
: some places. People who talk fondly about that time ought to ask
: themselves if those were really the "good ole days" for everyone.
My friend was just telling me the other day how her parents, who are
very white and grew up during the 50s, don't even buy into the "good
ole days" theory, either. Her dad, in particular, wasn't exposed to
all those TV perfect families so he had no boob-tube induced illusions
to cloud his view of the world. Does anyone know why people are so
convinced that the world was such a better place?
-T.
--
"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding"-They Might Be Giants
http://pobox.com/~tigre==hwhy<><XeElNiOhPpHoInLeEx><>mapav a0a==ti...@pobox.com
"People say I'm strange does it make me a stranger
that my best friend was born in a manger" - dc talk
Jim Stephenson
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:30:40 -0600, ea...@wwa.com (the kumquat kuriosity)
wrote:
>In article <5191oo$2...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) wrote:
>
>> look, in retrospect, jerry [and anybody else who tries to use "eff" on
>> this newsgroup] should know better. when you use one of these taboo
>> words, there is so much in evangelicalism that teaches that these words
>> are signs of a heathen good-for-nothing satanist that we ought to expect
>> that element to ignore everything else that's said. that's why i,
>> personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls 'round here and i
>> don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a newsgroup like
>> rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter what words i use.
>> people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
>> the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
>
>
>of course, a non-religious group probably wouldn't care, as a whole, if
>you're seducing 16 year olds, either. While I don't wish to compare that
>with using what many consider "foul language," it's simply not about
>"honesty."
Perhaps you should change the followups to alt.non-sequiter. And if, by some
stretch of the imagination, you can convince me that the above paragraph
actually has something to do with either Chuck's or Jerry's posts then you will
have also succeeded in convincing me that you were raising a straw man.
Chuck's point is that evangelicals, by and large, rarely look past surface dirt
to find the nuggets of gold underneath. Jerry felt a need to vent, and moved
me with the pain he felt as a result of seeing his church try to embrace
Carman's wet dream. At the end, he summed up his emotions with some pretty
strong language. The situation as described called for strong language.
Unfortunately, the language used is considered obscene by most evangelicals
(note that non-evangelicals, and especially non-Christians, never enter the
argument).
I see pain, I try to help. If someone falls down the stairs, do you rebuke
them for mumbling under their breath "Oh, shit ... oh, fuck ... oh, shit ...
oh, fuck ...," or get a medic and try to stabilize the person? An extreme
example, agreed (although based on personal experience), but it directly
relates to what we saw here. Jerry came back to church after an absence and
tripped over what he saw. At the bottom of that stairwell the language came
out. The language may bother you, but wait until the major wounds are healed
(and take an active part in trying to heal them) before taking him to task.
This has hit home with me this week. There are a couple of people I'm just
starting to get to know as a result of this newsgroup, and I'm trying to make a
Good Impression. Unfortunately, the Good Impression I try to make when I think
the other person is a Christian tends to be defined by Evangelical Christianity
and the baggage associated with it, and hobbled by a much dingier reality. In
my letters to these people we dance around topics, hinting at things but
leaving enough room to deny them in case the other person disapproves: I drink
-- not a lot, but I do like rum and tequila drinks; I swear -- not a lot, but
it comes out more when I hurt myself or do something especially boneheaded. In
the letters, though, I have to start with a facade of perfection, and then open
the shutters slowly in case the other people can't accept me for who I am. The
point being that personal hypocrisy is frequently seen as preferable to being
shunned by those whose opinions we value. (I admit that this is true to an
extent in all walks of life, but I feel that a body that claims to follow Jesus
should try to act as He did with the woman at the well).
An example: M wrote, in an offhanded way, about tequila shudders (in reference
to a comment I made about NyQuill shudders). I persued this, asking if she
liked tequila, or shuddered because she tried it once and hated it. I also
added that I did like it. She upped the anti by saying that her friend makes
really good margaritas. I have responded by saying that I really like
margaritas, and think I make a good one but would be willing to learn from a
master. And so it goes. As topics that are nominally taboo within the
confines of Evangelical Christianity come up we will continue to dance around
them until we are finally able to see the real people cringing in our caves and
are able to love each other for who we are *right this very second*.
Perhaps I am atypical. Perhaps my view of this matter is a result of being
raised nominally Catholic, then converting to Christianity via the Southern
Baptist Convention in college (and we all know how latter day converts can be).
Perhaps it is just me and my personality type. I've been a Christian for
twelve years, though, and I've seen enough to convince me that I'm not alone in
this. As I said before, everyone has to experiences the exquisite pain
inherent in the tearing down of facades whenever friendship grows. I think
that those of us who call ourselves the Church should stop stopping at the
facade of those we don't personally know or care about and get to know the
pathetic wretches who want to be loved for who they are, not for what they
think the rest of us want them to be.
(note to anyone still reading this: any finger you may see pointing at you in
my writing is pointing back at me tenfold)
--
Jim
(.sig under [re]construction ...)
Christopher C Parks
>Chuck's point is that evangelicals, by and large, rarely look past
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>surface dirt to find the nuggets of gold underneath.
Um, you misspelled "human beings."
In America, we are surrounded by a culture that screams of superficiality.
"Image is Everything." Problems can be solved in 30 minutes in a sitcom
or by buying a new car or toothpaste, or in seconds with a gun. Political
candidates are elected on the basis of slogans and sound-bites and
promises that they won't keep.
The grass is always greener elsewhere. If it turns out not to be greener,
we can engage in some nostalgia, and believe the grass always _used to be_
greener. Or if we really want to reach, we can swallow the line about
progress and believe the grass will inevitably be greener in the future.
Christians, of whatever flavor, are no more likely to be superficial than
anybody else. And no less likely. Maybe we have less excuse. But belief
in God doesn't magically remove the tendancy to fixate on image, on
surface, on the outside.
Peace,
chris
Richard Richardson
Setting the Wayback machine for: 12 Sep 1996 13:14:36 -0400, we saw
vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry B. Ray) say:
[...stuff deleted...]
>There's a remarkable amount of point-missing going on around here.
Phew! And I thought I was the only one with a mental picture of a fork
in the road. One way goes to Jerry's Point, the other somewhere else.
And nobody's going to Jerry's Point. :-)
BTW Jerry, I feel the same way. Especially in the context of what
happened at the church you attended. Sad.
-Richard
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Richard Richardson
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and yours is wrong!
--Dave Barry
rich...@nh.ultranet.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Miller
Christopher C Parks wrote:
: In article <323906ad....@news.gnn.com> steph...@gnn.com writes:
: >Chuck's point is that evangelicals, by and large, rarely look past
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >surface dirt to find the nuggets of gold underneath.
: Um, you misspelled "human beings."...
: Christians, of whatever flavor, are no more likely to be superficial than
: anybody else...belief in God doesn't magically remove the tendancy to fixate
: on image, on surface, on the outside.
We interrupt this discussion to insert the obligatory George MacDonald quote
as it appeared in an anthology by C. S, Lewis:
"Nothing is more deadening to the divine than an habitual handling of the
outsides of holy things".
<ten second pause>
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast...
Bob (I have a license to do this on r.m.c.) Miller
r...@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com
Jerry B. Ray
In article <51bpjg$2...@uwm.edu>,
Christopher C Parks <cc...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>Christians, of whatever flavor, are no more likely to be superficial than
>anybody else. And no less likely. Maybe we have less excuse. But belief
>in God doesn't magically remove the tendancy to fixate on image, on
>surface, on the outside.
I think that Christians, and evangelicals in particular, are more apt
to get hung up on minor things than the general public, or at least
to get more hung up on things that are not viewed as important by
most of society. I've seldom been treated as a second-class citizen
in the "real world" because of my hair length, the way I dress (within
appropriate bounds), the way I drive, the volume and style of my music,
whether or not I drink alcohol, whether or not I use certain words,
etc. With the exception of the alcohol issue, I've been treated poorly
by my Christian brethren and sistren on all of these points. Maybe we're
no more fixated on appearances than the general public, but we do have
a stupid set of appearances that we focus on. Like Steve Taylor said,
"If you wanna be one of His, gotta act like one of us..."
MelodyKewl
Hello Dearies,
rich...@nh.ultranet.com (Richard Richardson) writes:
>Phew! And I thought I was the only one with a mental picture of a fork
>in the road. One way goes to Jerry's Point, the other somewhere else.
>And nobody's going to Jerry's Point. :-)
Hmmmmm... Well, some of us disillusioned (and oft disinterested), yet
enfranchised lot never saw a fork in the road in went directly to the
point. ;) Others of a less-weathered constitution may have taken
their shiny... uhmmmmm... vehicles down a fork when they saw the road
was muddier than a showroom. Us all-terrain souls enjoyed the trip
and are ready to either party or cry (or both) at the end. Sometimes
love requires a damned strong chassis.
Ruby Kisses
Melody
MelodyKewl
Hello Dearies,
cc...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Christopher C Parks) writes:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
<.................. SNIP ...................>
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
(Sorry. All I had was pinking shears with me.)
>The grass is always greener elsewhere. If it turns out not to be
greener,
>we can engage in some nostalgia, and believe the grass always _used to
be_
>greener. Or if we really want to reach, we can swallow the line about
>progress and believe the grass will inevitably be greener in the future.
::: SIGH ::: Grass burns away, anyhow. Let's work on things that don't.
But a big ol' AMEN on it.
>Christians, of whatever flavor, are no more likely to be superficial than
>anybody else. And no less likely. Maybe we have less excuse. But
belief
>in God doesn't magically remove the tendancy to fixate on image, on
>surface, on the outside.
Agreed. Belief in God doesn't "magically remove" anything. We can,
however, partly through trust and obedience, eradicate much of it.
I don't want to go preachy here, though. Y'all don't fill the plate
so I'll save it for a paying audience. ;) [ A JOKE ]
Ruby Kisses
Melody
[ BRACKETED COMMENTS COURTESY OF capital bracketed commentary,
A DIVISIONOF don't flame me because you aren't able to get the joke,
MELODY KEWL - CHAIRPERSON ]
Jason and Heather
> > superficial than anybody else.
>
> apt to get hung up on minor things than the general public, or at
> least to get more hung up on things that are not viewed as
> important by most of society.
Having seen the issue from both sides of the fence, I have to disagree
with Christopher, and agree with Jerry. Non-Christians may be just
as superficial, but they're far less likely to judge based on such
things.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
hazelnut
i think the problem with this issue is that everyone is too busy
judging others ... including carmen, including jerry, including
me ....
i'll be the first to admit i have a problem judging others. i've
had atleast a few people from this newsgroup telling me at one
point or another that i shouldn't judge (i.e. dannyboy, tree,
dave [pula] ...).
can we just forget about the mistakes of others and just focus
upon what life is all about? we're wasting life if we're too
busy bickering and pointing fingers at each other. let's not
live life arguing about superificial, unnecessary details. my
fear is that i may grow old and be one of those nagging,
complaining, bickering grandmas who just sit there in a retirement
home with nothing better to do than to whine about my granddaughters
short skirt. *sigh* so help me God!
-hazelnut -- i just wanna stop to smell the flowers, but i can't
with you blocking the view and with you yellling in my
ear ....
Matthew C. Laswell
In article <323835...@earthlink.net>,
Mark Robertson <thet...@earthlink.net> writes:
>It's a forest and trees thing. Some guy was trying to make his point,
>which no one commented on (the point, that is), instead we're
>discussing wether he articulated his point properly.
>
>You people need to get out more...
Sorry Mark. Your band is cool and all, but rules are rules...
*WHACK!*
--
matthew c. laswell - my opinion, not Motorola's - mat...@comm.mot.com
"Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships.
That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic
interests, and other people who can't handle the truth." - Scott Adams
Dannyboy
In article <3238E2...@scf.usc.edu>, hazelnut <peg...@scf.usc.edu> says:
>
>i think the problem with this issue is that everyone is too busy
>judging others ... including carmen, including jerry, including
>me ....
gee, don't just hate that! In order to point out that someone's being
judgmental, you usually have to be judgemental yourself. When does it
ever end?!
>
>i'll be the first to admit i have a problem judging others. i've
>had atleast a few people from this newsgroup telling me at one
>point or another that i shouldn't judge (i.e. dannyboy, tree,
>dave [pula] ...).
I don't remember saying that, but then again, I forgot to shave this
morning.
>
<snip>
>
>-hazelnut -- i just wanna stop to smell the flowers, but i can't
> with you blocking the view and with you yellling in my
> ear ....
*Danny ponders*
ok, you can't _smell_ the flowers cuz you have a _visual_ blockage caused
by someone _yelling_?
I think there are 2 too many senses involved here. :)
Dannyboy - I suppose I should have taken this post more seriously.
http://www.io.com/~dkd d...@io.com
I saw the moon as it was sinking low still higher than a dream had ever
dared to go. I looked again and it turned to rain, feelin' the sting and
wondering from where this came. Do you know? - Dogs of Peace
Scholar and Fool
Mark Robertson <thet...@earthlink.net> lividly interjected:
>> Oh, come on, Jason! All of us Americans know what the real cuss words
>> are. Those words like: bugger, arse, bloody, sot, bastich, bum, zounds,
>> and the like, are just funny words that don't mean anything too bad.
>> They are just like using: dang, darn, shoot, freaking, man, whale, etc.
>
>Really? Arse is just another way of saying *ass*, and I've been to
>England a couple times. *Bloody* is considered crass by "proper"
>types.
Actually, all of those words (as far as I know) are either considered
impolite at the least in England, were considered improper in the past,
or come from bad backgrounds (word history). As far as "arse" and "ass" -
I think "ass" is just an American perversion of the *actual* word, which
is "arse." So, really, "ass" would be just another way of saying "arse."
(Maybe I'm wrong.) In England, from what I'm told, "ass" means exactly
what it was meant to mean - jackass, or donkey. (Although with the far-
reaching deathgrasp of American culture through TV and so on, perhaps
"ass" has begun to take on the US meaning to some degree...*shrug*.)
>> Or alternative like using: puta, cabron, wey, mierde, etc. when you don't
>> know Spanish.
>
>Some of those Spanish words are quite crass,
Actually, *all* of those Spanish words are pretty crass. I had defined the
words, but decided to delete it in order to preserve some of the innocent
eyes on the newsgroup. Suffice to say, a lot of people would be offended
if I wrote them up in English.
>so do I understand you to
>mean that if we don't understand the language, the words aren't as
>bad?
Pretty much...yep. Of course, I was being sarcastic and parodying the
mentality of the general evangelical Christian in the US. At the same
time, you are right - if people don't know the language, the words are
not as bad to them. Watch people...people who would never consider
saying a "cuss" word will put on a British accent and say "bloody" or
"bugger" or whatever. The fact is - a word is a sound. It's really
pretty simple. I could say a word and offend someone and not even
know it. It's separate from my intentions - or the use of any word in
question, in some cases. The word only has as much strength as the
collective addition of the intent of the speaker and the interpretation
of the listener. As far as I'm concerned, the intent of the speaker is
the only thing that can be judged, assessed, controlled, etc. by the
person performing an action. "Cuss" words are a totally arbitrary
selection of words made by society. It's great if you want to follow
arbitrary rules, or want to be a part of the genteel and polite society,
and such - but step back and it's just sorta silly.
Actually, "genteel" is a good word for this: 1. Refined: polite. 2. Free
from rudeness or vulgarity. 3. Elegantly fashionable. 4.a. Striving to
convey a refined, respectable appearance. b. Characterized by affected,
rather prudish refinement.
>It's a forest and trees thing. Some guy was trying to make his point,
>which no one commented on (the point, that is), instead we're
>discussing wether he articulated his point properly.
Ain't discussion lovely? Although I thought the point was being
discussed - although perhaps on a different group of posts. (I'm
assuming you're talking about Jerry's assessment of that...that...
uh....C*rm*n. *shiver*...talk about offensive words).
>You people need to get out more...
>Or maybe it's because I worked construction for so many years...
It's probably because you worked construction for so many years. *heh*
--
"You don't need theological training to witness effectively.
All you need is a supply of Chick tracts."
- (taken from the Chick Publications web pages)
@#$% Terry Leifeste, Scholar and Fool / hatf...@phoenix.net %*&$@#%&$%*#$#@
vcooley
>>> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>>I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers big
>>guy!
> It relates in that we have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited
> religious freedom in the USA, while people are being killed for wearing
> wedding bands ("a Christian custom") in other countries, and Carman's
> got to tilt at windmills of condoms in schools and that "lifestyle from
> the pits of Hell," homosexuality, and send out fliers to hold the
> "largest Christian concert in history" and so forth, all for the purpose
> of putting "God in America again." It all just makes me sick.
>
> JRjr
> --
> %%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
It makes me sad that Christians are the only group that it seems to be
politically correct to hate. It makes me sad that kids are fornicating and
people feel that a condom is the answer. It makes me sad that people live
sexual lifestyles that will send them to hell. It makes me sad that
Christians try to speak out against these things and others that should be
praying for them, spew venom about them. One trick of the enemy is to get us
to fight among ourselves. The fruit of the spirit is love, gentleness, and
temperance.
Vern
Jerry B. Ray
In article <NEWTNews.8426425...@so3350vcooley.so.xerox.com>,
vcooley <vcooley@NEWTNews> wrote:
>It makes me sad that Christians are the only group that it seems to be
>politically correct to hate.
Since you seem to have a hard time reading, let me reiterate what I
said in the post that started this all: a mission worker at my church
married a young Libyan couple at a mission conference in Frankfort,
Germany. They were there for training in how to do Christian mission
work in a hostile environment like Libya. Upon their return to their
country, someone observed that the young woman was wearing a wedding
band, apparently a "Christian custom." The couple was removed from
the plane and stipped naked and tied to some machinery. The bride's
finger was cut off to remove the offending wedding band. And as
the passengers from the plane watched, the couple was shot repeatedly
starting with the feet and working their way upwards until they were
(finally) dead, as an example of the cost of being a Christian in Libya.
And you have the nerve, the gall, the unmitigated self-importance to
say that you are "hated" for your religion in the United States?
>It makes me sad that kids are fornicating and
>people feel that a condom is the answer.
Kids are going to fornicate whether or not they have birth control
available. Passing out condoms is not an ideal solution, it's just
a band-aid to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies
and the like until such a time as we as Christians get off our asses
and do something to address the core problem, the fallenness of our world.
>It makes me sad that people live
>sexual lifestyles that will send them to hell.
Dying without Jesus sends people to hell, not any particular "sexual
lifestyle." There will be gays, straights, murderers, liars, gossips,
and any other group you want to name sent to Hell. Why single out
homosexuals?
>It makes me sad that
>Christians try to speak out against these things and others that should be
>praying for them, spew venom about them.
It makes me sad that Christians take stands on issues like these without
considering the implications of what they believe. Yeah, it's nice and
warm and fuzzy to say that Christians are hated in the US, that condoms
are to blame for teenagers having sex, and that we're free to say what
we want about homosexuals because they're all going to hell anyway.
Gets a good rise out of the church crowd, I know that for a fact. Is
it right? I think not.
JRjr
--
Randy Sharp
Jerry B. Ray wrote:
I've seldom been treated as a second-class citizen
> in the "real world" because of my hair length, the way I dress (within
> appropriate bounds), the way I drive, the volume and style of my music,
> whether or not I drink alcohol, whether or not I use certain words,
> etc. With the exception of the alcohol issue, I've been treated poorly
> by my Christian brethren and sistren on all of these points.
Amen! When I was in High School there was a minister who told us all
that he could line up 100 teenagers at random and pick out the
Christians just by looking at them (way they were dressed, length of
hair). He truly believes this!
At the time I told him he was living in the 1950's and that his theory
was seriously flawed.
Why do Christians always pick the most superficial things to judge a
persons worth by.
R#
Philip Sells
Greetings.
In article <51c7kn$6...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:
>Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> Christopher C Parks <cc...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Christians, of whatever flavor, are no more likely to be
>> > superficial than anybody else.
>>
>> I think that Christians, and evangelicals in particular, are more
>> apt to get hung up on minor things than the general public, or at
>> least to get more hung up on things that are not viewed as
>> important by most of society.
>
>Having seen the issue from both sides of the fence, I have to disagree
>with Christopher, and agree with Jerry. Non-Christians may be just
>as superficial, but they're far less likely to judge based on such
>things.
Consider the possible reasons for this:
1) Christians are more disposed to being "judgemental" than non-Cs.
2) Christians tend to waste their energy beating issues that are really
of no substance to death more so than non-Cs.
3) Where behavior of Christians is perceived as being needlessly
"judgemental" (as in some of the above-quoted comments), maybe that's
because it's a legitimate issue, one that in fact *does* need hashing
out, and Christians just happen to care more about such things than
non-Cs.
A lot of people tend to get all bent out of shape whenever a Christian
is perceived as being "judgemental" because of the attention s/he gives
to some issue like hair length. This is probably because the person
being "judged" feels that the issue isn't worth discussing that much and
shouldn't make any difference in how the Christian feels toward him/her.
Also, the "judgee" notes that non-Cs don't tend to worry about it so
much as the Christians do--but in doing so, the "judgee" runs the risk
of making the non-Cs' standards and behavior on the matter the default
or reference state. It's this last that can be unfortunately overlooked
at times.
Christians and non-Cs operate on different sets of priorities. This
should be obvious. Therefore, it's not necessarily desireable to
commend non-Cs' being "far less likely to judge based on such things",
because their priorities, which motivate them not to pass judgement on a
person based upon issue X, are different from those that motivate a
Christian to do that. Basically, what it comes down to is that to look
down upon some Christians' priorities as petty--and especially to take
support in that stance from the example of non-Cs--seems to me to be
taking the standards for what makes a good apple and applying them to
oranges.
To look at some examples, most non-Cs these days probably don't care a
great deal about whether or not a lady is wearing a lot of lipstick in
church. Well and good--why on earth should they? But in the *Christian*
community--drawing upon an understanding of it going back to the
Apostles--it is and was viewed as not necessarily a small matter.
Suppose said lady with mucho lipstick comes up for Holy Communion. A
sensible priest would act in what might appear to be a pretty rash and
"judgemental" way--he would withhold communion and firmly request, if
not *demand*, that she remove that obnoxious stuff from her mouth before
partaking. This is because, put simply, excessive lipstick is a kind of
personal adornment that reflects a certain cavalier, not to say impious,
disposition; and especially in the context of church worship and
communion, that kind of adornment is simply uncalled for. I've come
across a few statements on this topic of lipstick in the writings of the
Fathers (Tertullian, in a letter to a woman of his acquaintance; and in
the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, first section), all of which are
insistent on the point that excessive makeup is a sign of worldliness
(to save a little space, I won't go into their argument here).
So what seems to some of us these days to be a "minor issue" was most
definitely not that historically. From what I can tell, orthodox
Christianity has never been in the habit, as American Christians often
seem to be, of considering issues like these as minor and therefore not
worthy of or needing our attention. And that is simply because we here
don't seem to have that holistic view of the life of faith that there
used to be and fortunately still is in some quarters, which informed the
whole discussion of such things in the first place. This is why I
really am beginning to consider the frequent complaints about "legalism"
a bit of a crock. Of course, in the context of American Christianity,
there's enough wrong with how such issues are handled to bear out the
criticism oftentimes. But I just wanted to get this out to demonstrate
that there really is some substance to the kinds of issues that folks
are talking about in this thread, and that it's wrong to just shrug it
all off as being "judgemental" or "legalistic" or "intolerant" or <insert
favorite pejorative adjective here>.
--
Philip Sells (sel...@rpi.edu) | "On the cutting edge of orthodoxy"
http://www.rpi.edu/~sellsp/ `------------------------------------
Dept. of Chemistry, RPI; Troy, NY 12180 USA * Work: 518-276-4583
I'm a chemist by trade, but a theologian at heart....
snail
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) writes:
>well, jerry's just that controversial type of guy. 8-)
*grin*
>personally, try to avoid using those words on my trolls 'round here and i
>don't worry so much about avoiding those words on a newsgroup like
>rec.sport.soccer or whatever. there, it doesn't matter what words i use.
>people *will* pay attention to my opinions above all else. unfortunately,
>the evangelical movement is nowhere near that honest.
>i just typed that in response to a gut reaction, but when i go back and
>read that paragraph, the implications are absolutely staggering. and they
>say absolutely nothing good about american christianity, and
>evangelicalism in particular. in fact, it's downright depressing.
What Chuck said. That's one of the best ways I've seen that put. And it
is depressing :(
--
//
\X/snail sn...@pobox.com.au
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
http://melvin.silas.unsw.edu.au/~s-snail/
austen's dad NiCk
just got v.o.l.
dig.
peace,
NiCk
soulbelly.
*****************************************************************
"...herds of wild felt hogs roaming the countryside" - muffinhead
NiCk - drummer - computerer - austen's dad - all-around wuzzy guy
sit back. relax. you are in soulbelly country.
the world of soulbelly can be reached at 818.562.1491. thank you.
visit http://www.wavenet.com/~wtmilkmn/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i'm a little teapot, short and stout | it takes a big man to
here is my handle | cry, but it takes an
here is my other handle | even bigger man to
oh crap, i'm a sugar bowl | laugh at that man.
*****************************************************************
Will McDonald
In <NEWTNews.8426425...@so3350vcooley.so.xerox.com>
vcooley <vcooley@NEWTNews> writes:
>
>
>
>>>> And Carman sings "put God in America Again." Fuck you, Carman.
>
>>>I dunno how this relates to Lybia and such, but you're in my prayers
big
>>>guy!
>
>> It relates in that we have, for all intents and purposes, unlimited
>> religious freedom in the USA, while people are being killed for
wearing
>> wedding bands ("a Christian custom") in other countries, and
Carman's
>> got to tilt at windmills of condoms in schools and that "lifestyle
from
>> the pits of Hell," homosexuality, and send out fliers to hold the
>> "largest Christian concert in history" and so forth, all for the
purpose
>> of putting "God in America again." It all just makes me sick.
>>
>politically correct to hate.
I suspect that this statement is not even close to being accurate. (Of
course, "political correctness" is not always correct.) I think that
Christians complain that they are being persecuted for "righteousness
sake" when it is more likely that they are being condemned for
"self-righteousness."
Pat Robertson makes much of this "persecution" when the so-called
"Christian Coalition" is called to account for it's dishonesty.
>It makes me sad that kids are fornicating and
>people feel that a condom is the answer.
I am with you here.
>It makes me sad that people live
>sexual lifestyles that will send them to hell.
I hope to someday continue a sexual lifestyle. :-) Seriously,
rebellion against God (in all ways) will result in Divine wrath. It
can't be limited to just sexual sin.
>It makes me sad that
>Christians try to speak out against these things and others that
should be
>praying for them, spew venom about them.
What about the truth? Even if a Christian has the "correct"
socio-political positions down pat, that does not mean that we
shouldn't be concerned about what they teach. Carman is teaching a
desperately flawed and dangerous "history" of the U.S. as well as
promoting theology that leaves much to be desired. He has been
approached about it by several people over the years yet has been
unresponsive. Shouldn't we warn others of the danger?
(For what it's worth, just because some of us critique Carman doesn't
mean that we don't pray for the man.)
>One trick of the enemy is to get us
>to fight among ourselves. The fruit of the spirit is love,
gentleness, and
>temperance.
Another trick of the enemy is to get us to ignore problems that need to
be confronted.
Will
--
"The face of a child can say it all, especially
the mouth part of the face." -- Jack Handey
Jim Stephenson
On 12 Sep 1996 15:39:26 GMT, hatf...@alpha1.phoenix.net (Scholar and Fool)
wrote:
>Oh, come on, Jason! All of us Americans know what the real cuss words
>are. Those words like: bugger, arse, bloody, sot, bastich, bum, zounds,
^^^^^^^
>and the like, are just funny words that don't mean anything too bad.
Johnny Dangerously had that much impact on America?
Loserboy
hazelnut <peg...@scf.usc.edu> wrote:
> we're wasting life if we're too busy bickering and pointing fingers at
> each other.
"this is supposed to be a *happy* occasion. let's not bicker and argue
over who killed whom."
cool post, hazie. just thought i'd share a random association.
--
Loserboy (or Glenn Harper) !"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on
gt1...@prism.gatech.edu ! their real heads."-They Might Be Giants
(if you *really* wanna write me)! Coming in a few months: a loser's web page
Loserboy
In article <51culg$7...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
austen's dad NiCk <s.b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>just got v.o.l.
>dig.
er, i think adam again recorded dig. d;-)
(which VoL, did you get? the new one?)
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Whatever else one might say about Carman, I must admit I *am* tempted --
strongly -- to agree with those _Release_ readers who voted him the
best-dressed artist in CCM. Damn, he looks good ...
(What was it Steve Taylor -- and countless others, I'm sure -- was saying
about the emphasis on "image" over actual spiritual content in CCM today?)
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "Sure I'm prejudiced! None of my best friends are
Culture Editor, | idiots!" -- Larry Niven
The Ubyssey | "It's a good thing money can't buy happiness. We
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | couldn't stand the commercials." -- David Gerrold