Technical Problems
Our tired old computer is acting out...and at school I can not read or respond to comments because it is considered a "chat room"- off limits for the school for several obvious reasons.
I just got around to reading the responses, but am able to leave the somewhat sarcastic reply I was thinking of. Technical Glitch
I am very busy at work, and very distracted at home. Time and energy glitch.
The main thing I was dealing with when I wrote the second to last piece, was that not all Christians would agree that the murder of those children was part of God's perfect plan since the beginning of time. Perhaps, the Amish would disagree with me, since one was quoted as saying - It was God's will. I do believe that all things work for the good for those who love God. And I believe that the example of the Amish was an important, but largely ignored message from God.
As was the discovery of that ancient Book of Psalms open to Psalm 83. Was that ever debunked as a scam?
Upon reading the responses to this piece, one particular comment stood out. One about the goddess. Sorry my friend, I just can't come to capitalize that g. Is she invented? I think not.
I think she is a created being, a fallen angel, who presents herself as something quite beautiful, who denies the cross of Jesus for what it is, who can not herself be redeemed and therefore belittles the concept of redemtion, who allows her children to play in the darkness until they are unable to accept the light. At least, that is the goddess I met on my journey to enlightment. And if it were not for the prayers of a faithful few, I might be playing with her still.
I am reluctant to say this here, but inspite, or perhaps because of what I just wrote, I value my blog relationship with Wanderer, and welcome all his comments. As for the other guy - he is what he is. He is successful in what he does. He is secure in what he believes. That is more than I can say for myself these days. Blog on.
3 comments:
" I value my blog relationship with Wanderer, and welcome all his comments. As for the other guy - he is what he is. He is successful in what he does. He is secure in what he believes. That is more than I can say for myself these days. Blog on."
Hi the "other guy" here.
So my comments aren't welcome?
Fine. This will be the last one.
I am what I am by the grace of God. I am secure in the Lord and His Word. Successful? I haven't a clue what that means. God's standards or the world's?
As for the goddess, whatever.
Chris P. - "Hi the "other guy" here."
Thanks for the update. I am sure nobody was capable of realizing that you were the one engaged in the discussion with me on the previous post.
"So my comments aren't welcome?"
Basic reading comprehension would imply that the subject of a series of sentences remains the subject unless the writing points otherwise: "As for the other guy - he is what he is." That would be you. "He is successful in what he does." You again. "He is secure in what he believes." Still you. "That is more than I can say for myself these days." Comparative statement. Compared to whom? Yep, that would be you. "Blog on." A statement of direction. Directed at whom? Let's see, who was the subject again? Oh, right. You.
Thus, class, we see that you in fact misinterpreted again. She clearly seems to be indicating that you are in fact welcome to continue speaking. You sure you don't want the hooked on phonics set?
Of course, it would also seem that with my comments being welcome, and no detraction on my defense of her, that if those comments she seems to welcome become hostile to her, I am still welcome to be defensive. Looks like we get to keep the status quo. Won't that be fun?
"I am what I am by the grace of God. I am secure in the Lord and His Word."
Congratulations.
"Successful? I haven't a clue what that means."
Try here.
I hope that helped.
"As for the goddess, whatever."
An interesting comment. First of all in its lack of proper grammar. Second in the fact that the absence of said grammar makes it literally uninterpretable. Thus we have no choice but to assume what you mean. So I will do so. :)
MaryEllen states that the Goddess (sorry as well, MaryEllen, but outside of a direct quote, I can't bring myself not to capitalize that g) is in fact a fallen angel who leads us to play in the darkness instead of turning to the light. Needless to say, I think she is wrong. However, the best that I can interpret by your dismissive "whatever" is that you disagree. Therefore, are we to presume, since you dismiss her statements, that you instead believe my take that She is a legitemate Goddess? Or are you just being sophomoric?
MaryEllen - There is no real need for me to point out to you that we are in disagreement in regards to the Goddess. I am pleased to know that you value the blog relationship we have developed. I would have you know that despite the face that we have significant different takes on many things, including the entity in question, I value that relationship as well.
Post a Comment