Fannie's Room
I am looking forward to part two.
One thing that jumps out at me is something you didn't say. (I haven't read the book so I don't know if Mr. Hedges addresses it).
You mention, accurately, that this brand of fundamentalism denies that other brands of Christianity are genuine, but I see the same alarming trend among Catholics, entranced by Benedict XVI.
As a cradle and cultural Catholic, I am watching in horror as the Pope gets more and more involved in politics, leading his sheep into the very same authoritarian, intolerant mindset.
John,
Hedges alludes to the Christian Right's collusion with radical Catholics (even though the two sects don't really see each other as legit Christians)... it is scary if these radical intolerant views are becoming mainstream- and if anyone can make such views mainstream among Catholics it's their leader...
From experience I can say that the trick about subscribing to fundamentalist evangelical beliefs like Absolute Truth and the infallibility of the Bible (with selective literalism) is that in the believer's head, they are not choosing to believe something. You don't even dare to see your belief as a choice in a belief system (since there is one and only one knowable and absolute Truth). The only choice you see is between eternal life as a believer (ie. non-questioner and Chosen) or as an unbeliever (damned to a life of sin and eternal torment).
To them, they have found the Truth. Even more, they were CHOSEN to know the Truth. The Chosen don't question such a thing. Those who question are not the Chosen. The Chosen have faith. So to preserve status as Chosen and Saved you dare not tread the waters of doubt and questioning. Can you imagine a mental state of being more easy to manipulate that one that simultaneously believes in infallibility, absolutism and dares not question?
Hammerpants,
I was hoping you would comment, as you have a unique insight into this movement, having sort of grown up in it....
From an outsider's perspective, it is apparent that mind control would be very easy for followers- er, believers- of this movement... I think that's part of why this movement is so scary... it has the ability to capture the minds of millions, and it has...
Hammerpants,
How does the fundamentalist handle the obvious contradictions they see in scripture?
When I was with Jehovah's Witnesses, I would see the contradictions clearly. Was I just not fully brainwashed? How can one read Matthew 25 and claim that salvation is by grace alone?
How does one learn to ignore, deny and discount most of the scripture they hold so dear?
John,
That's a great question. I can't speak for all familiar with fundamentalists, but I can remeber the issue coming up quite a bit actually throughout school and sunday school. The most common response to perceived contradictions was "context context context." For this reading the context was x, for that it was y. It doesn't mean one's true and the other is not. You can't separate one line of scripture from the rest because together it tells the entire story. It was all True, to the extent that it was interpreted correctly and understood in context (which our leaders could always do). And then there were always really academic explanations of this translation actually comes from this and that translation from that and they are both true because this is what was actually meant, etc.
That being said, the ambiguities of scripture is what has lead to so many different Christian sects, right? Strict calvinists who believe in total predestination, and the megachurch believers who are all about feeling and finding God. They all cling to one scripture or another.
Thanks, Hammerpants.
Bulletin! This just in! All of us are creatures, not the Creator. We live in God's world governed by God's Law. To deny this is not to change this fact-of-life. You do not have to believe in Hell to go there.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
May I present the above comment as Exhibit A in the Christian Right's pesky habit of presenting unprovable religious belief as fact.
So you can "prove" that what I say is false? Please, be my guest...I eagerly await your "proof".....
May I present the above comment as Exhibit B:
When the Christian Right is unable to prove that their unprovable spiritual beliefs are fact, they place the onus on others to prove that unprovable spiritual beliefs are not fact.
They seem to have a missing chip in their brains. Specifically, the ability to make a distinction between observable, rational, and scientific phenomenon and matters of faith.
Thanks for visiting, "JLof." You are an excellent case study.
It takes only a handful of friendships with gay people, to use just one example, to demonstrate irrefutably that what your favorite Medieval translator said that God said is false.
John Lofton presents another refrain from the Christian right that I almost forgot:
"If you don't believe the Truth it doesn't make it any less true."
Again pointing to an Absolute, knowable, infallible Truth that is in actuality based solely on belief.
"If you don't believe the Truth it doesn't make it any less true."
And that statement is the crux of Christian intolerance. The members of the Christian Right see themselves as knowing the absolute Truth. Therefore, they are justified in not tolerating those who do not believe in that "Truth," because in their minds those who do not believe are simply wrong. (And going to Hell and blah blah blah).
And better yet, at the same time they wash their hands of any responsibility in who they deem sinful or on whom they bestow their righteaous hate. After all, they didn't make the rules, God did. Their just living by them.
I mean "They're" (I hate their/there/they're mix-ups).
And they had better wash their hands every day because they're covered with blood.
When I read about the senseless murder of Lawrence King, I know where that hate comes from.
I see a lot of cussin' & fussin' but ain't nobody refuted nothin' yet -- typical of unbelievers, I might add. Pathetic. Nothing to live by or for....
Hmmm.
The only person who sees "cussin'" here is "JLof." But then again, it is apparent that we are all to accept figments of his imagination and his unprovable beliefs in the supernatural as fact.
Now JLof. I don't know if you are just playing ignorant, but I urge you to learn to differentiate between that which is provable, observable, and rational and that which is not. It's well-established that religious beliefs are capable of neither proof nor disproof. Just as you are utterly incapable of proving that your religion is the truth, a non-believer is incapable of disproof. Hence the word belief.
You know, JLof, the debate over the "provability" of religion is dull, elementary, and I believe the last time I seriously had it was in high school. Shall we really re-hash that tired debate? Are you going to change your mind? I doubt it. Am I going to convert? Nope.
But since you're on my turf, it's my turn to ask the questions.
What's your purpose in commenting here? Do you truly seek constructive dialogue? Do you really believe you know anyone here well enough to be able to say that we have nothing to live by or for just because (probably) most of us do not subscribe to the exact same narrow and repressive belief in the supernatural that you do?
As so far you've shown yourself to be nothing more than an illogical bad-grammar-toting caricature of the movement of which you are a part, I urge you to write more substantial comments than your (un)witty one-liners and sound-bitten stereotypes.
When given the floor, I too often find that conservatives and those opposed to gay rights have nothing more to spew than illogic, personal attacks, and diversions. They use other people's forums not to engage in dialogue or answer questions but to spout conversation-killing cliches like "typical.... nothing to live by or for."
Actual respectful dialogue would be a refreshing change. And if JLof is the virtuous, upstanding, moral Christian he claims to be, I'm sure we can expect better from him from now on.
Hmmm.
The only person who sees "cussin'" here is "JLof." But then again, it is apparent that we are all to accept figments of his imagination and his unprovable beliefs in the supernatural as fact.
COMMENT: Great! Let’s talk epistemology. What is the standard you use to “prove” things? What do you consider “evidence” of something? Is knowledge only through the senses? If you say ‘yes,’ how do you know this? You say my orthodox Biblical Christian views are “figments of [my] imagination.” Really? How so? How do you prove they are what you say and not real, not true? And who says belief in a supernatural is “unprovable?” How do you “prove” this assertion.
Now JLof. I don't know if you are just playing ignorant, but I urge you to learn to differentiate between that which is provable, observable, and rational and that which is not.
COMMENT: So, what is the difference? Specify. And tell me your source for your definitions.
It's well-established that religious beliefs are capable of neither proof nor disproof.
COMMENT: Really? “Well-established” by whom? Be specific, please.
Just as you are utterly incapable of proving that your religion is the truth, a non-believer is incapable of disproof. Hence the word belief.
COMMENT: Where did you get the idea that the word “belief” means something that is not provable? Be specific.
You know, JLof, the debate over the "provability" of religion is dull, elementary, and I believe the last time I seriously had it was in high school. Shall we really re-hash that tired debate? Are you going to change your mind? I doubt it. Am I going to convert? Nope.
COMMENT: Wrong! Whether there is a God and which “religion” is true is one of the most important topics in all of human history. That’s why even non-Christians have sought answers to these questions. And these are questions that cannot be evaded no matter how hard you try.
But since you're on my turf, it's my turn to ask the questions. What's your purpose in commenting here? Do you truly seek constructive dialogue? Do you really believe you know anyone here well enough to be able to say that we have nothing to live by or for just because (probably) most of us do not subscribe to the exact same narrow and repressive belief in the supernatural that you do?
COMMENT: Oh, I see. Now that you’ve called me names and mocked my faith, NOW you want to ask me some questions and ask about, of all things, “constructive dialogue” which, obviously, you are incapable of engaging in (at least as far as your remarks to me so far.)
As so far you've shown yourself to be nothing more than an illogical bad-grammar-toting caricature of the movement of which you are a part, I urge you to write more substantial comments than your (un)witty one-liners and sound-bitten stereotypes.
COMMENT: More billingsgate. Remember: vilification is not argumentation. And what “movement” am I part of? I look forward to your replies to my specific and very important “substantial” questions.
When given the floor, I too often find that conservatives and those opposed to gay rights have nothing more to spew than illogic, personal attacks, and diversions.
COMMENT: What have I said that is “illogical”? A “diversion?” Be specific.
They use other people's forums not to engage in dialogue or answer questions but to spout conversation-killing cliches like "typical.... nothing to live by or for."
COMMENT: It’s true that unbelievers no nothing about life – it’s origins and its purpose. Thus, they have nothing to live for or by. That’s true. I’m sorry if you cannot handle this truth.
Actual respectful dialogue would be a refreshing change. And if JLof is the virtuous, upstanding, moral Christian he claims to be, I'm sure we can expect better from him from now on.
COMMENT: “Respectful dialogue?” You’re one to talk. Review your own language. And I’ve said NOTHING about me being a “virtuous, upstanding, moral Christian.”
"It’s true that unbelievers no nothing about life – it’s origins and its purpose. Thus, they have nothing to live for or by. That’s true. I’m sorry if you cannot handle this truth."
I LOL'd !!!!
God will have the last laugh.
Faith and belief, in and of itself, is nothing to mock. Its the know-it-all "you have nothing to live for if you don't believe" and "you have no morals if you don't believe" mentality that is so elementary and disresectful.
Treat your belief as your BELIEF, I'll treat my belief as my BELIEF, and though we disagree, we should be able to exist in harmony.
"JLof"
You came here, stated your religious beliefs as fact, demanded proof for the unprovable, and declared to the world that I and every other nonbeliever are going to Hell. Thus it is extremely interesting that you have the typical temerity to falsely accuse me of swearing and treating you disrespectfully. Don't mistake accurate labeling for "name-calling." It is apparent that your words so far here have not differentiated you from a caricature of the Christian Right movement. Prove that you are better than that.
If you believe that I am some shivering little lady who will tremble before your bellowings and accept your (il)logical rants as fact you are sorely mistaken.
Now...
I believe I asked you some VERY specific questions. As I predicted, you diverted. You diverted by accusing me of being incapable of "constructive dialogue" (I know you are but what am I?) and then barraged me with your own questions.
Nope. It doesn't work like that. See, you're a guest here and I don't take kindly to unfriendly strangers kicking up their muddy feet on my furniture.
So, you can answer my questions or you can divert further.
Your choice. Your character on display.
Oh yeah, don't forget to "be specific" in your answers.
John Lofton, you are making the assumption that all of the readers of this blog are "unbelievers" and I suspect to your mind, anyone who does not subscribe to your particular interpretation the bible is an "unbeliever".
I am not an unbeliever.
While I don't subscribe to your belief system, I am a Christian, rather spiritual, and I examine my conscience daily.
I believe that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are superior to the all other ancient moral codes and I endeavor to put them into practice in my daily life.
Some will argue that Jesus's code is no better that the Code of Hammurabi, but I am not one of them. I believe that Jesus was a cut above because, in Jesus's teachings we find something unique; the command to speak truth to power.
Of all the myriad lessons to be learned from the Gospel, the single most important is, to use a poison term in a positive sense. "moral relativism".
Jesus fought his biggest battles against the legalism of his faith; he told the Pharisees in no uncertain terms that the Law was subject to interpretation, and that when the Law is used to the detriment of human dignity, the law is to thrown away, and human dignity is to trump.
I try my damnedest every day to follow his example:
Never condemn, never judge. Walk a mile in other's shoes; Pick up the downtrodden; salute each man's dignity and pride; give from our sustenance when our human intuition is to invest our surplus. We are our brother's keeper. Take the log out of our own eye before searching for the straw in our brother's eye, and most important, do unto others as we would have others do unto us.
"God will have the last laugh."
Great. So that's all settled then.
Except I'm still awaiting your answers to my questions.
Hey, John.
You came to this blog. For all intents and purposes, you are a guest.
Your demands for Fannie to provide documentation and specifics to refute what you're saying are inappropriate. When she comes to your hack-website, maybe you can make such demands.
You're a has-been.
However, you are right about one thing: God will TOTALLY have the last laugh.
John Lofton,
And I eagerly await very specific answers to my questions. I urge you to be a polite guest here and as I've extended you the courtesy of answering your questions (below), I hope you will do the same for me. I mean, I'm pretty sure you were banking on me not answering your repeated multiple requests for "specific" answers so you could leave here doing a victory dance over an unbeliever.
So I'll be easy on you. I just have one:
Specifically, what is your purpose in commenting here?
Until you answer that simple question, I will not waste anymore time with you.
Prove that you are more than a demanding bully.
JLOF: Great! Let’s talk epistemology. What is the standard you use to “prove” things? What do you consider “evidence” of something? Is knowledge only through the senses? If you say ‘yes,’ how do you know this?
FANNIE: While your question is overly-broad and noncontextual my answer is simple. I don't "prove" things. Keep reading.
JLOF: You say my orthodox Biblical Christian views are “figments of [my] imagination.” Really? How so? How do you prove they are what you say and not real, not true?
FANNIE: Actually, I never said that. I apologize for the confusion. When I said "figments of your imagination," I was referring to the fact that you saw lots of "cussin" in this thread, when in fact, there has been none. The "cussing" being a figment of your imagination. Are you saying that there has been cussing here, contrary to the evidentiary support?
JLOF: And who says belief in a supernatural is “unprovable?” How do you “prove” this assertion.
FANNIE: To answer this, we must first define "prove." I mean, you and I should at least use the word prove in the same sense, correct? Dictionary.com defines it as “to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument”. You can "prove" your religious tenents in a series of arguments, but in the absence of legitimate evidence I do not have to accept your arguments as logical, rational, or legitimate proof.
If you're using the word "prove" in the sense of "establish something with 100% certainty," then that can be done by neither you nor I. Even scientific theories based on observable phenomenon cannot be established 100% true. But, given enough evidence and reasoning, I accept certain scientific theories as being true- while acknowledging that they can never be proven 100% true. And this is where faith enters the door.
The thing about religion, particularly your religion, JLof, is that it has yet to present the same kind of persuasive, tangible, observable evidence that would give a questioning person the peace of mind to accept its propositions as true.
But more importantly, the beauty of our country is that you and I can have differing beliefs regarding the supernatural, God, morality, and the afterlife and we can peaceably co-exist. I don't care what you personally believe in, but I certainly don't want you or anyone else forcing me to believe their religious/spiritual beliefs.
(continuation)
JLOF: So, what is the difference [between the provable and the unprovable]? Specify. And tell me your source for your definitions.
FANNIE: See my previous answer.
JLOF: Where did you get the idea that the word “belief” means something that is not provable? Be specific.
FANNIE: I use the word "belief" in its dictionary sense: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." Do you know of a new meaning to the word that I am not aware of?
JLOF: Wrong! Whether there is a God and which “religion” is true is one of the most important topics in all of human history. That’s why even non-Christians have sought answers to these questions. And these are questions that cannot be evaded no matter how hard you try.
FANNIE: Which part of my comment are you declaring is "wrong"? All of it, or just certain parts? Be specific. Please note that nowhere did I say that the question of which religion and God is "true" is unimportant. I merely stated this: no religion can be proven as the true one. At most, I will give this: It has not yet been established that there is one true religion. Since the beginning of religion, human beings have claimed that their particular religion is "true" and have sought dominion over "unbelievers." This unfaltering belief in the Truth of the believer's religion has justified great killing and violence throughout history in the name of some type of God. You are certain of your religious beliefs. Yet, neither your quest nor your conviction are unique in human history. So while yes, "Which religion is true" is an important question, I believe the more important question is this: "In the absence of universally-accepted proof as to the Truth of any religion, how do people of differing spiritual beliefs co-exist in the same society?"
Therefore, I am not interested in whether you can prove that your religion is true. In your eyes, it is true. And nothing will likely make you see that some people of other faiths believe just as firmly as you do that their religions are the Truth.
And so while you seek a Christian Nation, it would be far more healing and beneficial to society if you sought true tolerance and religious pluralism.
JLOF: What have I said that is “illogical”? A “diversion?” Be specific.
FANNIE: Illogical? You state your beliefs as fact offering no evidentiary support. Diversion? Rather than answering my questions, you ignored them and then posed a series of your own questions demanding "specific" answer after "specific" answer.
Either be genuine or stop wasting my time.
JLOF: It’s true that unbelievers no nothing about life – it’s origins and its purpose. Thus, they have nothing to live for or by. That’s true. I’m sorry if you cannot handle this truth.
FANNIE: Why don't unbelievers "no" anything about life or "it's" origins and purpose? Are you an evolutionary denialist? Do you literally believe in the creation myth as it is written in Genesis?
Have you asked me what spiritual creed I live for and by? Or, do you just assume that I have nothing to live for or by because I do not live for or by the exact same spiritual belief that you do? And again, why is your belief true and mine not?
You accuse me of mocking your religion, but you mock every religion that is not your own by denouncing them as untrue and damning all "unbelievers" to Hell. Ponder that activity before playing the self-righteous card.
JLOF: “Respectful dialogue?” You’re one to talk. Review your own language.
FANNIE: See my previous comment. Also, I've reviewed my language and can't find the swear words you seem to see.
JLOF: And I’ve said NOTHING about me being a “virtuous, upstanding, moral Christian.”
FANNIE: Oh, I'm sorry. Which characteristics of those do you not meet?
I wonder if my specific answers to John Lofton's laundry list of questions bored him.
Oh well.
Like I said, it's his character on display.
See, this is why you're a liar when you say you want respectful dialogue. Because I haven't replied on your time-table, this, supposedly, to you, is a reflection on my character. You are a very rhetorically reckless person who should remember that false witness against your neighbor is a sin.
I'm confused. I know fannie personally. In fact she was just at my house tonight. And KNOW she's not a liar. but the JL called her a liar! and now I'm so confused! BETRAYED even! How does this complete stranger know things about fannie that I...someone who knows her well...know things about her that I dont know!!!?? i feel so...OMG!!! I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I FEEL!!!
Well, I'm certainly not a liar just because you call me one, JLof. Your opinion far from settles that matter. I urge you to re-read what I wrote and perhaps not ascribe an evil, sinister motive to it. For, I merely wondered if my specific answers were too boring to warrant a response from you.
Furthermore, you have ignored my questions, told me I'm going to Hell, called me names, and have proceeded with your own stubborn demand that I answer your questions in specific detail while ignoring my subsequent responses. So yes, your lack thus far of anything substantive to say most certainly is a reflection on your character. And, when you did come back here to comment, it wasn't to respond to my answers, but to call me more names and quote some more biblical rules.
But hey, perhaps your behavior here is more a reflection on your intellect than your character. If so, my bad.
However, don't take my word on all this. The record here is crystal clear and readers are free to form their own opinions of you, your arguments, and your character no matter what you or I call each other. See, I'm more familiar with you than you may think and am well-versed in your holier-than-thou diversionary tactics. Consequently, I have no problem calling a spade a spade no matter how much you whine about me in return. And besides, I find it hard to believe that you- who can dish out insults and attacks with the best of them- are so very offended by anything I've said so far that you find it a barrier to dialogue. Get real, John.
And in reality, no matter how much you whine or characterize the discussion so far, it's pretty clear that I've shown you far more respect than you've shown me here. So far, you've only wasted my time by ignoring me, dropping one-liners, and making biblical proclamations.
So feel free to answer at your leisure. The floor, as they say, is yours. Even though you have yet to prove you are worthy of it.
But if diversions are your only purpose here, I must ask you to waste someone else's time.
You are also hereby on warning that subsequent name-calling and personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you have, you know, an actual argument to make, then make it but spare us all the declarations regarding my personal characteristics and the state of my soul.
In other words, put up or shut up.
[Nope, John Lofton, try again. I've shown you the courtesy of responding to your questions and, so far, you've only come back to whine about me and create more diversions. If you have an argument to make, then make it. Otherwise stop wasting my time. Like I said, put up or shut up.]
Edited By Siteowner
So, why are you now censoring my questions so your viewer can see only your reply? Let your viewers decide if something is a "diversion."
How about don't come here and tell me what to do on my own blog, bossy?
It takes a lot of audacity for you to come here, ignore pretty much everything I've said to you, demand answers to a barrage of questions, and then divert the conversation into commentary about commentary.
I didn't delete your comment to erase the record. Let's be honest here, the record's pretty clear that you tend to divert the conversation away from anything of substance. I deleted your comment because you were placed on warning about further diversions and name-calling.
Now, like I said, put up or shut up. Or should I say, put up or I will shut you up.
And by the way, as you have truly tested my patience, if you do not answer this question any further commentary from you will likewise be censored:
What is your purpose in commenting here?
John Lofton,
I saw your comment which basically asked how Fannie can make a character judgement of you....
1) yes, I agree it was a distraction
and
2) You came here and accused Fannie and her readers of having nothing to live for and said we were going to hell. We don't know you as a person, but we will and can make a judgement about you based on what you say here, as its all we have to go on. It seems fair for Fannie to say that your character is on display (based on what you write) as all of ours is (based on what we write)and to generally question your goals for commenting. It is her blog after all.
Actually, I made no judgment on JLof's character. I merely stated the fact that his character is on display here and other people can draw their own conclusions.
On the other hand, I believe that when JLof called me a liar, called me reckless, and said I was going to Hell, he was making substantial judgments on my character.
Interesting how this man who is so fearful of his internet pride being wounded is so eager to disparage others.
Is that Christian behavior?
It is an orthodox Christian view that all who reject Christ go to Hell.
I'm not sure who here is exactly rejecting Christ's view. Fannie is arguing against a social construct, which is often confused with the will of God and Christ. It is why no one BUT the Lord can judge. JUST in case a SIMPLE, COMMON man misunderstands.
Oh brother. Now I'm bored. Way to utterly ignore everything I've written to you Lofton! Bravo! You clearly are on a mission to spout one-liner declarations regarding the state of my soul while paying no attention to what anyone else says.
All behold John Lofton, a man who uses my blog as a platform to declare that he knows what God is, what God believes, and who God damns to Hell!
What does it say about his purported Christian character that all attempts to engage him in dialogue have thus far been unsuccessful?
If John Lofton has proven anything here, it's that he's an excellent case study in fundamentalist Christian stubborness, self-righteousness, and authoritativeness.
Yes rem,
It's simply amazing how John Lofton's God is imbued with the exact same prejudices against women and gays that John Lofton is! What a coincidence!
Wait a minute! Could it be that John Lofton's God is man-made?
Noooooo.
Why are fundies unable to distinguish between the fact that they have created a bigoted God in their image with the fact that any God worthy of devotion would not be imbued with the very human characteristic of bigotry.
It's not God or Jesus that are bigoted, it's those who deign to speak on behalf of God and Jesus who are.
My point was yes, it is "Christian behavior" to inform those who reject Christ that they are going to Hell, according to God's Word.
John 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
Thanks John Lofton. Are you saying that your purpose here is to save my soul, then?
Again a moment that makes me wonder what would happen if he who questions your "goodness" were to know you. Judgment by strangers. I don’t think that was part of Christ’s message. Considering I can think of no one who I'd trust more to do the "right" thing than fannie (well, i guess it's a tie between fannie and her girlfriend) it’s just more evidence that the message of God and Christ has been manipulated by bigots and the power hungry. It's sad, really. Those who claim to defend Christ are those who inflict Him with pain by misrepresenting him and smearing his name and message. Bibles should come with mirrors on the inside cover.
Since I started blogging, I've been called a great many names by "religious" and non-religious persons who supposedly are more virtuous than I. I should really make a list! What I've found is that the names I've been called are usually more a reflection of the name-caller's character than my own.
What this means for John Lofton is this: "I'm rubber, and you're glue. Whatever you say, bounces off of me, and sticks to you." Stick that in your Bible case.
Re: John 3:36
John was a half a bubble off plumb.
My purpose in showing you John 3:36 was/is to show you what God's Word says.And it cannot be joked away. You will stand before the Lord and give an account for, among other things, every idle word out of your mouth, according to Scripture. PS -- And how do we know, "rem," what the "right thing" is? By what standard are things to be judged "right" or "wrong?" By your opinion; my opinion? No -- by God's Word.
Proverbs 3:5: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Amen!
rem- I urge you to ignore John Lofton. He has thus far shown himself interested only in quoting Biblical verse rather than engage in dialogue.
He doesn't seek answers from us, for, he already knows everything.
10-4, fannie. you're the boss. but ONLY b/c you asked me to.
Well, you can reply if you want.... I just don't see it as being worthwhile...
Wow! Now, you're censoring "rem," too. C'mon, "rem," reply, please. My question is a valid question. Remember, it's "dialogue" that's been requested here.
No JLof. It's just that Fannie knows me personally and how I tend to say "Fuck" a lot when I get frustrated. She wasn't censoring me, just attempting to preserve what's left of my dignity.
I'm sort of over you JLof.
Let me jog your memory to the list of questions I answered before. How can rem or anyone else be confident that you will bother to reply or that you honestly care about the answer to any question you pose?
You've only proven yourself capable of demanding answers to a laundry list of questions and then ignoring the subsequent answer.
I suggest that you look into what dialogue actually consists of before you come to other people's blogs and start ordering people around and whining when your rude behavior eventually gets you ignored.
Your character has been on display for days now, and let me be the first to say that I am not impressed.
As if I am saying what I say to impress you. Thanks for the laugh...As for "rem," well -- filthy heart, filthy mouth.
Matthew 12:34: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
" As if I am saying what I say to impress you. "
So, J-Lof, why ARE you saying what you say?
Actually, J-Lof what I REALLY want to know is why are you saying what you are saying HERE? In this forum? On Fannie's blog?
"When one understands that one's enemies are held under a powerful influence of their own ignorance and aggression, that they are trapped by their habits, it is easier to forgive them for their irritating behavior and actions."
-Dzongsar Khyentse
So, John L. doesn't care how mere humans judge his character, or whether me a mere human woman is (not) impressed by his character?
So is John essentially saying that he doesn't care what the effect of his words are on other human beings?
Does he think that because he's (supposedly) "right" with God he has no accountability to other humans?
Those sound like pretty reckless ideas to those seeking to live in a civil society.
And, although I am not a Christian I would like to remind John that those in glass houses should not throw... bibles.
Or something.
But the burning question is this:
Will John Lofton make another nightly appearance around 10 pm in Fannie's Room to add yet another diversion to the conversation?
It's becoming his nightly ritual.
Some people drink warm milk before bed, others post biblical verse and damn people they don't know to hell on random blogs.
Hey, whatever works.
You do not have to know anybody to tell them that God says those who reject His Son go to Hell.
I am sure that, like most words, "reject" is defined differently in John Lofton's dictionary than in mine.
Not using the dictionary. Telling you what God says. John 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
I happen to be in full compliance with the six commandments.
Commenting by HaloScan
