arndt@lymph.dec.com (09/16/86)
It has also occured to me since I posted the piece on Jesus cursing the fig tree that my explanation of the event might shed light - for me at least, perhaps more mature souls out there already thought of it - on the whole concept of why man should not 'curse'. Explaining things, especially of a moral nature, to children in a manner that does not fall back on 'because I say so!' means reducing moral principles to a very 'simple' form. To the nub as it were. In the recent past, aside from saying 'but daddy is serving as a bad example' I have always tried to justify NOT cursing (God damm it!) because it involved the frivolous use of the name of God. And it is rude, unmannerly and disrespectful of God, not to mention it betrays a lack of control and ability to deal with things when they 'fall apart' in ones hands so to speak. A character flaw. (Character - a quaint notion held by previous generatons and some backward yahoos found every sunday morning in front of the telly in the total mind control of TV 'evangelists' who trick them out of their pension money in order to live high on the public hog and force everyone to believe THEIR moral pronouncments are the ONLY ones when we all know that what each person believes is right for him is what he ought to do ((whee, this is fun! Am I getting it right true believers?)) and who also hold to this belief, sustained only by 'faith' snicker snicker unlike OUR knowledge of SCIENCE which does not envolve, ugh, 'faith' at all.) Sorry for the above. It's a sort of mental masterbation exercise I find myself having to resist more and more lately. I guess it comes from reading the obsene tripe on the nets. Perhaps we could get the Mease Commission to look into the HASA postings to net.religion and net.religion.christian. I could be a witness against them and show the effect, as above, exposure to HASA cant has had on my otherwise terrific life. Of course I haven't gone completely to the bottem of the 'slippery slope' since I still used 'he' and 'him' in the generic sense and not he/she or him/her. At least I can always find someone worse off than myself to self-rightously point to! But back to figs. And here's the point of my posting (yea, it got one). What Jesus did with the fig tree was exactly to say, 'God damm it!' Not only did something happen - it was not an EMPTY gesture of frustration and an expression of desire to change something 'not right', but it resulted in ACTION, unlike our 'cursings'. WE SHOULD NOT 'CURSE' THE WORLD BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THE PEROGITIVES AND POWER OF GOD! And so is a form of blasphemy! I'll try it on my kids tonight. Any comments? Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/17/86)
In article <5385@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >It has also occured to me since I posted the piece on Jesus cursing the >fig tree that my explanation of the event might shed light - for me at least, >perhaps more mature souls out there already thought of it - on the whole >concept of why man should not 'curse'. > >I have always tried to justify >NOT cursing (God damm it!) because it involved the frivolous use of the name >of God. And it is rude, unmannerly and disrespectful of God, not to mention >it betrays a lack of control and ability to deal with things when they 'fall >apart' in ones hands so to speak. A character flaw. Ken, in all seriosity I hold the opposite view here. Use of the curse "God damm it" is actually the Christian thing to do. I'll even go so far as to say that a Christian who claims the opposite is being anti-Christian. First, when one uses the curse, one acknowledges that God exists. It makes no sense to say God damm it if there is no God. Second, it presumes that God has power over the thing or person being damned - omnipotence. Third, it presumes God is listening - omniscience. Thus, use of the curse "God damm it" is, for a believer, an act of worship. But suppose a nonbeliever utters the curse, perhaps even with a believer as the object of damnation. The nonbeliever would only do this to provoke, or insult the believer, because, being a nonbeliever, the curse holds no power for him otherwise. But this is an acknoledgment of the believer's faith. Therefore, the believer's reply should be, "Thank you, sir, for that generous compliment." >But back to figs. And here's the point of my posting (yea, it got one). What >Jesus did with the fig tree was exactly to say, 'God damm it!' Not only did >something happen - it was not an EMPTY gesture of frustration and an expression >of desire to change something 'not right', but it resulted in ACTION, unlike >our 'cursings'. WE SHOULD NOT 'CURSE' THE WORLD BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THE >PEROGITIVES AND POWER OF GOD! And so is a form of blasphemy! A contradiction, Ken. To presume the prerogatives and power of God is to attempt to be closer to God, to be more like God. This is not blasphemy. This is worship. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Marty Smith
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/24/86)
Organization: In article <2567@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: >In article <3590@ism780c.UUCP> marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes: >>In article <5385@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >>>It has also occured to me since I posted the piece on Jesus cursing the >>>fig tree... [Ken's comments about cursing deleted] >>Ken, in all seriosity I hold the opposite view here. Use of the curse "God >>damm it" is actually the Christian thing to do... [My comments on cursing being Christian deleted] About which, Mike quotes from the Bible to discredit my comments: > Exodus 20:7 (NIV) " You shall not misuse the name of the Lord > your God, For the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who > misuses his name"... This makes sense. But my claim was that using the curse "God damn it!" is an acknowledment of God's existence, omnipotence, and omniscience. It is therefore not a misuse of His name. A misuse of his name would be the statement "There is no God," which is not useful as a curse unless one wishes to curse God. > 1 Corinthians 12:3 (NIV) "Therefore I tell you that no one > who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,"Jesus be > cursed"... Does "...speaking by the Spirit of God..." mean that God is speaking through this person? If so, again it makes sense, for why would God curse himself? > And about (Lev 20:9 , Proverbs 20:20, Matthew 15:7) > which gives some level to what a curse is.... Ex. NOT > something we should do lightly... Why do Christians who believe cursing is wrong believe it is something done lightly? This is nonsense. Cursing is *not* done lightly. The purpose of a curse is to vent one's spleen, to release one's pent-up emotion on some problem. An alternative purpose is to offend a person who can be offended by the use of certain words, but that's not cursing; that's bad manners. None of these three quotes adds weight to the argument against cursing is Christian. [More of my claim that cursing is Christian deleted] > Perhaps He would be omni-upset also? So are you God to say how >he should feel? This is more obvious though: How can someone really respect >something that they take lightly...etc. Taking words lightly as with >'light' thinking can cause much harm.... The important question is: Who is doing the light thinking, the person who uses words to express how he feels, or the person who is offended by words? Marty Smith