Winter by Bob Ross
Additional: December 2, 2008
My reply to a former blog link and her latest blog posting:
This will be almost point by point and therefore a bit repetitive.
I thought she would resort to this tactic and sadly I am correct.
She notes that I am no longer on her blogging links list. She does not mention my name or the names of my blogs but an observant person could deduce which blogs and person are being discussed. She also took me off Facebook.
I have therefore removed her links from thekingpin68 and satire and theology.
She states that she had been enrolled in a blogging network. That is a half-truth as I do not own a blog network but do network with other bloggers. This is all done freely by each blogger. No one is enrolled in a network.
She states that these other blogs were a burden to read and even boring.
Well, no one forced her to read any blog. I never would attempt such a silly thing.
She was never put on an update list. I emailed her occasionally, not every day and not after ever comment, if something I thought she may relate to was published on my blogs.
This has been going on for around a year and she had not complained.
She was never pressured to comment on any blog article. I at times stated in my mass BCC emails that my message could of course be trashed/deleted if desired and it would be no problem to me.
I will now send less of these out to avoid potential future hassles.
Contrary to what she states, she did not nicely ask to be taken off my so called blog list, which as a mailing list does not exist. Her letter to me was neither nice or tactful or excessively rude. It was along the lines of her stating she wanted off my (non-existent as I have noted) list and some others would probably like to be off my list but are too kind to state so.
In further emails she noted that she only wanted to receive and leave blog comments.
I pointed out that although I messaged her more than she had messaged me, she has sent me Facebook messages, many of which would arrive by my regular email. She claimed that this was different, but I pointed out correctly, that non-blog Facebook comments messages were still non-blog comment messages whether they were sent through Facebook alone or regular email, and again many of these Facebook messages arrive by regular email.
I stated that I would remove her from my emails concerning blog articles, but did point out the hypocrisy of stating that we should basically only have blog comments sent to each other, when she had sent me Facebook messages.
She became quite angry stating that Facebook was a setup and therefore different. I conclude that one still makes a choice to send a Facebook message or application which arrives as a message. Therefore, although I admittedly messaged her outside of blog comments more than she messaged me, she had still sent me non-blog comment messages.
She also at times has sent me messages regarding that fact her blog was down or having problems. Something she conveniently seemed to forget in her anger. I would sometimes kindly let her know that I could not get into her blog.
She states I was nasty and a bully...hardly. I immediately told her I would stop emailing her, but pointed out that our dialogue had been more than with blog comments alone. I also needed to correct her as my blog update emails were never daily and for every new comment.
I did not show my other side as she states, but merely stood up for myself and the truth to someone, that I realize is very ill, and yet wanted to rail unfairly against me.
My desire was to merely have her look at the situation in a balanced fashion, but she would have no part in that and instead became very angry and told me never to email her again.
She said that her friend stated my actions were immature and self-serving. Well, to that friend please feel free to contact me and in a friendly, Christ-like fashion we shall see if your observations made from her perspective alone can survive.
I state they cannot.
She is right, comments are made freely. If a blogger would like comments it is wise to comment on other blogs unless one is so well-known in his or her field that he or she does not need to do so and receives plenty of traffic.
I have suggested at times that people could leave a comment, and others have suggested that I comment on their blogs, but it is absolutely not an obligation.
She talks about how treating our brothers and sisters well is more important than how many comments one receives on a blog. I agree, but let us look at the situation. She was rather non-tactful in her request and follow up emails to not receive email updates from me. She could have been much nicer to someone that had attempted to help her with blogging traffic when she had asked me for help on two occasions I can remember. But, I right away thanked her and stated I would remove her. For the sake of fairness I needed to point out that she had sent me Facebook messages which often arrive by email and that she was wrong to state that I emailed her every day and after every message.
She is totally free to not want to be emailed by me, but she should be kind and fair with a fellow Christian brother. She was not. Now, as I figured she would do, although she does not mention my name, she makes it public on her blog.
This person is on narcotics by her own admission and states I turned nasty. I was not nasty but merely stood up for myself and I have done so with other bloggers that I am still linked with. It was her choice and not mine to terminate our reciprocal links. It was she that stated I should not email her anymore.
She states that one should stay away from such a network. Again there is no formal network, just a few Christians seeking to have some readership. I am emailed by some of them with blog updates as well, and if at times I am too busy, I can delete a message and check the blog later. It is no big deal.
She states that blogging should not be the all and end all of existence and I agree. But successful blogging for those who are not specifically known in their field will usually require some type of loose networking. If she desires not to do so, fine, but she was merely being corrected for her errors by me via email and now is being corrected on-line as she decided to make this public.
She states that this particular type of networking was counterproductive. Well, I beg to differ and although most of us have small/moderate sized blogs many of us have grown our blogs in the process, but again there is no official blog network that I run.
By email, she also stated my comments often do not relate to her articles.
That is also untrue. I approach an article from my own perspective. Most of the comments I receive on my blogs only loosely relate to my own articles and research. We should not expect a commenter to read an article as we do as the publisher. They usually have not done the same research.
Some of my comments are off topic, and some of the ones I receive are off topic.
She often loosely commented on topic but sometimes was a bit off topic.
Thank you to all my blog supporters! I am imperfect and so are you! LOL.
May the Lord guide us. I pray for this woman that God will have mercy and open her mind, and I pray the same for myself.
In the past on this blog, back when I had fewer readers, I pondered on the concepts of blessings that last, in comparison to blessings that do not. Here are some revised concepts.
At Thanksgiving in October in Canada, and November in the United States, as well at Christmas and New Years, the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print.
I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) μακάριος/makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).
From
Matthew 5:3
"Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
μακάριοι (36) μακάριος (114) Adjective blessed, happy
Parsing Nominative Plural Masculine
Related Words None found.
Context in Matthew 5:3 αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων ... οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι
Strongs # 3107 supremely blest; by extension, fortunate, well off
Thayers at Crosswalk Thayer's
LSJ (from Perseus) Click For LSJ
Middle Liddell (from Perseus) Click For Middle Liddell"
Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air'. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).
It can be seen through the works of Strong, Bauer and the Zhubert Greek Project that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.
Secular happiness in our present realm can be somewhat synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death.
A related argument:
Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.
Premise 2: The deduction is made that a famous and respected billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.
Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.
Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.
Premise 5: The respected billionaire's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy his legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with the billionaire's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember him or experience his impact.
Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.
Explanation:
Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and substantially everlastingly meaningful.
The historically based gospel through divine regeneration of a person and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to the same, offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
