The rhythm is often off since I haven’t sat down with it as much as I would like. It’s not even finished, really, and I wouldn’t be surprised if thousands of people have already undertaken to do the same. After all, Edgar Allen Poe was a genius and Clement Clarke Moore’s poem lies close to the modern practices. Ah well, at least it’s good for a laugh: “T’was The Night Before Christmas to The Tune of The Raven”.
Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
This saying, a proverb, highlights a problem that was happening 2500 years ago and is still happening today: people mis-diagnose relationships.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the proverb is a rule about all relationships. To understand the saying, you have to understand how proverbs work.
A proverb is like key that you use on a specific door. You can’t apply them for every single situation. So that makes the Book of Proverbs like a huge keychain with a bunch of keys. You have to find the right situation to apply the saying.
This is why sometimes they sound (but are not really) contradictory.
For instance: Proverbs 26:4 says “Don’t answer a fool according to his folly” while Proverbs 26:5 says “Answer a fool according to his folly”!
This is one of those questions that, at first blush, have an easy answer. Some folk might automatically say, “Yes, surely God hears sinners. God loves his children!” Others might respond “Of course not: God is holy!”
The question “Does God hear sinners” is actually very complex not because of the terms (we’ll look at that in a second), or hidden assumptions in the question, but because of the unknown baggage carried in by the questioner. Who knows what’s the theological ideas behind it and, nowadays, theological common ground can’t be assumed.
All that being the case, I want to look at the large network of ideas that undergird this issue by addressing it in at least three levels: philosophically, Biblically, and theologically.
A series covering how to study with digital resources.
We have received your letter declaring your absolving of all allegiance to the British Crown and we have a few belated issues.
We noticed that your claims consistently made claims to a Supreme Judge, which, by common consent, we can’t deny or support that he-it-or-she exists.
Indeed, you call this Supreme Judge the Creator and the God of Nature when we both agree that random natural processes over an infinite time is the proper teaching of what works behind nature. We must not call nature a “creation”. Calling it Creation assumes a creator, which we can not support or deny as existing.
Be that as it may, like you we agree that there should be a separation of Church and State. Since your decision is so fraught with religious considerations, it has no rational or scientific basis. Your position has no proper justification. And since a ruling can only stand if your proper (British) governor agrees, then your collective decision is simply overturned by default.
It is also obvious that your claims to ephemeral absolutes—like what is wholesome and necessary for the public good, or of self-evident truths, or even unalienable rights—are merely the marks of an oppressive fiction geared towards controlling others in your obvious effort in non-tolerance. We stand for freedom for all and that includes freedom from your specifically religious and biggoted claims.
So we must solemnly decline your request for independence. Ask your own judges and intelligentsia. They would agree with us.
Over You, Truly,
The British Crown.
July 4th, 2013