Monday, October 16, 2006

law de da

This is ripped from the Jamison thread. I completely support the military as a peace keeping force; I’m using this as an example.

The laws of this country allow me to join the military and kill who ever they tell me I can without any sort of legal repercussions. Who ever I’m told to kill is a “bad guy” against my country and therefore worthy of execution. As a Christian should I support this idea of legalized murder just because my country tells me it’s ok to kill someone? By supporting this am I exempt from Gods rules when I break Gods law? I used “murder” on purpose via those pesky Ten Commandments. If this world is not my home how is some whack-o in the Middle East really affecting me and my walk?

Many a Christian is pro death penalty because they fall back on the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth argument. Still, many Christians believe that the ideas in the OT were “done away with” under the new covenant offered through JC. Please explain how people can pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe and justify it based on supporting the law of the land? Following the OT example of a death penalty can we also use their example of using music for worship? Wasn’t JC the “turn the other cheek guy”?

For seat belts, it’s really a silly law. The belts are wonderful and I’m glad the manufacturers make quality devices designed to save lives. I used safety belts before it was a law and will continue to buckle in my family no matter what. If I don’t want to wear it, then I should be allowed to be stupid on my own.

I have my own issues I know but this country, and most of the rest too, have some really backwards laws. You can get an abortion at 16 without parental consent but at the same age can’t go on a school field trip without a permission slip. If a person is breaking into your home to rape, murder and rob your family and you shoot him as he’s on the way out of your house and don’t kill him, you can be arrested for attempted murder. I can buy a dozen rifles and boxes of ammunition in a moment but I have to wait a week to buy a less powerful weapon because it’s smaller.

Big laws that make a difference are fine but deciding what is clearly what in one person’s best interests against another persons is ridicules.
I know a civilized world needs laws and I’m glad most are in place I just think it’s a bit iffy if you’re basing your salvation on a flawed system of contradictory rules designed by people who are ensuring their best interests first.


bigsip said...

I'm glad you're asking these questions, but I think they might be a little too easy to ask.

If you're a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman, you have made a decision to "support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

What does that mean? It means you are defending the country and a way of life.

One of the greatest things about the military and the US today is also one of the worst things. The American people now have the luxury of being distanced from wars and how they affect us.

We're all comfortable in our virtual mansions with comforts and conveniences and a global satellite system hooked up to SAMS to protect us.

When 911 happened, people momentarily took notice that we can get hurt and war isn't something you read about or watch on TV.

But, now it is just that.

I think the people who are serving in our military understand their importance more than we understand our own.

We sit here and ask questions and wonder about rights and wrongs while they do something about it.

They support and defend. That's their job.

Perhaps it's our job to support and defend them.

Jamison said...

I have thought about the following lately... especially as I read psalms and the OT....

do you think there are people in this world who are doing the "Will of God" (But maybe not Gods will)?

Perhaps it is the will of God that men and women go to war, to protect us... but them killing people may not be Gods will? Hard to explain and I run the risk of saying "God uses some people for his Will, even though they are hell-bound"...

bigsip said...

War is a different matter. God condoned and even ordered massacres of men, women, and children in the OT.

He knows things we don't.

As far as wars go today, you can look at most of the killing as self-defense. Murder is when you kill a defenseless person out of personal desire.

I don't think that every person who kills another person is guilty of murder any more than any person who has sex with another is guilty of rape.

mullinz8 said...

I agree that if you’re enlisting you’re making that decision to defend the country from bad guys and that could mean killing them. Again, I support the military and what they are there to do; it’s just an example of the sliding scale of a law deciding what is right and when.

If you kill someone because they are actively trying to kill or harm you I think you’ve got every right to defend yourself as completely as possible, which could mean killing that person. Joining the military and then killing people because you’re told to do so is completely different. I think you can seek and receive forgiveness after the fact but there is still making the conscience decision to kill or not should be considered especially in the light of Gods law. In the end I think Gods law should take a bit more precedence than the ever adjustable law of man.

When God wiped people out in the OT he was doing so for a reason, because he was the one doing or having it done I can’t question his motivations. When a president, any president, says there is a cause for war, I have to question the reasons why. I think the line separating a more noble notion of true and honest self defense and leveling a city block because there might be some bad guys around that might do something bad is very blurry these days.

We’ve unofficially raised the no politics banner in this forum some time ago so I don’t want to get into a political quagmire here but true self defense and self preservation needs careful consideration before speculation and assumption raise the banner for a call to arms against the villainy and wickedness of evil men.

mullinz8 said...

Jamison your idea that evil men can do the will of God is one of the speculations of the gospel of Judas. What if Jesus told Judas that he was supposed to betray him? Judas would have been doing the will of God.

Will God forgive Judas for leading the Jews to Jesus, I don’t know. If those speculations were true then I would think the whole thing was planned and Judas could find himself in some sort of spiritual loop hole.

I think despite some peoples actions God places the will and ability in others to make the best out of a situation, God always seems to have a safety net for those people who are actively trying to submit themselves to his will. That is if those people are willing to listen and find a way out of a troubling situation.

Again, maybe it’s not God that’s out there setting things up for the folly of humanity.

Jamison said...

good point about Judas...
Im not saying one way or the other, but it is one of the two:

1) Hard to beleive that a hand-picked man by Jesus Himself would not be forgiven for even the most horrible thing he had done. He was repentant wasnt he? To the point of killing himself.

2) God uses evil people to further His will... come what may to their individual souls...

I mean, He is GOD afterall... He can do what He wants...

bigsip said...

I think y'all might be getting a little off the idea.

Judas killed himself. Suicide is a one way ticket to Hell, guys. You can look at it as "self murder".

There's no coming back from that.

Had Judas been truly penitent, he would not have killed himself. You can be full of remorse and still not repent. Repentence means to turn away from the evil path. Judas went so far down the evil path that he could not turn himself around.

As far as God making people do stuff, that's not His thing.

We aren't robots. Yes, God can USE people to accomplish His goals, whoever they may be. But, what Judas did, he did because of his own wicked heart, not because God made him do it.

Jamison said...

Sip... i KIND of have to disagree... it was prophisied what Judas would do. In fact, had he not done it, we may still be sacrificing goats each sabbath day....

so, in a manner of speaking, Judas was a "puppet" of sorts...

mullinz8 said...

If Judas was a pigeon and he was told to do what he did, it could be assumed that JC told him he would have been ok. Then again Judas ends up killing him self, possibly negating the promise of salvation. It’s interesting to guess at the varied possibilities of that situation but I believe that JC would have in some way forgiven Judas.

Then again in Matt 27 Judas sees what’s going on and that’s when he returns the money and climbs a tree which seems like a “I really screwed up this time” moment. I think the suicide is a salvation deal breaker.

Jobs pals told him God was punishing him when in fact it was Satan testing a servant seen in
Gods favor.

Someone had to be the person who betrayed Jesus. In Luke 22 the text says Satan entered into Judas. Perhaps we perfer to forget that Satan also has a roll to play in our struggle to attain and retain the gift of salvation.

More than Judas, because he’s already dead and dust, I’ve gotta worry about my own fate and whether or not I’m causing others to stumble or strengthen their own walk along with mine.

When God gave us free will he knew that we were a frail creature, with our rebuffing of evil things I think our salvation will be that much more of a reward.

bigsip said...

Just because a prophecy is made doesn't mean the person fulfilling the prophecy has no free will.

I'm sure Jesus knew Judas' heart and picked him accordingly. But, Judas made his OWN choices. Judas was a money-grubbing bastard before he knew Jesus. Jesus didn't make him that way. Jesus just knew he was that way and that it could (and did) lead Judas to betray him.

But, Judas wasn't made to do anything. He chose to steal from the money box. He chose to turn Jesus in for money. He chose to kill himself.

And he had a chance to repent of all of this, but chose to forget that and take his own life because he had lost his way.

Judas, like all other human beings in the history of the world, was a free moral agent.

mullinz8 said...

Lets swing this again, according to the text in Luke 22:33 KLV “Satan entered into Judas”. Could we content that Jesus knew what was going to happen and who was going to do it and knew that person was under a demonic influence? Really. How many demons did JC cast out? The demons he cast into the swine asked him to spare them from the “Abyss” obviously understanding who he was.

Perhaps Judas realized what he had done and then killed himself out of guilt because he knew he had been someone with a recorded questionable past. Again this is just sort of thinking our loud but perhaps it’s not too much to put past a fallen angel with a grudge.

“Ok, he’s got 12 apostles. I need to find the weak link… Fishermen, no motivation. Tax collector, there’s potential but I need something more. Ah the thief, Judas has always been on the fringe, he’ll be perfect. Man, when he realizes what he’s done!”

bigsip said...

It's all speculation, though.

Satan entered into Judas could be put the same way in this day and age. Satan enters into us, too. But, we let him in.

Judas let Satan in and let him have his way.

Demon possession as dealt with differently back then. People acted crazy, were obviously demon possessed, etc. Judas knew what he was doing every step of the way.

Had he been considered demon possessed, he wouldn't have been referred to as Judas. But, the word says, Judas did this and that, etc.

I looked at the original Greek in the Online Parallel Bible and the translation could also read, "Satan arose against Judas..."

I honestly don't believe this is a possession, but a flawed person who made the wrong choices.

Jamison said...

Going back to some questioning... when exactly did demon possesion stop occuring? I always roll my eyes, figuratively, when I hear the phrase "back then".... like it was some mystical time in a land far, far away, but in reality it was on this earth, in real places, around 2,000 years ago...

sorry, just more questioning...

I samuel 16:14 (and 18:10, and 19:9) always interested me. In fact, there are several similar verses like this one in Samuel which always caused me to tilt my head to one side like a dog hearing a funny noise. Sadly , in the classes where this is studied, no one raises their hands to questions this:

"...and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him."

Do you suppose this was just a "saying" they used back then? Or does God have spirits He sends out to people, good and bad. I mean, if thats the case, then God looks like He is picking and chosing who sins and who is evil.

I am willing to wager that it was just an expression, but still interesting.

Rachel said...

I believe Robert Allen taught a summer series lesson about that one recently, Jamison- it was a cool class, but I guess yall were teaching the 4's then.

mullinz8 said...

Rachel, what did he say in the class..?

bigsip said...

The distressing or "evil" spirit was sent from God to King Saul, I believe.

He paralleled this with a passage from 2 Thess 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

In other words, if you go too far away from God, He'll not only let you go, He'll encourage the lies you've told yourself.

It could be God's way of eschewing evil or His way of making people hit bottom so they'll bounce back toward Him. Either way, it's freakin scary!

Brewster said...

I'm late to the party, but a few thoughts.

God definitely approved war at least at one time. The OT is rife with it. Read closely and you'll see its pretty rough stuff too. I mean if the Jews did what God told them to back then, now, they'd be tried as war criminals. They killed everyone, not just the soldiers, but old men women and children. If you were lucky they'd save the virgins but only so they could be swept away by the soldiers and "married" - which often seems to amount to rape.

There was a reason for all that though, the Jews were God's people and they had to irradicate the heathens or risk falling away. In fact they often failed to kill everyone and wound up taking on their idols and false gods.

The NT is different. We're involved in spiritual warfare, more than physical. That's not to say we are to be completely passive. During Jesus trial there were moments where he stood up for himself, his rights by law. Where he didn't take it all sitting down.

Look at Peter cutting the guys ear off. Sure Jesus puts it back on, basically saying now isn't the time. But what's peter doing with a freaking sword if Jesus is a passivist? Or the centurian that is converted. Nowhere is he told to not be a soldier.

So it seems there is such a thing as a just war, or a need for soldiers even now.

Where I falter is that every war isn't just. I've discussed my problems with the war in Iraq before. Is that a just war? Are those involved doing the will of God?

I won't make a proclomation for or against, but its definitely something to think about.

Now I fully support the grunts, the troops. Those guys put their life on the line everyday to protect our freedoms. I won't ever knock that. But I will say some bad things about the guys at the top putting our troops in danger for what may not be tip top reasons.

Jamison said...

Interestingly enough, brew, the Jews would be called more like "terrorists" than war criminals.... intersting...

and now, with that word, our blog is being watched by the feds... HI!

bigsip said...

Even worse, the Israelites were pretty much carrying out genocide.

If you wipe out entire races of people, you're attempting what Hitler was trying to accomplish.

But, the reasons for this weren't because of "ethnic cleansing" or "superiority of the species". These people were unholy, ungodly, and evil. They would taint what God had worked for for many, many generations. And He knew the only way to do away with the evil was to snuff it out as he did with Sodom and Gommorah and the entire Earth during the flood.

It's easy for us to question His ideas and motives because we don't know the hearts of men. But, God does. He knew that in the antedeluvian world, the hearts of almost everyone was bent wholly on evil, except for those 8 souls.

He knew that only Lot and his family were worth saing from the sin cities.

And he knew that Canaan could only belong to Israel if it were clean of evil.

Today, we have to use sound judgement when it comes to evil. Are the people in the middle east evil? I don't know. But, if they try to take away our freedom in Christ or enforce their own beliefs through violence or any other number of evil things, we must stand up against it.

There was a line crossed on 911. Hev we crossed another boundary? Where's the line? I don't know.

But, there hasn't been another attack on American soil since.

There are many questions that will never have a satisfactory answer. But, controlling the middle east probably is the only answer for the time being. Unfortunately, it's a Hydra.

We can cut off every head on the beast and new ones will continue to grow. This beast will not go away by violence, I fear. And the violence that will result from the beast will be something that only a spiritual battle can overcome.

Perhaps it's even already started.

mullinz8 said...

The Middle East and the US conflict are a different and volatile issue.

What strikes me now is where the gauge of “evil” is placed. I can only imagine that Sodom and its sister city were truly wicked places full of vile people. Four were spared, with on being lost along the way. If Lot and his daughters were the good ones what does it say that the night before he offered his daughters to the men of the city in exchange for not harming his guests. Then only an evening or so later his own daughters, two nights in a row, got Lot so tanked they the both conceived a child with their father, these are the good ones?!

Obviously this is a bit tongue in cheek but still as we look at our society today and see the lengths some go to in supporting their own depravities can we ask when enough is enough?
War is one thing and God wiping a civilization and culture off the map is all together something else too but in today’s world I don’t see anyone in a position of responsibility able to balance the mantel of sound judgement.

Brewster said...

Sorry Mulls I forgot to add your pick until just now.

Sometimes I struggle reading those old passages. God often seems very cruel. How were the children evil? Why did they get struck down? Maybe He knew they would grow up wicked like the rest, but it seems awfully harsh.

bigsip said...

Or maybe He knew they wersn't yet evil and would come straight to Him...

In that case, His decision was kind.

Ryan F. said...

Gov't has the authority from God. Romans 13:1-7 (esp. v. 3&4) As long as you are acting on people who are defying and not just walking around shooting innocent bystanders on purpose. Our military acts as an extension of our government.

Ryan F. said...

Probably could have found a better picture for the front page though.

bigsip said...

Yeah, she's bordering on pornographic...

Jamison said...

At least "mama" borland cant take this blog pic, like she did your maryln monroe pic

Jamison said...

Dang, Borland DID take it away... geez... she is everywhere

Brewster said...

what are we censoring our blog now?

we're all adults aren't we?

Brewster said...

That's such a tough verse. Historically the Ceasars ruling were some pretty nasty folks, yet it still says they have the hand of god.

Then you like at folks like HItler, Stalin, Hussaine and wonder how it applies.

What's great about our government is that we have some type of voice of dissention about these things and can let those at the top understand our feelings on the matter and ultimately vote them out.

bigsip said...

I took it off because I felt some discomfort from Ryan.

It probably wasn't the most appropriate picture for the discussion.

We are all adults. Perhaps exercising some adult discretion is in order.

mullinz8 said...

I thought of a great story to write someday about a religious nut who realizes that by killing children he could ensure their lives didn’t become ensnarled by sin through the influence of their parents, friends and the world in general, his whole thing is that he’s doing these kids a favor and ensuring their parents live a better life so they can see them in the hereafter.
I’ve not put pen to paper because I can’t stand the idea of diving into such a psyche and I don’t have the freaking time.

Ryan, are you saying the GOD put W into the White House personally?

God starting a war that’s justifiable is fine because it’s God and this is his playground and he can take his toys and go home, or send us there, when ever he wants. The fallibility of a man or cabinet of men on either side of the ocean making a decision to pursue acts of murder out of threats and speculation is vastly different.

Children, has no one on this blog seen breasts before? The shot of Jamison literally having a piss doesn’t offend anyone and the sight of two tits gets an image removed…

Ryan, because you’re the subject of this riff, does the previously posted image cause you enough discomfort that you will not return to this discussion, considering you already posted prior to its removal, I wouldn’t assume this is the case.

Josh, how many times have the subjects of sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, drinking, religion, politics and everything else caused us to shuffle in our seats over the years? Still, the blog exists and continues to push and shove opinions and observations of some merit and discomfort in between our little worlds.

If you would kindly return the image to its rightful place…

bigsip said...

I didn't keep it, man.


I also thought it was inappropriate because my wife comes here and probably wouldn't like it.

So, let's make it about me and leave it off out of respect for my wife.


Ryan F. said...

I don't think God personally put W in the White House. But, the authority the government has comes from God. If God willed that they have no authority, they would not.

As for the pic, just because I am an adult doesn't mean that seeing a pair of boobs shouldn't offend me. I don't think talking about God and having a picture of a naked woman is something that God would like too much. It's not that I can't handle seeing a pair of boobs. As a Christian, I can think of about 2 million more appropriate pictures. You don't have to take it down for me, I was just stating my opinion just as everyone else does.

bigsip said...

It was done out of respect for you and out of respect for others who might come here and be offended, Ryan.

I'm not really into censors per se, but I do want this to be a "place" where all visitors are comfortable.

I'm sorry if I upset any of you guys by pulling it down, but y'all will get over it. Some other folks might not.

Even after more than a year of blogging here, we're still setting and pushing boundaries...


Brewster said...

I originally put the pick up because Mullins asked me to because he is unable to add picks at work.

While I wasn't offended at the boobies I didn't think it was all that appropriate either. But my friend wanted it and so he got it.

I'm not offended that you took it down , Sip, but I would appreciate a discussion about these things before we censor our own blog.

Honestly I hate the little Harry Potter thing at the bottom, but I have let it be because someone else obviously likes it.

I was completely offended by the urine stream but also kept it b/c others found it funny.

If something is offensive to you please talk about it first. That's all I'm asking.

bigsip said...

You found the urine stream offensive? That picture was seen by most of the Prime-timers from Dalraida at Jamison's b-day party and none of them were offended.

Sorry, man.

Alright, I'll talk about it in the future.

Let's try to stay away from obvious sensual nudity, though.

The stuff at the top that Mullins is trying to compare to the soft porn he had posted before is fine.

I'm glad we're having this discussion.

I apologize for jumping the gun. I just felt some tension from Ryan and within myself and decided to take action.

Brewster said...

I'm sorry, how did a urine stream become inoffensive but a cartoon pair of boobies is worthy of censorship?

No wonder this country is messed up.

In full disclosure I woulnd't really say I was offended by the pee, but more like disgusted. And yes, I would say its not particularly appropriate.

mullinz8 said...

This was a good conversation that was originally about figuring out if the laws of man were enough to supplant Gods laws depending on the situation.

Now…because of a picture which was a representation of “blind justice” which most court houses in the US have, half of which are shown with exposed breasts, it’s shifted.

Honestly, tell me that Jamison taking a piss is not offensive. Oh, I get it, that’s just Jamison being Jamison and that’s funny because, gosh it’s Jamison taking a leak and that’s funny.

When that image headed the blog I positioned the page so I wouldn’t have to see it because frankly it DID bother me because, though I do get the joke, I don’t want to see my friend peeing. Between someone releasing their bodily waste and tits, the tits bother me the least. But it’s a big joke ACPO, ha ha – you’re missing the point…

I love art and I always have and I love art that is unique and different and still shows talent and style. What I liked best about the image was that the person was obviously black and had dreadlocks which is not something you would find very easily in the majority of other interpretations.

The image was chosen because it is at once familiar but still new and urbanized combining two ideas: tradition and contemporary. Almost as though it’s in a sense representing the conversation between what man is told to do in following Gods laws (tradition) and taking an excusable path of doing whatever some government wants (contemporary), including extinguishing a unique and special creation formed by God himself because a man who will never stain his fingers with another blood tells you to.

Josh, this blog is a shared community and we all have different opinions, positions and levels of offense. There are a lot of different people coming to this site some known and some not. I would request at least on my posts to NOT be the champion of what is considered decent, clean or offensive and let the mob decide. When a member of this community asks me to remove an image because it DOES actually offend them and isn’t a supposition, I will be more than happy to consider it. I do take offense that I’m supposed to just “get over it” because of your opinion.

You know I love you and have absolute respect for you, your wife and Ryan along with everyone else who drops 2 cents into the bucket when they can. When I start posting comments on dildo’s and vaginal piercing I could expect you to be offended. A representation of a nude figure that is not engaged in some sordid or lurid behavior is not what I expect average people to become sincerely offended and bothered over.

Then again, I guess my opinion amounts to piss and I can just get over it. In case you need a reference, you can check an earlier post to see what that looks like.

Ryan F. said...

WOW! All of this anger and all I said was, "Probably could have found a better picture for the front page though."

Listen, it's your site, and if you want it up, put it up. If you want to take it down, take it down. Sip saying he felt discomfort from me sounds like I was getting on to him for putting it up. That's a cop out, what I said wasn't pressure, nor did I even expect it to come down. Just stating an opinion, which was what I thought this board was all about.

Next time I'll just keep my opinion to myself.

bigsip said...

I don't think you posted the pic for the sake of artistic expression.

Fact is, it made me uncomfortable and it made several other people uncomfortable.

The pose was provocative, the sword, phalic.

I will discuss it from now on, but hopefully this discussion has set the bar for future posts.

A urine stream is the height of disgust for some and provocatively posed persons is the height of sexuality for others.

Sorry I upset you, but it's just a picture. There are plenty of others that are more appropriate and will get the point across.

mullinz8 said...



It’s all about opinions, you said it your self. You didn’t expect the image to come down. For me this is about principles.

You’re input here is very valuable, so are the Sippers. Removing things (no matter who removed or posted) and changing the face of this blog out of assumptions is what has pissed me off, and it has bothered me.

We’ve talked several times about making this blog something for the world to see and we’re all for it and now suddenly because of a pair of exposed breasts the rafters have had the dust shaken off them?! That doesn’t make sense to me.

All of our opinions and thoughts are making this blog something we all come back to. Dictating the standards of others is not friends do to each other.

I might look at art and the nude figure differently than the rest of you (what’s new) but that doesn’t disallow a bit of etiquette and responsibility of those involved with this process of communication.

I’m just trying to explain that when I post, like the everyone else, I take time to choose the right words and images that accompany my thoughts. Being able to put a picture with these thoughts is great and I try to choose something symbolic or unique with my posts.

bigsip said...

Ryan didn't ask me to pull it down.

Ryan, express your opinion, please. That's why this is here.

I express my opinion often, probably too strongly.

If the pic means that much to y'all, put it back up.

But, it seems a bit over the top for the discussion with which it was related.

I apologize for taking it down, but not for the reason behind taking it down.

I did it purely out of a desire to allay offense, nothing more.

Jamison said...

im staying out of this...
on one hand, yeah, some people come here (particularly Sips MOM) who prob wouldnt dig the pic...

Plus, alot of us look at this at work... Ryans work is a church.

Then again, I have seen worse... at least it brought up some good lively discussion.

mullinz8 said...

If I post something so disgusting that it offends everyone instantly I’ll remove it.

The point is that we need to agree if something should be removed and not act on opinions and assumptions as per Ryan’s statements.

Josh, your opinion of the image is what has set this off. If you said, this image really bothers me then I would be happy to remove it. That’s not what you did.

I will not whoever throw around what I believe you’re thinking and agree that it is sensual but how dare you dictate to me what’s appropriate in what I regard as artistic merit and meaning…

You’re take is of phalluses and some over sexualized imagery. I have thought about what I consider pornographic and obscene and have drawn those lines ages ago and it’s clear that ones appreciation of artistic expression is vastly different than the other.

Some people don’t see the need to sexualize things, sometimes it’s possible to look at art, as I’m sure you know, as just a drawing. I know my intent in having the image posted, you sir, do not. This is not a statement of anger it’s a simple assertion of the facts.

“But I know it when I see it”. Justice Potter Stewart

mullinz8 said...

Jamison, is Sippers mom going to giggle with delight at the sight of you peeing? I didn’t think so either.

My mother would write it off as “just one of Matt’s friends”. The boob picture wouldn’t garner a second thought.

Jamison said...

eitherway, I think the church of God was right... blogging is sinful

bigsip said...

I'm sorry if you felt accused, man.

I apologize.

I'll express my opinion first from now on, knowing that you'll take my feelings nto consideration and act accordingly.

I should have realized you'd do this, anyway.

I acted impetuously, but out of an attempt to do the right thing. I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

Please forgive my trespass and know that I'll be more thoughtful in the future.

Ryan, I apologize to you, too. I wasn't using you as an excuse or scapegoat. I took the image off because I figured if one person for whom I have respect had something to say about the image, others would, too.

I hope you can understand why I did it (for myself, wife, mom, Ryan, etc.), but I won't do it again without discussion.

Again, I apologoze and I didn't mean any harm.

Ryan F. said...

Can I get an award for almost inciting a riot?

Just as long as my trophy isn't a pair of boobs! :)

bigsip said...

So, we can't give you stauettes of Mullins and Brew, huh? ;)

Kidding, guys!

Y'all are prety big boobs, though :)

Ryan F. said...

Alright, that was really cheesy Sip.

I just wanted to be the 50th post on here.

bigsip said...

Ryan F., The Pentecost of Posters, my friends!

mullinz8 said...


Just kidding. I see your point that it could be offensive to some. This simple sight of boobs in art unless it’s created to be an erotic piece just doesn’t do anything for me, I’m sorry that I’ve become so calloused to the plight of shapely drawn breasts.

We are in a super sexualized culture and in comparison to the sensual programming on cable TV or day time soaps, two boobs on a website don’t amount to much, at least so it would seem. I will happily take anyone’s feelings into consideration no matter the circumstance. If I let my boys watch Teen Titans, which I don’t, you would have no right to condemn my parenting as a whole and consider them to be lost eternally because of a TV show. Equally, accusing someone of posting salacious material for the sake of getting my jollies off when that’s not the case is wrong too.

Dean Hedghog at FU once accused my Grandfather of being a pervert because I purchased an old B&W picture of Marline Monroe for him. For my grandfather MM is as much of a cultural icon as she was a sex symbol. Again the image showed two boobs, which I consider to be hardly offensive.

For as ridicules as I think boobs being offensive is, I still can understand how some people can be offended by them. My job is not to judge them for their position and opinion it’s to explore and see if there is a reasonable solution within the difference.

I still love you Sipper, it was a right good row.

bigsip said...

And the people said, Amen...

bigsip said...

Oh, and I love you, too, Mullins.

I learned a long time ago to not let myself quarrel too long. I much prefer to apologize and move on rather than try to be "right" and wind up hurting someone I love.

God be with you, my dear friend.

mullinz8 said...

In my family we’re not about being right, we’re about being understood fully and then moving on. Once things are on the table and each side knows what the other is thinking for sure without mincing words then we can agree to disagree and live a happy existence. Because like opinions over what may or may not constitute art people can disagree and both be right at the same time.

If I were really a boob I would sit at home and play with my self all day.

bigsip said...

"If I were really a boob I would sit at home and play with my self all day."

I thought you already did that ;).

Yeah, being "right" is one thing, being understood is something different. Neither seem to be entirely possible.

Explaining one's self is, but really being understood is difficult since real empathy doesn't really exist.

But, I digress.

I'm glad we worked it out.