Comments on: Is Anyone Else Bothered by This?

By: jen d

jen d — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:02:21 +0000

Hmmm…thanks for the advice. I’ll think about it. For the moment it doesn’t seem to be getting in the way of my usual readership accessing my post, so I guess it’s okay.

By: man of music

man of music — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:55:39 +0000

I’m not sure if there’s any way around it other than deleting the two words with asterisks… or maybe just deleting those 2 sentences. It’s a little difficult here because of the nature of your original post, but I think we do need to be “shocked” into seeing realities like these.
Right now though, I’m not seeing any other way to make your post filter-friendly.

By: jen d

jen d — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:46:24 +0000

So-called-Offender, we’ve all been there :o) I didn’t think that about you either, though, and no doubt would have reacted in much the same way if in your shoes, though perhaps with much less humility.

Music Man, apparently the filters are smarter than I am ;o) Thanks for the heads up. I wonder how I can get around that without becoming totally rediculous? Appreciate any ideas.

By: man of music

man of music — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:56:14 +0000

That IS sickening! I’m so disgusted with most of the *Christian* t-shirts of today. So often they are just a parody of something in the world (the “You’ve got the right one”-slogan-next-to-a-cross kind of thing). These people see the need to make a connection between Christ’s light and the sinful world, but they mistakenly put the focus on the world. We aren’t supposed to infuse the world with Christ… we’re supposed to be light to the world because of Christ. The main connection is to Christ, not the world… the Christian’s connection to the world should be only a by-product of our relationship to Christ.

Oh, and in the “for what it’s worth” department… most filters are smart enough to “read” through the asterisks and missing letters in the more commonly used bad words/topics. I imagine most filters would block this page as mine did.

By: the offender

the offender — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:52:18 +0000

Reality has just performed an exorcism of the egocentricity residing within me.

Oh, the folly of my tendency to put myself at the center of everyone elseâ€™s conversations. (After all, who else is there to talk about?) I didnâ€™t know anyone else who had such a link, knew I did have the link in question, assumed I was the blogger.

Anyway, no offense taken. Thank you for your gracious words.

By: jen d

jen d — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:59:22 +0000

Dear Mr. “Offender” :o) Just wanted to let you know that it was not through your site that I was led to the offending site–it was actually through a link from a link I had previously posted on my site, for a non-related topic. I did later (though before posting this entry) see the link on your site and was a little surprised; this gave me pause. It casued me to check out the site more thoroughly before posting my thoughts about it (hence I can honestly say I do think it’s creators are truly anti-pornography and do not endorse it; thus my caveats that I was not questioning the people’s motives,just their methods. Heavily ;o) I also hesitated to blog about it because I didn’t want it to seem like an attack on anyone in the blog community who has been involved with or endorsed the site. I have much less reason to question the motives of such people, specifically yourself, as I have been blessed by, challenged by, and in general priviledged to read your blog thoughts–“thoughts” in the truest sense, a sense that might not always be applicable for many blogs, including my own. In the end I decided that even if I would be in disagreement with such people (liek yourself), we were all mature enough to handle it. I felt too strongly about the content of the site not to say something, and if doing so has made you rethink your endorsement, or level of it, then I leave you to do with your own link what you feel is best in good conscience before God–truly, whether it be keeping it, moving it, or deleting it altogether. You’ve got a brain, a heart, and the Holy Spirit–you don;t need me telling you what to do! ANd, I didn’t mean to. I hope you can trust me when I say I would and do endorse YOUR site as I have opportunity, without reservation, and this post was not directed at you personally. Thanks for your gracious response and your thoughts!

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:54:48 +0000

Graciously said.

By: the offender

the offender — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:03:19 +0000

Thank you for being discerning readers of the offending blog. My response to some things on the site mirrored that of those who have already commented on the site. Some thoughts concerning preceding discussion:

*A link to a website is not necessarily a wholehearted endorsement of everything in the site. It could mean that the site is in some way useful or at least thought-provoking. Perhaps that’s all it means.

*Shock tactics are not necessarily bad. To say we need Scripture instead of shock tactics is akin to saying that we need Scripture instead of, say, Christian blogs, or logical syllogisms, or anything else abstract or concrete. No one is saying we need these things instead of Scripture. They can be used as a means of communicating Scripture. Having said that though, shock tactics can go overboard. I found a number of things on the site that just went overboard, or whose tone was incongruent with the message. But I also found some things that would fit under the “in some way useful” or “at least thought-provoking” categories. Hence the link.

*Let me now throw out the 2 previous points. I put the link under the “GROW” category, which would indicate something close to a pretty hearty endorsement of the site. I should have:

a.) linked to it under a different category
b.) renamed the category with a title that would better communicate my unwillingness to place a wholehearted endorsement on everything in that category
c.) not linked to it at all

Rebuke taken. Gratefully. Apology offered. Sincerely. Link removed. Promptly.

By: Kat

Kat — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:24:06 +0000

You entirely correct Jen. I hate the tendency for people to make Christ a pop culture icon. I think this goes right along with publishing the Bible in a magazine format.
Kat

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:36:33 +0000

Hi Jen. I think I ran into you on another blog. My name is Dan. Nice to meet you.

I just want to comment on this. When Isaiah saw the Lord he said, “Woe is me! I am undone!” And his next reaction was submission. Makes you wonder if these people are seeing the same God Isaiah saw.

It also scares me and warns me that my life is capable of proclaiming the message of that t-shirt if I am not living in a manner consistent with who Jesus is.