Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decwrl!lymph.dec.com!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: More Figs!
Message-ID: <5385@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 14:00:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5385
Posted: Tue Sep 16 14:00:55 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 07:29:06 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 46
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:93 net.religion.christian:4654

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