Wednesday, July 26, 2006

My Brother Daniel

I am not being lazy here, but I want y'all to read what Daniel has to say on the issue of the Tree of Life and it's relevance in our lives today. Please keep in mind that this post is not related to soteriological issues, so make sure you check your weapons at the door.


Foreign


p.s. I am not endorsing his pornographic picture however. 18+ required.

10 comments:

Daniel said...

If you could make the word "pornographic" bold - I might get more traffic... ;-)

Jim said...

Daniel, as you requested it has been done.

Now, you should get at least 6 more hits as all my readers faithfully visit.

Daniel said...

Jim - you are the salt of the earth! thx.

Even So... said...

Yeah, I read that article already, but when I saw pornographic, I thought, hooo boy, what did I miss, and went right on over...

Jim said...

And I thougth Calvinists were immune to temptation?

Even So... said...

Well, yes, except the temptation to discern and the temptaion to dri...oh, there I go again...

Bhedr said...

I do not find this ammusing. I am not going over and I do not appreciate whatever value of humor this has. This is not funny.

I'm sorry if I seem self-righteous. I endure this scorn at work and find it disappointing that I must endure it among brethren.

Jim said...

Brian, I can fully understand your feelings.

I did have second thoughts about adding that part but since I figured not too many people would be offended by his picture, I did add it.

Thanks for sharing your concerns over this matter. I do appreciate your discernment and comments over the past few months.

God bless,
Jim

Bhedr said...

I find it regrettable that some brethren have been mocking this issue over the past few weeks. This is a serious issue. I didn't know where you were coming from or if you were joking. I am glad to know that you were genuinely concerned.

Daniel said...

Brian, it is good to be concerned about questionable images or content - especially from Christian sources. Jim's remark, and whatever banter followed, were not meant to make light of any recent devlopments in the blogosphere. I am certainly unaware of anyone making light of such things - though I am not surprized to hear of it either.

The "pornographic" image Jim is referring to is in fact a woodcut engraving of Adam and Eve that has been used to illustrate conservative bibles for the past 200 years.

The illustration was a woodcut engraving by Julius Schnoor von Carolsfeld (1794-1872) originally printed in (and specifically designed for) "Das Buch der B├╝cher" (the book of books.. i.e. "the bible"). The image is of Adam and Eve in the garden, and while they are both (understandably) nude - their nudity is depicted with the sort of taste and descretion that one expects of an image designed for, and used specifically to illustrate a bible two hundred years ago.

Sexual sin ought to be taken seriously, and I can understand therefore your zeal, I share it, as I am sure Jim does also. The remarks in the meta, and the quote in the post reflect a familiar comradery amongst the general readership whom would have understood the comment as hyperbole.

The image is a 200 year old bible illustration, so common in fact, that you have likely seen it many times before.

I don't mention these things to entice you to go and look - but rather to assure you that there isn't anything vulgar over at my blog. I am a conservative believer, and I hate pornography (and the damage it does) with all my soul. I wouldn't want to be mistaken for anything less.

Dan