It is truly no wonder that Christians compare themselves with sheep. They are indeed just as bland, stupid, and gullible, hence, the term Sheeple. I would like to comment, as editor, writer, and content manager of this blog, on one such “Christian” who chose to his demise to make some unwarranted assumptions about this blog. This is not a personal indictment of the reader but a general comment on what the reader has to say about this blog, in particular a single article published on this blog.
Mr Tomas Gacio recently added a comment to our article on Kirsten Gillibrand, “Message to Kirsten Gillibrand: Stop sending the message enabling personal depravity! Mr Gacio should pull his proselytizing head out of his sheeple butt and wake up, quite honestly. Speaking of “Honestly,” Mr Gacio writes:
“Honestly ask yourself, as writer or even content manager of this blog, if the content and/or tone of this article is reflective of the attitude of Christ. Not commenting on the actual ideology presented by the writer. It is always good when communication occurs, and by all means exercise that right. That being said, surely there is a better way to express those views. This is a christian blog. Is this the tone you think reflects the body of Christ best?”
Mr Gacio starts off on the right track when he writes: “I is always good when communication occurs…,” but then derails himself when he continues, “…surely there is a better way to express those views.” In other words, communication is “good” but only when it is done in a manner that he approves of. Typical of the vast majority, isn’t he?
Honestly, YES. If you are referring to the ostensibly Buddhist teachings of the mythological Christ of your brand of institutionalized religion, we’d have to go a long way with lies, error, propaganda, hypocrisy to even come close to the Christian spirit to which you refer.
First of all, this is NOT a CHRISTIAN BLOG!!! That, sir, is your first mistake. Your second mistake is not familiarizing yourself with the blog as a whole and not with a single article about a self-serving, evil, political hack, Kirsten Gillibrand. She and her feminist ilk are unnatural in every respect of the word, and, like liberation theology anti-popes (did I mention any names, Francis?), and absentee, Mardi Gras bishops (did I mention any names Edward?), and the so-called Christians who are ethical and holy for a full 45 minutes a week, is a travesty of her fiduciary duties owed to the public and a parody of her oath of office. But then, that could be said about most if not all American politicians and clergy.
This blog is not published to reflect the so-called body of Christ. Christ who? The myth? The fiction? The ideology? The syncretic rites, rituals and theologies? The atrocities, the aberrations, the abominations? The body of Christ to which you refer is corrupt, decaying, and rightly so! The body of Christ to which you are apparently referring have been untrustworthy stewards, have bankrupted their treasury of possible virtues and values, have become temple prostitutes, and have far exceeded the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Worse still, they are ignorant and make no effort to correct that deplorable state of being.
No, sir, far from being Christian in any sense of the current perversion of the word, this blog is NOT CHRISTIAN, and in no way whatsoever intends to reflect the body of any concocted christ or the highly edited writings of self-interested first-to-eighth century politicians — excuse me, you’d probably want to call them Church Fathers, absentee fathers in many respects —, who in their own time spoke to a very small minority, a minority who would sooner kill each other off than dialogue, and who were and continue to be grossly misunderstood, misinterpreted, used and abused, distorted, and the list goes on, why belabor the point.
And yet Mr Gacio, vested in greater Spielbergian brilliance than Albany’s own Edward Scharfenberger, comes to the defense of a temple whore (a whore of the temple of Capitol Hill), claiming (in gross error) that this blog, as a “Christian blog” [sic, recte “honest”] does not reflect the “body of Christ.”
The short answer: No. It does not. And it will not. Be grateful.
Thank you Mr Gacio for making our point about the fast-diminishing faith tradition calling itself “Christian,” and about the fast-decaying “body of Christ,” neither of which are the core subject matter of this blog, nor have they ever been.
Thank you for your comment and for the opportunity to respond.