Evil for evil?

Kazimierz, Poland (photo from trekearth.com)

Within the last month I have three new blog links named Larry...incredible.

If I become messed up with a Larry, please forgive me.

1 Peter 3:8-9 (New American Standard Bible)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

8To sum up, (A)all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, (B)brotherly, (C)kindhearted, and (D)humble in spirit;

9(E)not returning evil for evil or (F)insult for insult, but giving a (G)blessing instead; for (H)you were called for the very purpose that you might (I)inherit a blessing.

G.J. Polkinghorne explains that within the brotherhood of faith harsh words are to be answered in accordance with how Christ did it, with a blessing. Christians must speak and do right and be peaceable. Polkinghorne (1986: 1558).

Christians are not to return evil for evil to other Christians.

Romans 12:21 (New American Standard Bible)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Leslie C. Allen writes that Paul urges Christians to not let pagan neighbours have cause for criticism of actions. A way to bring this about is non-retaliation by the Christian. Christians should not break the peace. Justice and vengeance belongs to God. Allen (1986: 1341-1342).

Christians are not to return evil for evil to non-Christians.

This is of course all easier said that done, admittedly.

This can be difficult to do even in the blogging world as well.



"LONDON - Chelsea striker Didier Drogba was suspended for three matches on Tuesday for hurling a coin back into the crowd during a League Cup game against Burnley.

The incident happened in last Wednesday's game after Drogba had scored at Stamford Bridge and was celebrating the goal close to the visiting fans.

Some of the Burnley followers threw coins at the Ivory Coast striker and Drogba picked one up and threw it back. He was shown a yellow card for celebrating in front of the Burnley fans but the referee did not see the coin incident and the Football Association decided to charge him with violent conduct.

Police are also investigating the incident and have called on fans to identify who threw the coins..."

I can somewhat understand Drogba's actions. The thrown coins could have done slight to significant damage above his neck especially. Operating in my corrupted human nature (Romans 1-3) alone, apart from being filled by God's spirit, I would in that situation not just want to throw the coins back at the person or persons that threw them, but go back in the crowd and punish the offender or offenders with force.

But, there are security officers and police present at professional football matches and it would be their duty to apprehend offenders. The state and its representatives are established by God to maintain law and order (Romans 13) and a footballer, whether it would me, hypothetically, or Drogba, should have simply moved out of the line of fire of the coins and not attempted to return evil for evil.

By the way, with my door man build I would have never made it as a professional footballer.

As a soccer player I would be too much of a pylon, as in the orange plastic cone that does not move (much/fast).

I am quite good at three British computer soccer games I own from the 1990s though.

Too bad there are not professional leagues, perhaps I would be a 'supastaw'.

As well, I could certainly be a security or police officer at a football match!

There are legitimate situations for a person to use force in self-defence I reason, that being when an official of the state, or sufficient numbers of officials, that are involved in law enforcement are not present to assist and one is protecting self or others from bodily harm. However, besides the fact that Drogba was taking matters into his hands unecessarily, Drogba was not going to bring justice to the situation by throwing a coin back into the crowd as he would very likely hit the wrong person and not hit the right person, or persons that were guilty of throwing coins. His suspension is therefore merited, although I feel bad for him and reason the offender or offenders that threw the coins should be found, if at all possible, and banned from football/soccer stadiums for a very long time, if not life.

ALLEN, LESLIE C. (1986) 'Romans', in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary.

POLKINGHORNE, G.J. (1986) ‘First Peter’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary.

My Mom sent me this joke, and I fully realize that there are many intelligent blondes in this world.

"Subject: Ice Fishing

A blonde wanted to go ice fishing. She'd seen many books on the subject, and finally getting all the necessary tools together, she made for the ice.

After positioning her comfy footstool, she started to make a circular cut in the ice. Suddenly, from the sky, a voice boomed,


Startled, the blonde moved further down the ice, poured a thermos of cappuccino, and began to cut yet another hole.

Again from the heavens the Voice bellowed,


The blonde, now worried, moved away, clear down to the opposite end of the ice. She set up her stool once more and tried again to cut her hole. The voice came once more,


She stopped, looked skyward, and said, "IS THAT YOU LORD?"


Here is a joke that is both theological and satirical which I viewed in 2004:

On a British comedy television program in 2004, Jonathan Ross stated that a Muslim extremist suicide bomber was expecting to be taken to heaven where he would be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Instead he was given a 72 year old virgin.

A humourous soccer fall, and perhaps dive from a manager that leads to brawls in the stadium. In this example, better law and order needed to be maintained in my opinion.

Thoughts on media, cults, and printers


I made these comments, which I have slightly edited, on another blog in comments, in regard to any government notion of fairness concept or doctrine within religious media.

As far as fairness goes, I remember a few years ago when a Christian television station came into our Vancouver area market. The station stated that for fairness the CTRC made them broadcast non-Christian programming.

Quote from their site:

"The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is an independent agency responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems."

Now the liberal left that brings this fairness junk into Ottawa really irritate me.

1. Christian views are rarely in the media, other than mainly with Sunday morning televangelists and much of that is very questionable. A Christian station with a Christian voice should be acceptable in our society. Mind you, I would not be a bit surprised if a lot of it would end up corrupted even if it stayed all Christian, but that is another issue.

2. I am sure the Jewish community, or the Sikhs and many other religious groups could afford their own station, and I think they should have this right without any fairness concept.

3. Where is the fairness concept on the majority secular television stations? Oh, so fairness only applies to religious BUT NOT non-religious philosophy. That sounds oh so (Ottawa liberal) Canadian.

Religion requires faith, but secular humanism does not...untrue. Humanity does not even know its origins and puts faith in limited science philosophy to speculate philosophically. I am not writing in the context of known empirical scientific facts.

4. If there is ever any fairness concept on my blogs, it will be because I allow it and not because of some bureaucrats in Washington or Ottawa.

There is no need for government mandated fairness or balance in regard to worldviews and religious discussion and related.

A related joke my Mom sent me:

Subject: Fw: A computer whiz....

"A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in southern Alberta when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, 'If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?' Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, 'Sure, Why not?' The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, 'You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.' 'That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,' says Bud. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the Cowboy says to the young man, 'Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?' The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, 'Okay, why not?' 'You're an auditor for the Federal Government, says Bud. 'Wow! That's correct,' says the yuppie, 'but how did you guess that?' 'No guessing required.' answered the cowboy. 'You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter you are than me; and you don't know a thing about cows...this is a herd of SHEEP. . Now give me back my DOG."

The recent CNN report on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple movement after it ended thirty years ago, had me thinking about this cult somewhat.

Rick Ross notes:

Rick Ross site

"The Rise and Fall of Jim Jones

November 16, 2002 By Rick Ross

On November 18, 1978, followers of Jim Jones shot and killed United States Congressman Leo J. Ryan and four others traveling with him on a fact finding trip to Guyana. Ryan was there to investigate complaints about the community called "Jonestown," which was largely inhabited by his former California constituents.

After murdering a United States congressman Jones knew the end of his rule was near. He ordered his entire following, some 914 people, to commit what he called "revolutionary suicide."

This included more than 200 children.

The rise

Jones began his group in San Francisco and was once a respected community leader. He started programs to help the elderly and poor. His circle of friends once included leading politicians, who once defended him against allegations of abuse.

An ongoing scandal about such abuse is what prompted Jones to isolate himself and his followers in Guyana, where the media, former members and families could not influence his faithful remnant. However, Rep. Ryan ultimately came there to investigate the continuing abuse within the compound.

Once the Rev. Jim Jones was a popular figure and something of a religious celebrity in San Francisco. He participated in fashionable charity events and perhaps most importantly could turn out the vote or do whatever else was necessary through the well-oiled machine composed largely of his church members.

Jones was not some self-proclaimed "prophet" or fringe religious leader. He was an ordained minister of the Disciples of Christ, a respected mainline denomination. At one point his congregation numbered 8,000. It was composed largely of poor African Americans.

Jones cast himself as a politically progressive and was embraced by liberal politicians such as U.S. Representatives Phillip and John Burton, Assemblyman Willie Brown and Mayor George Moscone.

After the tragedy at Jonestown these politicians found it difficult to explain how Jim Jones so easily took them in."

"Review of key events
1953: Jim Jones opens his own independent church in Indianapolis.
1964: the Disciples of Christ ordain Jones.
1965-71: Jones supposedly believes a nuclear holocaust is coming and uses this as an excuse to move his congregation to Northern California. His church grows and becomes prominent. He is named foreman of the Mendocino County grand jury.
1971: Peoples Temple buys a building in downtown San Francisco and spins off another branch in Los Angeles. Headquarters is moved to San Francisco.
1971-73: The Temple membership grows very large and it offers social programs, jobs and health care.
1974: Peoples Temple leases land from the government of Guyana in a remote jungle area.
1975: The temple turns out its followers for rallies political campaigns and helps elect candidates in San Francisco.
1976: Mayor George Moscone appoints Jones to the city's Housing Authority Commission. Jones gets favorable media coverage and national politicians seek him out. However, his megalomania and paranoia is becoming more visible. He never travels without bodyguards and packs public appearances with followers who applaud him.
Summer 1977: New West magazine publishes a story that exposes Jones, his fakery, abuses and questionable finances.
August 1977: Jones moves to Guyana and creates Jonestown.
1977-78: About 1,000 Temple members move to Jonestown.
June 1978: Temple defector Deborah Layton is interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle and exposes the brutality and apparent plans for mass suicide at Jonestown.
Fall 1978: Relatives of Jonestown residents push for an official investigation.
November 7, 1978: Representative Leo Ryan says he will go to Jonestown and investigate.
November 17: Ryan arrives at Jonestown.
November 18: Some residents advise Ryan they want to leave Jonestown. Ryan tried to leave Guyana with the defectors, but is shot down at the airstrip by Jonestown gunmen. Ryan, NBC News staff Robert Brown and Don Harris, San Francisco Examiner photographer Greg Robinson and defector Patricia Parks are all murdered. Others hide in the jungle.
November 18: Jones orders his people to commit suicide by taking cyanide. Those who won't are killed. More than 200 children are murdered. 914 bodies are found at Jonestown, including Jim Jones.

Note: This article was largely based upon "Jones Captivated S.F.'s Liberal Elite San Francisco" Chronicle/November 12, 1998 By Michael Taylor "

On You Tube I watched and listened to some actual Jim Jones messages.


They contain some swearing and very gross imagery, and I suggest many of you do not listen to them.

But they are interesting to examine if one is into studying cults. I only listened to two complete clips.

Let the night roar

The You Tube header states:

"Audio recording of Comrade Jim Jones speaking at a crisis level meeting (White Night) of the communist People's Temple Agricultural Project in Guyana. "

Jones states in basic terms that they will kill anyone that tries to take any of them out.

It is chilling to listen to and he speaks and the crowd roars.

Now there is far worse. I listened to one clip (1 of 3) where Jones interviews cults members that describe in gruesome ways how they would like to kill and torture family members back home. Jones laughs repeatedly. His followers call Jones, 'Dad'.

Now, after hearing this I can still understand the media portraying the members of this cult as victims of Jones. They were and the children were especially, but these adults that wanted to kill and torture their family members back in the United States because they would not support the Peoples Temple intellectually, were very twisted persons and not only victims. My satirical side suggests that I am glad these adults moved to Guyana, but I feel especially sorry for the children that died and survived.

Some humour below...thanks Mom.

A satirical look at what it takes to get this printer to work.

How to blow-up your blog without thinking too much

Okay, I need a break from all the Facebook and Blogger material concerning:

a) Obama nation


b) Obamanation

I have made my views known in the previous article, and I remain the non-conformist who will never run for office and would not be elected if I did, in all likelihood.

I do not claim to have hugely successful blogs, and so I do not approach this article with overconfidence or arrogance. At best, my blogs satire and theology and thekingpin68 are moderately successful, and that is largely thanks to my readers, commenters and links.

Thank you! Please read them often.

I have been blogging with thekingpin68 since 2004 and this blog since 2006. Here from my research are some satirical ways to blow-up your blog without thinking too much.

1. One of the most 'attractive' things to see when I go through Blogger's next blog option is dark theme headings and graphics featuring 666, Charles Manson, death metal, Chucky (no not my friend) demonic and occult material. That is it, give your new readers that very warm and cozy safe feeling right from the start. There is nothing like jolting the readers to get them coming back again and again. Better yet if you can have some death metal music blaring at a very high volume right from the start you will make a tremendous mental (metal) impact on your new readers. And of course always feature tons of blood, 'people love that'. I am sure these bloggers can find a 'wide range' of blog supporters. I would suggest that one look to prisons, insane asylums, and reform schools for blog links.

Revelation 20: 14-15

14Then (AW)death and Hades were thrown into (AX)the lake of fire This is the (AY)second death, the lake of fire.

15And if anyone's name was not found written in (AZ)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

2. When someone leaves a comment on your blog, either completely ignore the comment, or better yet erase it later after it has been published. Make sure you come across to your readers with that 'What the hell do you want', type of attitude. Treat your blog commenters like they are telemarketers while your favourite television show is on.

3. Use plenty of ad hominem personal attacks in all your articles and comments. If someone disagrees with you make sure you state that they must hate you and what you stand for with your blog. Imply you are the Blogosphere's Mother Teresa/Gandhi/non-resistant Mennonite as you use vicious ad hominem attacks against your readers that disagree with you in any major way.

Reason that it is okay for you to viciously attack your critics, because you are 'right' and since they are 'wrong' as they disagree with you, and they obviously must hate you.

4. Put on your righteous blogger hat and decide which comments from commenters contain sufficient truth and only publish those. If you think a comment is truthful enough, publish, and if you do not, do not publish. After all, it is your blog and you have the right to have only comments that you agree with on your blog. That is what Canada (or your Western country) is all about, eh.

Matthew 22: 36-40

36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"


38"This is the great and foremost commandment.


40"(AE)On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Mark 12: 28-31

28(Q)One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and (R)recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"

29Jesus answered, "The foremost is, '(S)HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;


31"The second is this, '(U)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

5. Even if you are not famous and well-known in your field with plenty of blog traffic almost immediately, do not make comments on other blogs as even though you are relatively unknown in the field you are blogging in others should see what a brilliant and wonderful person you are. People should be able to find your blog via Google. I mean that is what Google is for, is it not?

6. Forget about linking reciprocally with other blogs and websites as eventually the blogosphere will come to find your blog and traffic will greatly increase as the truth will be revealed that you are a blogging 'supastaw'.

Supastaw that is what you aw.

In the meantime, writing that on-line personal diary is oh so much fun. It is like a notebook accept on-line with all those pretty bright colours.

7. Come across as a real know-it-all. Be so closed-minded and stuck to a certain use of terms that unless someone completely agrees with you and uses all the same terminology, imply they must be ignorant, and therefore if you do publish their comment, lecture them in a very condescending manner. Pretend they are your four year child that has just had a boo boo in the pants after being potty trained.

This has been published previously, but it needs to be published often I am afraid.

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn notes that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

I once considered going into politics

Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)

When I was a teenager I thought I might go into politics, perhaps as a Member of Parliament or more likely a political advisor. I am glad it never worked out, and that I never tried to work it out.

As I noted in thekingpin68 comments:

Liberal democrats often do not strike me as overly ideological philosophical politicians. In my mind, when liberal democrats do push forward an increasingly anti-God liberal agenda it is often not primarily overly philosophical, but because they are good at reading public mood and providing what will get them votes.

Many liberal democrats will likely primarily deny what I am stating, but I think the best of them are masters of political pragmatism and correctness. Some conservatives are quite pragmatic as well.

Biblical Christian theology on the other hand is not primarily concerned with pragmatism or telling the public how smart and good they are in order to receive votes.

As a theologian I am not primarily concerned with popularity and I am not looking for votes. Of course I would prefer to be liked, and I would like my theology blogs to be decently popular, but I am not looking to present blogs that appeal to the masses.

So many politicians indicate to the masses that the people are winners that need a break.

As a theologian I state that we are sinners that need grace (Ephesians 2: 8-10, Romans 6: 23).

So many politicians like to blame others for the problems of the masses, as in the corporations, the unions, the rich, the foreigners, and the other political party, and there is often some truth in these claims, but as a theologian I can state that we need to look at our own sin, first and foremost as the main problem. We are not righteous, we do not seek God, we do not do good (perfect goodness) (Romans 3). We are in need of God's grace through Christ.

Our new local Pitt River Bridge will have us ready for the late twentieth century.

The YouTube video clips were not formatting properly on Firefox, but were on Internet Explorer. So, because of the Firefox problem I present one as follows.