Picked this up.
Delving in the midst, immediately struck by what an egoist he is. Full of himself. (I've read some of his more topical books - when the topic's him, he's sooo solipsistic.) In a nutshell, as the texts of yore cinched, I'd say he's sucking up to his own ideological rambling.
Had a kooky conversation with a fellow at church, someone I've known for years acting awfully coy to the extent he feigns he doesn't know my name. Believe he did and got off on a subtle put-down. As if I hadn't squashed the notion like last millennium. We had previously interlocuted and I thought him somewhat dense - but you never know, coy as they are, God no respecter of persons and all.
Mentioned Kung and some "theological" wrangles. Trouble was he claimed he didn't know what I was talking about. I said Christians didn't need a theology, that it's nothing more than a philosophical explanation of God, Who's inexplicable and ineffable. You know, the boilerplate if one chooses to believe. Augustine, Aquinas and Kung are not required.
Well, he made me feel as if there was something wrong with me as he claimed ignorance of these people. In the same vein as not believing he didn't know my Christian name, I didn't know whether to believe him, a good old boy pushing 60. Too much. I then asserted that God is indeed no respecter of persons... "Whom do you think you are? God?" No response. A smirk.
"How can I testify to infidels when people like you aren't with it?"
Don't think I'm going to "study" Kung's memoirs. Will breeze through what I can make time for. It's a settled matter for Baptists. Those guys are the ones who need to catch up. Some people at church, however, are more obsessed with Zion's borders than seeing Israel before them. A state of mind, I suppose.
Contemporaneously, also secured a rollicking read (perhaps) but there's no index! His daughter was in Pulp Fiction. I'd expect this is a notch above. Brief scan; looks like fun.
Delving in the midst, immediately struck by what an egoist he is. Full of himself. (I've read some of his more topical books - when the topic's him, he's sooo solipsistic.) In a nutshell, as the texts of yore cinched, I'd say he's sucking up to his own ideological rambling.
Had a kooky conversation with a fellow at church, someone I've known for years acting awfully coy to the extent he feigns he doesn't know my name. Believe he did and got off on a subtle put-down. As if I hadn't squashed the notion like last millennium. We had previously interlocuted and I thought him somewhat dense - but you never know, coy as they are, God no respecter of persons and all.
Mentioned Kung and some "theological" wrangles. Trouble was he claimed he didn't know what I was talking about. I said Christians didn't need a theology, that it's nothing more than a philosophical explanation of God, Who's inexplicable and ineffable. You know, the boilerplate if one chooses to believe. Augustine, Aquinas and Kung are not required.
Well, he made me feel as if there was something wrong with me as he claimed ignorance of these people. In the same vein as not believing he didn't know my Christian name, I didn't know whether to believe him, a good old boy pushing 60. Too much. I then asserted that God is indeed no respecter of persons... "Whom do you think you are? God?" No response. A smirk.
"How can I testify to infidels when people like you aren't with it?"
Don't think I'm going to "study" Kung's memoirs. Will breeze through what I can make time for. It's a settled matter for Baptists. Those guys are the ones who need to catch up. Some people at church, however, are more obsessed with Zion's borders than seeing Israel before them. A state of mind, I suppose.
Contemporaneously, also secured a rollicking read (perhaps) but there's no index! His daughter was in Pulp Fiction. I'd expect this is a notch above. Brief scan; looks like fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment