Friday, May 20, 2005

Outrageous Grace

More available at


  1. I notice on your complete profile you pay attention to your 'astrological sign' and 'zodiac year'. Yet you claim to be a Chrsitian. Is'nt this a little hypocritical?

  2. They're automatically put onto people's profile. You find a blogspot profile without it and I'll be impressed.

  3. You've now posted this on Rach's, mine and Dave's blog - was that really necessary?! And who are you?

  4. I haven't got one, cos I didn't enter my birthday...and therefore can smugly declare myself exepmt from any aparent 'double standards' ;)

  5. I've been defended already so I wont say anything more... but frankly... "Anonymous" I'm not really prepared to listen to someone who wont even tell me who they are.

    Rebuke should be done personally and privately first...

    I suspect what I shall now do is:
    a) remove my date of birth
    b) remove the right to post anonymously.

    Blessings on you,


  6. Maybe a little rash and drastic, but certainly not unreasonable in this case. Anonymous troublemakers will always have somewhere to leave thier spikes anyway (and yes that includes an implicit invitation to come and stirr on my own site if you think you can manage it, you anonymous thing!)

  7. Well I figure that I quite like to know who is commenting - so we can interact intelligently... and that its not like I hid when my birthday is (see last week's post on it)...

    And if it helps those who would stumble over something blogger automatically does then so be it...

    It's a good point though to consider - why should Christian's comment anonymously - shouldn't we only say what we'd be prepared to say to someone knowing that they know who we are?

    As a preacher should I really pay attention to critical comment, for example, if the critic isn't prepared to say who they are?