THE HEAT IS ON: LUKE 12:8-12

Luke 12:8-12

English Standard Version

(ESV)

 

 
Acknowledge Christ Before Men

 

8 “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, 9 but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. 11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A8-12&version=ESV

Ron Mihelic, Pharm.D., BCOP

Ron Mihelic, Pharm.D., BCOP

Ron Mihelic is a 1999 graduate of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy. He completed a Pharmacy Practice Residency at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, Georgia in 2000. Ron worked as a hematology oncology specialist at Emory University Hospital from 2001 through 2007. Ron became earned his board certification as an oncology specialist in 2006. Ron has been working at Northside Hospital with the Leukemia/ BMT program as a clinical specialist since 2007. He is a guest lecturer at Mercer University College of Pharmacy as well as the Mercer University Physician Assistant program. He is a preceptor for Mercer, South, and UGA, and for the residency program at Northside Hospital.

***

As I was doing my usual flag spinning this evening out by the street in front of my house,

just before it started getting dark, 

I saw a medium size black dog running across the street from the direction of Ron Mihelic property, 

up the hill, then out of sight. 

Seeing no one with  the dog, 

I became concerned it my have escaped from a neighbor's yard.  

So I walked down the hill to the corner of Vistavia and Mason Mill Road.  

First I tried hailing down a SUV driving down the dead end section of Vistavia toward Mason Mill Road.  The black woman behind the steering wheel just kept driving.   

Feeling I had no other options other than ringing Ron Mihelic doorbell or just forgetting about the dog, 

I walked across his lawn and ranged that doorbell.  

He opened the kitchen window over the porch and kept yelling, 

"GET OFF MY PROPERTY!" "GET OFF MY PROPERTY!"   

Over and over. 

What a "cunt!" 

No surprise really. 

Barely managed getting out to him that I had seen a medium size black dog on the loose.
Wasn't able saying anything else to him except,
"You're not concerned about that dog?  WHAT AN ASSHOLE,"
as I turned around and left.

As I'm walking across the street back in the direction of my property,
I hear him saying something inaudible and turned to see him standing in his driveway looking my direction.

"You're on your own," 

I said turning my back to him and continuing up the hill back to my place.

IT AMAZES ME HOW THEY STILL JUST DON"T GET IT.

 
 I did my part in spite of having no incentive showing any concern for the welfare of that dog,

other than being concerned for the welfare
 of that dog.

***

:FUCK YOU!" - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

"FUCK YOU!

~(2:25)~

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck:  Fuck is an obscene English language word, which refers to the act of sexual intercourse and is also commonly used as an intensifier or to denote disdain. Its origin is obscure but is usually considered to be first attested to around 1475, although it may be considerably older. In modern usage, the term fuck and its derivatives (such as fucker and fucking) can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an interjection, or an adverb. There are many common phrases that employ the word, as well as compounds that incorporate it, such as motherfucker and fuckwit.

The word's use is considered obscene, but is common in many informal and familiar situations. It is unclear whether the word has always been considered vulgar, and, if not, when it first came to be used to describe (often in an extremely angry, hostile or belligerent manner) unpleasant circumstances or people in an intentionally offensive way, such as in the term motherfucker, one of its more common usages in some parts of the English-speaking world. Some English-speaking countries censor it on television and radio. Andrea Millwood Hargrave's 2000 study of the attitudes of the British public found that fuck was considered the third most severe profanity and its derivative motherfucker second. Cunt was considered the most severe. Nevertheless, the word has become increasingly less vulgar and more publicly acceptable, an example of the "dysphemism treadmill", wherein former vulgarities become inoffensive and commonplace. However, lawyer and linguist professor Pamela Hobbs, has stated that, "notwithstanding its increasing public use, enduring cultural models that inform our beliefs about the nature of sexuality and sexual acts preserve its status as a vile utterance that continues to inspire moral outrage." Hobbs considers users rather than usage of the word and sub-divides users into: 'non-users', for whom the word "evokes the core sexual meanings and associated sexual imagery that motivate the taboo", and 'users' for whom "metaphorical uses of the word fuck no more evoke images of sexual intercourse than does a ten-year-old’s ‘My mom’ll kill me if she finds out’ evoke images of murder," where the "criteria of taboo are missing." The word was included for the first time as one of three vulgarities in The Canadian Press's Canadian Press Caps and Spelling guide in 2005 because of its increasing usage in the public forum. Journalists were advised to refrain from censoring the word but use it sparingly and only when its inclusion was essential to the story.

One reason that the word fuck is so hard to trace etymologically is that it was used far more extensively in common speech than in easily traceable written forms. There are several urban-legend false etymologies postulating an acronymic origin for the word. None of these acronyms was ever recorded before the 1960s, according to the authoritative lexicographical work The F-Word, and thus are backronyms. In any event, the word fuck has been in use far too long for some of these supposed origins to be possible. Some of these urban legends are that the word fuck came from Irish law. If a couple were caught committing adultery, they would be punished "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge In the Nude," with "FUCKIN" written on the stocks above them to denote the crime. A similar variant on this theory involves the recording by church clerks of the crime of "Forbidden Use of Carnal Knowledge." Another theory is that of a royal permission. During the Black Death in the Middle Ages, towns were trying to control populations and their interactions. Since uncontaminated resources were scarce, supposedly many towns required permission to have children. Hence, the legend goes, that couples that were having children were required to first obtain royal permission (usually from a local magistrate or lord) and then place a sign somewhere visible from the road in their home that said "Fornicating Under Consent of King," which was later shortened to "FUCK." This story is hard to document, but has persisted in oral and literary traditions for many years; however, it has been demonstrated to be an urban legend.

Fuck has a very flexible role in English grammar, including use as both a transitive and intransitive verb, and as an adjective, adverb, and noun. It can also be used as an interjection and a grammatical ejaculation. Linguist Geoffrey Hughes found eight distinct usages for English curse words, and fuck can apply to each. For example, it fits in the "curse" sense ("fuck you!") as well as the "personal" sense ("You fucker"). Its vulgarity also contributes to its mostly figurative sense, though the word itself is used in its literal sense to refer to sexual intercourse, its most common usage is figurative- to indicate the speaker's strong sentiment and to offend or shock the listener.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the public display of fuck is protected under the First and Fourteenth amendments and cannot be made a criminal offense. In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen had been convicted of "disturbing the peace" for wearing a jacket with "fuck the draft" on it (in reference to conscription in the Vietnam War). The conviction was upheld by the court of appeals and overturned by the supreme court. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

Truth is complicated: CLAIRMONT HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH :Give to me a drink

Subject:	Re: Truth is complicated: Give to me a drink of water
From:	James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Date:	Wednesday, February 3, 2016 6:52 PM

Dear Brother Fred,

I consider the word "monologue" a better description of our sermons and prayers.  "Dialogue" on the other hand takes a minimum of two.   

Please accept my heartfelt condolences on your loss of a loved one.  I did not know.

Sincerely yours,

Simply Jim

***

Subject:	Re: Truth is complicated: Give to me a drink of water
From:	Fred O. Pitts (fred@clairmonthills.org)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Date:	Thursday, January 28, 2016 2:20 PM

Hi James,

Just wanted you to know that I received this email and also the copy in the mail. I have been slow in replying because of the sickness and death of a grandchild. You may have heard mention of that on your last visit to our church.

I am taking a class this semester that has started and takes up a good bit of time. I am going to need to get established in it a bit to see how my schedule will function before further consideration of a meeting with you. Looking at the conditions that others felt the need to put on subsequent talks and the description of a monologue rather than a dialogue does not exactly motivate me to think there is any real purpose to a meeting, so I am going to have to give more thought to it.

Thanks,

Fred

***

Subject:	Truth is complicated: Give to me a drink of water
From:	James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To:	Fred@clairmonthills.org;
Date:	Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:34 PM

Dear Brother Fred,

"Hello.  I'm Janet;  B(?)b."

~(Little Old Lady Having Crossed, Alone, Over To My Side Of the Street First)~

I have already been told, by a member of your congregation, that a meeting with you was not necessary before me participating with some of Clairmont Hills Baptist Church bible study groups.

"My name is James Avery.  

I'm a veterinarian who lives in this house.  

Not only am I gay, I'm atheist as well."

~(Simply Jim)~

However, my life experience has taught me into letting others, most especially older people, approaching me first and listening to what they have to say; then we go from there. 

"Oh we're not that kind of Christian!"

~(Janet Claire Segers Gary: Equally Head of Household with George R. Gary, Sr., MDiv, ThD./Mother to George R. Gary, Jr. MDiv. and Susan Gary Landry, MDiv.)~

I do try my best not to be two-faced.  

"Janet.  

Are you aware, 

that before we can have an Antichrist, 

we must first have a Christ?  Well I'm an anti-Christ."

~(Simply Jim:  Mature Methodist Crackhead)~

Yet, still, it does not always turn out well.

Subject:	Contact and Boundaries
From:	ggary@emory.edu (ggary@emory.edu)
To:	jimedavery@att.net;
Cc:	jgary@emory.edu;
Date:	Saturday, November 27, 2010 1:33 PM

Hello Jim Ed,
You must know that in the future, there will be clear boundaries for  
making contact with Janet and me, especially Janet.  This is not to  
say there will be no further contacts with us, but it must be under a  
number of conditions.

Janet wanted to add her word before we set the conditions together.  
Here is her note to you:

Jim Ed,

I was more than a little disturbed by your visit on Wednesday.  In the  
spirit of neighborliness and the Thanksgiving holiday coming up, I  
opened our house to you, even though I felt s bit uncomfortable doing  
so, especially in Bob?s absence.

We ironed out what you perceived to be a rejection on my part.

When you wanted to share the symbols that are meaningful to you, I was  
interested, although having a hard time ?getting it? in the way you  
told it to me.  No input from me seemed to even get through to you, or  
matter at all.

I was very disturbed when you talked of your depression, thinking  
about getting your gun, and when you told me you are the ?Anti-Christ?  
and a  ?crack-head? I began to be somewhat afraid of you and wished I  
had not opened my door to you.

When I told you I needed medications and even that didn?t stop your  
monologue, I said it again and began to leave the room.  At that point  
you did thank me for listening and left, saying you would leave your  
stuff so you could come back. You either didn?t hear me or didn?t pay  
attention when I said, ?No, take them with you.?

Bob and I both feel we and our space were violated, and Bob has drawn  
up some conditions under which we may all co-exist  as neighbors. I  
concur with what he has written below.  Janet


The Conditions:
1. There can be no further non-negotiated visits on your part with  
either or both of us.
2. We are not available to participte in your theological doctrines
which you presented to Janet for more than one hour and fifteen  
minutes. You failed to leave our house until the second time Janet  
indicated she needed a break for medicines. You may not know that  
Janet has Parkinson's and extended stressful events activate her  
symptoms. Furthermore, Janet needed to take her
medicines and tried to bring your theological discourse to a close,
but you continued. Furthermore, you left your basket of possessions in
our house in order that you would have assurance of returning to our
house. That is far too presumptuous for us.
3. You do not have permission to enter our property or phone our house
unless you can abide by these limits.
4. We do not listen to religious talk from anyone, let alone invite
them into our home. We do not do that with you. We share our faith
with people who ask questions of us and our religious convictions. You
had no questions for Janet, only pressing her to agree with your
doctrine.

G. Robert Gary, Sr. ThD

I'm simply wanting you meeting with me, first, so the two of us can discuss how best introducing me to your congregation up front.  From this point forward,  those members of your congregation willing to chance listening to someone maybe having a differing viewpoint, will be abled the opportunity, first, approaching me and introducing themselves.  This will also give these other members of your congregation  the opportunity, first, a chance being more in control of the topics discussed (talkative) after introducing themselves as well.  By eliminating the awkwardness/embarrassment resulting from being caught off guard, really do think this would work out to be in the best interest of all; and not just me.

Subject: Re: Contact and Boundaries 

From: James Avery (jimedavery@att.net) 

To: ggary@emory.edu; 

Date: Saturday, November 27, 2010 4:08 PM  

I'm sorry for the pain I caused you. It was not my intention. I do not deny having personal problems. Was actually reaching out for some help.

Again, I apologize for barging into your home and upsetting Janet. I do not own a gun or plan to.

jim ed

''The physicists say that I am a mathematician, and the mathematicians say that I am a physicist,'' he said. ''I am a completely isolated man and though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know me.''

Otherwise, I will continue to be polite and courteous in my attempts being the one, first, introducing himself to members of your congregation; attempting conversations (talkative).

"FAGGOT!"

~(Neighbor?Christian:  Another Stranger Speeding Pass My Home)~

However it is my understanding that being polite does not mean others having to like all that they are about to hear. And If my opinions/conjectures are able being changed once exposed to the information(s) needed changing them, then there should be no wrong of me expecting the same from others.  

"Opinion are more than collection of idle thoughts.  

Spoken or unspoken, 

they still have consequences.  

They are windows to one's soul."

~(Simply Jim)~

And this cannot happen until enable the opportunity sharing them with others.

"Congeniality bias are PRO-LIFE my side choices."

~(Simply Jim)~

 If there is anything I've done right these last few years since attempting by own drug addiction intervention, starting with the only friendly neighbor I thought I had at the time once living in the house directly across the street from me:  That I have been completely honest and open with my thoughts and feelings. 

"I hold you responsible for the behavior of your congregation."

~(Simply Jim)~

"BUT ALL METHODIST ARE NOT THE SAME!"

~(Rev. Josh Amerson:  Associate Pastor Glenn Memorial UMC)~

"But they...DO...have a commonality."

~(Simply Jim)~

"YES...they have commonality!"

~(Rev. Josh Amerson)~

And I can think of only one reason why a pastor of any church would be unwilling meeting with me..? 

"You."

~(Simply Jim)~

"(silence)"

~(Rev. Josh Amerson:  Associate Pastor Dunwoody UMC)~

   

It's a double edge sword that is my creed...

 "If you are going to continue insisting on believing in a God your way, then I'm having no choice but having to accept the rights of those halfway around the world from us believing in a God however way they are feeling it necessary for them needing to believe in a God; including seventy-two virgins waiting for nineteen dead pilots soon to be arriving."

~(Simply Jim)~

Truth be God; Universal one instead.

If still willing to meet with me, just need hearing from you a time a place that's good for you.  My schedule is completely open.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Avery, D.V.M.

***

Included is an email sent to you that may have been redirected elsewhere? 

***

Subject:	Requesting a Meeting With Rev. Fred Pitts
From:	James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To:	Fred@clairmonthills.org;
Date:	Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:33 PM

Dear Rev. Pitts,

I'm the resident of nearby 1840 Mason Mill Road.  I spoke briefly with you after worship service August 2nd about a possible meeting between the two of us.  

I also place in the offering plate,a communication card filled out requesting this meeting with you as well as requesting a CD of that Sunday's sermon.  

Have not heard from anyone.

If possible, would like this meeting taking place at my home; but anywhere having a computer with access to the Internet will work as I'm wanting the two of us watching together and discussing a short video I've uploaded to YouTube.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Avery, DVM

1840 Mason Mill Road

Decatur, GA 30033

(404)788-9263

JEAveryDVM87@att.net

***

***

Subject:	Follow Up
From:	Fred O. Pitts (fred@clairmonthills.org)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Date:	Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:40 AM

Hi James,

I’m sorry it has taken me this much time to get back to you. I told you a couple of weeks ago a good bit of my hesitation for interacting with you has been in reading some of the emails that you have sent to other ministers. While I appreciate the fact that each time you have attended our worship service to this point, as far as I am aware, you have been friendly, kind, and polite to everyone—you certainly have been to me—I have felt a bit awkward receiving emails that were addressed to others. That is why I may not have received some emails from you—I started having those emails directed away from my in-box. They seemed very personal, and I considered them inappropriate for me to read. I also do not want to get into an email correspondence with you that I consider private that might end up being sent to others. Therefore I had planned to send a letter, but I have finally decided to go ahead and send this email.

In fact, I had a lengthier letter already prepared when I decided to check out your blog sites before sending. While some are mostly collections of quotes and pictures from others—I am a C. S. Lewis fan and saw several from him from the Pilgrim’s Regress—others seem to me to pretty clearly give a definition of your thinking about God and related ideas. You probably have an idea of my thinking, too, from your attendance at our church meetings, and if your blog profile accurately describes your current beliefs, we would likely not find many areas of theological agreement.

As I told you the other week, I am grateful that we live in a country where we have freedom of faith and that we can respect each another’s faith or non-faith, as the case may be, and live in peace. Respect does not mean agreement, of course, but disagreement in itself does not bother me. I am glad we both have the freedom to belief as we do.

Right now, my main question is why you want to meet with me, as you have requested. Frankly, I am trying to decide whether it is something I will agree to do. It seems that we both have pretty well-defined ideas of what we believe. Also, by background you are a Methodist and it seems that much of your dealings have been within the Methodist church. I am always glad to have opportunities to share my faith in Jesus with others and exchange ideas, but it seems you have had many meetings with other pastors over the years, and according to some of your emails, if I understand them correctly, they have not always continued on a pleasant and respectful basis. There is also the puzzling statement you made to me: you would like something in writing, “even if it is restraining order,” if I heard you correctly. Perusing some of your emails and blogs, I will have to admit that I wonder if you have had some of these filed against you and even whether such an order is something you welcome. I would hope such things wouldn’t ever be necessary, but your bringing it up does make me wonder. At any rate, I would want to know a bit more about your purpose in wanting to meet. I certainly will not get into any kind of situation that your emails seem to indicate you have had with other ministers. Nor will I meet just to hash over differences in beliefs. 

Again, I do appreciate your politeness and respect on those occasions when you have visited our church, and were those occasions my only knowledge of you, I would have no hesitation in having a meeting. However, having the background I do through the emails you have copied to me and the blog links listed, I am not sure of the purpose and whether a meeting would be a productive use of our time. So, if you continue to want to meet, please let me know the purpose, and I will give thought to it.

Thanks,

Fred O. Pitts

Pastor, Clairmont Hills Baptist Church

***

Subject:	Re: Quick note
From:	James Avery (jeaverydvm87@att.net)
To:	fred@clairmonthills.org;
Date:	Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:01 PM

Thank you for keeping me posted.

James E. Avery

***

Subject:	Quick note
From:	Fred O. Pitts (fred@clairmonthills.org)
To:	jeaverydvm87@att.net;
Date:	Wednesday, November 4, 2015 8:41 AM

Hi James,

I have been working on something to send you but am being called out of town abruptly until Saturday. Sorry for the delay, as it may be next week. 

Thanks,

Fred O. Pitts

Clairmont Hills Baptist Church