Hiroshima mon amour

This is not about Hiroshima
Change of plans
This is about Shirley’s birthday, she changed her mind and she says she diesen’t want to go to Hiroshima.
She wants to stay here in Bangkok

She had a patient a while ago who was in kill Bill the movie, and then it was written about him he died in here, Babcock of asfixiation cau to sed by sexual enhancement.

So she says she didn’t want to go and she diesen’t really know about the little boy, and the Man batten project and all that we did see Oppenheimer, went to sleep too much dialogue too little action.

Can’t think without the opera Einstein on the beach in conjunction to , it was said that initially appeared matter of fact about his oldest son, then Nixon in China soaked into my consciousness, then the repression of the Ohillippines by Spain and similar repression of Hungary by the Ottomans.

Switch reals to 1956 the russkies invaded Hungary, the prime minister was hung including the defense minister, and mom and me fled to US the west the west the freedom and the freak out out by radio free Europe.

Switch all those reels and the the current president is pushing up to Putin what’s happening?

She doesn’t want to go to Hiroshima, min amour, the girl’s heart in the insane hiding place giving her asylum after her wermacht soldier, shot and left amour in it’s angelic little boy angel symbol of shooting an arrow through her inflamed heart.

She is not in either of those Einstein or Nixon stagers but in woman of the dunes, a sobering down of Madame butterfly, a darkened stage of reality, no arias there to embellish with a score of real strife, a drunk husband instead of slow haunting strains to unrequited live.

She waits for him to return in agony, as Asia expects such enlighten moral responsibility, but what she gets , instead is the haunt of Europe’s rape by an embittered soul less satiric creature in the firm that bees firm of Zeus.

The butterflies long lovely wings, instead of the rotor like buzzing of bees , the zen of sounds reflected off of fathomless ages of resounding sutras through vapid filth grown lovely flowers delicately floating there, as if unsupported on murky bluis-green wavelets , delicately there then.

It breaks the heart hers, as Puccini waved his baton in the 19th hundreds, and she goes off , Johnny wants to go in December, when his term is up until the the new term begins in January.

But don’t mention to Lagaya or Bonoy about his breakup with his wife, I promise and let it stand,

After, I feel some sorrow, like a little Werther recalling Ned Rorum’s reassertion of holding out, (for a hero, but… it’s been long enough to release the guilt

Proverbs from the OT need context. If we are to “trust the Lord,” we need to know where we find trustworthiness. If we are not to trust our understanding, what do we trust?

It is too easy to say, “The Bible.” But I’m afraid that such a statement is restrictive, reductionist, and doesn’t acknowledge the situation of millions of people.

Would you be more likely to trust someone who is imperfect or someone who is perfect? Would you be more likely to lean on your own understanding or would you seek the council of elders for peer review? Would you seek peers who trust imperfect people, or peers who trust the only perfect one? If you would acknowledge them and credit them for your wise steps after seeking their counsel, would you not acknowledge the perfect one they trust?

I have difficulty with the terms “perfection” or “imperfection.”

I trust more the concepts of wholeness, relationality, and interdependence. I find the psychology of scriptural traditions is far more important, and going along with narratives more instructive. Poetry says more than prose.

Would you be more likely to trust someone who is whole or someone who is broken? Would you be more likely to lean on your own understanding or would you seek the council of elders for peer review? Would you seek peers who trust broken people, or peers who trust the only whole one? If you would acknowledge them and credit them for your wise steps after seeking their counsel, would you not acknowledge the whole one they trust?

We are always talking about the impressions we have. I was trained to observe people closely, and there were many times when evangelists came across as very restricted people whose focus was narrow. I didn’t have the impression that they embraced a holistic perspective at all.

I always sought a broader “peer review” than just the elders of my community. I drew from English and German sources and communicated with Pastors, Priests, Preachers, and Laypeople from various Christian denominations and practices. I also found Buddhist principles helpful in my professional duties.

I avoided asking people who I perceived as “broken” for advice but found their experience valuable. One old lady of about 86, whom I drove home after Bible meetings, said, for example, that she knew that her memory was failing, but the preacher emphasised learning the Bible by heart and asked me what she could do. I told her to trust the love of God.

She already trusts (red) God—the preacher gave her something practical to jog/exercise (blue) her memory (yellow). It’s like you reversed roles & weren’t the nurse, but he was. See? (yellow) God works out everything to the good (blue) of those who trust/love (red) him.

Of course, you couldn’t know that she was overwhelmed by the speaker, and she expressed concern that her salvation could rely on her memorising Bible texts.

He didn’t say anything about salvation. Why would she think that? Your story seems a bit ad hoc. If in fact we now have “all things considered“ …Maybe she was confused by you because she thought you were telling her that her memory was failing because she wasn’t trusting in God? If she wasn’t doing anything wrong, that is not the message you would want to send. If she was doing something wrong, that could explain why she was overwhelmed—repeat exposure to scripture is the last thing she’s going to want if she wants to keep doing something wrong (but it is something that she should want—so the fact that she was just coming from a Bible study and is seeking the council of the pastor would indicate to me that you were the one who overwhelmed her, especially considering she didn’t expect to hear that from a nurse—and instead heard what she expected to hear from the nurse from the pastor). Did at least one of you correct her about her false assumption regarding salvation? What if you hold that same false assumption? Should I be the one correcting you? Would you even hear me? Are you just wearing a mask?

By the way… that weird stuff the old lady experienced with hearing words from the wrong characters — That happens to me all the time, and it is weird Twilight Zone shit, let me tell you.

Considering that I was the one who spoke to the woman, you have engaged in inappropriate speculation based on a short example I gave you. But of course, you know better.

That tends to be the way many zealots interpret the Bible too. Which is not particularly trustworthy.

You’re just making stuff up as you go. And you are mean-spirited.

Fix that.

Socialists call mean spirit by other names, and so trick themselves into devoting themselves to it completely. That whole “what is out of order in the fight against evil.”


Or, as somebody put it recently, “I am sometimes bad but never evil.” That is bad by their own standards. And, if evil doesn’t exist.

Hahahhaaha you see the picture? It’s like spectators fighting the men behind the puppets that there are no hands in.

But you got the spark kid, you’ll go far.

More succinctly: he’s not mean spirited. He’s fanatically compassionate. Like you.

1 Like

Sorry, I couldn’t hear a word you said over the noise of the word “socialist” you keep throwing around.

No, but then, a fanatic wouldn’t, would they.