Wednesday, September 10, 2008


I am profoundly bottlenecked.

I am sometimes too hasty in the forming and giving forth of beliefs, and sometimes far too retarded.

I am often verbose, and sometimes bottlenecked.

I am rarely devoid of thought.

Over the last four years I have been taught a lot about humility. But there are several lessons I have been taught, but have not learned. And right now I can tell that I have a long way to go even beyond this unassimilated wisdom.

True, robust, meta humility is very difficult (both painful and requiring of a certain expertise).


  1. Louis - humility is not something we put on or exhibit, it is what we do as a result of what is inside. If we believe Jesus Christ rules above all the kingdoms and philosophies of man and we stand for Him alone - that is humility.

    Eating humble pie is not humility. We can all do that, even in our pride. Standing for the truth of God's word is true humility. One man will stand boldly for the kingdom and the people will diss him for his arrogance and pride. While the serpent will "humbly" ask, "did God really say?" Even worldly philosophers will "humbly" direct us to higher thought. Which of these is the truly humble?

    There is no humility greater than recognizing He is God and I am not. He is the Creator and I am dirt. He gives me knowledge and talent and my purpose is to glorify Him. If we do it to glorify God, we are humble. If we do it to exalt ourselves, or man, we are prideful.

  2. Pride is a character flaw we all wrestle with. When our pride gets in the way, we will either feel beat down, or get beat down. True?

    We all wrestle with it. So, if you feel beat down, don't finish the job. On the other hand, don't think you can cure it via discipline - that is only pride. Look to God who is above all and thank Him that He sent His Son to die for a piece of dirt.

    Thought I would also mention teddy bears and that I hope you don't feel beat down on my account. Anything I have commented on is not meant to beat you down. My goal is to get you though re-think why you thought what you did and realize that all human wisdom is worthless if it is not firmly set upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.

  3. I disagree that humility ought not to be discussed. It is in the light that dark or dirty things can be made clean and shiny, and one's pride is no different. Only with accountability and the loving criticism of those who know us best can we grow into humble followers of Christ. Also, if one person has wronged another or acted in a way that was out of line, it is absolutely their responsibility to acknowledge that misstep and ask for forgiveness from those around him or her. I believe that this is right in keeping with that last principle. Furthermore, to cast judgment upon a person one scarcely knows is startlingly prideful, and I am particularly suspicious when the criticism contains lightly veiled references to one's own superior method of procuring humility.

    If this was not meant as criticism, may I suggest that you consider your method of communicating what you intend to be helpful. This particular message comes off as condescending and overtly, confidently critical, particularly given its public nature. I am a valiant supporter of staunchly defending those things you know to be true, but I, personally, prefer to make those kinds of statements on very few foundational issues. The pharisees were completely confident about many wrong things involving the Messiah, and their refusal to rethink those things upon Jesus' arrival was obviously detrimental to their spiritual growth.

  4. Just want you to know this post had nothing to do with any of your comments.

  5. Lindsey - I am sorry I have offended you. However, several times in my comments I have mentioned that nothing said is meant to demean or criticize Louis or anyone else. After that, I am not going to beat around the bush.

    Your analysis about the pharisees is accurate. However, what I said was the opposite - I did not say standing for your version of God is the equivalent of humility. If your conscience is pricked, it is not me. I am only the messenger.

    Once again, please accept my apologies and I will take my que to leave this site alone.

  6. PS: the only way to grow into a humble servant of Christ is to develop a relationship with Him. To make one humble via accountability to other humans is a mask and a deception. We cannot help each other be humble any more than we can help each other be good.

    By grace are you saved through faith . . . not by anything you can do for yourself, lest any man should boast.

    Sorry, again. I won't bother you anymore.

  7. Ummm....

    James 5:16
    "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."

  8. "take my que".

    should be

    "take my queue".

    Unfortunately, spelling is acquired by a modicum of discipline and not, contrariwise, by faith. This may or may not, however, make it "worthless".

    Now, it is not my intention for this comment to mock anyone; and of course in the very act of saying so I have nullified all the mockery plainly exhibited herein and so will readily refer anyone who feels hereby mocked to my having mentioned so. Obviously, it is theoretically impossible for a given comment to both purport not to mock and to in fact mock simultaneously.

    Incidentally, it is also not my intention to use any vowels in this comment. Or consonants. Or sentence fragments.

  9. Wow. Leeroy Jenkins, you're a jerk. But you're funny.

  10. this is max.

    i liked this post. it was more poetic and stuff.


  11. incidentally, l. jenkins, "'take my que' should be 'take my queue'" should be "'take my que' should be 'take my cue'".

    also, to cominus, i just want to say that leeeeerroy helps me be gooooood.

    listening to right now: under the hall of the mountain biotch

  12. I think l.j.'s use of "queue" may have been subtle reference to the French slang for the male sex organ.
    So, "to take one's queue" (or "prendre son queue") then, as opposed to "to take one's cue" would mean something quite radically distinct indeed.
    That he might be suggesting something along these lines, I think, enhances his unintended mockery in a very rabelaisian manner.

  13. i feel like the comments on this post seriously detract from the sincerity of the initial post. Louis: i read your post a long time ago, before there were any comments on it, and really appreciated it. i don't know why i didn't say so in the first place, but now i feel the need to. also, i realize your post had nothing to do with the comments you would receive. however, i'm sure comments that take what you say uncharitably don't help much, either. so, this is my attempt to write the wrong which, i think, has been done to your post.

    p.s. i intentionally use write in place of right. stfu.

  14. according to this, "rabelaisian" should be capitalized. see(th)ing that i aspire to not abide by capitalization rules, i don't feel bad, but you might.

    and i think you credit l.j. too much. consider his defining moment, true recklessness in the Aristotelian sense. but he does got chicken.

  15. ...who said anything about hayam?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.