My recent debate with David Green has been moved to it's own page. Just click on the bar above titled "The Pretending God Debate" and it will take you to it. I do this so the reader can read the debate in chronological order.
The Pretending God Debate
Monday, May 14, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Unfinished Debate
Back in February sometime I posted a challenge on the Facebook page Christian Bible Discussions (O&T) to any Oneness Pentecostal that was interested in debating me on any topic. William Vincent accepted and stated he was interested in debating the topic of the Son of God. He posted his opening, then a few days later I posted mine. I have been waiting on his rebuttal since Feb. 23. We've exchanged emails in which he has stated he has been busy and away from the computer. I have told him that after Sunday the 18th I would shut the debate down. That is what I am doing for I feel no need to keep it open waiting for a rebuttal that will never come.
His opening has been deleted.
What follows here is my opening and affirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________
God has revealed Himself. And he has revealed Himself truthfully. Consequently, how we collate His revelation of Himself must be coherent and faithful to that revelation. And in this area Oneness Pentecostalism is inherently problematic.
If I'm to define a thing then I would want to define that thing in such a way that, using the tools in hand, such a definition would be faithful and consistent with the existence of that which I wish to define.
We find that the table is set, grammatically and logically, so to speak, to enable us to arrive at conclusions that are faithful to the existence of God's revelation of Himself and consistent with how He demonstrated that revelation, most notably in the incarnation.
God's intent is two fold on this matter.
1. His revelation of Himself is truthful to the reality of Himself.
2. He expects our definitions of that revelation to be consistent with that revelation to the extent that they do not evacuate that revelation of meaning.
Oneness Christology does not accomplish the second and therefore cannot allow God to handle the first.
The Incoherence of Oneness Christology
The Pre-Incarnate Christ
John 1:1
There is a concurrent existence of the Logos and Theos within verse 1 that demands the ontological equality of both. However, when Oneness terminology is applied to the Logos, such as thought, idea, or a plan, the Logos is then consequently emptied of meaning and such concurrency is abolished and is not faithful to John 1:1.
Thought, idea, or a plan are products of mind but none ARE mind. If the Logos were defined with such Oneness terminology, the concept in the last phrase of John 1:1 would be inconsistent with the term used. Thought, idea, or a plan, as stated earlier, are not mind but rather a mind thinking. They are contingent on mind, therefore, in John 1:1 such definitions are not concurrent with Theos but rather are a product of the Theos, making the Logos something less than Theos or God. Therefore, Oneness terminology, when applied to the Logos, is inconsistent with the text and thusly incoherent.
The distinct personal existence of the Logos is the only conclusion that is coherent by maintaining the eternality of the Logos and the deity of the Logos.
John 17:5
The concept of the pre-incarnate Christ being defined as a thought, idea or a plan brings up the question: Jesus in this verse is asking the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had when He (Jesus) was a thought, idea or a plan? Such a position is counter intuitive for the question reveals that if Oneness terminology was the applied definition then Jesus would be asking the Father for something they shared when He (Jesus, the person) didn't exist.
A personal existence of a pre-incarnate Christ is the only conclusion that gives Jesus' request to the Father coherence, for only a personal existence could give the "sharing" in John 17:5 any meaning.
Philippians 2:5-7
The pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. The concepts are defined by the word morphe which means the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. If the Oneness interpretation is the correct interpretation then the incarnate Christ holds more meaning (for a person has more worth than a thought, idea or a plan). Yet Paul states that Christ was debasing Himself, willingly, by taking on the morphe of a servant. Oneness Christology does not, nor can it, allow for this debasing...it means nothing. The ambiguous Logos in Oneness Christology, becoming a man, is not a humbling but rather an elevation.
If Trinitarian definitions are applied to these verses then a real debasement of the pre-incarnate Christ is a necessary conclusion, for a real person with volition and cognition humbles Himself BY becoming a man.
The Creator Christ
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17
To will, to act, to do, involves cognition, volition, self-reflection, and intellectual abilities. Actions of complexity are descended from cognition. That is inescapable and more the case from a Christian worldview. From the physical laws that govern our universe to the information within the DNA strand, every atom suggests an intelligent foundation for it's existence and actions. But unfortunately, for the Oneness exegete, thought, idea or plan would fall under the category of "actions of complexity descended from cognition" not the category of creator of all things as in the text of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.
Since personal abilities are necessary for the complexity of creation, the doctrine of the Trinity maintains the integrity of the Christ as creator revelation.
The Incarnate Christ
John 8:58
The person of Jesus Christ claims to be the person in the burning bush. It is the incarnation speaking about His pre-incarnation. We now have come full circle, from the pre-incarnate to the incarnate, by applying the same Oneness terminology to the "I am" in the bush, which is the Logos, with the same troubling conclusions discussed concerning John 1:1. A thought, idea or plan provide us with no definitional means of saying that the Logos is deity even though Moses is not doubting when he takes off his sandals. He knows there's a reality more dynamic than Oneness Christology would infer speaking to him from the blazes. Jesus said it was Himself.
Trinitarian resolutions to Oneness ambiguity
1. John 1:1 Eternality and ontological equality demands a person existence of the Logos. Otherwise the Logos is defined into non-existence.
2. John 17:5 Personal attribution is necessary for both parties (Father and Son) in order to engage in a shared experience.
3. Philippians 2:5-7 Paul speaking about a condition of the mind of Christ, and Christ who "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" are both indications of personal abilities. Trinitarian Christology states the obvious...if He acts like a person (displays personal abilities) then He is a person.
4. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17 Complexity of creation demands a creator with intelligence. Referring to that intelligence as a person, protects the integrity of the creator.
5. John 8:58 Before Abraham, Jesus said, "I am" not "My Father thought I was."
His opening has been deleted.
What follows here is my opening and affirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________
God has revealed Himself. And he has revealed Himself truthfully. Consequently, how we collate His revelation of Himself must be coherent and faithful to that revelation. And in this area Oneness Pentecostalism is inherently problematic.
If I'm to define a thing then I would want to define that thing in such a way that, using the tools in hand, such a definition would be faithful and consistent with the existence of that which I wish to define.
We find that the table is set, grammatically and logically, so to speak, to enable us to arrive at conclusions that are faithful to the existence of God's revelation of Himself and consistent with how He demonstrated that revelation, most notably in the incarnation.
God's intent is two fold on this matter.
1. His revelation of Himself is truthful to the reality of Himself.
2. He expects our definitions of that revelation to be consistent with that revelation to the extent that they do not evacuate that revelation of meaning.
Oneness Christology does not accomplish the second and therefore cannot allow God to handle the first.
The Incoherence of Oneness Christology
The Pre-Incarnate Christ
John 1:1
There is a concurrent existence of the Logos and Theos within verse 1 that demands the ontological equality of both. However, when Oneness terminology is applied to the Logos, such as thought, idea, or a plan, the Logos is then consequently emptied of meaning and such concurrency is abolished and is not faithful to John 1:1.
Thought, idea, or a plan are products of mind but none ARE mind. If the Logos were defined with such Oneness terminology, the concept in the last phrase of John 1:1 would be inconsistent with the term used. Thought, idea, or a plan, as stated earlier, are not mind but rather a mind thinking. They are contingent on mind, therefore, in John 1:1 such definitions are not concurrent with Theos but rather are a product of the Theos, making the Logos something less than Theos or God. Therefore, Oneness terminology, when applied to the Logos, is inconsistent with the text and thusly incoherent.
The distinct personal existence of the Logos is the only conclusion that is coherent by maintaining the eternality of the Logos and the deity of the Logos.
John 17:5
The concept of the pre-incarnate Christ being defined as a thought, idea or a plan brings up the question: Jesus in this verse is asking the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had when He (Jesus) was a thought, idea or a plan? Such a position is counter intuitive for the question reveals that if Oneness terminology was the applied definition then Jesus would be asking the Father for something they shared when He (Jesus, the person) didn't exist.
A personal existence of a pre-incarnate Christ is the only conclusion that gives Jesus' request to the Father coherence, for only a personal existence could give the "sharing" in John 17:5 any meaning.
Philippians 2:5-7
The pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. The concepts are defined by the word morphe which means the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. If the Oneness interpretation is the correct interpretation then the incarnate Christ holds more meaning (for a person has more worth than a thought, idea or a plan). Yet Paul states that Christ was debasing Himself, willingly, by taking on the morphe of a servant. Oneness Christology does not, nor can it, allow for this debasing...it means nothing. The ambiguous Logos in Oneness Christology, becoming a man, is not a humbling but rather an elevation.
If Trinitarian definitions are applied to these verses then a real debasement of the pre-incarnate Christ is a necessary conclusion, for a real person with volition and cognition humbles Himself BY becoming a man.
The Creator Christ
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17
To will, to act, to do, involves cognition, volition, self-reflection, and intellectual abilities. Actions of complexity are descended from cognition. That is inescapable and more the case from a Christian worldview. From the physical laws that govern our universe to the information within the DNA strand, every atom suggests an intelligent foundation for it's existence and actions. But unfortunately, for the Oneness exegete, thought, idea or plan would fall under the category of "actions of complexity descended from cognition" not the category of creator of all things as in the text of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.
Since personal abilities are necessary for the complexity of creation, the doctrine of the Trinity maintains the integrity of the Christ as creator revelation.
The Incarnate Christ
John 8:58
The person of Jesus Christ claims to be the person in the burning bush. It is the incarnation speaking about His pre-incarnation. We now have come full circle, from the pre-incarnate to the incarnate, by applying the same Oneness terminology to the "I am" in the bush, which is the Logos, with the same troubling conclusions discussed concerning John 1:1. A thought, idea or plan provide us with no definitional means of saying that the Logos is deity even though Moses is not doubting when he takes off his sandals. He knows there's a reality more dynamic than Oneness Christology would infer speaking to him from the blazes. Jesus said it was Himself.
Trinitarian resolutions to Oneness ambiguity
1. John 1:1 Eternality and ontological equality demands a person existence of the Logos. Otherwise the Logos is defined into non-existence.
2. John 17:5 Personal attribution is necessary for both parties (Father and Son) in order to engage in a shared experience.
3. Philippians 2:5-7 Paul speaking about a condition of the mind of Christ, and Christ who "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" are both indications of personal abilities. Trinitarian Christology states the obvious...if He acts like a person (displays personal abilities) then He is a person.
4. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17 Complexity of creation demands a creator with intelligence. Referring to that intelligence as a person, protects the integrity of the creator.
5. John 8:58 Before Abraham, Jesus said, "I am" not "My Father thought I was."
Thursday, March 15, 2012
My New Favorite Atheist
It's probably a weird concept that a Christian such as myself, and I make that disclaimer ("such as myself") because I'm speaking for myself...the facetious, sometime wine sipping, pizza loving believer that I am...even dares to admit that he has a favorite atheist. Well, I did...until Christopher Hitchens died, which disqualifies him, because he's no longer an atheist.
But I do have a favorite type of heterodoxy (Oneness Pentecostalism).
I have a favorite type of heretic (usually the over zealous Oneness Pentecostal).
I have a favorite type of preacher (the kind that the only time they're not spewing silly stuff is when they're using conjunctions)
And, I have a favorite type of prophet (the kind that call people out).
So I have favorite categories of folk that, even when I don't agree with them, I can still find learning moments hidden behind all of the junk.
And if you give me a month I'm sure I can come up with who my favorite liberal is.
Ok...give me two months.
On second thought...give me a year.
Oh, just never mind.
I have a favorite band (U2).
I have a favorite singer (Elvis).
I have a favorite president (Reagan)
And I have a favorite "president whom I'd like to see become an ex-president" (Obama).
So I have numerous favorite people with certain attributes that appeal to me aesthtetically, morally, theologically, or politically. But not every thing about such a person could be called "favorable", nor could every view they have be considered "favorable", but they possess just enough for me to apply the label of "favorite" upon them...within their own distinct category, of course.
But just like a person has to wipe the mayo off of a hamburger if he doesn't like mayo...you have to filter between views you appreciate and views you don't.
And when it comes to atheists I appreciate their moments of clarity and brilliance...such as Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes a couple of years ago and his character in the British version of The Office. Other than that, he's kind of a weasel.
I think Penn Jillette is a very nice guy...but he's one of the most evangelistic of the atheists so he's, obviously, not my fave.
The smarmy meter goes out of whack when it comes to Blah Maher...so it's not him. He's most likely my least favorite atheist.
So who is my favorite atheist?
Well, he recently said this:
His name.
Adam Carolla.
He's funny, he's witty, and he's right...not about everything (wiping the mayo off) but enough to make him my favorite atheist.
So, holding my nose at the vulgarity that sometimes ensues from his mouth, Adam Carolla takes the place of the theist Christopher Hitchens.
Cigar?
*http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/12/adam-carolla-demonizing-wealthy-citizens
** http://www.adamcarolla.com/aneveningwithadamcarollaanddennisprager/
But I do have a favorite type of heterodoxy (Oneness Pentecostalism).
I have a favorite type of heretic (usually the over zealous Oneness Pentecostal).
I have a favorite type of preacher (the kind that the only time they're not spewing silly stuff is when they're using conjunctions)
And, I have a favorite type of prophet (the kind that call people out).
So I have favorite categories of folk that, even when I don't agree with them, I can still find learning moments hidden behind all of the junk.
And if you give me a month I'm sure I can come up with who my favorite liberal is.
Ok...give me two months.
On second thought...give me a year.
Oh, just never mind.
I have a favorite band (U2).
I have a favorite singer (Elvis).
I have a favorite president (Reagan)
And I have a favorite "president whom I'd like to see become an ex-president" (Obama).
So I have numerous favorite people with certain attributes that appeal to me aesthtetically, morally, theologically, or politically. But not every thing about such a person could be called "favorable", nor could every view they have be considered "favorable", but they possess just enough for me to apply the label of "favorite" upon them...within their own distinct category, of course.
But just like a person has to wipe the mayo off of a hamburger if he doesn't like mayo...you have to filter between views you appreciate and views you don't.
And when it comes to atheists I appreciate their moments of clarity and brilliance...such as Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes a couple of years ago and his character in the British version of The Office. Other than that, he's kind of a weasel.
I think Penn Jillette is a very nice guy...but he's one of the most evangelistic of the atheists so he's, obviously, not my fave.
The smarmy meter goes out of whack when it comes to Blah Maher...so it's not him. He's most likely my least favorite atheist.
So who is my favorite atheist?
Well, he recently said this:
"Yes, it's envy that has turned into resentment that has turned into anger and essentially shame. It's pretty simple psycho dynamic which is, "I wish I had that guy's expensive car, good looking wife, big house, whatever it is."He also recently did a sit down with Dennis Prager that was very illuminating and hilarious. You can purchase that conversation on his website.**
Then the next feeling is shame. Because I... I can't do it. I'm not smart enough. I don't work hard enough.
And then turns to anger. I'm going to throw a rock at that guy's car or his wife's fake boobies or whatever it is I can hit....
We've lost the eye of the tiger. We're not hungry anymore. I mean our grandparents or great-grandparents, whoever came over here in a boat came over here hungry, ready to roll their sleeves up and get to work."*
His name.
Adam Carolla.
He's funny, he's witty, and he's right...not about everything (wiping the mayo off) but enough to make him my favorite atheist.
So, holding my nose at the vulgarity that sometimes ensues from his mouth, Adam Carolla takes the place of the theist Christopher Hitchens.
Cigar?
*http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/12/adam-carolla-demonizing-wealthy-citizens
** http://www.adamcarolla.com/aneveningwithadamcarollaanddennisprager/
Monday, March 5, 2012
DEBATE UPDATE
William Vincent e-mailed March 4: "Tim, I am super busy- it will be a few days before I can provide the rebuttal. If you might make a note for me on the forum."
I just did.
I just did.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Note
Be sure to keep up to date on the debate now in progress between myself and William Vincent. I have placed the debate on a separate page, and as you can see the link has the latest update. I've decided to do it this way because I wanted to keep the home page open, just in case I had something really stupid to say.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Give me pizza...and give me death
With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...
Nothing will spoil the taste of a hamburger pizza more than those commercials selling health (probably imagined by a consortium of Aryans born 40 years too late).
P90X and an assortment of work out machines, which my carb fogged brain can't remember. Sure I want that stomach...scientifically engineered though. Take my keg, give me that six pack...and I'll do those commercials myself. But...spending hours upon hours in a gym, with no recliner in sight, and the constant harangue from the gym Nazis when the pizza delivery guy shows up...
Well it's more than my fragile phsyche can bear. I am tendered membraned to the point where I think the scale is cussing at me.
Recently I seen an article about a 17 year old girl who fainted because she had been scarfing down chicken nuggets from McDonald's for 15 years. Well, thinks I, are you telling me that I can eat chicken nuggets, and only chicken nuggets, for 15 years before it has an adverse effect on me? Hooray! That's not bad. What's more, if I throw in a Big Mac, occasionally, then that should buy me...well...maybe 10 more years before my face hits the pavement.
Well then...
I WILL FAINT FOR FAST FOOD!
I remember when the guy who said, "if it taste good, spit it out", died at the age of 96. Jack Lalanne was his name...a pioneer in the fitness arena. Don't know if you've heard of him. Kind of famous.
To live that long he must have been doing something right, right? Well, yeah, but if you take all the time he spent in the gym, something he didn't enjoy by the way, and subtract that from his age and call the time left over...something like...the joy factor...his "joy factor" living was probably around 50.
But if a person could work out while on LSD and watch the walls coagulate together and form a kaleidoscope of patterns instead of the same colors and the drone of ESPN, then I might be in favor of such manic behavior...except for the fact that, unlike chicken nuggets, LSD really is bad for you.
Now I have attempted to catch up on the Real Housewives while on the elliptical, but the drone of that evil machine overcomes the drama of Bravo so much so that I have to stop in order to watch the vixen machinations of the cackling hens of Beverly Hills. I do have my priorities straight, thank you very much.
I am training my body to adapt to high levels of pressure. Instead of intensifying pressure on muscles I think the real test on a body's stamina is when the systolic is over 200 and the diastolic is not far behind. Couple that with thinning arteries, pounds of tissue (to keep warm in the winter), and the constant stretching of the stomach and you'll discover what "no pain, no gain" means. Now that's stamina, when you're a whale and you have to rise from your pit to urinate about 10 times in the night. Don't talk to me about running a mile, or swimming a mile, or working out for 2 hours, the heaving around of fatty girth takes more will power than a short time spent sweating in a gym.
Just thinking about my cholesterol level entices my passions for a whataburger...with double meat...and triple cheese. In fact my insatiable appetite lusts for a vat full of nacho cheese dip as much as a vegetarian must lust after a blade of grass. I do think it's funny, and ironic, that on King Nebby's menu after he lost his Babylonian mind was...grass.
Should I equate vegetarianism with insanity?
There is a moment in the TV series "Deadwood" when Wild Bill Hickok and his friend Charlie Utter are in a motel room discussing Hickok's appetite for destruction. Charlie was concerned that ole' Wild Bill was spending too much time drinking and playing poker. Well Billy gets tire of it and goes on to give a little speech flavored with an assortment of curse words, which I will not repeat. The most memorable line he gives is when he says to Charlie Utter, "Charlie, will you let me go to hell the way I want to?"
Which is similar to my reaction to the gluttonous, infomercializing, authoritarian gurus of ginseng and organic lettuce...
"Shut up! Will you let me go to heaven the way I want to?"
I mean...can't they see I'm trying to get there as soon as I can?
Sunday, December 25, 2011
That big fat replacement Jesus
"Ho, Ho, Ho"
So says the Christmas clown.
I must admit that I am to Santy Clause what Christopher Hitchens is, oops...was, to Christ. I am an anti-Clausiest.
Ok, Ok....it's just a fun fib we tell our little elves. I shouldn't be so serious minded about this myth.
Secularism in practice is atheism...albeit with a smile. Or a grin. Most likely a smirk. A knowingly, condescending, elitist smirk. Those of us who have the audacity to believe in the virgin birth of the Son are pitied and mocked. Our opinions, whether culturally or politically, are marginalized... as if we all get up early in the morning, check the tires on our trailer, play with snakes on Sunday, work our way to the fourth letter of the alphabet on Monday, inundate our cerebellum with reality tv on Tuesday, play with snakes again on Wednesday, spend our free time at Wal Mart, marry our cousins and try to disprove the existence of dinosaurs to our friends. One invective is barely breathed out before another one is formed in their gizzards. Like little bitty girls they cry over a fake baby in a horse trough, surrounded by a fake mommy and daddy dressed in sheets, with maybe cute little animals strewn here and there. If some of these sobbing little secular humanoids would just stand by the trough we could say, "Look at that jackass!"
But I should mind my politically incorrect manners and muzzle up. Boo Hoo.
I posted on my facebook recently this question, "Dear Santa, why do you hate the poor?"
My point was that the myth of this North Pole fatty needs to be work shopped a little more, because he's not near as generous as he should be. Or maybe he just gets too tired to really make it the poor side of town? Or maybe the rich bribe him? Of course I'm being really facetious here, for we all know that Old Saint Thick doesn't really exist.
Of course the reason for the season is the Logos sarxe egenetos...Word became flesh.
Though that night may have been silent, the times were not. Big bad King Herod looking for a little baby...and even committing the atrocious act of slaughtering innocent children when he realized he was duped. Ah...the glories of secularism. He was threatened by a little infant "tender and mild". This donkey even gathered the "theologians" together to find out where this threat to his fiefdom was to be born.
“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel."
Sexy !
Couldn't find a room. Just a barn...with goats.
Philippians 2 speaks about the Son "emptying" Himself when He became flesh...but this is a humbling of extremes. In a barn...with goats and all sorts of smelly critters. I think God appreciates irony.
A king goes looking for a king who nurses...in a barn.
The secularist will never get it, for they're ever on the look out for pomp and circumstance.
The story of Jesus, His birth, life, death, and resurrection offends them deeply. That's why they are rabid about manger scenes in public places. Get a grip, unbeliever...just think of it as a chance to remind yourself of what you don't believe. Kind of a teaching moment... Chill, go smoke something that will ease your nerves.
But alas, the secularist or the atheist is left in a vacuum without meaning. Nothing means nothing. No justification for allowing the existence of such trivial things as love, morality, forgiveness....His worldview is as empty and gaseous as Santa Clause's stomach.
Santa Clause, the big fat replacement Jesus, is typical of the myth that unbelief is left with. Nice and cuddly but impossible to believe...such as "Chance got up one morning, wiped the sleep from his eyes, and as the eye crust fell it coagulated into matter and...VOILA ! well here we are."
Now let me end this drivel by saying, drunks dress up as the big, fat replacement Jesus (i.e. Bad Santa), in every mall there's a big, fat replacement Jesus, multitudes of such appear in the Santa gear at drunken parties...so forth and so on...
But in a horse trough, the unique God became a....baby
So says the Christmas clown.
I must admit that I am to Santy Clause what Christopher Hitchens is, oops...was, to Christ. I am an anti-Clausiest.
Ok, Ok....it's just a fun fib we tell our little elves. I shouldn't be so serious minded about this myth.
Secularism in practice is atheism...albeit with a smile. Or a grin. Most likely a smirk. A knowingly, condescending, elitist smirk. Those of us who have the audacity to believe in the virgin birth of the Son are pitied and mocked. Our opinions, whether culturally or politically, are marginalized... as if we all get up early in the morning, check the tires on our trailer, play with snakes on Sunday, work our way to the fourth letter of the alphabet on Monday, inundate our cerebellum with reality tv on Tuesday, play with snakes again on Wednesday, spend our free time at Wal Mart, marry our cousins and try to disprove the existence of dinosaurs to our friends. One invective is barely breathed out before another one is formed in their gizzards. Like little bitty girls they cry over a fake baby in a horse trough, surrounded by a fake mommy and daddy dressed in sheets, with maybe cute little animals strewn here and there. If some of these sobbing little secular humanoids would just stand by the trough we could say, "Look at that jackass!"
But I should mind my politically incorrect manners and muzzle up. Boo Hoo.
I posted on my facebook recently this question, "Dear Santa, why do you hate the poor?"
My point was that the myth of this North Pole fatty needs to be work shopped a little more, because he's not near as generous as he should be. Or maybe he just gets too tired to really make it the poor side of town? Or maybe the rich bribe him? Of course I'm being really facetious here, for we all know that Old Saint Thick doesn't really exist.
Of course the reason for the season is the Logos sarxe egenetos...Word became flesh.
Though that night may have been silent, the times were not. Big bad King Herod looking for a little baby...and even committing the atrocious act of slaughtering innocent children when he realized he was duped. Ah...the glories of secularism. He was threatened by a little infant "tender and mild". This donkey even gathered the "theologians" together to find out where this threat to his fiefdom was to be born.
“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel."
Sexy !
Couldn't find a room. Just a barn...with goats.
Philippians 2 speaks about the Son "emptying" Himself when He became flesh...but this is a humbling of extremes. In a barn...with goats and all sorts of smelly critters. I think God appreciates irony.
A king goes looking for a king who nurses...in a barn.
The secularist will never get it, for they're ever on the look out for pomp and circumstance.
The story of Jesus, His birth, life, death, and resurrection offends them deeply. That's why they are rabid about manger scenes in public places. Get a grip, unbeliever...just think of it as a chance to remind yourself of what you don't believe. Kind of a teaching moment... Chill, go smoke something that will ease your nerves.
But alas, the secularist or the atheist is left in a vacuum without meaning. Nothing means nothing. No justification for allowing the existence of such trivial things as love, morality, forgiveness....His worldview is as empty and gaseous as Santa Clause's stomach.
Santa Clause, the big fat replacement Jesus, is typical of the myth that unbelief is left with. Nice and cuddly but impossible to believe...such as "Chance got up one morning, wiped the sleep from his eyes, and as the eye crust fell it coagulated into matter and...VOILA ! well here we are."
Now let me end this drivel by saying, drunks dress up as the big, fat replacement Jesus (i.e. Bad Santa), in every mall there's a big, fat replacement Jesus, multitudes of such appear in the Santa gear at drunken parties...so forth and so on...
But in a horse trough, the unique God became a....baby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)