David,
I think this cartoon is just as effective as the last. However, it is the same idea. I think it is sad that others are trying to “regulate” your blog:) You don’t have to be balanced, you create what you see and feel, and there’s no rule saying you have to always agree with your own posts.
I mean it is true, working for the past 10 years in ministry how many people WANT to check their brain at the door. I know many pastors/leaders that require that, but I also know just as many churches that beg for that. We all know that these don’t apply to all churches everywhere. I think you hit a nerve, and in my opinion (which is only one humble opinion), that means you’re doing a good job.
It took me 10 years to find a church that REQUIRES you to think, challenges you to challenge them, encourages questions and doubting… and I’m not even on staff there (which is hard and sad for me). I put up on my blog sometimes your art and jon birch from ASBO Jesus, but i find myself having to say to people, “I don’t hate the Church, and I know that this isn’t a comprehensive view of church. But for many people I talk to who have been turned off from Church, this is how they see things. These are here to make you think and inspire discussion. I don’t hate the church, I just love it sooo much that I long for it to come to its senses. I am the heartbroken lover who misses the one I was meant for (church), and although I have tried to help it out of its daze and confusion, it continues to hurt me…so I continue my cries through my blog (and this is how I kinda read your satire…but art is an interpreted…well art!) and wait for her to come to her senses and want the help she needs!
hope that makes sense. Thanks for your hard work and thought-provoking material. I rarely comment, but this one I felt could benefit from my humble input. Thanks david!
David gets ding-ed…It is not easy being you, is it?
for what its worth, I enjoy your sense of humour and the check your brain at the door ‘toon is as funny as it is a challenge to smarten up (no pun intended, but it was a good one…don’t you think? )
Keep up the great work David…
Smiles and Blessings to my favourite humourist,
~mp:)
David – in the last post, you mentioned that this was not a criticism of “them,” but rather of “us,” and I really appreciate that perspective. I think that helps your readers understand that this criticism is one that comes from humility, and not from haughtiness.
If it were merely a “look at those dumb Christians” kind of thing, you could be accused of arrogance, but if it a matter of pointing out the errors we all make (particularly though who seek to serve God through the role of pastor), it’s clear that it’s painful and heartbreaking to draw up these criticisms. It’s hard to air out the dirty laundry in front of others…
… but I suppose that’s what being the “naked pastor” is all about.
Point taken – my apologies, but I do stand by what I said.
I post some of your stuff sometimes on facebook, and it usually gets critiqued. But I try to defend you. I’ll pray for you anyways, it’s a good thing to have.
** however, this post (regarding checking your sense-of-humor at the door) is clearly a bit more of a jab at the comments in the previous post than it is a criticism about “us.”
By golly, jovial_cynic, it is a bit of a “jab.” Now that I find humorous.
Old Mr. Sensitive with let’s get together as community, just love, let everyone be what they want to be and sing coom-by-ya can rare up a bit. Ah yes, hope is alive.
fishon
Wait wait – who are you calling Mr. Sensitive, exactly? I’m trying to figure out what you are saying here…
If you are suggesting that David is a “feel good” kind of Christian, I think you’ve missed the point of the last post, in which he indicates that the goal of simply “feeling good” (via checking your brain at the door) looks pretty absurd when you boil it down to what’s really going on. People who do it are intellectually apathetic, and pastors who request it lead people astray.
David, I find it amusing that so many people were seemingly offended at the prior cartoon (my personal favorite of the two). It is negative, of course, but it has to be, for a couple of reasons:
1) The truth is that many contemporary churches demand that you turn off your brains in order to fit in, and that is a very, very negative thing.
2) We are called to be negative about bad things. Just read Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
The cartoon would be funny, if it weren’t so true.
However, the “sense of humor” version doesn’t seem as applicable, as it seems many pastors have resorted to the “stand up comic” model of preaching, to hide the fact that they have nothing of importance to say. In these churches, it seems a sense of humor is better than brains.
Alden: well, that was what I was hoping to poke at. As Victor said, maybe in the “no-brainer” version, it’s an OLD OLD joke in the church. I found it humorously peculiar that this cartoon, above all others, caused the most offense.
NP,
I keep coming back to your site often today. I am election coveraged out. Would like to think it is over by the end of the evening, but a ‘hanging chad’ will no doubt be found. So, I will hang close today and look for more stimulating thoughts to appear.
on the mend-fishon
I would tend to agree that the brouhaha over the previous version is a bit silly given some of the other irreverent cartoons you’ve posted. The thing is, a lot of people don’t use critical thinking at church (even though they should, because pastors can and sometimes do preach from personal agendas and not from the word) and a fairly small number of churches (from my experience at least) encourage people to question the “authority” of that physical church and its pastor
“The thing is, a lot of people don’t use critical thinking at church (even though they should, because pastors can and sometimes do preach from personal agendas and not from the word”(Deacon)
Ok Im going to ask a controversial question. If anyone actually did any “critical thinking” in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion? I think if most people kept their brains in and checked their heart at the door, they would have very different ideas when it comes to Jesus.
I know this doesn’t really have anything to do with the subject matter of the cartoon, but the shelves behind the check-in guy remind me of the church I went to in Japan. You had to leave your shoes on a little shelf much like that when you came in the door and wear the church-provided indoor slippers upstairs to the sanctuary.
TitforTat: “If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?”
It depends on how you define is.
Seriously, though. The question itself begs a number of questions. But here’s the thing — the moment you offer to dismiss passages like John 1:1 (“In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; John later defines the Word as Christ), the point of the question becomes irrelevant.
Here’s what I’m saying: If you don’t believe what the text says about itself, you don’t believe the text. And if you don’t believe the text, what difference does it make if somebody applies some “critical thinking” to the meaning of it? You’ve already dismissed the text as unreliable anyway, and any such critical thinking becomes meaningless, as it relates to identifying the person of Christ. At that point, the idea of keeping one’s brain and checking one’s heart appears to be a moot point.
Ok Im going to ask a controversial question. If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
Yes.
I ain’t much of a ‘critical thinker,’ but with what little I do use, I advocate taking your brain AND your heart through the door. Without your heart you have a dead brain.
fishon
Here’s what I’m saying: If you don’t believe what the text says about itself, you don’t believe the text. And if you don’t believe the text, what difference does it make if somebody applies some “critical thinking†to the meaning of it? You’ve already dismissed the text as unreliable anyway, and any such critical thinking becomes meaningless, as it relates to identifying the person of Christ. At that point, the idea of keeping one’s brain and checking one’s heart appears to be a moot point.
:: shrug ::
Wow talk about a generalized sweep. Firstly, who has the blueprint on what it is the Bible is actually purporting? Also there is much in the Bible I dont dismiss. By the way is there actual scripture where Jesus the person specifically calls himself the Christ?
Matthew 16:15-18:
—
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. ”
—
So… the text appears to say that Jesus asserts that God has revealed to Peter that Jesus himself is both the Christ, and the Son of the living God. I believe that would indicate that Jesus welcomed the title of Christ as God-ordained.
Anyhow, as for the generalization — I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. What I mean to say is that if the text itself says that Jesus is God (via John 1:1), but that point is disputed (requiring one to throw out that text), this allows us to pick and choose whatever text we feel fits our theology the best. In which case, any conversation about the validity of the text seems meaningless.
TitforTat asked: : : If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
——-Isaac Newton–Michael Faraday–Leonardo da Vinci–James Irwin –Henry M. Morris–Louis Pasteur–
Oh man, the list is longggggg with these and thousands of NON-critical thinkers.
TforT–you need to go back and do some critical thinking
fishon
Steve,
Man o man, I never did trust exit polls–and you give me even more reason for it.
I HAVE NEVER been polled–and now I missed the NP poll.
Woe, just thought of it–I must be that margin of error guy!
No exit polls in Oregon–we vote by mail. I kinda miss standing in line [the Catholics would give you coffee and the padre would pass out cookies, but remind us it wasn't holy communion], but then when you live in a town of 375 the lines are short.
I got my 7-up, Cheetos and a friend coming over to watch the talking heads tell us –who knows what! There will be no joy in parts of Mudville in the morning. But for me, tomorrow will be another day the Lord has made, and I CHOOSE to rejoice and be glad in it. I am guessing you will too.
fishon
My mind is starting to think of so many other things to put in those little boxes. Let’s see…..check your:
will at the door
adrenal glands at the door (that was me when I experienced adrenal fatigue from my old church)
different views at the door
free time at the door
imperfections at the door
I posted this comment on the last cartoon, but perhaps some of you aren’t reading that thread anymore, so here is my comment again:
“I think it’s awesome. I think it’s a funny way to bring into the light, those things that are painful, difficult and wrong in the church. Some of you need to chill and get off your high horses.
Well personally I think Hayward is a funny dude. I like most all the cartoons, I just grow tired of them always being negative. There’s a lot of funny things that go on in the church that cartoons can be made of besides the negative things all the time.
Most of the things aren’t true of my church at all, but I churches for which they are true of. Maybe nakedpastor goes to or leads one of those churches and thus has plenty of fodder for future works?
I believe it’s healthy to be able to laugh at the ugly side of church. Those that are fortunate enough to have not seen the ugly side of church can’t understand why it’s healthy to be able to laugh at it, I guess. Wait until you DO get burned, wounded, burned out, etcetera, and we’ll see what you think then…..
Lucas
“Well personally I think Hayward is a funny dude. I like most all the cartoons, I just grow tired of them always being negative. There’s a lot of funny things that go on in the church that cartoons can be made of besides the negative things all the time”
I guess when the basis of the Christian faith is that youre all a bunch of sinners in need of a Saviour, its not very hard to find some “negative” stuff in and around the Church.
TforT–you need to go back and do some critical thinking
(fishon)
I have done my “critical thinking” and have come to this conclusion, theres no way I can know with absolute certainty what created our world. How has your “critical thinking” made you believe you can??
TitforTat,
First, I do not have the time or energy to expain.
Second, I am not articulate enough to explain clearly.
Third, if I was gifted enough to explain, you would still reject,
I will not endure the effort.
And TforT, you still didn’t address my answer to your statement::: If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
My answer was “Yes.” I even named but a few. No responce from you, so, my friend, I will not chase the tail of your assumptions and statements in the circles you try and take me by not answering my reply, but asking more questions.
Your assumptions that ‘critical thinkers’ would not come up with Jesus as God is flawed. That is of course if you believe that millions who have that understanding are somehow less of a ‘critical thinker’ than you? Then, of course if you think that way, you have become border-line arrogant and an elitist–because you forget, ‘critical thinking’ does not always equal — right conclusion.
That is of course if you believe that millions who have that understanding are somehow less of a ‘critical thinker’ than you? Then, of course if you think that way, you have become border-line arrogant and an elitist–because you forget, ‘critical thinking’ does not always equal — right conclusion.(fishon)
Good point, can you name anyone who has done some critical thinking that came to the “right” conclusion that was verifiable?
Guy in the cartoon – do not shelve your sense of humor there – you are going to need it to laugh at people that treat church like a movie theatre – with their popcorns and coffees and pepsi’s and licorice. Plus church is just plain funny at how they try to take meaningless things and make them life or death issues – classic dry humor.
TforT,
Verifiable! Tricky, because that is where faith comes in. No need to give me your arguements about that–I have heard them all before.
Verifiy to me that George Washington was a real person.
Verify to me that Armstrong walked on the moon.
Verify to me the holocaust.
What does to take to verify those things for you?
If you believe any one of those things, you are taking it on a certain amount of faith.
You asked me::::Good point, can you name anyone who has done some critical thinking that came to the “right†conclusion that was verifiable?
————-Yes, me. But you CHOOSE not to believe me and my verification–but I bet you believe George Washington was a real person, and I wager you have NEVER met anyone who met him!
Circles my friend, circles. The Word of God verifies it for me and my experience with God the Holy Spirit. That is enough verification for me——not for you. So be it.
The end of the matter is this: I am responsible for me and you are responsible for you. If I am wrong, no big deal–if you are wrong….
Enough of this. I will not convince you, and you will not move me.
I agree that we will not convince each other. The one major difference is(though you may not qualify here) is that many many Christians want their idea of faith, taught as “fact” in schools. Many Christians aggressively try to recruit others to their faith in the worry that we who do not believe your “facts” will suffer an unspeakable horror for all eternity(this you do qualify for). I would just so be impressed if you could say, “I hope what I believe is true but I cannot know for certain”. That to me would be “critical thinking”.
um this seems to be getting a little off topic… but don’t evolutionists want their faith taught as fact in schools?
besides if we question our faith too much we might end up in Hell, for some reason God made it that way.
—————
I don’t know, I know why I didn’t like the last comic. But some people’s explanations have made sense. The way I saw it at first, you had to leave your brains behind to believe anything. But apparently it has to do with the pastor’s teaching and not the Bible. So maybe the comic isn’t so bad.
TforT,
I do. But you don’t recognize the evidence I would present–so my friend–we are at an impass.
TforT. Just one more question and I will not comment as to keep the discussion going. ****Do you believe Jesus [the man] to be an historic figure?****
fishon
My point about critical thinking is that often, the pastors themselves preach BEYOND the Word of God. Sometimes well beyond. I’ve seen pastors who will twist the meaning of a Bible passage by focusing on one word in an extreme way that was clearly not the original meaning.
For example, a pastor who said that because the Bible said “they began by speaking in tongues” that the word “began” means we all, as believers, should speak in tongues, or we must not be born again. His point was that speaking in tongues is a necessary proof of born again status, even though Paul said not everyone got that gift.
Worse yet, he wasn’t even reading the scripture honestly, because it says they “began to speak in tongues” NOT “they began BY…”
I also feel that many of the early parts of the Bible, Genesis in particular, are simplified creation for a very illiterate and scientifically naive age. Many of the aspects of creation, particularly those that support a 7,000 year old Earth, I believe need to be looked at with a more critical and logical eye to discern the core truths instead of trying to disprove the evidence of fossils, geology, etc.
The underlying faith in the word of God cannot be critically dissected, but there IS room for critical thinking…and a necessity for it.
Lack of critical thinking is also what allows many Christians to assume things about people in other faiths or who have “alternative” lifestyles that just aren’t true.
hmm welll – it depends on if we’re talking “micro-evolution”, which is natural selection or “macro-evolution” and all the other hypothesized stuff. Or big bang type stuff (you know that theory that scientists are actually getting concerned enough about to have a group of atheist/non-creationist scientists actually speak out against it. There was a conference in New Zealand I believe, I can’t remember where I found the news exactly. I get CMI stuff in my email) I wasn’t in science long enough to give a clear answer, but my roommate was taking micro-biology, and she’s fervently creationist. And I know a Christian with a phd in organic chemistry. I also haven’t been to concerned with this issue, naturally assuming that what I’d been taught since I was a kid was right (evolution fact, bible wrong)
But I can point you to this website (most of the people are scientist of one sort or another)… If you don’t mind. A lot of people expect us to do our own research, although the people for evolution use supposedly scientific papers. (Some are genuine, but I was surprised at the amount of hoaxes.)
oops I missed Deacon Blue’s comment. You could look at that website too. But if you are Christian, there is a very important reason to take a literal view of Genesis. Evolution = death, death came after Adam sinned. And Jesus recounts Adam as an actual person. And have you ever looked at the fossil record/geology? They have fossils going verticallly through strata. Fossiled trees that they have seen become fossilized.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
Do I then have to laugh when the man says “LAUGH”?
David,
I think this cartoon is just as effective as the last. However, it is the same idea. I think it is sad that others are trying to “regulate” your blog:) You don’t have to be balanced, you create what you see and feel, and there’s no rule saying you have to always agree with your own posts.
I mean it is true, working for the past 10 years in ministry how many people WANT to check their brain at the door. I know many pastors/leaders that require that, but I also know just as many churches that beg for that. We all know that these don’t apply to all churches everywhere. I think you hit a nerve, and in my opinion (which is only one humble opinion), that means you’re doing a good job.
It took me 10 years to find a church that REQUIRES you to think, challenges you to challenge them, encourages questions and doubting… and I’m not even on staff there (which is hard and sad for me). I put up on my blog sometimes your art and jon birch from ASBO Jesus, but i find myself having to say to people, “I don’t hate the Church, and I know that this isn’t a comprehensive view of church. But for many people I talk to who have been turned off from Church, this is how they see things. These are here to make you think and inspire discussion. I don’t hate the church, I just love it sooo much that I long for it to come to its senses. I am the heartbroken lover who misses the one I was meant for (church), and although I have tried to help it out of its daze and confusion, it continues to hurt me…so I continue my cries through my blog (and this is how I kinda read your satire…but art is an interpreted…well art!) and wait for her to come to her senses and want the help she needs!
hope that makes sense. Thanks for your hard work and thought-provoking material. I rarely comment, but this one I felt could benefit from my humble input. Thanks david!
David gets ding-ed…It is not easy being you, is it?
for what its worth, I enjoy your sense of humour and the check your brain at the door ‘toon is as funny as it is a challenge to smarten up (no pun intended, but it was a good one…don’t you think?
)
Keep up the great work David…
Smiles and Blessings to my favourite humourist,
~mp:)
David – in the last post, you mentioned that this was not a criticism of “them,” but rather of “us,” and I really appreciate that perspective. I think that helps your readers understand that this criticism is one that comes from humility, and not from haughtiness.
If it were merely a “look at those dumb Christians” kind of thing, you could be accused of arrogance, but if it a matter of pointing out the errors we all make (particularly though who seek to serve God through the role of pastor), it’s clear that it’s painful and heartbreaking to draw up these criticisms. It’s hard to air out the dirty laundry in front of others…
… but I suppose that’s what being the “naked pastor” is all about.
Point taken – my apologies, but I do stand by what I said.
I post some of your stuff sometimes on facebook, and it usually gets critiqued. But I try to defend you. I’ll pray for you anyways, it’s a good thing to have.
** however, this post (regarding checking your sense-of-humor at the door) is clearly a bit more of a jab at the comments in the previous post than it is a criticism about “us.”
By golly, jovial_cynic, it is a bit of a “jab.” Now that I find humorous.
Old Mr. Sensitive with let’s get together as community, just love, let everyone be what they want to be and sing coom-by-ya can rare up a bit. Ah yes, hope is alive.
fishon
Wait wait – who are you calling Mr. Sensitive, exactly? I’m trying to figure out what you are saying here…
If you are suggesting that David is a “feel good” kind of Christian, I think you’ve missed the point of the last post, in which he indicates that the goal of simply “feeling good” (via checking your brain at the door) looks pretty absurd when you boil it down to what’s really going on. People who do it are intellectually apathetic, and pastors who request it lead people astray.
Or if you’d rather, check out the book by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler “Don’t check your brains at the door”
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=32343&event=CFN
jovial_cynic,
Think out of the “Prison cell” box. Then you may comprehend what I am saying.
fishon
fishon – please explain in a way a layman such as myself can understand. I’m sorry if I can’t understand.
So ironic when Jesus made people laugh.
Sas
Ah the Body of Christ……………..look at it wiggle and jiggle………..Im just curious how much of it is from laughter.
David, I find it amusing that so many people were seemingly offended at the prior cartoon (my personal favorite of the two). It is negative, of course, but it has to be, for a couple of reasons:
1) The truth is that many contemporary churches demand that you turn off your brains in order to fit in, and that is a very, very negative thing.
2) We are called to be negative about bad things. Just read Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
The cartoon would be funny, if it weren’t so true.
However, the “sense of humor” version doesn’t seem as applicable, as it seems many pastors have resorted to the “stand up comic” model of preaching, to hide the fact that they have nothing of importance to say. In these churches, it seems a sense of humor is better than brains.
Alden: well, that was what I was hoping to poke at. As Victor said, maybe in the “no-brainer” version, it’s an OLD OLD joke in the church. I found it humorously peculiar that this cartoon, above all others, caused the most offense.
NP,
I keep coming back to your site often today. I am election coveraged out. Would like to think it is over by the end of the evening, but a ‘hanging chad’ will no doubt be found. So, I will hang close today and look for more stimulating thoughts to appear.
on the mend-fishon
I would tend to agree that the brouhaha over the previous version is a bit silly given some of the other irreverent cartoons you’ve posted. The thing is, a lot of people don’t use critical thinking at church (even though they should, because pastors can and sometimes do preach from personal agendas and not from the word) and a fairly small number of churches (from my experience at least) encourage people to question the “authority” of that physical church and its pastor
“The thing is, a lot of people don’t use critical thinking at church (even though they should, because pastors can and sometimes do preach from personal agendas and not from the word”(Deacon)
Ok Im going to ask a controversial question. If anyone actually did any “critical thinking” in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion? I think if most people kept their brains in and checked their heart at the door, they would have very different ideas when it comes to Jesus.
I know this doesn’t really have anything to do with the subject matter of the cartoon, but the shelves behind the check-in guy remind me of the church I went to in Japan. You had to leave your shoes on a little shelf much like that when you came in the door and wear the church-provided indoor slippers upstairs to the sanctuary.
ha susanna, i LOVED this comment. beautiful!
TitforTat: “If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?”
It depends on how you define is.
Seriously, though. The question itself begs a number of questions. But here’s the thing — the moment you offer to dismiss passages like John 1:1 (“In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; John later defines the Word as Christ), the point of the question becomes irrelevant.
Here’s what I’m saying: If you don’t believe what the text says about itself, you don’t believe the text. And if you don’t believe the text, what difference does it make if somebody applies some “critical thinking” to the meaning of it? You’ve already dismissed the text as unreliable anyway, and any such critical thinking becomes meaningless, as it relates to identifying the person of Christ. At that point, the idea of keeping one’s brain and checking one’s heart appears to be a moot point.
:: shrug ::
Ok Im going to ask a controversial question. If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
Yes.
I ain’t much of a ‘critical thinker,’ but with what little I do use, I advocate taking your brain AND your heart through the door. Without your heart you have a dead brain.
fishon
Here’s what I’m saying: If you don’t believe what the text says about itself, you don’t believe the text. And if you don’t believe the text, what difference does it make if somebody applies some “critical thinking†to the meaning of it? You’ve already dismissed the text as unreliable anyway, and any such critical thinking becomes meaningless, as it relates to identifying the person of Christ. At that point, the idea of keeping one’s brain and checking one’s heart appears to be a moot point.
:: shrug ::
Wow talk about a generalized sweep. Firstly, who has the blueprint on what it is the Bible is actually purporting? Also there is much in the Bible I dont dismiss. By the way is there actual scripture where Jesus the person specifically calls himself the Christ?
TitforTat –
Matthew 16:15-18:
—
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. ”
—
So… the text appears to say that Jesus asserts that God has revealed to Peter that Jesus himself is both the Christ, and the Son of the living God. I believe that would indicate that Jesus welcomed the title of Christ as God-ordained.
Anyhow, as for the generalization — I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. What I mean to say is that if the text itself says that Jesus is God (via John 1:1), but that point is disputed (requiring one to throw out that text), this allows us to pick and choose whatever text we feel fits our theology the best. In which case, any conversation about the validity of the text seems meaningless.
TitforTat asked: : : If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
——-Isaac Newton–Michael Faraday–Leonardo da Vinci–James Irwin –Henry M. Morris–Louis Pasteur–
Oh man, the list is longggggg with these and thousands of NON-critical thinkers.
TforT–you need to go back and do some critical thinking
fishon
Might I suggest a 3rd cartoon in the series?
Brains…sense of humor….WALLETS!
My exit polling suggests an 80% nakedpastor approval rating for this idea…
Steve,
Man o man, I never did trust exit polls–and you give me even more reason for it.
I HAVE NEVER been polled–and now I missed the NP poll.
Woe, just thought of it–I must be that margin of error guy!
No exit polls in Oregon–we vote by mail. I kinda miss standing in line [the Catholics would give you coffee and the padre would pass out cookies, but remind us it wasn't holy communion], but then when you live in a town of 375 the lines are short.
I got my 7-up, Cheetos and a friend coming over to watch the talking heads tell us –who knows what! There will be no joy in parts of Mudville in the morning. But for me, tomorrow will be another day the Lord has made, and I CHOOSE to rejoice and be glad in it. I am guessing you will too.
fishon
Thinking of you guys with the election.
Here’s hoping that whoever’s elected does some good.
My mind is starting to think of so many other things to put in those little boxes. Let’s see…..check your:
will at the door
adrenal glands at the door (that was me when I experienced adrenal fatigue from my old church)
different views at the door
free time at the door
imperfections at the door
Wow – this is fun!
I posted this comment on the last cartoon, but perhaps some of you aren’t reading that thread anymore, so here is my comment again:
“I think it’s awesome. I think it’s a funny way to bring into the light, those things that are painful, difficult and wrong in the church. Some of you need to chill and get off your high horses.
Naked Pastor, you’re a genius.”
Well personally I think Hayward is a funny dude. I like most all the cartoons, I just grow tired of them always being negative. There’s a lot of funny things that go on in the church that cartoons can be made of besides the negative things all the time.
Most of the things aren’t true of my church at all, but I churches for which they are true of. Maybe nakedpastor goes to or leads one of those churches and thus has plenty of fodder for future works?
I believe it’s healthy to be able to laugh at the ugly side of church. Those that are fortunate enough to have not seen the ugly side of church can’t understand why it’s healthy to be able to laugh at it, I guess. Wait until you DO get burned, wounded, burned out, etcetera, and we’ll see what you think then…..
Lucas
“Well personally I think Hayward is a funny dude. I like most all the cartoons, I just grow tired of them always being negative. There’s a lot of funny things that go on in the church that cartoons can be made of besides the negative things all the time”
I guess when the basis of the Christian faith is that youre all a bunch of sinners in need of a Saviour, its not very hard to find some “negative” stuff in and around the Church.
TforT–you need to go back and do some critical thinking
(fishon)
I have done my “critical thinking” and have come to this conclusion, theres no way I can know with absolute certainty what created our world. How has your “critical thinking” made you believe you can??
Jodi, your first comment here – class! Well put
TitforTat,
First, I do not have the time or energy to expain.
Second, I am not articulate enough to explain clearly.
Third, if I was gifted enough to explain, you would still reject,
I will not endure the effort.
And TforT, you still didn’t address my answer to your statement::: If anyone actually did any “critical thinking†in regards to the claim that Jesus is God, would they actually come to that conclusion?
My answer was “Yes.” I even named but a few. No responce from you, so, my friend, I will not chase the tail of your assumptions and statements in the circles you try and take me by not answering my reply, but asking more questions.
Your assumptions that ‘critical thinkers’ would not come up with Jesus as God is flawed. That is of course if you believe that millions who have that understanding are somehow less of a ‘critical thinker’ than you? Then, of course if you think that way, you have become border-line arrogant and an elitist–because you forget, ‘critical thinking’ does not always equal — right conclusion.
Oh well, enough.
fishon
That is of course if you believe that millions who have that understanding are somehow less of a ‘critical thinker’ than you? Then, of course if you think that way, you have become border-line arrogant and an elitist–because you forget, ‘critical thinking’ does not always equal — right conclusion.(fishon)
Good point, can you name anyone who has done some critical thinking that came to the “right” conclusion that was verifiable?
Guy in the cartoon – do not shelve your sense of humor there – you are going to need it to laugh at people that treat church like a movie theatre – with their popcorns and coffees and pepsi’s and licorice. Plus church is just plain funny at how they try to take meaningless things and make them life or death issues – classic dry humor.
TforT,
Verifiable! Tricky, because that is where faith comes in. No need to give me your arguements about that–I have heard them all before.
Verifiy to me that George Washington was a real person.
Verify to me that Armstrong walked on the moon.
Verify to me the holocaust.
What does to take to verify those things for you?
If you believe any one of those things, you are taking it on a certain amount of faith.
You asked me::::Good point, can you name anyone who has done some critical thinking that came to the “right†conclusion that was verifiable?
————-Yes, me. But you CHOOSE not to believe me and my verification–but I bet you believe George Washington was a real person, and I wager you have NEVER met anyone who met him!
Circles my friend, circles. The Word of God verifies it for me and my experience with God the Holy Spirit. That is enough verification for me——not for you. So be it.
The end of the matter is this: I am responsible for me and you are responsible for you. If I am wrong, no big deal–if you are wrong….
Enough of this. I will not convince you, and you will not move me.
Happy ‘critical thinking.’
fishon
fishon
I agree that we will not convince each other. The one major difference is(though you may not qualify here) is that many many Christians want their idea of faith, taught as “fact” in schools. Many Christians aggressively try to recruit others to their faith in the worry that we who do not believe your “facts” will suffer an unspeakable horror for all eternity(this you do qualify for). I would just so be impressed if you could say, “I hope what I believe is true but I cannot know for certain”. That to me would be “critical thinking”.
um this seems to be getting a little off topic… but don’t evolutionists want their faith taught as fact in schools?
besides if we question our faith too much we might end up in Hell, for some reason God made it that way.
—————
I don’t know, I know why I didn’t like the last comic. But some people’s explanations have made sense. The way I saw it at first, you had to leave your brains behind to believe anything. But apparently it has to do with the pastor’s teaching and not the Bible. So maybe the comic isn’t so bad.
Too bad there wasn’t more expositional preaching.
but don’t evolutionists want their faith taught as fact in schools(Semety)
Please, please tell me this is a joke. If you are saying evolution is a faith, then I think you truly need some divine help.
TforT,
Verify evolution.
fishon
fishon
Tell you what, I cant verify it, just as you cant verify Jesus as God. But do me a favour and answer this one question(please be honest).
Which one has more evidence to prove it to be a better conclusion?
TforT,
I do. But you don’t recognize the evidence I would present–so my friend–we are at an impass.
TforT. Just one more question and I will not comment as to keep the discussion going. ****Do you believe Jesus [the man] to be an historic figure?****
fishon
Tit for Tat,
My point about critical thinking is that often, the pastors themselves preach BEYOND the Word of God. Sometimes well beyond. I’ve seen pastors who will twist the meaning of a Bible passage by focusing on one word in an extreme way that was clearly not the original meaning.
For example, a pastor who said that because the Bible said “they began by speaking in tongues” that the word “began” means we all, as believers, should speak in tongues, or we must not be born again. His point was that speaking in tongues is a necessary proof of born again status, even though Paul said not everyone got that gift.
Worse yet, he wasn’t even reading the scripture honestly, because it says they “began to speak in tongues” NOT “they began BY…”
I also feel that many of the early parts of the Bible, Genesis in particular, are simplified creation for a very illiterate and scientifically naive age. Many of the aspects of creation, particularly those that support a 7,000 year old Earth, I believe need to be looked at with a more critical and logical eye to discern the core truths instead of trying to disprove the evidence of fossils, geology, etc.
The underlying faith in the word of God cannot be critically dissected, but there IS room for critical thinking…and a necessity for it.
Lack of critical thinking is also what allows many Christians to assume things about people in other faiths or who have “alternative” lifestyles that just aren’t true.
Do you believe Jesus [the man] to be an historic figure?****
Yes
hmm welll – it depends on if we’re talking “micro-evolution”, which is natural selection or “macro-evolution” and all the other hypothesized stuff. Or big bang type stuff (you know that theory that scientists are actually getting concerned enough about to have a group of atheist/non-creationist scientists actually speak out against it. There was a conference in New Zealand I believe, I can’t remember where I found the news exactly. I get CMI stuff in my email) I wasn’t in science long enough to give a clear answer, but my roommate was taking micro-biology, and she’s fervently creationist. And I know a Christian with a phd in organic chemistry. I also haven’t been to concerned with this issue, naturally assuming that what I’d been taught since I was a kid was right (evolution fact, bible wrong)
But I can point you to this website (most of the people are scientist of one sort or another)… If you don’t mind. A lot of people expect us to do our own research, although the people for evolution use supposedly scientific papers. (Some are genuine, but I was surprised at the amount of hoaxes.)
By topic perhaps: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65/
And if you would rather have the opinion of more educated people: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983
And I leave you with this: the island of surtsey (how do you evolutionists explain that?)
Good luck. Everything is faith. (on the other hand Pascal’s wager is very unconvincing, but great for keeping people in the faith.)
—————-
soory np.
oops I missed Deacon Blue’s comment. You could look at that website too. But if you are Christian, there is a very important reason to take a literal view of Genesis. Evolution = death, death came after Adam sinned. And Jesus recounts Adam as an actual person. And have you ever looked at the fossil record/geology? They have fossils going verticallly through strata. Fossiled trees that they have seen become fossilized.
It’s quite amazing.
Semety,
If you’re really interested in these stuff, I think this should be a good stuff for you.