cartoon: fire alarm
Check out my tees HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my art HERE.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!Tags: alarm, body, cartoon, comic, community, david_hayward, fire, funny, haywardart, humor, nakedpastor, safety
Too funny, the fact that people actually believe there is a “burning lake of fire”. Ah the joy of Blind Faith.
Makes me laugh and cry. Imagine all the reasons why people well be sent there; improper mode of baptism, working on the sabbath, reading from any version other than the KJV, watching “Seinfeld” reruns. Thanks np.
I’ve recently been demonised by fundamentalists who do not agree with my positive attitude towards the emerging church. I am now officially responsible for my dernomination’s downward spiral into the abyss of apostasy because I said there is nothing wrong for a Christian to practice yoga exercises or do karate when it isn’t accompanied by the eastern philosophy.
I gave a lecture at a denominational meeting the other day in which I made a passing reference to one of our historical documents saying something about infant baptism being an incorporation into the body of Christ (the church). This wasn’t the subject of my paper; I mentioned it in context with something else.
After the lecture there was a Q&A session, and the fundamentalist pastor of one of our churches immediately shot up his hand and questioned me as to whether I was inferring that baptism makes one a Christian. Sigh . . . . . .
That’s a funny one!
GM Smit…it is amazing, the power of karate, to destroy an entire denomination. Mr. Miyagi would be proud: wax on, wax off.
David, as always you nailed it again. Christianity is about get right all the right things. it is not about faith and following the way of Jesus. Trying to get this idea through to my wife. Of course, I have “given up” on God for even saying such things. Keep it up. You Rock.
karate is bad now too? hmmmmm…who knew, it’s so hard to keep track of things on “The List”.
So true…the viewpoint is very narrow when it comes to Christian doctrine – and even questioning some of the obvious basic problems can cause one a type of hell (even it does or does not exist) – ostracization.
That’s HILARIOUS! that puts all the vicars there then for working on the sabbath, and FRED wax on wax off “ha ha ha ha” I just laughed myself silly. Thanks for this NP.
glad… keep warm!
‘Christianity is about get right all the right things. it is not about faith and following the way of Jesus. ‘
- Jeff
Whaaat? You rele think that?
Kat: I think he’s saying that popular Christianity is about getting the right things right rather than what he feels is really important.
Bob: “Seinfeld” is fine Bro, it’s “Will and Grace” that will send you straight to eternal jail, and do not pass GO or collect $200 either!
Bring back indulgences, I say, but oh wait we already have “Christian” TV doing that.
None of these silly things wd be believed if we didn’t believe that God wrote a book.
FF: yeah, but which bits did he really write or say? I like the Red Letters best after they have been re- translated in the Hebrew context they were written
FR…if yr specifically talking about Jesus, IMO popular Christianity has him saying too much…it’s doubtful that the Jesus of John’s gospel is as historically accurate and authentic as the style we read in the synoptics . In short, although they all interpret and have a vested interest in their communities, John’s gospel is obviously on a higher plane theologically,especially with respect to Christology.
I burst out laughing. Awesome :c)
Kat,
NakedPastor was right in his interpitation of my comments.
Hell is other people… and isolation
FiF said:::it’s doubtful that the Jesus of John’s gospel is as historically accurate and authentic as the style we read in the synoptics .
—–Now that is a hoot. What book did you get that from. Yea, that’s right a book. And the authority of that book is????? I am guessing the authoritiy is NOT a god, but mere man. Yea, knock down the book of John by what someone says in anothe book. Hehehe.
fishon
Makes more sense now..thnx np and jeff!
Fishon…….what’s yr opinion on the differences between the synoptics and John if the following quote accurately describes the problem….
Differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the “synoptic” gospels. “Synoptic” is a Greek word meaning “having a common view.” 1 John differs significantly from the synoptic gospels in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style. “Only ca. 8% of it is parallel to these other gospels, and even then, no such word-for-word parallelism occurs as we find among the synoptic gospels.” 2 The Gospel of John reflects a Christian tradition that is different from that of the other gospels. It was rejected as heretical by many individuals and groups within the early Christian movement. It was used extensively by the Gnostic Christians. But it was ultimately accepted into the official canon, over many objections. It is now the favorite gospel of many conservative Christians, and the gospel least referred to by many liberal Christians.
No one ever answers this, but if there’s no Hell – what’s the point of any morals? If you don’t believe in the Bible, why is it wrong to believe it? If you don’t believe in God at all, what’s wrong with telling a lie or believing one? What’s wrong with wanting people to believe the Bible? Even if it were ‘harmful’ – whose standard are you going by?
Why accept one part of the Bible, but not all of it? If it’s wrong why follow bits of it? Why get mad when people say there’s a Hell?
No one ever answers this, but if there’s no Hell – what’s the point of any morals?(Semety)
Ok first reason for you. You reap what you sow. You know this, jump off a building and gravity takes over. It works the same with all actions. Secondly, you will have a better life if you treat people right. Just because someone has material gains does not mean his/her life is better. Hell has nothing to do with your morals, the idea of it is only there to make you fear.
F-false
E-evidence
A-appearing
R-real
Semety….Are those questions directed at anyone in particular?
faithlessinfatima said, on April 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Fishon…….what’s yr opinion on the differences between the synoptics and John if the following quote accurately describes the problem….
———I don’t know if the quote accurately describes the problem or not.
I have never delved into it or do I care too.
If I throw out the Gospel of John as the accurate words of John as inspired by
the Holy Spirit, well what do I throw out next?
Heck, the next thing I’d be doing is joining Borg and tearing all the gospels apart.
I will remain blind to it all and remain blindly happy, content, and secure.
I am one who does not need every question and complaint about the Bible to be
answered.
I am pretty sure you don’t choose my way–but that’s ok with me.
fishon
“Are you gay?” “Did Jonah swallow the whale, or vice versa?” “Can you please explain justification by faith alone ?” “What the purpose of the Miter that the Pope wears?”
There will only be one question asked (in essence) by God, “What did you do with my Son?”
You reap what you sow.
—————–So funny. Using a biblical principle to prove what you don’t believe is a
biblical doctrine. I love it.
It works the same with all actions.
—————–NO IT DOESN’T.
Hell has nothing to do with your morals, the idea of it is only there to make you fear.
—————–Fear is an uneasiness caused by possible danger. Publius Syrus (42 BC)
—————–Stop. Danger ahead.
fishon
fishon
I can use the Bible for its incredible wealth of insight and life experience that it has. I just dont have to buy into the belief that its one continuous book that has the answer all the time for everybody. I accept the fact that you can choose that if you want.
Fishon…I’m not throwing anything out…just choosing to read and understand those documents in their own context and not a pre-supposed doctrine of scripture. I fail to see why you need to have a’ theology of scripture’ before you have faith in God…or in other words,what came first….the Spirit or the theology of the Spirit?
FiF,
And you ASSUME I have a theology of scripture before faith in God. Why?
I seem to remember my converstion like this: disciple-baptized-taught. I believe that is somewhere in scripture!
fishon
FIF, Fishon readily admitted he doesnt care to know much about the synoptics question – “I have never delved into it or do I care too…I will remain blind to it all and remain blindly happy, content, and secure” (Fishon)
I however – agree 100% with you on your critique of John (as a gospel). It’s nothing like the 3 synoptic gospels and differs in many ways. I actually liked your point about them being different and their usages – and it is true – liberals are not grasping onto John – reason…it’s a later construct and quite simple to tell it is.
In John’s gospel – the term Jew appears over 60 times in it’s pages…so what right? The The whole NT doesn’t have even that much use of that term and the synoptics (all 3 other gospels) use the term a total of 16 times – combined! Top that off, John is the only gospel accrediting Jesus as ‘god’ – if not directly – at least in imagery (word, I am, Abraham text in John 8). Plus, John has many words that are not in the synoptics (as FIF mentioned) – where did these arise from and why are they not used in the 3 other gospels?
I think having questions about John as a gospel are very normal – sorry people that disagree – but you have to actually study this phenomenon to have any valid input.
Fishon…I think you may have misunderstood my last comment,but upon reading it myself,I’m less clear than I thot.Nevertheless,I agree with you and that was my point, most believers that I know or read about have their initial conversion experience long before they adopt developed doctrines of scripture. If that is true, then why wd you be so opposed to my comment about the obvious dissimiliarities in John’s gospel, if the Spirit meets the seeker on other grounds.It seems to be an unnecessary burden.
Societyvs…I’m intrigued by those differences and what they suggest concerning the author’s intentions and underlying motives, as well as the needs of the 1st/2nd century church. We tend to want modern journalism, but the gospels resist that yoke, thus we need to be careful when we say the following about events recorded,”it happened like this”…another gospel might have a different take on the same incident (even the synoptics). In short,historicity and authenticity don’t seem to be mutually inclusive or in other words, gospel truth may not quite be the same as historical fact.
It’s not one continuous book – it’s many books.
the canon stuff confuses me too. Were the people that decided on canon inspired? even though apparently they were mostly accepted anyways. The memoirs of the apostles would be the gospels, and Paul’s letters would have been delivered in churches. Mostly they’d be relying on experience/witnesses plus the old testament. So really, you could possibly just stick with the old testament and the gospels and still be saved. Even Jesus speaks of Hell.
Those questions weren’t directed at anyone in particular – they just bug me. If you’re just going to die anyway – nothing matters. You just do what feels right, some people like having morals. I guess people wouldn’t like being told about hell, because they don’t want to feel uncomfortable. I just don’t understand how people can get so offended at stuff they don’t believe. or why it would be better to live if there was nothing when you died. Or why you would want people to believe what you did or question their own beliefs if you’re not concerned about saving them from hell.
FiF – Historically, Jesus did exist, so did the apostles. But we don’t know much about his life, outside the gospels, presumably because they didn’t have newspapers back then, and no one who wasn’t christian would really bother writing about him.
FiF,
I am not ’so opposed’ to your comments about John. I suppose it is dissimilar from the other three. But then you ask 4 people to discribe a parade, “Man, what parade were you at a reader may ask?”
But to be honest, the issue is over my pay grade. I think I have heard that said before!
fishon
Fishon…to use yr analogy,if the synoptics reflect the original parade, it cd be said that the fourth gospel is a an imaginative and glorious reworking of that event…it speaks volumes with respect to the development of Christian thought in the early church.
The issue for me is , ‘ where authority’?
FiF,
You and I are at the same parade, and we have been commissioned by NP to write about what we see in the parade. As in many parades in small towns, guys love to drive their restored, old cars in the parade.
Down the road comes a 1956 210 Chevy Sports Coupe. We are both in awe. Wow! It’s a beauty.
So you write about it and give details. It’s Red and White, with Gray wheel rims.
I write it is solid green with Silver wheel rims.
Someone reading our description would come to the conclusion that we are discribing two different cars. But we are not; we are discribing the same car. It is just that you are on the North side of the street and the car is painted Red and White and has gray wheels, while I am on the South side of the street, and the side I see is painted Green and it has Silver wheels.
Exact same car. Just seen from a different side. Both are true discriptions. No conflicts; however, there will certainly be those who will say, somebody is wrong about the car or they have imbellished. The criticers just didn’t have enough info to figure out there really is no conflict.
I know, I know, these illustrations can be torn apart.
fishon
That’s cute Fishon,but you’ll never really know if those you call ‘critics’ have something to important to add to the world of biblical studies unless you read and investigate their material,that is , get in the car and drive it and try to get a feel for what the other guys are saying….you might even like the ride
Here’s something to chew on from Walter Wink:
“There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. In reality the Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period… and which demands our careful interpretation.”
and not dealing with the synoptic problem is a weak and shallow faith… or actually, no faith at all. one must actually have to READ the bible to say one follows it.
good quote luke. wink rocks.
Another excellent Wink essay…worth the read…The Myth of Redemptive Violence…
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/cpt/article_060823wink.shtml
faithlessinfatima said, on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
That’s cute Fishon,but you’ll never really know if those you call ‘critics’ have something to important to add to the world of biblical studies unless you read and investigate their material,that is , get in the car and drive it and try to get a feel for what the other guys are saying….you might even like the ride
———–Cute! No, it is a good example of seeing the same thing/accounts from different perseptives: i.e. John and the synotics.
———–Faithless, there are way too many critics of the Bible and biblical truths to jump into every car they drive to go for a never ending ride like Charlie on the MTA. I will pick which car to drive—–and time, interest, and convenience will dictate that.
fishon
Well Fishon, if you ever do find the time and interest,I hope yr search for truth might not be hindered by yr fear of unfaithfulness because it wdn’t take much effort to realize yr synopsis of the material is sorely lacking…there’s so much more going on in those documents..and oh,bring yr imagination.
yr search for truth might not be hindered by yr fear of unfaithfulness
————-Wow! Now there is an arrogant assumption.
————-By the way, when was the last time you studied about the…controversy? Am I to assume that you have dealt into all biblical controversies? If not why? Might be because of not time, no interest, or maybe “unfaithfulness?” Which is it?
Then again, I may be wrong in my assumption that you haven’t studied all biblical controversies. I may be debating with a genius and unaware of it?
fishon
You can read the bible without reading all the critics – like you can read a cartoon without reading the comments
Now Semety, THAT was really funny! good one!
Yep, Semety,
I was wondering about that last sentence myself.
fishon
Fishon, if that sounded too arrogant, forgive me, but I did intend to put a sharp point on my reply…it just seems that yr comments reflect a resistance to think outside of yr box …I mean ,look at yr first reply…what else cd I think?
And I assure you that my knowledge of biblical controversies is miniscule, but the one were discussing I have spent some time looking into,it’s very intriguing to me that these things exist alongside each other…as I said earlier,John’s gospel is a good example of historical detail(with respect to the synoptics) seemingly playing second fiddle to a developing narrative(the Johanine tradition).That’s not what we moderns want,but a close reading of all the gospels shld help us to expect the unexpected.
FiF,
I reread what you said. Yep, “a sharp point on my [your] reply.” I take back my arrogant statement. I jumped to fast. I can take sharp. Heck, I do have a sharp edge to my writing, I am told.
fishon
Any cartoon with the word ‘historicity’ get’s a big thumbs up. I can’t stop saying it, it feels great…’historicity’, ‘historicity’, ‘historicity’, ‘historicity’, ‘historicity’.