cartoon: ball and chain PART 2

Posted in humour by nakedpastor on the July 22nd, 2009

balls and chains

twitter me

Check out my t-shirts HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my contemplative art here.

If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!

140 comments

140 Responses to 'cartoon: ball and chain PART 2'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'cartoon: ball and chain PART 2'.

Kliner said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 am

Love it! Thank you brother!
Mark VH said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 am

Nice.
bart said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 am

Sometimes church and theology keep us from community. Thanks for preaching it so clearly.
Tim Michael said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am

I like the base truth of the toon but it does ignore a reality that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room – all roads do not lead to heaven, and there truly is bad theology out there that needs opposition. The Pauline Episitles are rich with examples of rebuke and reproving those who are practicing bad theology. Jesus himself was pretty vomitous toward the Pharisees.

Luke 12:49-53 is a pretty good picture of what is depicted in this toon. When he says people will know us by our love for one another – sometimes that includes tough love and intervention. I know we can do that with wrong motives and selfish ambition, so it is encumbent upon us to hear the Holy Spirit when going to that place of opposing someone’s “bad theology” (which is determined by scripture – not us) and ensure we restore in a Spirit of love. I still struggle with that. Ignoring heresy or hypocirsy just to “get along” is as damaging as the appearance of confrontation. My thoughts. TM
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 am

Tim,

Good comments Tim!
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am

If we’d concentrate on preaching Christ crucified and the forgiveness of our sins (yes, our real sins) then we might be able to lop off those balls and chains for many people.
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am

steve: the balls aren’t “sins”, as you say. they say right on them “my theology”.
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am

I never said that the balls were our sins.

I said (in essence) that if we preach Christ crucified and the forgiveness of sins, the weight of our (bad) theology would be lifted from us.
Budd Friend-Jones said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am

If I understand this correctly, it is the age-old problem of particularly. How can one speak without using a particular language? How can one believe without embracing a particular point of view (theology). We can easily substitute “My Culture”, “My Gender”. “My Language”, “My Generational Cohort”, “My Economic Status” or “My Political Party” in this cartoon. We are incarnate beings, embedded in and shaped by the world of our experience. At the same time we are forever seeking to transcend it. My theology is more to me than a ball-and-chain, much more. It is a construct, an hypothesis, a work-in-progress, but not a final revelation. In the center where we meetm distinctions blur or disappear. In the intimacy of our meeting, we experience the embrac of the One who dwells beyond all our feeble theologies. In that moment of meeting, all chains fall away.
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm

steve: but like i said before, it is just “theology”. any kind of idea is not the thing itself. right? my idea of God, no matter how true, is not God. somehow, wouldn’t you agree?, i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm

NP,

The Bible gives us the right idea of God. If your idea of God gels with the Bible’s idea of God, then you have a good theology and are able to commune with God.

If one goes off half cocked, making things up or changing them to suit his/her idea of how things ought be…you will have a bad theology and a much bigger ball and chain.
TitforTat said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm

If one goes off half cocked, making things up or changing them to suit his/her idea of how things ought be…you will have a bad theology and a much bigger ball and chain.(Steve)

You mean, like a Lutheran?
bob said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm

steve martin –
~~”The Bible gives us the right idea of God.”
Then we all should be able to agree on what the bible says when describing God and his attributes…but we don’t.

~~”If your idea of God gels with the Bible’s idea of God, then you have a good theology and are able to commune with God.”
And yet there are probably millions of Christians who will differ with you as to what the bible says concerning God, yet they will believe they have “good theology” and will claim that they are able to “commune with God”.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm

i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.
———–God never tells us that. And to say that means you have formed an idea of God so you can commune with God. Please show me in the Bible where God tells us that.

Tell me, David, have dropped the idea that God is love?

Dang, I was going to stay out of this until I read: i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.

Anyway, I hope you are MAKING IT a great day.
jerry
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Bob,

True enough. That’s why we do theology.

Luther said (and I agree) that the message of the Bible is so simple that a child can understand it.

The Bible shows us our need of a Savior, and the Savior we need.
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm

TfT,

Be specific.

Where has Lutheran theology made things up abouth the Christian faith ?
Hold The Light For Me | internetmonk.com said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm

[...] UPDATE: As usual, David Hayward brilliantly gets it right. [...]
Jason said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Very good…
decloned said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm

if we worship the idea we have of God more than God Himself, it’s just idolatry in another form…

it would be better to continue to understand Theology as it is defined “The study of God” than how I have understood it in the past, as a “The study of man’s idea of who God is” which is what most people mean when they refer to theology. This is one problem I faced in Bible College that we looked more at the writings of John Wesley than we looked at scripture.

Then again, “The study of God” leaves something to be desired as well. To walk with God in the cool of the day as Adam and Eve did speaks so much more on an intimate level than mere study. Study denotes a detachment from the subject being observed. Mere “gnosis” or spiritual knowledge without a context of a relationship is folly. This is not to say that God is relative. He is the fixed external objective truth that transcends His own creation by taking an active roll in communing with it. Thus revelation comes first from God’s Word, and then through personal experience.

By no means should our “study of God” be limited by only what a particular belief system embraces. If this were true, we would have seen just another average Jewish Rabbi rather than Christ.
bob said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Steve Martin – “Luther said (and I agree) that the message of the Bible is so simple that a child can understand it.”

While that sounds like a fun thing to say and believe, if one actually looks at that statement, does some simple investigation, and applies a tad of logic, one would discover that it is not true. So, why would anyone agree with Luther’s (I am assuming Martin Luther) statement?

My cheap, hardback NIV is 1,304 pages long. I challenge you to ask any, what, 8, 9, 12 year old child to read a page or two, then explain it to you. Just pick a random page and have them read. Shoot, just pick a few chapters in the NT, ask an adult who’s “theology” differs from yours, and see if they “understand” it like you “understand” it. Or, make it even more simple, just discuss a few topics: water and spirit baptism, tribulation/rapture, tongues, tithing, church authority, Christian music and dress, hair length, entertainment, etc, etc.
If it was as simple, then we all would agree.
So, why would Luther make such a statement, and why would anyone agree with him?

“The Bible shows us our need of a Savior, and the Savior we need.”

Honestly do I, or a 9 year old child need 0ver a thousand pages, most completely unrelated to …”our need of a Savior, and the Savior we need”, to get that simple message?
That is not logical. That is religious.
If the simple message was to “turn on camera, look through viewfinder, and push the button”, any reasonable thinking person would most likely find it confusing, absurd, ridiculous, and completely unnecessary for the instruction book to be 1,300 pages long….I think.
TitforTat said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Bob

Actually, let a child read some of numbers or samuel and even he or she will know that idea of G-d is nuts.
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm

The message of the Bible is clear (Luther was trying to say).

It is clear. It shows us that we need a Savior. Read Romans. You get that in the first couple of chapters.

Then, right after that Paul tells us what God has done about the problem in Christ Jesus.

You can make it complicated if you want to.
[rhymes with kerouac] said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm

NP said, “…any kind of idea is not the thing itself. right? my idea of God, no matter how true, is not God. somehow, wouldn’t you agree?, i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God…

In other words, you’re a Taoist now.

“The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.”
From: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

So yeah, some people are going to have some problems with this. The church has never known quite what to do with her mystics – and they’ve never quite fit into the church. I suspect you understand all that already.

Personally, I would want my pastor to be fully committed to Jesus Christ alone as the way, the truth and the life. Unless, of course, our eternal destiny is secured by emptying our minds of the idea of God.
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm

[rhymes with kerouac]: i would not say that i am a taoist, but this is not to say that i would not agree with a taoist.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm

I’ll try this again.
fishon July 22, 2009 at 1:10 pm
NP SAID::i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.
———–God never tells us that. And to say that means you have formed an idea of God so you can commune with God. Please show me in the Bible where God tells us that.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm

fishon: aside from just plain commonsense (your idea of your wife is not your wife. just ask her)… let’s take Proverbs 3:5… “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding…” Trusting in the Lord, knowing him, communing with him, is not the same as your idea of him.
Tamara said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Unity in Christ needs to come first. We can argue about different theological ideas, but we need to stay bound together by Christ and what He has done.

If we remember that, then theology wont break us apart, it will unify us more as we seek to understand Him and know Him more.
bob said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm

steve martin ~ “The message of the Bible is clear (Luther was trying to say).”

Ok, I understand that, but as I have tried to point out, it is not so simple or “clear”. If it were, those of us with the ability to communicate with each other would agree with each other on what the bible says (its message). But we do not.

“It is clear. It shows us that we need a Savior. Read Romans. You get that in the first couple of chapters.”

Then what is the purpose of the other pages?

“You can make it complicated if you want to.”

Do you actually think I, or anyone else, desires to make the bible complicated? That does not make sense.
Hayles said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Steve, scholars who devote their entire lives to understanding the scriptures are still in disagreement about fundamental things that the Bible addresses, and over the translation of certain words etc.

It IS complicated! It’s an incredibly diverse and sometimes abstract text. It is written by people from a completely different time and culture.
Tim Michael said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Let me see if I can nutshell-it.
That wild and crazy guy Steve Martin mentioned the simplicity of the message of the bible (a child could understand it), but Bob and Tat seem determined to cling to the complicated mess of sciptural minutia. The Fish found something fishy about the nude guy’s assertion that we must free ourselves of the idea of God to know him and NP also finds merit in TAO but doesn’t hug him, NP may indeed be a mystic which is kind of cool. I know this – I like his glasses and some of his thoughts. Rhyme reasons that Jesus truly is the only Way and is glad his pastor agrees. And my favorite is Decloned (they obviously broke the mold). He seems at first to agree with Pastor in the Raw that the idea is idolatry, yet upon closer inspection really challenges us to have that intimate walk which is where true revelation of scripture takes place. I agree brother – only in allowing ourselves to “be known” can we know Him. Matt 7:21-24 ought to scare the hell out of all of us.

He isn’t detached for our study, he is intimate for our benefit, growth, and sustainment. Now we see through a glass darkly – then we shall see face to face. Now we know in part, prophesy in part, but then we shall know fully even as we are fully known. He who began a good work in all of us will carry it on to completion. Each of you challenged me to think. Thanks.
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm

tim: touché!
bob said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Tim Michael – …”but Bob and Tat seem determined to cling to the complicated mess of sciptural minutia. ”

Ummm, not sure. All I was trying to say was, well, it is not clear, it is not simple, just because some guy in the 1500’s or 2000’s says it is….I think.
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

it is a well known and established theory that how we perceive something totally depends on what we already know about it.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm

nakedpastor July 22, 2009 at 5:22 pm
it is a well known and established theory that how we perceive something totally depends on what we already know about it.
———-I thank the Lord that I knew NOTHING of God before He latched on to me at the age of 33. I had the benefit on not reading one book about him—-not one. Then I was given a Bible—-Just a Bible, and the Holy Spirit started teaching me.

Yep, the only preconceived notion I had of God was: He wasn’t.
fishon
Tim Michael said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Bob – my point there was that Steve said that Luther said the “message” of the bible is simple. It is true enough that there are complicated and confusing chronicles within Christendome and Kingdom principles that we can espouse as God ordained, as well as scriptures of endless laws with in Leviticus, or visions of an acid dropping prophet in Ezekiel, or even The Revelation itself with all of its visions and past or present applications that are well – less than revealing at times, but…The message is simple and clear: we need a savior. His name is Jesus. Amen.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

nakedpastor July 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm
fishon: aside from just plain commonsense (your idea of your wife is not your wife. just ask her)…
———–You went running by me on that one.

let’s take Proverbs 3:5… “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding…” Trusting in the Lord, knowing him, communing with him, is not the same as your idea of him.
———Oh David, you mix apples and prunes. That is saying nothing about “i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.” But if you insist on screwing in you theology into that scripture, let’s finish what it says:::”…and in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your path straight.” What is the path? Well, it is God showing us the path of understanding—idea of who He is.

Next thing you will be trying to teach is——-”Everyone, empty your mind–now just say ‘Um’ 26 times–Let the z theory envelope you. We are now one happy community.”

Someone said something about your cool glasses. Had a pair of-um when I was 16–they were the rage. Let’s see, that was in 1963.

nakedpastor July 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm
[rhymes with kerouac]: i would not say that i am a taoist, but this is not to say that i would not agree with a taoist.
———You are surely and agreeable man. That might be your Achilles heal. Oops, I may pay for that one.

Oh yes, I am full of sarcasm today. But then, if we were having a coffee together today you would be able to see the twinkle in my eyes.
You might even tell me as one of my elders and best friends [in heaven now] told me, “Jerry, you think you know everything; you don’t.” How I miss that old boy.
fishon
steve martin said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Bob,

The rest of the pages of Romans is the solution (Jesus – faith)
Tiggy said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Apophatic theology is not limited to Taoism – we find it in most religions. It used to be common in Christianity, but now seems to be the preserve of the Eastern Orthodox church.

‘Be still and know that I am God’

In that action or non-action we allow that which is not God to fall away.
Tim Michael said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Fish – or he might say, “Jerry – you might want to try decaf.”

Some of that was not constructive and had the aroma of a (not so fresh) fish. You made a pretty big leap from the concept that NP was making about doing away with our preconceived notions and ideas of God so we can know Him better outside of our comfort zone of defaults to mantras of “um” and the z-theory.

I don’t think it’s fair to assign that motive based on what has been said here. Even if NP agreed with a TAOist on a given topic or issue – it doesn’t mean he is embracing TAOism. That isn’t too complicated. It feels like you’re fishing for a debate rather than dialogue. I get that way myself sometimes.
Tiggy said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Yes the glasses are cool because they are what is known as ‘retro’. And you do get uptight Fishy or you write as though you are.

We are travelling back home
No room for high ideals
Cause all we’re doing is travelling back home.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Ah tim michael,
What’s wrong with debate?
Na’. Give me the real thing; no phony coffee for me.
You did notice I admitted to an “aroma” of sarcasim, didn’t you?
Heck, tim, some people hate the smell of fresh fish. Just can’t please everyone.
fishon/jerry
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Tiggy July 22, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Yes the glasses are cool because they are what is known as ‘retro’.
——-And that means what?
And you do get uptight Fishy or you write as though you are.
——-Tiggy, I am about the least up tight person you will run into.
I just have strong opinions—express them, maybe in stronger terms than some would like me to.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm

what is known as ‘retro’.

Wow, just when I thought I was stating the obvious. Retro = retrospective. It’s considered cool/interesting to consciously wear things from an earlier era. My 21 yr old nephew wears forties style cardigans which are back in fashion thank goodness. I love a man in a cardigan!

I guess it’s just your writing style then…it comes across as a bit maiden auntish.
mark said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm

seems to me that the debate in the cartoon establishes the truth in the cartoon. and it seems that some folk are embracing the fact that their theology is keeping them apart because that is where they are most comfortable. others are looking to free themselves from the ball and chain but can’t quite find the key.

np says “my idea of God, no matter how true, is not God. somehow, wouldn’t you agree?, i must renounce my idea of God to commune with God.” Well I do agree that my idea of God is not God. It seems obvious that we must be limited in our comprehension of the divine. I’m not sure that it follows that you need to renounce your idea of God to commune with God. On the contrary I think you *must* have a (admittedly flawed) concept of God to commune with God.

Still those flawed – but essential – conceptions do hold us apart. Perhaps it’s a kind of tower of babel. Our biblical God does want us held apart.
mark said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm

ooops – meant to start by saying “the debate in the *comments* establishes the truth in the cartoon.
Tiggy said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm

You have to have SOME concept of God or why would you know th at you were interested in having anything to do with Him?

I feel my concepts of God draw me towards God. It’s not that those ideas cease to be true, so much as that we can let all conceptualisation fall away when we are in His presence.
fishon said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm

mark July 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm
ooops – meant to start by saying “the debate in the *comments* establishes the truth in the cartoon.
———-maybe so, maybe not. The fact in the Church I pastor is that we are a combination of many different understandings about certain Biblical issues. But the ball of theology has not been attached to a burdensome chain for us. But I am not wearing “retro” rose-colored glasses—-I suppose we could hook our selves to a chain.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm

fishon: retro rose-colored glasses. LOL.
Tiggy said, on July 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm

I actually have some! I wore them at the Greenblet Festival one year and everything looked very pretty.

I don’t think anyone is looking at things through rose-coloured glasses. Maybe some see things in black and white and others in technicolour…
TitforTat said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am

The message is simple and clear: we need a savior. His name is Jesus. Amen.(Tim)

Youre not serious are you? If its that simple why do these scriptures say something completely different. Geez, dont you guys read your bibles.

Isaiah 42:8

8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 43:3&11

3For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

I breathlessly await all you NT believers to show me how I have missed the simplicity of the word.
bob said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 am

Tim Michael – “Bob – my point there was that Steve said that Luther said the “message” of the bible is simple.” “…The message is simple and clear: we need a savior. His name is Jesus. Amen.”

I have wonder who decided that the message of the bible, (the entire bible?) is simply and clearly, Jesus? I am sure it wasn’t you Tim. I can only guess that you have come to that conclusion from what you have heard in church or read in books, not from what you read in the bible. Most Christians are conditioned to ignore all the confusion, disagreement, and contradictions that they encounter as a result of believing. I mean, if I need a savior, and that savior is Jesus, there is not even a consensus on what I must do to be saved. Ask the Baptists, the United Church of Christ, the Catholics. Even being saved by the savior is not clear because the bible is not clear.
But, I completely understand why it is psychologically necessary to be convinced that it is simple. As confused as I was during my 25 years as a believer, I still believed it was clear and simple.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am

Bob,

You might have been confused during your 25 years as a believer (it’s a shame you didn’t have a good pastor to unconfuse you),
A decent pastor and theologian can clearly point out to you the message of Law and Gospel that is contained in God’s Word.

The Law is everything that we should, ought, and must be doing to fullfill the demands that existence places upon us (it’s not just the 10 Commandments, although that is part of the law as well).

And the gospel is what God has done in answer to our inability to keep the law. For righteousness, the law must be fullfilled and perfectly. (That is the righteousness of God).

The gospel is that Christ came, lived a perfect life, died (was murdered) for us, and forgave us in the process. he still forgives us our sin and fullfills all the demands of the law for us on that cross.

There you have it. Not too complicated. That is the entire message of the Bible, boiled down to it’s essential elements.
nakedpastor said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am

steve: have you ever considered that someone might take an intellectual stand, spiritual stand, faith stand, any kind of stand, in spite of the efforts of other people to convince him or her otherwise? there are many atheists who have had good theological teachers in the past but made an independent choice to differ.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am

David,

Of course!

It is a good thing that the truth of the Christian faith doesn’t depend on them.

The Holy Spirit opens ears when and where It wills to.

This stuff isn’t dependent on any one of us.
nakedpastor said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 am

but steve, you are assuming that when someone believes differently or even opposite from you, that it’s because of the Holy Spirit not opening their ears. is it possible that bob, an “atheist” who used to be a “believer”, can disagree with you and not be wrong?
bob said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am

Steve, I sat under many ministers while I was a believer. Some were wonderful teachers and very knowledgeable concerning the bible. But I did not go to them with every question or concern that came up. I preferred to read, study, and pray on my own. I felt that I would learn much more that way, rather than just hearing what someone else believed. I was correct.

Anyway….I give.
r.u.reasonable@gmail.com
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am

“is it possible that bob, an “atheist” who used to be a “believer”, can disagree with you and not be wrong?”

An atheist cannot be right. Bob might be the greatest guy in the world, but there is still a Creator and a Redeemer.

I can’t convince him of that, but it is still true. By faith, and faith alone, I have been made a believer of that.

Common sense alone tells us that something couldn’t come from nothing, but only God can make someone believe in Himself.

I feel no ill will towards unbelievers. I hope and pray that someday the Lord will make believers out of them , too.

I’m no better than anyone (probably a lot worse than most). But if God can make a believer out of me, then He can grab hold of anyone.
bob said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am

btw Steve, everything you stated above, concerning the law, mans inability to keep the law, and Jesus sacrifice as a result, is exactly what I understood and believed for so many years. So, by continuing to explain to me what you believe to be the simple and clear message of the bible, explaining what I already am familiar with, does not bolster your argument. All it does is reaffirm to me what you have already told me you believe.

Belief Reinforcement – …”people form beliefs based on their exposure to ideas and their subsequent consideration, or lack thereof, of those ideas. This is well and good, however once those beliefs have been formed and solidified significantly enough such that a person recognizes them as his or her “beliefs,” the exposure of that person to ideas on a particular topic is limited by that person to ideas that reinforce the beliefs already held.”

I find it amazing (but I shouldn’t) that you can claim it is “simple and clear”, while all around you, me, and everyone, is religious disagreement and confusion.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am

Bob,

Our sinfulness and our agenda muddy the water, and we can distort this simple message quite easily.

But, if we break it down and do a bit of good theology, using the old tried and true method of letting scripture interpret scripture, we are able to discern the problem (us) and the solution (Christ).

Not everybody will get it and come to faith.

Why some come to faith and some don’t, will always be the big question.
bob said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Steve – “Why some come to faith and some don’t, will always be the big question.”

I am guessing that you believe the reason is supernatural. I don’t. You believe my disbelief is a result of me ignoring or rejecting the Holy Spirit, or perhaps the Holy Spirit rejecting me. My disbelief is a result of observation and investigation. I became a believer without the aid of any evidence or facts. I left my faith 25 years later as a result of evidence and facts.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Bob,

No one comes to faith in Christ by what they do. Faith is a gift of God. Jesus said”You don’t choose me, I choose you.”

But we can ceratainly cut ourselves off from His grace. He’s not holding us hostage.

That you wanted to leave is your business. It’s no skin off my nose.

Have it your way.
bob said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Ok, Steve.
nakedpastor said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm

this is not about communion but about the illusion that we know “God” when in fact all we possess is a small piece of information about “God”. We are blind to the greater mysteries.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Steve..”no skin off [yr] nose”……but a lot of callous on those fingers
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm

That we do not “know” God, nor are we able is why He gave us His Supper.

He wanted to cram Himself down our throats, because that;s the only way he could be assured that we would take Him in.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Sounds cannabalistic Steve…I mean I had a salad for dinner,but I can’t say that I somehow ‘know it’
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm

“cram himself down our throats”…are you sure you didn’t get this from Monty Python?…..Gastronomical Theology…cd be an original?
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm

“Sounds cannabalistic Steve…”

That’s exactly what they thought when Jesus told them to do it.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Maybe they were vegetarian.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 pm

He said (John 6:53) Truly, truly (He was serious) I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
And He goes on a bit more about eating of Him.

We (Lutherans) believe that He commanded us to do this, so that we would not internalize the Word (anything goes then), but instead we rely oin the external Word, coming to us from outside of ourselves, to accomplish all that is necessary in our salvation.

Keeps us from overly spiritualizing things and conjuring stuff up in our own gray matter. Keeps us grounded in Him, and what5 he has done for us, rather than the other way around (what we do for Him).
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

‘oin’…sounds a bit Jewish!
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm

So this might sound like a silly question Steve, but do you swallow….Him? Wdn’t that be literally internalizing?
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm

FiF,

Have you ever eaten a piece of bread? It’s pretty much like that.

And the blood, it’s akin to taking a sip of wine.

Since He promised to be in whatever He commanded us to do…He is there (somehow) in it. So He is doing in us what He will do in us. So it is ‘extra nos’ from outside of us (to inside of us).

I guess internalizing would be trying to feel a certain way, or trying to be worthy buy your outward obedience, or …I don’t know.

We take and eat, take and drink, and trust that He is continuing to work through these means, and make of us what He will…in spite of how we feel, think, or what we say or do.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm

You mean we’re like the conveyor belt at the cafeteria…our job is to keep the food movin’ thru…the trouble begins when we start thinkin’ that we’re the dishwasher or God forbid, the drink dispenser.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Well, maybe . (drink dispenser…wouldn’t it be great to have one of those at home)

He says to do it if we want to abide in Him…so we do it.

I hope He knows what he’s talking about.

I have a sneaking suspicion that He does.

I know this, it really does keep me off my high horse (most of the time), and puts Him in the saddle where He belongs.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm

“He says to do it if we want to abide in Him…so we do it.”

Sounds like we really have something to do then…. or is it one of those ‘not really us doing it things ‘ again
Tiggy said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm

I’m amazed at how close the Lutheran position is to the Catholic one on this. I had no idea!

‘He wanted to cram Himself down our throats, because that;s the only way he could be assured that we would take Him in.’

Wow, more material for my thesis on erotic language in religion.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm

“Sounds like we really have something to do then…. or is it one of those ‘not really us doing it things ‘ again”

Yeah…know what you mean. But you are right, we do the easy part (adding water -baptism, and bread and wine-communion), but He does the hard part of making it efficacious.
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Well,at least we’re partners
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Tiggy,

LOL!! That sounds like an interesting read!

The Lutherans and Catholics are similar on baptism (not exactly the same) and a bit further apart on the Supper.

We believe that the direction (in the Supper) is from God to us. They believe it is from them to God. For them, they are re-sacrificing Christ, and it must be done by a properly ordained Catholic priest. (we believe that since it is God that is the active One, that a layperson could preside over the administering of the Sacrament. They also believe that the bread and wine ACTUALLY turn into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation) and we (Lutherans) believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine (how-we do not know) but that it is still bread and wine (with Christ there) (consubstantiation).
faithlessinfatima said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Once upon a time when I was an altar boy , in the midst of performing my duties at a wedding, I accidentally allowed Jesus to roll down the aisle, actually there were a number of Jesus’ rolling down the aisle…the priest was not impressed…the wedding at Cana turned into a bingo game…oh,well,that’s Catholicism
Tim Michael said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Steve,

It sounds like Bob and FiFatima have reached an intellectual decision of “atheism.” I shudder typing the word. Remember – scripture and spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. A dead spirit cannot hear or understand the Holy Spirit. I mourn for them.

The atheist need only consider the fingerprint and DNA to come to an intellectual conclusion that there is a God and He is personal. Every human being on the planet throughout history has had their very own uniqueness guaranteed by the Creator in their fingerprint and unique DNA map. Sounds like a Father that loves His children to me. How complex – yet how simple.
Tiggy said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Tim, I’m not sure that you should make statements on other’s behalf. That isn’t the impression I’d got from FIF, but I’ll let him speak for himself.

What I feel about atheism is that by itself it doesn’t create great art – only in the tension of faith and unbelief.
TitforTat said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Common sense alone tells us that something couldn’t come from nothing, but only God can make someone believe in Himself.(Steve)

If you are using common sense then I would ask you again to explain why God says these things.

Isaiah 42:8

8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 43:3&11

3For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Come on Steve, or anyone on here. If you are a bible believing Christian tell me why God does not want a saviour other than himself? No Jesus. Only Lord or Yahweh.
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm

TfT,

I think that is an easy one.

Would you want your children calling another guy, ‘Dad’?
Tiggy said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm

He’s stating the case – not His preferences. Why would there be any other way than God?
steve martin said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 pm

Faithlessinfatima is a believer (I believe), but Bob isn’t.

The great thing abouth the Lord is that He will always welcome us home…even on our deathbeds.
fishon said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm

TitforTat July 23, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Common sense alone tells us that something couldn’t come from nothing, but only God can make someone believe in Himself.(Steve)
If you are using common sense then I would ask you again to explain why God says these things.
Isaiah 42:8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 43:3&11–3For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Come on Steve, or anyone on here. If you are a bible believing Christian tell me why God does not want a saviour other than himself? No Jesus. Only Lord or Yahweh.
———–TfT, I am guessing you know the answer, you just choose to not accept it. Any answer we give will be torn apart by you, so why bother?
fishon
Erp said, on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm

I have to point out to Tim that DNA is not unique. A common case are identical twins who will have the same DNA. Another rarer case are people who are chimeras; they have two distinct sets of DNA (chimeras are formed if two fertilized eggs merge, in contrast to identical twins where one fertilized egg splits, I’ll leave it to theologians to figure out what souls are doing in each case).

Fingerprints are apparently unique but since to have them identical would be like two people each flipping a coin and expecting the pattern of heads and tails to be the same for each even after several thousand flips, this isn’t surprising.

(BTW I enjoy the cartoons though my views are more like Bob’s)
bob said, on July 24th, 2009 at 6:42 am

Tim Michael ~ “It sounds like Bob and FiFatima have reached an intellectual decision of “atheism.” I shudder typing the word.”
Why? It simply means no god belief. Even young children have no god belief. What do you think it means?

Tim ~ “Remember – scripture and spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. A dead spirit cannot hear or understand the Holy Spirit. I mourn for them.”
This is religious-speak. You are talking of these things (spirits) as if you KNOW they exist. You only BELIEVE they exist.

Tim ~ “The atheist need only consider the fingerprint and DNA to come to an intellectual conclusion that there is a God and He is personal.”
Then faith is not necessary? I can KNOW God exists by looking through a microscope? How does one conclude that God is real based on the uniqueness of each individual? I don’t think this is biblical, is it?

Tim ~ “Every human being on the planet throughout history has had their very own uniqueness…”
I agree.

“…guaranteed by the Creator… ”
I disagree. You are offering your opinion, your belief. Tell me, was it the discovery and study of DNA that lead you to Christ? My guess is no.

Tim ~ “Sounds like a Father that loves His children to me. How complex – yet how simple.”
Amazing! You equate the uniqueness of our DNA with the love of your God. Tell me Tim, when a child is born severally deformed, suffers for months running up huge medical bills for his distraught parents, then dies after severe convulsions, do you, at that point, thank God for loving that child so much as to give it a wonderfully unique DNA?
ttm said, on July 24th, 2009 at 8:06 am

Tim, I SHUDDER to think how my atheist son will hate Christianity even more than he already does after encountering people who “love” atheists like you do.

Come on, you have to admit Scripture is NOT simple. None of us (not even Bible-touting, theology-shouting fundamentalists) have perfect minds to understand God. God has gone/and continues to go to great lengths to remain a mystery. For Christians to claim that their understanding of God is the “right” one because it is based on the Bible seems (at least to me) to be both too simplistic (not acknowledging things such as the difficulty of translation or cultural context or the unique filter of each reader) and arrogant (or at the very least, not very gracious).

I am entertaining the hope that your life will be suddenly inundated by atheists and cantankerous Christians like me, because it might be good for you to see that regardless of whether they agree with your beliefs, they are people who are just as complicated and in need of love and respect as you are. REAL people who are just as offended by being told they are not examining all the evidence as you would be. REAL people who are still alive and who might understandably feel marginalized when you mourn for their “dead spirits.”

I think I’m going to go buy an “I love atheists” T-shirt now. ;^)
TitforTat said, on July 24th, 2009 at 10:11 am

Any answer we give will be torn apart by you, so why bother?
fishon

Funny, I was thinking that could be an answer written by NP in regards to you.

You sure like to dish it out. Im not so sure you like to debate though.
fishon said, on July 24th, 2009 at 11:10 am

ttm July 24, 2009 at 8:06 am
Tim, I SHUDDER to think how my atheist son will hate Christianity even more than he already does after encountering people who “love” atheists like you do.
———–Very interesting, ttm. I was taught, if you will, atheism and was one until I was 33, but was taught not to hate. Had many Christian friends. Of course they tried to convert me, and I knew they believed I would go to hell if not converted. Funny, I thought they were telling me all that stuff cause they liked me/loved me—-so no hate in me. Thank goodness I had parents that taught love/tolerance for a Christian—-Wow!—-not knowing I would become one.
fishon
steve martin said, on July 24th, 2009 at 11:14 am

Fishon,

Excellent. It is out of love, that we speak of Christ.

Thank you.
fishon said, on July 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am

TitforTat July 24, 2009 at 10:11 am
Any answer we give will be torn apart by you, so why bother?
fishon
You sure like to dish it out. Im not so sure you like to debate though.
———–I’m not sure everyone on here would agree with you. Now complain about my style [or lack of] of debate, yea, I am not the most ‘politically correct,’ but to not debate??????
fishon
TitforTat said, on July 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am

fishon

Well then, why not answer my question so I can tear it apart. That is part of debating, isnt it?
fishon said, on July 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

tft,
Time constrants place picking and choosing what to debate about on this blog. And frankly, I believe you know exactly what I or others defending what you suggest from Isaiah will say. It is nothing new to you. Your same worn out agrument will debate my same worn out agrument——–circles, man, circles. I refuse to run in circles because of your game playing. And one other thing, tft, I and others, of my persuasion, have, in the past, asked you many questions to which you did NOT answer.
“Godhead.”

fishon
Tiggy said, on July 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Most people I know believe in God, but not the god of the Old Testament, not the god who smites and is full of anger and hatred. Most of humanity has reached a stage where we are more moral than that god. We have a greater understanding of what makes people do things and how punishment rarely improves. This is the major objection I see to Christianity today. Jesus talked about a God of love. There are other things mixed in th ere that people will point to, but the overwhelming picture is of a God who cares. This god is also present in the OT, but hell that was a long time ago and people were just so tribal! They can be now, but there is increasing globalisation which can have benefits in making people more internationally minded.
Tim Michael said, on July 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am

Wow – I can only check back on these comments periodically so keeping up with them is quite a task. I’ll try to summarize again…
The fish is right – no matter what “argument” the believer presents, the atheist will find some random example of why they excercise THEIR faith that there is no GOD. Interestingly they say “something can’t come from nothing” but never explain where MATTER came from. Some say “it always was” some say “Big Bang” regardless – it’s akin to explaining where our infinite God came from… Additionally, they call us “hateful” or “unloving” all the while unconstrained by the concept of “love” because they are Godless so they have no such principle by which to live. If they claim they do, then they have some explaining to do – what is love and where did it come from? And finally – creation declares God’s glory so the unbeliever is without excuse – not necessarily to draw people to God. That said, it provides the “tension” to the unbeliever.

People can say they know something “intuitively” and then proven right when this or that comes to pass. The secular world accepts this notion daily (intuitiveness). Yet when the ancient prophets and psalmists spoke of The Messiah hundreds of years before his manifestation and it came to pass – this is somehow not accepted as fulfilled prophecies?. Scripture testifies of it’s own accuracy and yet the gnat strainers will always have a “what about” question while never acknowledging/stipulating the truth therein. I think this is analogous to the old addage – never wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig seems to enjoy it. Or maybe we could just point to Jesus words in not casting our pearls before swine. The atheists just want to dress up their unbelief with lipstick.

If I missed the mark on “faithless” my apologies – I gleaned something from the name or comments that caused me to arrive at that conclusion. So sorry FIF.

And finally – we live in a hostile environment that came with the fall of the adamites so while we WERE created in His image and likeness, our procreativity in sin is bound to present some awful results, yet those are no less God’s children. I’ve had enough tragedy in my own life to know its pain, but I’m thankful The Comforter – The Father – The Savior (these 3 are 1) was there to help me. TTM – I love you and your son. I find it interesting (and not very gracious) you could claim to know my heart and judge me that way. You don’t have a clue about me brother. I have a number of atheist friends that I love (and love on daily). Yank the plank then spread your “cantankerousness,” but don’t spew at me beacause I am unwilling to “accept” their eternal death and then call THAT love because it is nothing of the sort. I’ll hit the site back another day and I can only imagine the “pearls” of wisdom that await. And someone let me know where I can find one of those T-shirts because I want one too. I love you all – raaaaaallllly I do.
fishon said, on July 25th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Tiggy July 24, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Most people I know believe in God, but not the god of the Old Testament, not the god who smites and is full of anger and hatred.
———–Wow! Most the people I know do believe in the God of the OT. But then, we do run in different circles.

Most of humanity has reached a stage where we are more moral than that god.
———-Now that is just plain laughable. I won’t waste the time explaining the horrors going on in the world at this very moment.

Jesus talked about a God of love.
——–Yes he did. But people like to pick and choose what that means. By the way, if God is love, what kind of love is it to send your son to the brutal cross? That is an arguement that some use to denounce a loving God. Explain please.

This god is also present in the OT, but hell that was a long time ago and people were just so tribal! They can be now, but there is increasing globalisation which can have benefits in making people more internationally minded.
——–Hum! Jewish holocaust——the very present African holocaust. WW2 internation—–Iraq, not much international—–Terrorist bombs from Russia–Indonesia–England–USA, yep, internationally minded.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

By ‘most of humanity’ I mean the ordinary people incluing women and children who don’t have any desire to kill or maim others The people who take part in atrocities are still a minority. Most people would not order the killing of whole populations, including women and babies for instance as the God of the Old Testament did – allegedly.

Well WWII and the Holocaust are going back a bit. I’m talking present day and the increasing identification with an international community through business and the Internet, rather than tribalism or nationalism. This is a growing trend. We’ve seen the end of the Cold War and now there is a different attitude to Iraq coming from the US government.

The picture of God sending his son to die is a comlex one. It is also stated as God dying on the cross and as Jesus being crucified by the Romans. There are different ways of looking at it.
fishon said, on July 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Tiggy July 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm
. Most people would not order the killing of whole populations, including women and babies for instance as the God of the Old Testament did – allegedly.
——-True. However, He is God and I ain’t. His ways I do not understand. But if I want to make a lego god, I will just ignore the parts I don’t understand or like, then I can be fully content with my god. I will have faith in my God, warts and all [as some people see Him], and go about my business. All the unanswered questions, well I trust God knows what he is doing.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

It’s not a question of accepting God as He is or not, it’s a question of whether those descriptions are of what we understand to be God. The understanding of God’s character has clearly changed and evolved over the centuries. It would be a bit odd if it hadn’t.
fishon said, on July 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Well WWII and the Holocaust are going back a bit. I’m talking present day and the increasing identification with an international community through business and the Internet, rather than tribalism or nationalism. This is a growing trend.
——–tiggy, I wrote up a list of tribal and national conflicts going on at this very moment. Some how I deleted them, so I am not goint to write them again. But needless to say—-your idea of a brave new international community is not close to reality. Just one example: Bosnia—Take the troops out and guess what??
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

You really think nationalism has the importance it once had?
fishon said, on July 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Tiggy July 25, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You really think nationalism has the importance it once had?
————Oh yes. Just let Japan attack Pearl Harbor again and watch what would happen. Or maybe Japan attacking China. Columbia invade Venezalua would be ugly. Iran and Isarel seem to be pretty national.

———–I am not saying things haven’t changed, they have. Yes, more commerce is diversified, but that does not necessarily equate to doing away with or minimizing nationalism.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Why would Japan attack Pearl Harbour or China? Most of the increasingly young population of Iran want a more Western lifestyle and aren’t particularly nationalistic. I’m not saying people don’t want better things for their country, but it’s nothing like the kind of nationalism you got pre WW2
fishon said, on July 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

On to another debate, twiggy.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 25th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Could people please stop calling me ‘Twiggy’. It’s not like I’m thin.

I have had good news this evening and I’m going to bed to bask in it.
ttm said, on July 26th, 2009 at 12:11 am

Tim Michael,

Let me see if I’ve got this right…

1. You don’t believe that any argument presented to an atheist will persuade an atheist to believe in God, yet you continue to argue with atheists to save them (you hope) from eternal death.

2. You believe that atheists ought to be able to explain where matter came from (other than with “unprovable” theories such as the Big Bang theory or the theory of “it always was”), yet you expect atheists to embrace your “unprovable” theories that God exists and that He created matter because your beliefs are rational and obvious.

3. If your point was that people concerned with matter should be able to give a detailed account of the origins of matter, to be fair, couldn’t an atheist say to you that people concerned with God should be able to give a detailed account of the origins of God? And if your argument would be “God has no origin,” doesn’t that sound about as plausible to an atheist as “Matter always was” sounds to a Christian?

4. You believe that atheists are incapable of demonstrating love– or at least are incapable of demonstrating a “constraining” (I’m not sure what that means exactly–maybe sacrificial would be a synonym?) love? Really? So, atheists just by virtue of what they believe cannot be loving?

5. If an atheist claims to be able to love, you would only accept it as love if he could define love and its origins to your satisfaction?

6. You believe that all atheists are ignoring creation’s endorsement of God and therefore live in a constant state of tension?

And you “love on” these people you define as stubborn (1), inflexible (1), ignorant (2. and 3.), loveless (4.), foolish (5.), and stressed out (5.) people on a daily basis. And knowing that you feel this way about them, they call you friend in return?

Wow. That’s amazing! I’m not being sarcastic. The fact that you can make such statements about people and have them still want to be in close (daily) relationship with you says a lot about their capacity to love. Maybe all the atheists out there ought to don their “I love Christians.” T-shirts.

My son might wear one…if it said, “They make me laugh.” on the back. ;^)

Thanks for the dialogue.
Tiggy said, on July 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

How can anyone have a good relationship with someone they think is in immanent danger of going to Hell and Damnation? Surely it would affect your whole relationship. You would be panicking on their behalf in the same way you would if you saw them teetering on the edge of an abyss. You would be beseeching with them and in a terrible state of distress for their future. You couldn’t just have a normal relationship. Maybe Christians don’t take Hell seriously enough or else they have highly compartmentalised minds.
fishon said, on July 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Tiggy July 26, 2009 at 4:56 pm
How can anyone have a good relationship with someone they think is in immanent danger of going to Hell and Damnation? Surely it would affect your whole relationship.
————-I don’t think anyone said it would not affect a relationship. And tiggy, we all compartmentalize.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

That’s true – I’m sure I compartmentalise about people dying in third world countries, but that’s a bit different to having your friend before you and feeling them to be in immanent danger.
fishon said, on July 26th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

tiggy,
We all handle things differently. I have a son that will not accept the Lord, and my mother never did. We all learn to cope.
fishon
bob said, on July 27th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Tiggy – “How can anyone have a good relationship with someone they think is in immanent danger of going to Hell and Damnation? Surely it would affect your whole relationship. You would be panicking on their behalf in the same way you would if you saw them teetering on the edge of an abyss. You would be beseeching with them and in a terrible state of distress for their future. You couldn’t just have a normal relationship. Maybe Christians don’t take Hell seriously enough or else they have highly compartmentalised minds.”

Tiggy, I say this, not as an insult, but as an observation from experience inside and outside of Christianity.

The only explanation I can offer as to why the vast majority of believers can just ignore the idea of “hell”, other than when the minister preaches on it Sunday morning, is that they really don’t believe it exists. I think most believers would probably go out of their way to warn people of impending physical harm. Even to the extent of trying to physically move someone if a train, bus, plane, car, elephant, etc, were heading their way. But when it comes to hell, most well never utter a single word. I do not blame them. I am not being critical. I am just concluding, based on my 25 years as a believer, and the past 9 years as a non believer, that believers really do not believe hell is a real place. They may claim that they do, in casual conversation. Perhaps even in a discussion with a relative or close friend. But the vast majority will not loose any sleep over the idea of a friend or loved one who does not believe.
So what to conclude: Do they just not care? Perhaps. But I think what it comes down to is that they really don’t believe what they believe they are supposed to believe.
Just my observations.
Tiggy said, on July 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who suggested that was due to a lack of imagination – not sure if that’s the reason though.
fishon said, on July 27th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Bob,
Interesting take.
However, the rant and ravings of folks that take on many fundementalist is that they teach, preach, and talk about hell to much.

Well, Bob, based on my 33 years as an atheist and and 29 years as a Christian, I hear lots of Christians talk of hell to others. By the way, we can’t shove-um out of the way of hell like we can with a bearing down, speeding car or train.

YOU: But the vast majority will not loose any sleep over the idea of a friend or loved one who does not believe.
Bob, my son is a non-believer and if he was to die today he would go to hell. I do NOT lose sleep over it. So, Bob, what is wrong with me?
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 27th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

You tell us, Fishon, what IS wrong with you?

I don’t know what it’s like in Canada, but in England Hell isn’t preached much – certainly not in Anglican churches or even in the charismatic independent one I go to now. Maybe that’s just an English thing, but even those who talk about Hell don’t seem to worry too much about the majority of humankind going there.
fishon said, on July 27th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

tiggy,
I am from Oregon, USA, not Canada.

Tiggy, I submit, if your basic knowledge of Christianity is basically local, England, then there is much for you to learn about the rest of the World’s Christianity. Wow! I don’t mean that to sound so arrogant. My quad mate in Bible College was a 32 year old Christian from Congo. He was also a College prof. of Chemistry. He taught me that my little world of Christianity was wayyyyyyyy isolated. He is the most spiritual man I have ever met.

No, I won’t tell you what is wrong with me. I am waiting for Bob to tell me what is wrong with me. He seems to assume that if I don’t lose sleep because my son is on his way to hell, something is wrong with me. He made the assumption–he can answer.
fishon
faithlessinfatima said, on July 28th, 2009 at 7:44 am

Speaking like a fundamentalist, is hell real because it’s biblical, therefore of divine origin …..or with respect to the historical roots of all cultural artifacts , can it’s appearance be traced to particular time and place (like apocalyptism) and therefore human? This is not to say that human ideas can’t be a map to other realities beyond our experience.

A better question wd be ….Did hell deserve it’s fall…was it a good idea or bad?
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am

I do have some knowledge of Christianity in the US and Latin America, as well as in a few other places – just not Canada where I was assuming most of the people on this blog are from. (I knew you weren’t Fishon) I’m also aware of how diverse it is even within countries.

Fishon, I was just assuming you’d say that you trust in God and His righteousness regarding Hell. But of course I may be totally wrong.

HELL IN JUDAISM

Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife, but it does have a mystical/Orthodox tradition of describing Gehenna. Gehenna is not Hell, but rather a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life’s deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one’s own shortcomings and negative actions during one’s life. The Kabbalah describes it as a “waiting room” (commonly translated as an “entry way”) for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 11 months, however there has been the occasional noted exception. Some consider it a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Olam Habah (heb. ???? ???; lit. “The world to come”, often viewed as analogous to Heaven). This is also mentioned in the Kabbalah, where the soul is described as breaking, like the flame of a candle lighting another: the part of the soul that ascends being pure and the “unfinished” piece being reborn.

According to Jewish teachings, hell is not entirely physical; rather, it can be compared to a very intense feeling of shame. People are ashamed of their misdeeds and this constitutes suffering which makes up for the bad deeds. When one has so deviated from the will of God, one is said to be in gehinom. This is not meant to refer to some point in the future, but to the very present moment. The gates of teshuva (return) are said to be always open, and so one can align his will with that of God at any moment. Being out of alignment with God’s will is itself a punishment according to the Torah.
Note: the Torah itself does not actually mention the afterlife – what is called in Judaism, ‘The World To Come’.
bob said, on July 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am

fishon -” Bob, Interesting take. However, the rant and ravings of folks that take on many fundementalist is that they teach, preach, and talk about hell to much.”

Some may see it that way, but I do not. I live in the south. I am surrounded by believers. In my little part of the state, in my two-county phone book Yellow Pages, there are about 250 Christian churches. I have lived here since 1991. I have never had anyone, other than a minister on TV or a minister in church, mention hell. I have never had anyone come to me personally, and speak of hell.
I come in contact, professionally, with literally thousands of people who I know for a fact, attend church regularly. Many of my clients are the churches themselves (church schools and childcare centers), and I have never had any of the staff talk to me about hell, God, Jesus, eternity, etc.

I am not quite sure what to conclude…
1 – They are either uncaring, which I don’t think applies to most.
2 – They either assume that I, like most, already believe, which I am sure many assume.
3 – They really don’t believe what they believe they should believe.

I guess it is probably a combination.

“Well, Bob, based on my 33 years as an atheist and and 29 years as a Christian, I hear lots of Christians talk of hell to others.”
Do you hear, with your ears, people talking to other Christians about hell, or people talking to non believers? Because I, as a non believer, never hear any talk of hell unless I tune the TV or radio to a minister who happens to mention it in a sermon, or likewise, if I happen to visit a church when the minister talks of hell.

“By the way, we can’t shove-um out of the way of hell like we can with a bearing down, speeding car or train.”
Obviously.

“Bob, my son is a non-believer and if he was to die today he would go to hell.”
That is what you believe, I guess.

” I do NOT lose sleep over it. So, Bob, what is wrong with me?”
I don’t think there is anything wrong with you. I am guessing you have talked of hell, at some point, with your son. You have probably done all that you feel you can or should do for him.
fishon said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Bob asked: Do you hear, with your ears, people talking to other Christians about hell, or people talking to non believers?
———-As I give you question some thought, I guess you may be right. Mostly Christians talking to other Chrisitans.

“Bob, my son is a non-believer and if he was to die today he would go to hell.”
That is what you believe, I guess.
——-Yes, Bob, that is what I believe because of what the Bible teaches. If it was up to me I would make my own lego god [like carlton Peason who the thought of his grandparents drove him from the God of the Bible]. I could go on, but I would bore you.

I am guessing you have talked of hell, at some point, with your son. You have probably done all that you feel you can or should do for him.
———-Right.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

SO, bearing in mind my post on Jewish understanding of the afterlife, how did Jesus get from his Jewish beliefs and upbringing – Torah and Talmud led – to whatever some Christians think he believed about Hell? I mean parables aside – parables are parables after all.
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. These three terms have different meanings and must be recognized.

Tartarus occurs only once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 and is translated as a place of incarceration of demons. It mentions nothing about human souls being sent there in the afterlife.

Hades has similarities to the Old Testament term, Sheol as “the place of the dead”, or in other words, the grave. Thus, it is used in reference to both the righteous and the wicked, since both wind up there eventually.[9]

Gehenna refers to the “Valley of Hinnon”, which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[10] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection.[11]
bob said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

bob – “That is what you believe, I guess.”

fishon – “Yes, Bob, that is what I believe because of what the Bible teaches.”

I find this method of determining what to believe to be perplexing. I know I believed like that also, but I honestly don’t remember what it was like, believing that way.

I know this is wasteful and unproductive, but it apparently hasn’t stopped me before

I guess, if your answer is “…I believe because of what the Bible teaches.”, my next question would have to be, “Why do you believe what the bible teaches?” It is at this point that I find the usual responses to be circular in logic. Not saying yours will be, if you respond, but that they usually are. I never get a good R E A S O N for placing ones faith in what the bible says.

Oh well.

ps – is fishon pronounced fish-on? When i go fishing with my dad, and he hooks one, he yells “Fish on!”
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Or indeed, reason for believing that that is what the Bible teaches.
bob said, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Interesting Tiggy.

Late in my Christian experience, I had trouble with the idea of hell. It has been so long since I thought about it, but wasn’t there a comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah? Seems I either remember it from the bible or may remember a minister making the comparison, but I remember thinking about that comparison and kind of changing from my belief that hell was eternal in its punishing “action” (souls live on forever in the eternal torment of fire) to hell was eternal in its punishing “effect” (souls are completely destroyed by hell-fire). I rationalized this because the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah eventually went out once all were consumed, and so would the fires of hell.
Ah, religion.
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Geological evidence suggests that there actually was some sort of natural disaster there. There’s thought to have been some influence, maybe via Greek thought, of the Egyptian idea of Hell which is just that – a fire that totally consumes the person. That’s the thing with the image of Hell as fiery – fire tends to consume quite quickly so no one would be around for long.
fishon said, on July 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

tiggy asked: how did Jesus get from his Jewish beliefs and upbringing – Torah and Talmud led – to whatever some Christians think he believed about Hell?
———-I don’t know. What matters is, he did.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

How do you know that?
fishon said, on July 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

bob said/asked:I know this is wasteful and unproductive, but it apparently hasn’t stopped me before

I guess, if your answer is “…I believe because of what the Bible teaches.”, my next question would have to be, “Why do you believe what the bible teaches?” It is at this point that I find the usual responses to be circular in logic. Not saying yours will be, if you respond, but that they usually are. I never get a good R E A S O N for placing ones faith in what the bible says.

Oh well.

ps – is fishon pronounced fish-on? When i go fishing with my dad, and he hooks one, he yells “Fish on!”
———Bob, when I hook a Steelhead, I say fish on so fast that I just call myself, ‘fishon.’ Oh, it also has to do that I am a fisher of men. My atheist son says ‘fishon,’ too. Haven’t you picked up that phrase yet–or don’t you have enough——-FISHON?

———-To answer your question, Why do I believe what the Bible teaches?
I suppose part of my answer would be just as circular as others. Though I don’t know what the problem would be with a circular anwser? 1+1=2 and the answer to how 1+1=2 is circular.
Bob, I could go into great detail as to why I believe what the Bible teaches, but what would be the point? You have heard it all before. I am not unique. I am no different than the millions that believe what the Bible teaches. If their answers are not sufficent for you; if as you say they are circular, then I have nothing new for you.

You don’t believe what the Bible says about many different issues, I do. I don’t believe your reasons for not believing any more are sufficent–you don’t believe my reasons to believe are sufficent——-I do know this——TIME WILL TELL.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

But how do you know that what Jesus believed and what it says he believed in the Bible are t he same as later Christian thought on Hell? I was expecting you to quote bits from the gospels.

And why are you ignoring me and just talking to Bob?
bob said, on July 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

fishon – “I suppose part of my answer would be just as circular as others. Though I don’t know what the problem would be with a circular anwser?”
No problem with using circular reasoning, if you accept it as a valid answer to your question. I just can’t accept it myself.

“1+1=2 and the answer to how 1+1=2 is circular.”
I don’t think so.
fishon said, on July 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
But how do you know that what Jesus believed and what it says he believed in the Bible are t he same as later Christian thought on Hell? I was expecting you to quote bits from the gospels.
————-I don’t care what later Christians thought on hell. I only care about what I understand the Bible to teach. And, Tiggy, I looked up some scripture, but decided to not use them. Would it have made a difference? I doubt it; you know them as well as I do.

And why are you ignoring me and just talking to Bob?
———-Didn’t realize that I was. Short answers don’t mean ignoring.
fishon
Tiggy said, on July 28th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

ACTUALLY, I don’t know them. I expect I’d recognise t hem, but I don’t know what they are offhand or where to find them. I suppose I should read the Bible more, but I don’t like all the numbers everywhere. I’m a bit phobic about numbers and that’s why I didn’t carry on learning theology – I hated having to quote numbers.

What does the Bible indicate that Jesus believed, because I only know what the church taught later and that probably coloured how I saw what Jesus was saying? People didn’t have copies of the Bible for a very long time – they only had pictures of hell on the walls of churches and whatever the priest said.
fishon said, on July 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

tiggy,
e-mail me at pastorkrew@hotmail.com
fishon
faithlessinfatima said, on July 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Tiggy said, “What does the Bible indicate that Jesus believed, because I only know what the church taught later and that probably coloured how I saw what Jesus was saying?”

I think that you mean ‘much later’, but I believe that you inadvertently gave an accurate description of our primary sources(Gospels,Acts,Paul) You seem to make the assumption we can get behind it, but where can we go(Gospel of Thomas????) to get ‘behind it’? We don’t have contemporary eyewitness accounts, and the ones we do have are nothing but coloured, and they don’t appear to be too afraid to use their own paint set.
Tiggy said, on July 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm

No, I wanted to know what Jesus said in the Gospels without having to wade through them myself at this present time because I was busy. I don’t have my concordance with me here. I have my doubts about the Gospel of St. Thomas, though not necessarily about the others.

By the way, in looking this up I came across all that ‘St. Jerome and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ stuff. I can’t find the website related to the book now which is really annoying – will have to recreate my trail of links. Don’t know if anyone’s read it, but it’s a bit difficult to assess the arguments unless you’re a scholar of New Testament Greek and the meanings of the words used for durations of time. Though apparently there’s a lot more to it than that if you read to the end. It sounds like an interesting read whatever.
Tiggy said, on July 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

The book is called, predicatbly, ‘The Jerome Conspiracy’. The basis is t hat the Church has covered up the differences between the earliest versions of the 4 gospels and the later translations.

Did the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some early copies of the gospels? Not apocryphal ones, the main four.

nakedpastor

The Author

Subscribe

The Pages

The Search

The Categories

The Associates

The Archives

The Meta

cartoon: ball and chain PART 2

140 Responses to 'cartoon: ball and chain PART 2'

Leave a Reply