ouch.

but funny

Seriously, Brendt, in the last three years I have added significantly to my ponderings as many images have become ubiquitous in the Christian internet. Here are a few that I present in question form:

1. Has a part of the church set up culture as an idol, including many who claim the gospel is transcultural?

2. Has a part of the church become enthralled with days gone by and repackaged the past to accommodate their longings?

3. Has a part of the church become so obsessed with castigating the present circumstances that they have inadvertantly projected God as losing the spiritual war?

4. Has a part of the church become so fixated on the sins and errors of others that they have ceased being fixated on Christ?

5. Has a part of the church become very adept of searching for, finding, and exposing the doctrinal and personal variances of some of today’s ministers but are equally adept at ignoring major doctrinal and personal variances of the dead theologians to which they pay homage?

6. Has a part of the church presented Christianity in a Pollyannish way that projects a self serving utopia rather than the bloody and messy job which is the redemption of the lost and the struggles of the redeemed?

And in light of these questions and others like them, has a part of the church changed the essence of Christianity and has now erected a stone, doctrinal monument and called it Christ?

you become what you…yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnn

Mindless hate? Where? And for what?

–Maybe Jazz is speaking of himself?–

No.

–Really I have no idea where Jazz is coming from–

Then you should read the OP.

So still don’t know where you are coming from as it seems that where ever IT is there is no humor and joy…

iggy

I refute the “mindless hate” characterization. I have a mind.

Yet we all know what the OP is saying

We do? Hmmm, suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.

Please enlighten me, jazz.

so…jazz…

you’re saying that this statement shouldn’t be joked about?

Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country

Are you saying that Christians should place their trust in the government?

Are you saying that Christians in America should believe in the idea of an inherent and absolute morality that is America’s?

–We do? Hmmm, suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.–

–In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.–

Consider yourself enlightened.

–Apparently it offends Jazz that the 50’s and 60’s may not have been the “good ole days” as some people seem to act like and promote…–

No.

–you’re saying that this statement shouldn’t be joked about?

Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country–

That statement is a part of the OP.

–Are you saying that Christians should place their trust in the government?–

What does that statement mean?

–Are you saying that Christians in America should believe in the idea of an inherent and absolute morality that is America’s?–

What does that statement mean?

What the hell is EP so upset with?

Is he saying that its malicious to reference the sin of the past when the past is viewed as some sort of golden age to return to?

Or is he saying that blacks weren’t lynched and Jews weren’t excluded from country clubs in those days gone by?

But, then again, when your ideology is based on your self-righteousness its probably untenable when someone points out the sin of your ideal situation.

What the hell is EP so upset with?

Prescient knowledge that you were going to say “hell”?

ummm….jazz….

are you dense?

The ‘OP’ is clearly a piece of satire.

so if you take issue with it, look at the content.

The piece states:
Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

Why do you take issue with this satirical statement?

Do you think there is an inherent morality in America and therefore resent it if such an idea gets poked at?

that’s what those questions mean.

Why else would you take issue with the obvious satire unless you feel yourself the object of the satire?

–I’m supposed to “consider [myself] enlightened” because you quote something that I said?–

You are the one who wrote “… suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.”

–What the hell is EP so upset with? –

Do the moderators here now allow profanity?

–Is he saying that its malicious to reference the sin of the past when the past is viewed as some sort of golden age to return to?–

No.

–Or is he saying that blacks weren’t lynched and Jews weren’t excluded from country clubs in those days gone by?–

No.

–But, then again, when your ideology is based on your self-righteousness its probably untenable when someone points out the sin of your ideal situation.–

Such nonsense is not worth an answer.

–are you dense?–

irrelevant.

–The ‘OP’ is clearly a piece of satire. –

Common tactic here–defend the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is “only humor”.

–so if you take issue with it, look at the content.–

If you defend it, look at the content.

–Why do you take issue with this satirical statement?–

It is a misrepresentation.

–Do you think there is an inherent morality in America and therefore resent it if such an idea gets poked at?–

What are you asking?

–Why else would you take issue with the obvious satire unless you feel yourself the object of the satire?–

The satire is a lie.

Jazzact really believes this wasn’t satire?

So he thinks that the author was advocating a return to 1950s era theology, policies and worldview and if that were to happen then Christians could go back to unquestioningly trusting government?

Does that really jive with what the authors of this website have in the past advocated?

And if he’s upset that a straight reading of this article is true, then isn’t he actually agreeing with the satirical reading of this piece witch the author has now affirmed?

To re-iterate: what the hell is Jazz so upset about?

I have absolutely no clue what Jazzact is upset about. Can someone clue me in?

–So, yes, it is likely we allow some ‘profanity’, as you might define it, but we also allow you, pastorboy, Ken, etc. to use uncharitable, un-Christ-like speech to describe other believers, as well. –

And then…

–Seriously, folks, its no wonder fundies are considered to be a sanctimonious, humorless, parsimonious lot… they prove it over, and over, and over again…–

Irony.

–Jazzact really believes this wasn’t satire?–

No.

–So he thinks that the author was advocating a return to 1950s era theology, policies and worldview and if that were to happen then Christians could go back to unquestioningly trusting government?–

No.

–Does that really jive with what the authors of this website have in the past advocated?–

No.

–And if he’s upset that a straight reading of this article is true, then isn’t he actually agreeing with the satirical reading of this piece witch the author has now affirmed?–

(yawn) No.

–So that’s your reason for (only) quoting back to me what I could have read myself?–

If you needed reminding…

–I have absolutely no clue what Jazzact is upset about. Can someone clue me in?–

Read the OP.

Who is the target of yous(sic) satire?

I might hazard a guess, though Brendt could confirm this…

…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…

Perhaps you don’t know anyone like this, but I run into them from time to time…

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

Sure Jazz, Sure. Maybe when we’re done playing that game, we can all get into a corner and start chanting, “the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.”

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

You know the problem with this statement is that in the Bible, we never read of people becoming what they hate. We always read of people, in this case Israel, becoming what they love, in their case, the idols and false gods they worship.

We who happen to believe in the grace of God are becoming more and more like the gracious God who is compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in love.

You should note what you are becoming or already are. I suspect it reflects the sort of god you follow.

jerry

Jazz.

Seriously,

why can’t you answer the question?

You really don’t think something is satire when it speaks of Ozzie Nelson and Hugh Beaumont taking over the government?

I mean, they’re dead and all…

Isn’t the joke obvious then? Satire is designed to poke fun at things. You may not like it, but to name something for what it does not add up to “an excuse”.

So again, it’s a satirical poke at the myth that the past was a time when America was living up to inherent righteousness.

Do you think America ever enjoyed or enjoys some kind of moral exceptionalism?

yes or no?

If yes: Is that why you’re all butt-hurt about this April Fool’s Day post?

If no: Then what exactly is up your butt about it?

These are not a hard questions, Jazz.

But it’s classic, Jazz. You’ve learned well from the imams. Don’t answer questions, just make claims and then trot out “you become what you hate” instead of actually dealing with the issues.

You ask for the “targets” of the satire.
Well, who do you think the targets are?

I don’t see any names other than some political figures and some dead actors.

Just in case you forgot:

Do you think America ever enjoyed or enjoys some kind of moral exceptionalism?

yes or no?

If yes: Is that why you’re all butt-hurt about this April Fool’s Day post?

If no: Then what exactly is up your butt about it?

Brendt: Who or what do I hate?

jazz: Who is the target of you satire.

Although all you didn’t actually answer my questions, I’m going to assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re implying that I “hate” the target of my satire.

Next to “racism”, “hate” is probably the most over-used and inapplicable word in the American vernacular these days. Please explain to me how you have divined that I “hate” the target of my satire.

And try not to do it in the form of a question. This is not Jeopardy.

…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…

Chris L is on the right track. That was one of two targets.

The other target is those who trust in gov’t, and refuse to trust in God. “But wait”, you say, “I’m not one of those goofs that thought that if he got elected, Obama was personally going to cut a monthly check for my rent. I don’t trust in gov’t.” But that’s not the only way to trust in gov’t.

Ever since November 4, the amount of fear in much of the church at large has sky-rocketed. Why? We (rightly) hold in derision the ideas of the afore-mentioned goofs, but then we run around like Chicken Little.

God was on the throne on November 3.

God was on the throne on November 5.

If the way that you lived changed significantly as a result of the election, then you’re not trusting in God.

To be sure, if you feel that the leadership change brought about a greater hostility to Christianity, then maybe there ought to be some change in your heart. But it ought to be to drive you closer to God and to increase your trust in Him. Which, in turn, ought to make you bolder (perfect love casting out all fear, and such). I’m not seeing a lot of that.

Wiser men than I have said that “gov’t can’t save you”. Many — even the targets of the satire — would probably acknowledge assent to that idea. But here’s the thing: gov’t can’t damn you, either.

–…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…–

An answer, at least in part.

Who are these people?

–While you might ascribe to the old “repeat a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed“, your old ‘you become what you hate’ saw is as much of a lie now as when you first uttered it…–

Says the person so becoming.

–why can’t you answer the question?–

What question have I not answered?

–Please explain to me how you have divined that I “hate” the target of my satire.–

Have you not read what you wrote? I have even repeated it back to you.

–And try not to do it in the form of a question. This is not Jeopardy.–

I will answer as I see fit.

So, to want good and godly leaders is to “trust in government”?

“F” for Reading Comprehension, jazz…

Here’s what Brendt said:

Brendt: If the way that you lived changed significantly as a result of the election, then you’re not trusting in God.

That says nothing about desiring godly leaders. Rather, it hearkens more to Paul’s advice to Timothy:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Too many Christians I know personally have reacted as if the sky has been falling since late January.

Does this mean we should love Obama? Heck no – I hope he spends the next four years making an ass of himself, and is considered an abject failure (along the lines of Carter). Does that mean we should not want to elect a godly leader? No. It just means that we shouldn’t live our lives as if who sites in the Oval Office is a barometer of the state of Christianity.

So critique equals hate?

To recognize something for what it is (satire) is only “covering up”?

Huh?

See, Jazz. That’s the difference between people here and you.

You attribute motives and attitudes to people–making value judgements about them.

We ask questions about where you’re coming from–to explain on what basis you’re taking issue with the OP. So far you haven’t given us anything to understand.

jazz accuses me of hate, insults, and misrepresentations

So I ask who I hate, insult, and misrepresent.

His response: Who are these people?

No, dude, I asked you.

(How can you tell me definitively that I hate, insult, and misrepresent people when you have no idea who I allegedly hate, insult, and misrepresent?)

you make an even better point than I did

So typical of Rick.
It’s a really bad habit of his.

A few????

Are “a few” worthy of being satirized here?

No, you hunt bigger game, and you know it. A mere “few” would not be worth your time.

A) I didn’t write the article, though I would say that “a few” is purposeful understatement, since I’m sure if I know a few personally (a number of whom also are obsessive email hoax forwarders), there are a lot more out there.

B) I wrote an article on depression a couple weeks ago, knowing a few people personally who suffer from this. I do not know how many readers could relate – but I know we get thousands per day. I often write things that not all of our readers are interested in, so it’s not about “bigger game” – it’s about what’s being said and whether it’s relevant or now. (And with the nerve this article seems to have struck w/ you, it probably is rather relevant…)

So, as I read your crypto-bs responses, I can only come away thinking that you’ve become what you hate, jazz..

nc, you are on a rampage today.

[hugs from PA]

Why can’t Jazz give a straight answer to any question?

Like nailing jello to wall.

“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”

jazz ran away…

typical

–A) I didn’t write the article, though I would say that “a few” is purposeful understatement, since I’m sure if I know a few personally (a number of whom also are obsessive email hoax forwarders), there are a lot more out there.–

Then you do acknowledge more. Who are they?

–B) I wrote an article on depression a couple weeks ago, knowing a few people personally who suffer from this. I do not know how many readers could relate – but I know we get thousands per day. I often write things that not all of our readers are interested in, so it’s not about “bigger game” – it’s about what’s being said and whether it’s relevant or now. (And with the nerve this article seems to have struck w/ you, it probably is rather relevant…)–

This OP, however, was directed at someone or someones. Who are they?

–So, as I read your crypto-bs responses, I can only come away thinking that you’ve become what you hate, jazz..–

Think what you will. Your opinion of me is as nothing to me.

Chris,
Thanks for the laugh with the internet tough guy.
That definitely falls under the catagory of “Good Stuff.”

To Rick.

I owe an apology to you. Your question was not relevant to the topic as it is currently running, but my response to you was harsh, and for that I am sorry.

I’m assuming jazz is saved.

He still gets an F.

positively tiresome…

you still get an F

No group specifically, that I can see, other than those who self-select into the audience, by choice, word or deed…

And now you are Jerry Seinfeld, putting up a post about nothing.

*sigh* we’re back to lack of reading comprehension.

When you have an audience in mind, generally (ex. people who, by choice, word or deed see the government as an extension of the power of Christianity), it does not require that you know their names or identify them specifically, lest you be “posting about nothing”. These people do exist, and I see kernels (or full blown manifestations) of this thought on almost a daily basis.

I have said that the OP shows mindless hate.

While you said this, you’ve done nothing to demonstrate any veracity of the claim.

And again, who is the target of the satire?

Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God.

I think this has been made rather clear (and was clear in the OP) to all but the most obtuse (whether by choice or fault)…

And I will again give the hint I gave earlier about my thoughts about this satire.

–In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.–

Perhaps you have missed the point.

The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested). Rather, keeping with the “golden era” of the 50’s (i.e. Hugh Beaumont & Ozzie Nelson), this satire is noting the types of injustice that were still not uncommon during this same time period…

–So you are for keeping Jews out of private country clubs and the lynching of blacks?–

Iggy.

Thank you. I could not have given a better example of the hate in the OP.

–Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God.–

And who are those people?

–The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested). –

Am I the one suggesting it? Rather, it is the OP suggesting it. Nay, it is the OP saying it outright.

And that is hatred, and mindless hatred.

And you applauded it, and defended it.

Chris L,

I applaud your persistence and hope for jazz.

nc, I truly don’t know if he/she’s being purposefully obtuse here, or if it is just an inability to understand Brendt’s satire (which is, I would happily note, very dry, and relies on ones knowledge of US history and “the good ol’ days”, and which I find to be spot-on in identifying the historical myopia of part of the church).

I’m hoping it’s the latter, because that can be fixed. If it’s just purposeful obtuseness, you just have to hope that the Holy Spirit will do some more work…

Let’s give him a chance, Bo. There is always hope.

Jazz,

you’re racking up those “F’s”.

Way to distinguish yourself