As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Mike Godwin has written about the law that “its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.”

And this is the spirit in which I’ve always understood it. There are, indeed, thought processes and rationalizations that are eerily similar to “Hitlerian rhetoric” (if I may paraphrase Stephen Fry). And so, there are times when such a comparison may be valid. But more times than not, the comparison is inaccurate and made out of sheer laziness, as though ole Adolf was a trump card.

But Godwin’s Law is mostly only applicable to political discussions. Yes, sometimes the issues are moral or spirtual, but they still have a distinct political bent to them (e.g. issues surrounding abortion). Yet the same laziness that made Godwin’s Law necessary is prevalent in many online theological discussions.

My first thought was how Matthew 7:16 gets twisted to mean that if you do one thing that I don’t like, then I am capable of reading all of your innermost thoughts and commenting on them definitively and publicly.

Or how “another gospel” (Galatians 1:9) has been twisted to mean “anything with which I disagree”.

And let’s not forget the all-purpose barn-burner: emergent (which apparently encompasses everything I don’t believe in — even when two thoughts are contradictory).

But we really need a person, not a concept.

Brian McLaren? Nah. He’s so last decade.

Rob Bell? Nah. He’s so earlier this year. Even the recent announcement of his departure from the pulpit only produced a brief ripple in all but the craziest corners of the blogosphere.

Besides which, there are plenty of people who haven’t heard of either of these guys.

Rick Warren? Now we’re getting somewhere with the recognizability factor. But more and more of the criticisms of him are either over old stuff, misinterpretation of stuff, or can’t withstand any real logic (or some combination of the three). So he’s not really a legitimate whipping boy anymore.

So who then? And then it hit me.

As an online theological discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Oprah Winfrey approaches 1.

As with Godwin’s Law, there are cases where the comparison rings true. But let’s be honest. For quite a while and probably for many years to come, Winfrey has become the poster child for “any spiritual belief that is less rigorous than my own”.

So in the words of Phil Esterhaus, let’s be careful out there — let’s not play the O-card too quickly.

Waters’ Corollary to Godwin’s Law. I’ll be over here holding my breath, waiting for the Wikipedia update.

According to Bill Chandler, vice-president of Gap corporate communications, Gap’s Old Navy division will launch a new television commercial this weekend which “has a very strong Christmas theme.”

Chandler responded to AFA last Friday, after a poll showed 90% of AFA supporters wanted to continue the boycott as a result of Gap’s initial “holiday” ad that mingled Christmas with the pagan “Winter Solstice” holiday.

Gap says the new ad will include the popular Supermodelquins proudly cheering “Merry Christmas”, and features Christmas trees, lights and ornaments as well.

In good faith, AFA is suspending the Gap boycott until it has an opportunity to view the new commercial this weekend.

As a result of your dedicated actions, we believe Gap is beginning to realize that Christmas is not just another “holiday” and will begin to advertise in a way that is respectful to Christians and Christmas shoppers.

Why does the AFA care if Jesus is associated with the Gap? Do they really think Jesus cares? I did notice, however, that you can spend $82 and get your own ‘merry christmas’ packs from the AFA. Here’s another fun page that tells us which stores do and do not say ‘merry christmas’.

Is this seriously what Jesus wants us doing with our time? Does Jesus really care if the person at Starbucks says ‘merry christmas’ or not? Seriously?!?! I’m going to purposely visit these stores that don’t say merry christmas and boycott the ones who cave into this asininity.

I’m taking Christ out of Christmas because I don’t want the Jesus I follow to be mocked any longer. Merry X-mas!

In order to provide for my family while I am in graduate school, I was provided, and accepted, a job at Blockbuster video. I believe that to an extent it was providential that I was hired at the store and I joyfully, dutifully and excellently do the work. I was hired as assistant store manager nearly to the day that I received my last severance check from my former church, the store works around my school and part-time job schedule, and I get along well with the employees I work with each day. The job is fun, I do the job well, and I am able to see a lot of people from the community every day. I am thankful, to be sure, that I was provided a job.

But the job has opened my eyes to something that they needed opened to. What I have seen is ugly, cumbersome, and frightening. I have seen American Capitalism in its fullest manifestation.

__________________

Today is ‘Black Friday.’ Today is the official beginning of the ‘Christ’mas season. Today is the day that everyone on Wal-Street looks forward to in order, and in hope, to bring to an end another year of economic worry, turmoil and disappointment.

Today is a day that the world has made, let us rejoice and spend in it.

Today is black Friday and, I don’t suppose, there is a more apropos name in the lexicon. Today is the day when all of America, joined together in a mass celebration of capitalism and freedom, will do her best to resurrect what billions in stimulus dollars, tax refund checks, and unemployment extensions have not been able to do: Drag our collective capitalist asses out of the dire misery of financial ‘suffering’ and ‘having to make cut-backs and/or do withoutness’ we have had to endure since…well, for a long time.

Today is black Friday.

___________________

I have never once gone out on a black Friday to spend, but today I will be going out to work in that insanity; today I will be another cog in the machine; another part of the problem.

“Hi, welcome to Blockbuster. Would you like some popcorn? Would you like some candy? Would you like another movie? Would you like another piece of plastic junk that will do absolutely nothing to enhance your standing with God; benefit your family; or prepare you for your future in this world?”

This is a day that the world has made, let us be glad and go in debt for it.

___________________

I know it has been said a thousand ways and a thousand times by a thousand people that we should ‘keep Christ in Christmas.’ There are even Facebook groups dedicated solely to the proposition of keeping Christ in Christmas. I’m also quite sure that the religious among us will start petitions, write sermons, and begin the media blitz informing us how it is important to ‘remember the reason for the season’ and all that, uh, crap.

And I get it. We want to keep people in mind of someone whom we believe to be significant to the season. So keep Christ in Christmas so that I can massage my conscience as I sliddddddee my credit card through the pin-pad at Best Buy.

Doesn’t matter: I voted to keep Christ in Christmas. I can do what I want.

And we do our best, don’t we, to keep our traditions alive. “Keep Christ in Christmas,” the purists will tell me as we begin stacking our nice artificial trees in the auditoriums of our worship houses.

Yes. Keep Christ in Christmas; and Easter; and the Fourth of July. It is important that all of the American holidays we celebrate are vitally linked to Jesus. It is important that all of our American holidays are tinged with the spiritual. This is, after all, the only way we Christians can celebrate without all of the attendant guilt. “I’m giving gifts because the wise men gave the baby Jesus gifts on December 25^th while he lay in the manger and all the animals were lowing and while Herod was slaughtering his neighbors’ children.”

Make the celebration of capitalism about Jesus so that we can play too.

It is crucial to our Christian psyche that something we participate in, whether it is a holiday, or a major purchase (‘I bought that entertainment center so I can use my house for a small group ministry’), or a vacation (‘I went on a cruise, but it was a cruise for Jesus’), be about Jesus.

Keep Christ in Christmas. Don’t dare take his name out of it and replace it with an ‘X’.

This year I am doing just that. I am replacing the word ‘christ’ in Christmas with an ‘X’ because, I believe, Jesus, the one who ‘made himself nothing’, is sickened by what we call the ‘celebration of his birth.’ It is highly contradictory and ironic the way we fatten ourselves in celebration of the one of emptied himself of everything. Perhaps a better celebration of Jesus’ birth would be a church-wide fast or a candlelight memorial remembering all those who have been slaughtered in genocides and holocausts throughout the years of earth’s existence.

Am I being too harsh? Am I too naïve? Is it sacrilegious of me to disparage the season and ruin all the hopes and magic the little children have been brainwashed to expect? Am I cold and ruthless?

So why do we do it? What we ‘celebrate’ on December 25^th in America, every year has zip, zero, zilch to do with what took place in Israel a couple of thousands years ago. But Keep Christ in Christmas and deplore those terrible heathens who, perhaps prophetically, have already take Christ out of Christmas.

Churches should probably have as many evergreens as American flags and crosses in the house of worship.

______________________

I don’t want you to misunderstand me. I’m not necessarily opposed to this yearly pilgrimage. After all, it is fun and exciting and I suppose it does help America and those who are employed in America (and China)—people like me. But I don’t want there to be any mistaking what it is and is not. What we call Christmas is not about Jesus; it is about capitalism and the American dollar.

It’s the economy stupid.

So I have made the decision that I will replace ‘christ’ with an ‘x’ this year and I will not use convoluted strategies involving the Greek alphabet  in order to justify doing so.  I think it would do us all well to stop dragging the name of Jesus through this—even for one year.

I believe the name of Jesus deserves a little better than our schemes to inflate the egos and profits that are so uniquely this age and culture.

____________________

I have to go to work in a couple of hours and support the system. I’m going to mount my own protest this year, ironic I know, by not wishing a single person merry Christmas. Instead, I’ll find some way to say merry x-mas or seasons greetings or something similar. But for me, Christ is out.

It’s time to keep Christ out of Christmas.

Share this Post

A MODEST PROPOSAL

For Preventing the Poor Senior Citizens in America from Being a Burden to Their Children or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public

It is a tragedy today to encounter men and women who have passed by the productive years of their lives – times when they held meaningful jobs which provided the grease with which the wheels of society are oiled. Men and women who now find themselves in the pitiable situation where they are dependent upon the generosity of others to provide their ever-growing needs. Needs that, when met with increasingly sophisticated technology, will expand the duration of years in which they live in such miserable dependence.

I think it is fair to say that all parties concerned would agree that the huge number of senior citizens that must be carried on the backs of their children and society is a looming nightmare, and that their deporable state is partially the fault of a healthcare system that is going bankrupt at a time in which they need it the most. Therefore, it seems to me that whoever can find the easiest, cheapest and most fair way of rescuing these citizens from their state of dependency, and society from the burden of their care, would be owed a deep debt of gratitude.

As such, I feel that it is my duty as an American to come forward with a modest proposal that would be such a welcome remedy. A proposal that would fit well, and most logically, with plans already in motion in our fair capital, where lawmakers toil in their benevolent desire to aid the citizens of this grandest of nations, Washington D.C.

I have read recent studies which show that senior citizens account for 60% of the healthcare expenditures, and 47% of hospital days in America. Additionally, I also understand that, as members of the Baby Glut generation (the “glutters”), born from 1946-1964, move into retirement, this percentage of healthcare expenditure is likely to top 75%. At the same time, the ratio of producers to non-producers (the “dependency ratio”) will be dangerously low, and unable to pay for the increased costs of healthcare.

My proposal takes into account this dreaded ratio of dependency which either drives our economy forward or pulls it back into a quagmire. It takes into account the despair of the elderly, who have no way of maintaining themselves in dignity with the meager services provided by the government – along with the discomfort to their children, whose finances are often ruined during the prime of their earning careers when they are forced to care for their ailing parents. It would prevent the inhuman, institutional-green hallways of nursing home care and ease the burden of guilt for children who do not wish to have the albatross of their parents’ health forever tied around their necks until they, too, become burdens to their children. Unchecked, the population of elderly in America will have reached 95 million – nearly the size of the productive population of America at that time!

Without bold leadership and action, not to draw too dramatic a point, the very fabric of the American way of life may be destroyed!

Fortunately, such a bold solution is within our grasp.

Considering the wild success of the US government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program, I am suggesting that it would be advantageous for our society to pay the children of the elderly, upon their reaching 65 years of age, $10,000 apiece in exchange for the euthanization (hereon referred to as “retiring” or “retirement”).* It could also be similarly branded – for example “Funds for Fogeys” or “Greenbacks for Grannies”

While such an amount may seem initially to be exorbitant, upon investigation, I have found that the components of the human body may be worth up to $45 million, if properly isolated. Even if we take into account the obvious lowering of this amount if the supply of human organs were to increase a thousandfold overnight, the cost to society saved just in health care bills alone – simply by removing the most greedy consumers of that care – would more than pay for itself in short order.

Such a solution – aside from completely eradicating the current crisis in healthcare – would have a number of side-benefits, as well:

Firstly, this proposal would keep the respect for and dignity towards life at the forefront of the public and family conscience. It would help ease the “sting” of death felt by most American families as they age. A number of studies have shown that the greatest source of fear of death is its untimely and seemingly capricious nature. By removing this uncertainty, families will be able to celebrate their loved ones’ lives – with the soon-to-be-retired loved one. Also, unlike the “traditional” method of death, the soon-to-be-retired citizen will be able to comfortably enjoy all of the nice memories their friends and relatives wish to share upon their exit from this earth, rather than miss them due to an untimely death.

Secondly, it would avoid all of the messy years of downward-spiraling health and ever-increasing costs borne by society. As officials in countries much farther down the path toward this proposal have noted, it is to the elderly a “duty to die” for the betterment of their families and their nations’ health care systems. My proposal would simply codify that patriotic duty into law, while providing compensation to their families. For seniors who are in good health at the time of their retirement, they will also have the satisfaction of knowing that their organs will be able to be used to save the lives of the young and (somewhat) healthy who are unfortunate enough to need an organ transplant.

Thirdly, my proposal would greatly increase the money flowing into the tax coffers of the US government. The so-called “death tax” – an estate tax on the wealthy that brings in up to 50% of an individuals’ accumulated wealth – would become an engine for growth in the funding of our government. This would particularly be true as the glutters reach retirement age and contribute their fair share to the system.

Fourthly, my proposal would have a side-benefit of helping America reach its carbon-reduction goals. The average human being expires 330 kilograms of carbon dioxide each year. By artificially reducing the average life expectancy in the US from 77 years to 64 years, we could reduce the US’ CO2 emissions by 350 billion tons per year. Add on top of that the reduction in human waste and consumption, and you have to wonder why we have not implemented such a reasonable proposal years sooner! With such a plan, the US would become the envy of the industrialized world in its carbon emission reductions, alone. No longer would the world be able to scorn our lack of concern for the environment.

Fifthly, America could contribute to the environmental betterment of the third world, and help to eliminate world hunger. With Amazonian tribes burning much of the remaining rainforest to grow food, America could cure and prepare meat from the retired citizens, and provide it free to the Brazilian savages in exchange for their ceasing their deforestation efforts. Again, a win-win proposition.

Sixthly, my proposal would improve the math and science capabilities of American children by providing them with a ready supply of human cadavers – valuable teaching tools once exclusively available to medical students on their way to becoming greedy doctors who milk the government’s health care system for all its worth. With such teaching tools, our children would quickly excel in medical sciences, readying themselves to fill positions as state physicians, nurses and other government medical positions. Think of the children!

“Surely,” I can hear you say, “there have to be some down sides to this proposal!” If you said this, you would be correct. However, I believe that most problems could be easily worked through.

For example, it is possible that the government could become addicted to the enormous surpluses such a program would inevitably add to its coffers, only to find out that, once the “glutters” have been depleted in 2029, demand has outstripped the supply of retirees. In such a case, it may behoove the government to look for other sources of healthcare savings. For instance, they could follow the lead of Britain, which has much more experience with universal healthcare, and encourage parents to abort children with bad genes.** Or, they could post actuaries in emergency rooms who would have the ability to call a “code green” on a patient, at which point his or her family could choose to let the patient die for a cash incentive (saving the American people thousands of dollars for care not likely to greatly improve the live of the patient) or agree to pay for all further treatment out-of-pocket. Either way, this could help meet the shortfall in bodies.

But what about burial space? Wouldn’t such a program lead to cemetery overcrowding? Of course not. Why waste a perfectly good body by burying it? Families should not have the right to take away the government’s purchased property and bury it! Instead, a monument should be built in Washington D.C., where these wonderful patriots’ names can be enshrined for time immemorial, in honor of their service to their country. While this will still take up space, hundreds of thousands of names can be chiseled into granite in a space vastly smaller than what would be required to bury an equal number of bodies.

There will also be a problem brought about by an overabundance of funds in the government treasury. I think it is important that we resist the temptation to spend it in ways that would genuinely help the poor – for to do so would grant them a sliver of independence, which might result in them turning on the source of their succor – the government. No, it is far better that the poor live in the natural consequences that sum up their lives, recognizing the only potential source of comfort and happiness as the government. Only then will they be fully committed to my solution, and only then will the sheep-like masses on the educated left be moved with compassion for the poor and support such plans in droves, willingly blinded to the truth of their plight.

But you might also challenge me – aren’t there better solutions out there. Ones that don’t lead to such perceived government intrusion?

What about tort reform – particularly for malpractice? Of course this isn’t a good solution. One of America’s distinguishing characteristics is its world-leading, per-capita number of lawyers. Without these upstanding citizens, the rabble would pay much less for all consumer goods (resulting in less tax revenue), greedy doctors would be able to save on their malpractice insurance, and medical device and “big pharma” companies would be able to produce more innovative breakthroughs – resulting in higher healthcare costs! Additionally, why should doctors and pharmaceutical companies be allowed to work for a profit, when the government can run them just as well, with simply the well-being of its customers in mind?

Or what about elimination of fraud? After all, recent government audits show that fraud may be eating up 10% of Medicaid outlays, while it only spends 0.2% of its operating budget on preventing fraud. Shouldn’t it do more to combat fraud? By no means! If we eliminate senior citizens from the rolls of Medicare and Medicaid, the overall savings to the system would be much higher than trying to act like “Big Brother” by tracking down fraud. Besides which, as has been recently shown in New Jersey, government does not operate efficiently without a certain level of graft to grease it. Without it, the wheels of government come grinding to a halt. Eliminating fraud is a foolish thing to do.

But, you might ask, what about utilizing technology and standards to make healthcare more efficient? Such things won’t work, because even if they’re very effective, they don’t make a “splash” when explaining them to normal Americans, which means that the people won’t believe progress is being made, even if costs are being significantly decreased. Like an eskimo watching his grandmother float away on an ice floe, a taxpayer needs visual reminders of the improvements brought to his life by progressive government policies. Technology upgrades don’t fill that bill.

What about instituting changes or supporting high-deductible insurance plans, like Health Savings Accounts, which drive consumers to spend their medical dollars more wisely? Or requiring doctors and clinics to post the costs of their procedures and their relative outcomes? Surely, you might ask me, wouldn’t such things help drive down healthcare costs? While you might be correct about driving down costs, you would end up making people less appreciative of the government – which will only make passing needed reforms more difficult. Citizens need to know that the government is the source of their health, wealth and happiness. Only then will they be free to enjoy those freedoms they are allowed to enjoy! Additionally, high-deductible insurance plans remove healthier people from insurance pools with higher-risk individuals. This will only delay the inevitable move toward a single-payer system!

And don’t even try to ask me about providing tax-credits to the poor and less fortunate for purchasing health-care. Such programs, while increasing tax revenue, end up – again – making citizens less dependent on the government. This is an undesirable outcome.

So, what is the way forward?

HR 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, is a good start in laying down the groundwork for the inevitable path to the outcomes of my proposal. However, it is too timid in its approach. Instead, I would recommend a level of transparency and trust with the American people. Rather than deny that this plan will lead to a single-payer system – go ahead and lay that out as the intent so that, rather than waiting three to five years for the “public option” to squeeze out private insurance, it can be done away to begin with.

Also, we should look to Oregon’s example as a government that has a single-payer system which incents some of its senior citizens to take their own lives, rather than waste public resources extending them. It has been a long road to this point, and the federal government should start from this hard-earned point, rather than gradually working its way here. Through greater transparency of intent the government can quickly implement my proposal in 2010, rather than spending decades of blindly wandering before accepting my plan as the inevitable outcome of the system. By arriving there by haphazard and naturally progressive means, we will have missed the opportunity for the economic salvation my system will provide.

In closing, I would just like to reaffirm my sincerity, and that this program is not being led from any designs of personal gain. While I confess that I, like all Americans, would likely see a decrease in the annual deficits and all the benefits my plan affords, I have no special circumstances which would result in my gaining from this plan any more than other Americans.

So please, take this modest proposal for what it is worth, and call your congressperson to express your support for my plan and to ask for more transparency on HR3200, so that we can more quickly arrive at a solution that eliminates the burdensome costs of caring for the elderly…

*Obviously exceptions can be made for the selfless public servants responsible for drafting the legislation backing such a proposal, along with the K-Street denizens who tirelessly represent the interest of others in helping craft these government programs.

**Please note that HB3200 already provides public funding for abortion, so providing additional incentives to abort children with birth defects (who would, therefore, require a larger-than-average amount of healthcare throughout their lives) should not prove that difficult. There should be no worry that healthy children might be aborted due to the use of more economical tests.

Discuss.

It wasn’t the main point of the post, but this still jumped out at me.  While dumping on Ekklesia Detroit Church regarding another issue, Ken the “editor” at C?N irrelevantly noted: “It seems they’ve also found time to interview Satan as well.”

Granted, that sentence has no explicit statement that Ken the editor thinks that the Satan interview video is a bad thing.  But given the track record at C?N (that nothing good can come out of Nazareth those that they criticize), and given the overall tone of the rest of the post, it’s very much within the realm of probability that Ken the editor thinks it’s a bad thing.

And frankly, I have to agree.  A video portraying Satan and his views on Christianity and the Church has no place in our faith.  Why, if we’re not careful, someone will write an entire book with this premise.  And then respected “Christian” actors will create plays based on the book.  And then “Christians” will claim to “learn” from these demonic resources.

It’s the beginning of the end, people.

If you happen to read this could you drop by and defend yourself. I’m not really familiar with your work but some here are and they incessantly contend that you are a heretic. I think it stems from your relationship with Phyllis but I’m not certain why they think she is a heretic either. I’ve heard her speak many times and while she doesn’t say the words I’m used to I believe she is a follower of Christ. Ultimately though; I can’t really be sure about either one of your commitments to Christ. I wish I could be though. Meaning I wish I was God.

On another note; are you related to Henry? I really like his music. However his acting is kinda creepy. I don’t know why? I think it’s because of his voice or maybe his face. Not that he’s ugly; just mean looking. He kinda scares me. Oh well. If you are related could you have him drop by also. I want to ask him what he meant by the this quote:

“If I was gay, there would be no closet. You would never see the closet I came out of. Why? Because I’d have burned it for kindling by the time I was twelve … If I was gay, at this stage of the game — age 37, aging alternative icon — I’d be taking out ads.”

In my eyes he’s obviously gay and this quote appears that he’s not but I found a blog that contends that even though he said he isn’t; he actually is. You see I have this habit of not believing actual words that people say. Unless of course those actual words are from people that I agree with telling me what the people I don’t agree with, are actually saying. I know kinda confusing but I think you could help with that.

A few more things I need you to clear up. On your blog you state:

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ.

What the…? Really? Are you serious? HERET…oh wait. I stopped reading at that line. Sorry about that you also say

This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

So what you are saying is that my life, how I live it, can either confirm or deny my belief in Christ. Sounds a little like this:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [1] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Oh that Jesus! So darn serious about helping the poor. If I didn’t know better I would say that he was a heretic.

Okay a few more things and then I’ve got to get back to my phylactery waxing.

You point out on your blog that you:

I also lecture in areas of moral theory, philosophical theology, mysticism and Existentialism. However my passion is to render the academic discourse accessible, interesting and useful to faith collectives.

Oh brother…I’m really concerned now.

moral “THEORY”? It’s not a theory Petey. It’s an absolute. Unless of course you are suggesting that people have certain theories about morality then of course you can lecture on that.

“mysticism”? You do know that’s code for heretic right? In these parts we’ve argued about that word forever. You may want to strike that from your blog. It just not worth the trouble of trying to explain it.

“Existentialism”? Again with the “human condition” stuff. Really is it important to understand how God interacts with us and how we should respond? Isn’t it enough to know that “He is God”? Just leave it at that. If people don’t get it, tough nuggies. Seriously!

My biggest concern about you though is that last sentence. “Academic discourse accessible”? Two words, in Latin, so you know it’s really important, SOLA SCRIPTURA buddy! I don’t need no stinking, two bit, liberal spouting, college per fessor, telling me nothin bout my Jesus. Unless of course he agrees with me. Otherwise I ain’t havin none of it. That’s all I need is somebody messing up my perfect, preconceived, theological box. I almost got excommunicated for quoting from “The Shack”. So no more of that “thinking” stuff for me. It’s just not safe to think. What if I come up with the wrong thoughts? What if the Holy Spirit took the day off and that was the exact day I chose to read “A brief history of everything”? The ramifications to my salvation could be catastrophic. No thank you.

Well thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Chris

P.S. You don’t need to talk to Henry for me I just Wiki’d him and his last name is actually Garfield. Sorry bout that.

In raising that point here, I have been lambasted on several occasions by those who take umbrage with it.  Generally it’s been by those who state that I am saying that if person A speaks any truth, then you can believe everything that person A says.  (That’s not what I’m saying, but I’m willing to have an open mind on the issues of others knowing better what’s on my heart than I do myself.)

Let’s assume that my critics are right.  Here’s a list of “safe” places that you can get truth from:

• Fox News — the channel that brought us the anchor-babe, whose site’s front page currently contains stories titled “Megan Fox Gets Dirty” and “Get In Bed With Marilyn” and a weekly contribution from Maxim magazine.
• Christianity Today — the magazine that has, on many occasions, shown left-of-center theology
• Pravda — the Russian newspaper whose translation (”truth”) is usually the height of irony

You may note that the links that I provided don’t go to the actual sites that I listed.  Rather, they go to articles on the front pages of C?N and Slice.

But feel free to go to the actual sites, too.  And feel free to consume and believe everything on those sites. They are, after all, now included in the “discernment” magisterium.

ht: David Hayward

I had to listen to it a few times to pick up all the lyrics.  I’ll reproduce them here for you.

If anyone knows anything more about this recording, let me know.

Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
Snark at them — how pithy — they won’t get on board.
Tsk o’er the erring one, trample the fallen,
Call it a ministry, it’s good in the Lord.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Since they have slighted Him, their fate is sealed.
It’s just too late for God to intervene.
Deride them constantly, use lots of quote marks.
They’re dead already; it’s not being mean.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter,
Feelings lie buried that you can divine;
You know their deepest thoughts, God told them to you.
Be sure to scoff if someone says “Be kind”.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.

Point out the perishing, God called you to it.
Strength for your blogging the Lord will provide;
But He’s a little short with the finances
Ask for donations while you’re being snide.

Refrain
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
You don’t think like I do; you’re going to hell.
Point out the perishing, notice the dying,
My God’s a wrathful God; you all are screwed.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

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