cartoon: kill the question

About David Hayward

David Hayward runs the blog nakedpastor as a graffiti artist on the walls of religion where he critiques religion… specifically Christianity and the church. He also runs the online community The Lasting Supper where people can help themselves discover, explore and live in spiritual freedom.

  • donald walsh

    we say we have the truth and yet it seems we are afraid of questions. Truth is never afraid of questions only belief is.
    it is not your truth and my truth but my belief and your belief and all is in relation to the truth.
    If I am afraid of questions then probably I don’t really believe or at least don’t have a good reason for my belief.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ steve martin

    The cross was meant to kill ‘the questions’.

    What’s the question?

    ‘What must I do?’

    ‘To whom should I turn?’

    The cross puts our projects to an end and the question of just who God is, to the answer.

  • JP

    It seems the cross is meant to both answer and raise questions. Jesus, the great question asker, give us questions and answers with Easter. What exactly is the crucified life? And how may we more fully enter into the resurrection mystery here and now? Beautiful, haunting, liberating questions; perhaps living questions that prod us in the depths of our beings, leading us toward light. Happy Easter.

  • http://irrelevantaxiom.wordpress.com Daniel

    Jesus stated many times in the Bible, “I tell you the truth.” The question of our destination beyond the grave is settled. The only questions worth asking now relate to how I may put God first in my life.

  • http://irrelevantaxiom.wordpress.com Daniel

    What should be crucified now is our flesh.

  • ttm

    You can try to kill it, but that question may be the one that just can’t stay in the grave. It will shake the grave cloths from its head. It will appear (sometimes in new forms) to those still seeking it (despite the news of its horrific demise). And it will ultimately laugh in the face of those who tried to do it in. You can try to kill it and divvy up its spoils, I guess. But, for some of us, it just keeps showing up. ;-)

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    I really do not like the concept behind this cartoon.

    Common misconception: Christians are NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS.

    This is a very dangerous theology, because it makes people think that as Christians, we are not allowed to have our doubts, and we are not allowed to “question the powers that be.” That is a false assumption.

    Many people in the new postmodernism/emerging church group claim that “Christians are not allowed to ask questions” and thus undermine the authority of the church in general.

    The problem is not questions, the problem is not answering the questions properly. Some questions don’t offer really clear, obvious or definite answers, but we can seek God for answers from him, and for peace in things we can’t understand.

    While this new school of thought does have a legitimate concern that there may not be a forum for asking questions, this does not excuse having a rebellious heart and mind. It is perfectly fine to question, BUT WE MUST SEEK GOD FOR ANSWERS.

    From my experience, many God-fearing pastors are not afraid to be asked questions if people are seeking answers from God. However, when people assume that the church does not allow for questions, THEY GO LOOKING ELSEWHERE FOR ANSWERS. This is a legitimate problem.

    People should feel free to ask real heart-felt questions from their leaders, and there are many main-line Christian churches that will have pastors open for discussing. But…

    We MUST NOT leave questions unanswered!

    This is the main problem with this new school of thought. They assume “there is no answer” because they undermine Absolute Truth. It is not a “journey into the questions” or “exploring the questions themselves”.

    We have answer – it is Christ crucified, and the truth of the word of God!

    The church needs to be open to questions (and many are) but we also need to be OPEN TO CORRECTION and ANSWERS WE MAY NOT LIKE – be that they are Biblical.

    Yes, so this is why I really dislike the concept behind this cartoon. This concept is a breeding ground for rebellious and independent thinking that undermines God’s established authorities, including the institution of the Church and the Bible.

    It is a misconception to assume God fearing Christians are afraid of questions. I’m not afraid, because I know the Spirit of God lives in me, and the Word of God is the Truth the world needs to hear!

    Praise the Lord!

  • ThinkingPanentheist

    Way to go, Dave. The questions shall set you free.

  • Fred

    Funny, it was the Answer that was nailed to the cross. But ultimately, we will fully know the Answer. What then of questions?

  • fishon

    Hum, the cross really wasn’t much of a question to those who witnessed it–it was pretty final. However, the EMPTY TOMB?????

  • http://honestfaith.blogspot.com Barry

    I rather think the point of the cartoon is that Christians too often try to kill questions. Either that or they assume that they have all the answers, which is just as dangerous.

    @Lauren: the sad fact is that in many cases Christians *aren’t* allowed to ask questions. Not unless they’re the “right” questions, anyway, and even they’re often fobbed off with pat answers and expected not to have any further questions on that subject. If they do, they’re regarded as being “difficult”. And heaven help them if they dare to disagree with the pastor’s opinion on a subject.

  • Erp

    I was browsing through the Britain Yearly Meeting Faith and Practice shortly after seeing this cartoon and came across the following:


    “Jesus the Jew of Nazareth, … to me, puts a question mark and an exclamation mark to everything. It is not a matter of saying ‘Jesus is the answer’. It would be true and more useful to say that Jesus is the question. Here the questions of action and achievement, of God and humanity, are brought to a focus in the paradox of triumph on a cross, of God dying as a man, of a man living as God. Here the question mark which death and suffering put against the love and joys of this world is itself confronted with a question: ‘Death, where is thy sting?’ And in the light of this, we are faced with the question: ‘Who do you say that I am?’ I have found, too, that it is easy to side-step the challenge of Jesus. The history of the early church and the growth of the creeds, which are such red rags to Quakers, is precisely the attempt of the church not to lose sight of this paradox, this knife edge, this scandal. Constantly, people wanted to make things easier to grasp and more comfortable to live with by stressing the human side of Jesus at the expense of the divine or vice versa. No one would deny that the attempt to encapsulate the truth about Jesus in words is bound to fail, but the achievement of those years was to keep the tension that he embodies alive so that it has resonance now, instead of opting for an easier answer.”

    Hugh Pyper, 1986

    Now I don’t quite understand this but given the serendipity I thought others might be interested.

  • ttm

    Erp, Thank you for sharing that quote. It is giving me a lot to think about. :-)

  • http://Titfortat6.blogspot.com Titfortat

    Hum, the cross really wasn’t much of a question to those who witnessed it–it was pretty final. However, the EMPTY TOMB?????(fishon)

    Yea, like there arent any perfectly reasonable and logical reasons why someone may have moved the body. I just love some people’s faith. By the way, I have a great place for sale in florida. ;)

  • Johnfom

    >>Erp: … given the serendipity…

    LOL Talk about serendipity. Before tonight I wouldn’t have even understood the source of that quote. Only began reading about the Friends for the first time tonight out of interest. I seem to be coming across them a fair bit the last few weeks and thought it was time to find out who they are.

    Thanks for linking that.

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    Re: Barry

    You are right that in many cases Christians can’t ask questions, but that is not the way it should be. Also, just because SOME churches have done that, doesn’t mean all do or have, and doesn’t mean that is a truely Christian response. Someone’s offense shouldn’t cause them to assume that all churches will react the same way.

    For example, I don’t think a Christian should be afraid to ask their pastor “Is masturbation wrong? Why doesn’t it mention it in the Bible?”**. We should be able to ask those questions.

    The problem in many situations, however, is that I feel people HAVE been permitted to ask questions, but they were not met with responses they agreed with themselves, even if they were Godly, Holy Spirit-led and Biblical answers. Sometimes the right answer is a cliche answer. Like “Is Jesus the only way?”. You could say “Yes, there is only one, and it is by Him.”

    A person may not like that answer (which is the correct one), or maybe it is because an incomplete answer has been given – and in that case, we ask God for clarification and understanding…but often I think people leave churches because they don’t like the answers they are given, and they seek a church that will JUSTIFY their beliefs.

    So, questions aren’t bad, but if people keep questioning and looking elsewhere than to God and to the Bible for answers, than they just might be looking to justify their sins.

    **On masturbation: My friend/housemate Yen wrote a really interesting article on this the other day http://blog.yam.com/elsoterical/article/28077749

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    Nice quote ERP

  • fishon

    Hey Christians, Titfortat has a great place for sale in florida.

    Titfortat said: Hum, the cross really wasn’t much of a question to those who witnessed it–it was pretty final. However, the EMPTY TOMB?????(fishon)

    Yea, like there arent any perfectly reasonable and logical reasons why someone may have moved the body.
    ———–Hey David, you are the moderator around here–and a Christian pastor, fill titfortat in for me, would you please. He mocks everything I say——so it is up to you to help on this one. Have at him, pastor.

  • fishon

    ah, some people just don’t like the answer they get to their question. But then the cross thing is easy; you don’t have to even ask the question——all you have to do is read the answer in the Bible. It really is pretty simple—but then, if you don’t like the answer you can blame it on….

  • Erp

    Thanks. I do find the Society of Friends a useful well to draw upon especially since they cover a wide range of understandings (for instance, non-theistic Quakers exist). Attending a meeting for worship is an experience (admittedly I’ve only attended a handful and in only one meeting house).

    The Pacific Yearly Meeting also has a Faith and Practice online.

  • preacherlady

    fishon…now, just for the sake of argument, and I stress that…how about that cross thing? We can’t be sure how/if it happened. The earliest account of it was 30 years after the fact and not written by an eye witness…just by someone who had heard the story from one. How about the fact that Romans 5 says we were saved by his life? And are you really saying you believe in a God who requires a blood sacrifice?…or was a blood sacrifice only necessary for those who had the need in their consciousness? And what does that mean today? Does it mean that only people who have blood sacrifice in their immediate backgrounds (santeria…sabeans…other tribal religions)need the crucifiction and the rest of us only need the consciousness of the Christ? Wasn’t Jesus’ consciousness as he walked the earth enough to absorb the consciousness of the world? And, no, these aren’t questions I dreamed up to make you crazy…these are questions I’ve encountered in my classes and were question that were asked in all sincerity. (aren’t you glad you pastor a small town church and don’t have to deal with a bunch of intellectuals who won’t take “the bible says…” for an answer?)

  • Mr. Disc

    Preacherlady-

    Agreed with most of what you said. Until….

    “aren’t you glad you pastor a small town church and don’t have to deal with a bunch of intellectuals who won’t take “the bible says…” for an answer?”

    Are you implying that people from small-towns are unquestioning drones, or are otherwise intellectually inferior?

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    fishon: I don’t see the connection between me being a pastor and titfortat not believing in the resurrection. He has the right to that opinion.
    mr. disc and preacherlady: i’m sure that even though it slightly sounded that way, it would disappoint her if it was taken that way.

  • http://Titfortat6.blogspot.com Titfortat

    He mocks everything I say(fishon)

    Come on man, April fools was 3 days ago. David’s cartoon hit the nail on the head for me. My church experience left me “nailed” to the cross also.

  • fishon

    preacherlady

    April 4, 2010 at 1:34 am .fishon…now, just for the sake of argument, and I stress that…how about that cross thing? We can’t be sure how/if it happened. The earliest account of it was 30 years after the fact and not written by an eye witness…just by someone who had heard the story from one. How about the fact that Romans 5 says we were saved by his life? And are you really saying you believe in a God who requires a blood sacrifice?…or was a blood sacrifice only necessary for those who had the need in their consciousness? And what does that mean today? Does it mean that only people who have blood sacrifice in their immediate backgrounds (santeria…sabeans…other tribal religions)need the crucifiction and the rest of us only need the consciousness of the Christ? Wasn’t Jesus’ consciousness as he walked the earth enough to absorb the consciousness of the world? And, no, these aren’t questions I dreamed up to make you crazy…these are questions I’ve encountered in my classes and were question that were asked in all sincerity. (aren’t you glad you pastor a small town church and don’t have to deal with a bunch of intellectuals who won’t take “the bible says…” for an answer?)
    ———Wow! For the sake of arguement, I dare say you are a bigot. Let’s see, small town; lack of intellectuals! I dare say that we have a very high percentage of college grads, and they are full of those questions. In fact, I would bet a considerably higher percentage of so-called intellectuals than where you live. So, I get those questions often. And the kids—–they make those questions you referenced easy.

  • fishon

    Mr.Disc,
    I don’t read further than who I am addressing, but if I had, I would have not replied and let your question stand.

  • fishon

    nakedpastor

    April 4, 2010 at 6:59 am .fishon: I don’t see the connection between me being a pastor and titfortat not believing in the resurrection.
    ———Gee, I thought I made that clear. So I will try it again. He mocks my answers, but not your’s. As a pastor it is your responcibility to help out that poor fellow understand. Especially since this is your blog. Aren’t you first and foremost a pastor?

    He has the right to that opinion.
    ————Now did I say he didn’t?

    mr. disc and preacherlady: i’m sure that even though it slightly sounded that way, it would disappoint her if it was taken that way.
    —-Why sure she believes that way—–are you saying that we/I should not take her at her word?

  • http://honestfaith.blogspot.com Barry

    Lauren said: ‘The problem in many situations, however, is that I feel people HAVE been permitted to ask questions, but they were not met with responses they agreed with themselves, even if they were Godly, Holy Spirit-led and Biblical answers. Sometimes the right answer is a cliche answer. Like “Is Jesus the only way?”. You could say “Yes, there is only one, and it is by Him.” ‘

    I’m sure that’s the case. It is also true that many Christians have asked questions and the answers they were given really aren’t the right ones, or perhaps on that particular issue there is more than one way of interpreting the Bible and they disagree with the simplistic answer they are given. These people are then often ridiculed or ostracised, as though the word of the pastor were in itself the same as the word of God.

    On some issues there is no one “right” answer, though many Christians (particularly leaders) would love people to think otherwise, and that their favourite answer is the only possible one.

  • http://honestfaith.blogspot.com Barry

    Basically, I think we need to get rid of the “pastor as fount of all knowledge” model of church leadership and allow for a diversity of opinions. Rubbishing someone’s opinion because it differs from the party line is a sure way to turn them away from the church. I know – it happened to me once too often, and though I’m a believer I no longer attend a church. Funnily enough, I’m a lot happier and have much less stress to deal with since I left.

  • preacherlady

    Fishon…no I don’t think small town equals low intellect…YOU have repeatedly described yourself and the people in your town as rednecks. Most of the people…about 75%…I encounter…have graduate degrees. Again I repeat, small town doesn’t equal no education…in fact some small towns are havens for intellectualism. Anyway, fishon, you didn’t answer those questions. I’m interested in seeing.how you, and others would answer them.

  • preacherlady

    Mr. Disc…my answer is in the reply to fishon. He stresses the small town simple folk bit and often says he’s under educated. As for small towns…the one that really comes to mind is Peterborough N.H. where the McDowell colony is/was…at least years ago, it was filled w/ artists and writers…there was a place called Gatta’s where Thorton Wilder wrote OUR TOWN as he sipped on beer.

  • fishon

    fishon

    April 4, 2010 at 10:43 am .preacherlady

    April 4, 2010 at 1:34 am .fishon…now, just for the sake of argument, and I stress that…how about that cross thing? We can’t be sure how/if it happened. The earliest account of it was 30 years after the fact and not written by an eye witness…just by someone who had heard the story from one.
    ———Gee, I thought the apostle John was an eyewitness!

  • Ann B

    Titfortat:

    A very good and interesting book ‘Who moved the stone’ by Frank Morrison in which he addresses this very question. This man was a lawyer and an atheist.

    Sometimes we go to pastors, ministers for answers to questions we have assuming that they have all the answers! I used to go to my father with some very difficult questions. My Dad would always listen to them, and then discuss them with me. He would, then nearly always tell me that he needed to think and pray about the answer and would come back to me for further discussion. Maybe if more pastors etc. did this then people would not be afraid to ask! I have NEVER been afraid to ask questions or question something that I have thought has not sat right with me. But then I do think that there is a responsibilty on the part of the questioner…if you don’t like the answer maybe you need to go and think about it before you dismiss it. Often people ask questions and then get all hot and bothered when they don’t like the answers.

  • Ann B

    Preacherlady,

    Oral history was a VERY important part of life back then. In fact, oral history was passed down, very accurately for generations. Sometimes it is hard to imagine that people could accurately hand down stories from one generation to another…but then I think, before the invention of cell phones and the instant phone book on them I used to have a load of numbers memorized in my head!!!

  • preacherlady

    Fishon…sure John was an eyewitness…but did he personally write the gospel? It’s the gospel according to John…that is, the way he told it, but did he write it or did some scribe write it? As for being able to remember and accurately write after 30 years, a group of us who were in ministry together 30+ years ago did an experiment to see how accurate our recollections of certain things were. They didn’t agree, most of the time, and some people didn’t remember at all. We only remember the teaching because some of us still had the tapes. I don’t think there was an Apostolic audio-visual team. And as usual, fishon, you are avoiding answering questions.

  • Ann B

    Preacherlady.

    Like I said in my previous comment…oral history was how things were kept alive for generations. Though we have made tremendous advancements in the last 100 years or so, we have also become lazy in certain areas because of technology.

  • Mr. Disc

    Preacher lady:

    Good. I am glad that we cleared that up.

  • preacherlady

    By the way, I want to clarify something…I do not equate education with intellect…I’ve known PhD’s who knew their subject and nothing else and 8th grade drop outs who were well read, had a good knowledge of the arts, and could hold their own in most any discussion of literature or philosophy(I’m thinking of someone in particular…a man in his 90′s who had to leave school during the depression but who has never stopped learning)..Have to go out now…I’ll be back later tonite.

  • Erp

    Oral history is often inaccurate in that people edit often subconsciously to make it a better story. In addition people’s memories are not always reliable.

    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/interpret.html
    has some discussion

  • fishon

    preacherlady

    April 4, 2010 at 4:52 pm .Fishon…sure John was an eyewitness…but did he personally write the gospel? It’s the gospel according to John…that is, the way he told it, but did he write it or did some scribe write it? As for being able to remember and accurately write after 30 years, a group of us who were in ministry together 30+ years ago did an experiment to see how accurate our recollections of certain things were. They didn’t agree, most of the time, and some people didn’t remember at all. We only remember the teaching because some of us still had the tapes. I don’t think there was an Apostolic audio-visual team. And as usual, fishon, you are avoiding answering questions.
    ——Well, Alice as everyone on here does, I pick and choose which questions I answer. From the moderator, myself, and you included.

    Another reason for not answering your questions is, that right off the bat you gave a statement that was false::::”fishon…now, just for the sake of argument, and I stress that…how about that cross thing? We can’t be sure how/if it happened. The earliest account of it was 30 years after the fact and not written by an eye witness…just by someone who had heard the story from one.” ———-”Cross thing.” Interestin choice of words. However, you says that [no] eye witnesses wrote about the cross thing, just someone who heard the story. Well, I point out John, and could have included Matthew who were obvious eyewitnesses [you made an inaccurate statement], I point it out and you give me hocus-pocus. You, being a pastor and all making a statement about no eyewitnesses who were writers of the Bible, then asking me more questions, especially after you come back with garbage—hehehe, why would I even attempt to answer you. You will just give me your modern-day jibberish.

    You defense of your obvious error points out another thing that makes debate and answering your questions a mote point–YOU:”As for being able to remember and accurately write after 30 years, a group of us who were in ministry together 30+ years ago did an experiment to see how accurate our recollections of certain things were. They didn’t agree, most of the time, and some people didn’t remember at all.”————–Well, obviously you don’t believe in the Holy Spirits part in John’s writing, since part of your defense is he probably didn’t remember correctly. Well then, Alice, that does explain a lot about your picking and choosing on the homosexual thing.

    So no, I will not answer the rest of your questions. My first attempt {…how about the cross thing?} surely proves it matters not what I answer—you will find the greasest spot and slide down it.

    And since the cross is just a “cross thing” for you, I wonder how you tear apart the empty tomb? Ah, maybe you and tfort are on the same page:::titfortat:::”Yea, like there arent any perfectly reasonable and logical reasons why someone may have moved the body.” I suppose that Matthew, since he had such a bad memory got that not quite right to fit your senario.

    My lord, Alice, what part of the Bible dooo you believe?

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    You can’t be a Christian and remove the Bible.

    If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, where did you get that idea – other than from the Bible?

    When you discredit the Bible, you are pulling the foundation you stand on out from under you!

    It is true, or it is not. Jesus is risen and Lord, or our faith is utterly worthless!

    Hallelujah! HE IS RISEN! AMEN!

  • preacherlady

    #

    #
    fishon
    April 4, 2010 at 12:25 am

    ah, some people just don’t like the answer they get to their question. But then the cross thing is easy; you don’t have to even ask the question——all you have to do is read the answer in the Bible. It really is pretty simple—but then, if you don’t like the answer you can blame it on….

    Who was calling it the cross thing? I was simply quoting you.

  • fishon

    Still doesn’t take away from your responce about it and every thing else I said.

  • preacherlady

    fishon…I think you don’t answer questions that you can’t say “read it in your bible” to because you aren’t able to answer them. Whenever anyone asks you an intelligent question you 1)don’t reply 2)throw in a red herring 3)use circular reasoning or 4) get sarcastic and start throwing insults. You will find that scholars are divided as to who wrote the gospels…it isn’t a cut and dried subject. I never said I didn’t believe in the bible…you did. You also said I made erroneous statements…as I said, I can get you as many scholars who say the apostles didn’t write the gospels as you can that say they did. Just because someone doesn’t believe the same way you do, doesn’t mean they don’t believe. And its a shame…in taking the bible literally, you miss some of the depth and richness that lies in the metaphor and shows itself once you contemplate it. We each have a choice and i choose not to live on yesterdays manna…there is ALWAYS more, and to think you’ve “got it” is to cheat yourself from going deeper into the realm of spirit

  • preacherlady

    but fishon, if its just a “cross thing” to you where do YOU stand on everything else…you can’t have it both ways.

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    preacherlady: read what i posted above

  • http://www.talkgod.ca Lauren

    “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

    1 Corinthians 15:14

  • fishon

    Alice: Rail all you want. You sure do spend a lot of time on me for someone you say:::Whenever anyone asks you an intelligent question you 1)don’t reply 2)throw in a red herring 3)use circular reasoning or 4) get sarcastic and start throwing insults.

    And Alice, you have made it quite clear to me you do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture as lead by the Holy Spirit to the writers of the Bible, when you used this as a defense for saying there were NO eyewitnesses to the cross who wrote scripture::::”…but did he personally write the gospel? It’s the gospel according to John…that is, the way he told it, but did he write it or did some scribe write it? As for being able to remember and accurately write after 30 years, a group of us who were in ministry together 30+ years ago did an experiment to see how accurate our recollections of certain things were. They didn’t agree, most of the time, and some people didn’t remember at all. We only remember the teaching because some of us still had the tapes. I don’t think there was an Apostolic audio-visual team.”

    You win, Alice. I am not in your league. I’ll stay in my confident little world of Holy Spirit inspired scripture, and you stay in your ever changing, nothing to really take a stand on, maybe so, maybe not interpretation of scripture. You be lead by the ever changing their mind heretics who discount most of scripture. Heck, since you believe that the writers of scripture probably didn’t get it right about the cross [Matthew and John} because after 30 yrs. their recollections were suspect, I’ll bet you just had a hoot today with them not having it right about the empty tomb.————No, go your own way—–do your own thing–I’ll hang on to my little myths that the apostles wrote most of the NT and you hang on to{{{{I can get you as many scholars who say the apostles didn’t write the gospels}}}}. Yep, quite a defense for the scriptures you have their.

    Oh, and one last thing—–no apology from me for what you say::: fishon…I think you don’t answer questions that you can’t say “read it in your bible” to because you aren’t able to answer them.”———–Right again, Alice——–And I’ll tell you why I use that answer a lot———The Bible has a much better answer to most questions than you and I have—–and it is much more reliable than my answers——–now, maybe not more reliable than your answers——-But, I will stake my eternal life on its answers, not your’s.

    I suspect you and I won’t be dialoging again. Oh, be sure I will jump into some little diddies you throw out, but no use asking me any more questions, cause as you pointed out——I don’t answer for a variety of reasons, anyway.

  • preacherlady

    fishon…oh…and I said that the writers of the gospels didn’t get it right? No…I said we weren’t sure who the writers were. The essence of scripture is not changed whether the apostles wrote it or some unknown scribe did. It doesn’t matter if the words attributed to Jesus were what He said verbatim. The message is still the same. if you look at the red letters they contain the soundest spirituality ever written. There is nothing that can kill the essence of scripture from “In the beginning…” to “Amen”…it doesn’t matter who wrote it or didn’t write it or who tampered with it or not…they still havn’t been able to kill it. The New Testament needs to be looked at two ways…the story about Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. They are not one and the same. Paul wrote first, no, he wasn’t an eye witness but he spent a lot of time with them. What he wrote about is indicative of what was going on in the first few years of the church. Fishon, you get nasty about people not taking a litteral stance about scripture and if we got as nasty at you, as some people have,you scream. Yes, you keep on truckin’ with your narrow way of thinking and your good ol’ boy attitude…just don’t get all nasty if the rest of us don’t agree with you. And I love the way you wanted to crucify me over “the cross thing”… changed your tune when it was pointed out you said it…then it became ok…what were you saying the other day about words that began with H and ended in Y?

  • http://Titfortat6.blogspot.com Titfortat

    Here’s something to consider when believing many of these old stories. Imagine today the people who watch the magician Criss Angel perform. They all know it is a trick but are still unable to see how. What would be their take on it if they didnt “know” it was a trick? Imagine then, that 30 plus years later 2 of them write about their amazing experience. In all honesty, would that be considered evidence of its veracity? Belief of the events is all you have and for some that is just too miraculous.

    Also, considering we are all sinners, maybe John and Matthew were just liars. ;)

  • UberLeland

    fishon. Reading through this thread I wish again I could meet you in person and look you in the eye (as I have said before). Its the sad thing about the blog sphere that you can so easily hide behind your insecurity while others are willing to share theirs.

  • fishon

    UberLeland,
    And looking me in the eye would do what for you?

    And why is it, others may have a pile of insecurities, but some of us who don’t have many are automaticly painted as hiding behind insecurity?

    Just because you have insecurities does not mean everyone does.
    And by the way—-what is so virtuous about barring ones insecurities if one has them?

    We all have issues——why do I need to dump my issues on the whole world to see? Yea, like Tiger Woods insecurities are news worthy! O, that’s right—-the whole world is tuned in to get the lates news on his insecurities.

    Oh, I don’t think I have read about your insecurities? Want to share?

    And look me in the eye thing. That is the second time you said that. And someone asked if you were threating me? Or do your eyes hold some kind of special look that will do what??

    Hey, I have an idea! Tell me where you live—maybe I can come give you that look? Nay, you aren’t going to do that.

  • fishon

    UberLeland,
    Ah, now I understand where you are coming from. I checked out your website. Got it!

  • preacherlady

    how did you get UberLeland’s web site? It doesn’t link when you click on the name…

  • fishon

    Alice,
    I can’t tell you. Now please do NOT take it as me being nasty. If UberLeland wants folks on here to find his website, he will have to give it to you. I take it he didnt put it up here for a reason, and so I will respect that——-though he would meet me eye to eye. Please, please just see this as me respecting his not putting it up here, and no other reason.

  • preacherlady

    Jerry..of course I respect the fact that he didn’t make it public, although it IS curious since you don’t have a web site and haven’t published an e-mail address in months.

  • fishon

    You lost me on the curious thing?

  • http://web.me.com/leland52 UberLeland

    fishon. Not sure what to say except where do you live? I live just outside of Halifax Nova Scotia Canada. I would be up for a coffee anytime. My comments about looking you in the eye have to do with the limitations of the blogosphere and my impression that I could understand you much better in a face to face interaction.

    Preacherlady. website is as follows http://web.me.com/leland52/ Please do send your own if you have one!

  • fishon

    UberLeland,
    I live in Oregon. Too far for the sit down cup of coffee, but here’s to you. And the blogosphere can be a drag and a great barrier to understanding. There are a rare few who have the ability to share their eyes in their words——I am not one of those rare birds. Well, some make disagree. They would say I am a mean, nasty, intolerant…. I realize my words can come off as harsh. I did try about a year ago to really watch how I wrote things, but it made no difference. In the end, it was not about how I wrote; it was about my positions. So I decided it took too much energy for me to try and be politically correct in my wording. Well, enough of that. MAKE IT a great day.

  • preacherlady

    UberLeland…thanks for the link. My own website is under reconstruction and the blog I was supposed to have up 3 mos ago is still not started. I’ll let you know as soon as they’re up. Alice

  • preacherlady

    Jerry…the curious thing…an archaic usage meaning it makes one wonder…think Alice in Wonderland…I forget which character…spoke of something being curiouser and curiouser, meaning more difficult to understand.

  • http://web.me.com/leland52 UberLeland

    Thanks fishon. And if I am ever in Oregon I will let you know! I appreciate that you want to be as honest (however brutal) about your responses to people (as opposed to ‘politically correct’ as you say). I admire honesty but sometimes ‘honest’ is not how I have experienced your posts. They remind me rather of what an old supervisor said to me: “You can’t love what you are in reaction to.” And my reactions to your posts have only reinforced the truth of this statement for me.

  • fishon

    UberLeland

    April 7, 2010 at 8:23 am . I admire honesty but sometimes ‘honest’ is not how I have experienced your posts. They remind me rather of what an old supervisor said to me: “You can’t love what you are in reaction to.”
    ———Hum, I would have to say, maybe so, maybe not about reaction means not loving what you are reacting to. We would probably have to narrow down the mean of reaction, or the types of reactions, don’t you think?

    EAMPLE: Yesterday I had a life long friend call me and warn me about a daughter who I have a business arrangement with. She had just pressed charges against her for stealing a large sum of money again. Mother reacted against the daughter’s thief. The daughter is now screaming, “You don’t love me.” Mother does love her, and too, her reaction may someday prove to be the reason her daughter stops being a thief. Reaction = love.

    EXAMPLE: David has a huge reaction in his writings and cartoons against the institutional church. That can not be denied. Some of his reactions are very cutting for us who believe in and are a part of what he cuts down. So if I take the statement: “You can’t love what you are in reaction to,” at face value, then I must conclude—-David does NOT love the church. And the church is, as we know, people.

    Just a few thoughts.

  • http://web.me.com/leland52 UberLeland

    Hi fishon….

    Good examples. In my own mind I contrast reacting with responding. The difference between the two is often not apparent to the observer. Its an intra-personal phenomena. You make a great case for David’s reacting to the church. And I agree. I think of myself and my reactions to the church (which are sometimes similar to David’s) and I am pretty sure its not love since its coming from a place of insecurity and fear. I also think its possible to react and respond in a mixed way. I do get the very strong sense (having met him in person) that David does love the church – or at least an aspect of it. I also belief that whatever reaction he (we) have that is not loving may also be in the interest of the greater purpose of Love. These are tough items of discernment.

    Godspeed


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X