Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by JerseyGator01, Dec 26, 2013.
Here's another .http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html
You know what the point is, wgb. So Jesus is either a lunatic, a liar or who he says He is, the Lord.
So, to you, which of the first two?
There aren't enough hands and faces in the world to give this the facepalm it deserves.
Or it could be just a story written by someone who never met Jesus. Or Jesus could earnestly believe that, not be crazy and just be wrong about things, like many other men concerning religious matters. I don't see it as a Manichean choice that must be made.
I didn't see it. I'll look a bit later. About to get on the road in a few (which fwiw, is a metaphor for me about to travel home right now even though I am going by train )
But let me ask, when Jesus said he is "the light of the world" did he really mean he is an energy wave that refracts when interacting with some medium or did he mean something deeper?
But to answer your last question, maybe it is a "bit much" but in such a context, exaggeration could serve a purpose. When I teach, I sometimes use the most extreme cases or over the top exaggerations as a way to make points. Students recognize that I don't mean such exaggerations as normal occurrences or that any metaphors are perfectly rational and logical comparisons, but language can be used as such to tell stories and teach and get at deeper meanings that sometimes just saying it "straight up" doesn't do. Sometimes it just doesn't have quite the same impact.
Of course it is. I got no love for Zimmerman, but Martin was killed in self defense, and was no angel himself
Men at Work?!? C'mon, man!
Men at work:
Actually a different kind of Men..the ones Without Hats! Don't know why that site showed Men at Work. Anyway, whenever river tries to change the subject I always think of either this song or..
Hehe. Yeah, I don' t know what youtube hack crossed those two bands up, but I just had to poke fun at you for letting such an egregious slam of magnificent early 80s culture slide by your editorial prowess.
From the article:
"Zachary described that when looking for pictures of Trayvon "one of the teenager lying dead on the pavement particularly tore at him. 'What if Jesus was lying there bleeding to death? I was kind of thinking of that,' Zachary said."
"The title of the nativity "art" is called " 'A Child is Born, a Son is Given,' the wording outlined in red formed from a pool of blood at Trayvon’s feet.""
The fact is that Jesus DID die for us. The blood of Christ, spilt for us on Calvary is the ultimate purpose for the birth of the Messiah. His blood is the sacrifice for our sins...the final and perfect sacrifice replacing the sacrifices of lambs and doves.
To inject Trayvon (who is no savior and died for no one but himself) and his blood into this scene is, in my view, a perversion of the Word and a sacrilege to God.
That doesn't mean that we aren't to be concerned about violence and its causes. The church can and does contribute much to help fractured and fatherless families...a root cause of increasing violence. If we are to be true to the call of Christ, then we love and help all.
Putting Trayvon in the nativity is an inappropriate distortion.
Odd then that you would be so mean spirited as to say liberalism is a mental condition, thereby casting a pretty ugly aspersion on many people here while whining about some guy supposedly perverting what the nativity is supposed to be. Doesn't seem very becoming of a Christian to me.
Definitely edgy and not a traditional nativity display but I don't think Jesus would be offended or find it a "perversion" or a "sacrilege." I don't think he would have a problem with the artist using Trayvon Martin to represent a victim of violence. It is a mistake to think the artist was attempting to portray Trayvon as a sacrificial substitute for Jesus. Martin wasn't a perfect human being but neither were the people Jesus ministered to and taught those eventful 3 years. During that time Jesus was at times himself the target of charges of blasphemy and accused of acts of sacrilege. I think he would fully understand the objective of the artist who designed this unconventional display.
In Matthew 25 it is recorded he said, 35"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
For further explanation the church placed this commentary on the display.
MB, in *cough* light *cough* of your statement above and quoted below that
is not metaphor, how do you explain what jdr asked you in the portion of his post I quoted?
actually I think this type of nativity scene perverts the message of the Birth of Jesus and is hardly Biblical-
I do not think Jesus would approve chompy-I do however think He would come to them directly and show them how He is the Life and the Truth and the Way
I Peter 3:15 ... But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. ...
Bill, what do you think is "the message of the Birth of Jesus" and why do you think Jesus would not approve? This particular display is a visual lament against senseless violence and Jesus said "blessed are the peace makers."
And for that matter, strictly speaking, statues and other depictions are violations of the commandment forbidding idols and graven images. Jesus would probably have more of an issue with that than the subject of the display in my way of thinking.
I agree, I think it's a mistake to think he was trying to substitute Trayvon for Jesus. Only an absolutely literal interpretation would lead to such a conclusion. But this is art and art is figurative, expressive, and imaginative, and not necessarily inclined to literal interpretations.
Perhaps some just have trouble with any messing around with 'tradition' (as nativity scenes are) without wanting to consider the meaning the artist was trying to convey?
I know. It must be difficult when a liberal forgets his meds. It seems to make you irritable.
I must have missed the Scripture where Jesus bashed Pontius Pilate's skull into an aqueduct before he was killed.
I do notice that Trayvon is still being referred to as an infant. Very subtle. Usually, violent, pot-smoking infants are fairly rare.