Let's talk about the mission statement of the church. Recently (and sadly, this isn't the first time this has happened, and by people who really ought to know better), I was told that I was a sinful idolator because I have a cat-cartoon avatar (evil me). This person (mis)quoted a whole slew of scripture, the gist of which was that I didn't 'act', in her view, like a 'godly woman' (evidently godly women aren't sexy, nor do they have a sense of humor. They do not indulge in avatarian adventures.).

In spite of the fact that her view of a 'godly woman' sounded a lot like women who lived in the first century--wait, let me get my veil--and her pulling of verses wholesale from their passages to 'prove her point' reeked of a >Devil's Gospel, I didn't bother to argue with her. (And you know how I love to argue. Heh).

But, hey, you know me: if I run across a subject I know we all face on a pretty regular basis, I want to address it, and throw a few things out we may or may not have thought of.

And I have to ask: Do we really think Christ put the church here on earth to run around trashing the entire character of others based on something as stupid as them having a cartoon avatar? I have to be honest: as long as I've worked in and outside the church, when I see this happen (whether to me or someone else), it still annoys me. I can't see Christ carrying the message to the world: "I'm here to nitpick you to death, while I ignore issues like what true love and forgiveness are, and what faith is and what it isn't. And, by the way, if you have fun, you're dead."

Let me say right now, if I've offended anyone in choosing not to concentrate on such things, I do beg your forgiveness. Now please feel free to either go off and grow up the hard way, or sit back and learn--the choice is yours, and not my responsibility, no matter how much the twitchy religious sense of some would like to make it so. What kind of message does it send to those outside the church when the things we do to others (under the guise of doing them 'for' them) consist of such pettiness that it far transcends any pettiness of their own?

Yeah, we bad. It really makes you want to puke.

I don't hate those like this (impatience and grief at their hard-heartedness, I don't deny), mainly because I know they labor under the misapprehension that they are responsible for 'saving the world'. I call this a misapprehension because scripture plainly says that NO man comes to Christ except THE FATHER DRAW HIM.

Such folks handily leave this verse out, and they seem to be wholesale ignorant of God's charge to men in the Old Testament:

Jer 2:5 So says Jehovah, What iniquity have your fathers found in Me, that they went far from Me and have walked after vanity, and have become vain?

This verse makes it plain that God holds each man accountable for that man's interaction (or the lack thereof) with Him. I will tell you now--and please take this to heart--that while I'm happy to have the righteous smite me, I didn't sign on to be pecked to death by crows. I know those who read these blogs are, for the most part, thoughtful types who long ago pulled their head from the brainwashed masses bums and decided to breathe for themselves.

So, let's ask ourselves: are we really bound to look at people as so damn helpless that the sight of a cartoon character is going to send them to hell? This is what I was accused of, and I've had some preachers on here imply the same. It's a good thing I'm a believer, because otherwise I'm not sure I could stand these 'Xians' loving up on me here all the time.

:-P

There's a difference in doing something that truly offends another, and in someone using any excuse to peck at you and SAY you do. Do I feel obligated to cater to that? Hell no. I don't.

I had more character than that when I was a 14 year old girl, so don't expect me to respect that from an, uh, adult. I'm not obligated to honor tantrums to win anybody to God. In fact, I CAN'T win anyone to God, because only the FATHER DRAWS THEM. The kind of arrogance this skewed I'm-gonna-save-'em-all belief breeds shows up clearly in the petty and self-righteous hen-pecking those scared of themselves (and cartoons) spend their lives wrapped up in.

Those who've been here a while know that, when someone comes on here and asks an honest question, I'll answer in kind (respect, you get respect, you don't show respect, not so much). Scripture does not teach that we are obligated to honor the folly of a fool:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two verses, you'll notice, are put right together in the passage. (I've often wondered why some enterprising atheist doesn't try to use these to prove the 'Bible contradicts itself'.) Of course, it's actually a style of writing in which the author is telling us how to deal with two types of fools, in two different situations. (In the situation I opened the blog with, I used the first. Recently, when someone posted a comment on a blog asking why if a llama didn't believe in God I saw fit to do so, I used the second by asking him if he belonged to the Dr. Doolittle School of Philosophy. Hee hee hee. Don't care if I DID say it, it still makes me laugh.)

But both actions have one thing in common: you never take a fool seriously. That's the one thing he wants you to do, and the moment you do, you're as foolish as him. Now I don't say that the person who falsely accused me was a fool: only that they acted foolishly. But these verses still apply, and they still work.

I've had a few people tell me I could argue the hind legs off a mule. Xians are told to ALWAYS have an answer for those that ask of us, so that's just fine with me. The NT passage that deals with spiritual warfare has to do with the pulling down of strongholds and empty imaginations (ideas) in the mind. Sadly, most who claim to believe no more consider the realities of what might be involved in such things than they would think of flying. Without ever studying, they ASSUME they know what it entails (death by saccharine), then they go around trying to enforce those ideas on others.

Most of what they put out is pop theology rather than scripture. If there's one thing any serious student of the NT might say the apostles had in common, it's that they were what would be described today (and was then) as argumentative, obnoxious and…annoying. Paul wrote that 'in some things we offend all'. They were always pissing people off, they spoke out openly about things they felt were wrong (even John, the 'apostle of love' gets pretty rude in some of his little epistles).

If there's one thing I'd like people who read these blogs to take from them, it's a sense of liberty. Not just accepting the snares of religion like the pettiness described above, but actually refusing to let others put guilt or shame on them, knowing these things are destructive and not biblical weapons.

The weapons of our warfare, if you'd care to check out that passage, have to do with working on people's reason--why else are only the strongholds of vain ideas mentioned there?--not with manufacturing 'sins' in our own minds and tying people to them, or shoving shame down their throats. I can honestly say that God has never, in the entire time I've known Him, ONCE used shame to motivate me to do ANYTHING. After learning of psyc studies which show that shame is destructive of human character more than any other emotion, I know why. If I subscribed to this crap, half my friends list would be gone. I couldn't talk to rockers, or wiccans, or even some of the preachers I know. Heh.

After years of observing those in ministry, you note that it's much easier to reconvert the converted than those that aren't. They don't beat you up, they don't make fun of you (unless they're me), and they take every word you say as 'gospel' just because you said it, and you're a preacher so you MUST know. Nice work if you can get it.

And I have to say that, while I love those in ministry, I don't have a great deal of respect for many of them. They haven't earned it. They too often take the easy way out, and they beat and drive the sheep rather than lead them.

I guess it isn't any wonder if the sheep learn to do the same.

I think it helps to keep that in mind when they trash your avatar.

;-)

is here today to talk to us about unconditional love. We are told that unconditional love is a cornerstone of the Bible, but is it? And is this teaching really as good and helpful as some make it out to be? Let us look at the picture.

In discussing this concept with those who teach it, the Rat has always found that they hark back to only one passage: that of Christ hanging on the cross, where He says, "Father, forgive them." In all discussions on this in which the Rat has engaged in the past, this has been put forth as incontrovertible proof that God's love for us is unconditional--which seems, once examined, to be a code word for blind. Now, if the words of Christ on the cross were exactly and ONLY as written above, those who argue this might have a point.

Using a conditional statement to prove unconditionality does not make sense, does it, stoopid humans?

Because the words 'for they do not know what they are doing' ARE the condition Christ gives here for God to answer His request to forgive those who crucified Him. He plainly stated in another place that those who KNEW what they did would NOT be forgiven:

Frankly, the Rat does not see why people go around panting at the idea of unconditional love: it takes far more love to look at something as it is and choose to forgive, love or embrace, to work hard on a bad situation than it does to simply jump in blindly and accept everything handed you because 'that's unconditional love, and it's how it's 'sposed to be'.

Well. Wind me up and throw away the key, stoopid humans.

It takes far more commitment to a person to say things that need to be said (even if it means they get mad at you) than it does to tuck your head up their hiney and comment on the lovely rose scent. One deals with reality, which is often very hard: the other deals with how we'd like the world to be, which can often be the easy way out. Love is willing to be unpopular--Christ Himself did many things which made Him unpopular, including refusing to let a group make Him king in their way and time rather than that of His Father (John 6). And some of those things even got Him killed.

The Rat does not know about stoopid humans, but we rats far prefer an honest slap in the face to a phony (which is all ignorance can offer, since it knows nothing of the reality of who we are) embrace. The book itself says that open hatred is better than secret love. Why? Because you can't deal realistically with a thing unless you can recognize it--nor can you deal honestly with someone who will not BE honest.

The Rat would contend that unconditional love is actually a bad thing, stoopid humans. It causes you dumb humans to set your sights on things that are really too much to expect from the average person, who, if he is anything like a rat, is in some stage of growth, having learned things, and still having much to learn. And while you are looking for the Unconditonal Holy Grail (UHG!), you ignore the imperfect but still perfectly good love shown to you every day by those around you, because it fails to meet your iddo snooky-ums standards. In short, you treat real love like shit because you refuse to accept it in its embryonic states. Stoopid humans.

This does not mean we are not to always be looking for better or more effective ways to show and give our love. It just means that we should enjoy what we have--this is known as gratitude, and it is something God loves, stoopid humans. As long as we are settling for simply throwing 'unconditional love' at everything, we do not have to stop and think a situation through. We do not have to think about our responsibilities to others in the situation, nor do we feel we can examine their responsibilities to us without being 'guilty of unforgiveness'.

One of the best ways this love substitute manages to shut up its detractors is by labeling the desire for such things as justice with nasty words like 'unforgiveness'. Forgiveness that ignores justice is only license to screw others at will. True forgiveness looks straight at justice and examines which is truly best for all in the situation.

For instance, if there is one thing the Rat hates, it is the hard heartedness of those not having been hurt who demand of the wronged one that he forgive. Look, stoopid humans, forgiveness is a GIFT, not a right--which means no one has the RIGHT to it. Such a sense of entitlement is nothing but arrogance, and a refusal to care about another's rights as you do your own. It is selfish, and even a rat can see this.

Further, scripture does not teach we are obligated to forgive where there is no repentance. The word repentance means a turn around, to go in the opposite direction, so simply flipping someone off with an insincere 'sorry' will not cut it:

Does this mean that if someone does something wrong and asks your forgiveness and he does the same thing again, you are not obligated to forgive him again? First, it does not take a genius to know when some doofass is only trying to play you. In the art of self defense, one of the first things you are taught is to listen to your instincts, as those who do have a better chance at survival. Now, since God gave these instincts to us, would it make sense that He would expect us to ignore what HE gave us, when even stoopid humans have enough sense to see that it is there for a reason?

The answer is obvious. So then we are not to forgive more than once, you ask the Rat?

Not exactly. Some faults take time to overcome, and we are to take this into account in our dealings with others:

This would really test your patience, would it not, stoopid humans? So the next verse is not a coincidence:

You would need to have faith in a person to do have this kind of patience, would you not? You would need to have faith in humanity itself. It is funny to us rats that you humans have so little faith, and even more funny that you do not do what these disciples did about it and ask the Author of faith to give you what you might lack.

But then, we are only rats and cannot pretend to understand the ways of humans.

Welcome to this week's episode of The Antique Roadsnore!

[camera pans right to a table where a man and woman sit with a photograph]

Man: So, what have we got here? This photograph was handed down to you?

Woman: Yes. The woman in the picture [camera zooms in for close up of a woman with strange black markings on one breast] is my grandma.

M: And what's this on her breast?

W: That's Gene Simmons' autograph.

M: Gene Simmons? How do you know this?

W: Well, she always kept this picture, taken the night she got it. And it's a good thing, because she got caught in a rainstorm and the damn thing washed off.

M: What makes you think this is Simmons' autograph?

W: Well, the picture shows him standing in the background, there, off to the left.

M: Yes, well…

W: What? You can see that's Gene Simmons!

M: Well, yes--and no. You see, Simmons was known as a real entrepreneur--this guy would sell the dust collected from his Hoover.

W: So what are you saying?

M: The Simmons you're seeing in this picture was actually a large cut out of Gene.

W: You're kidding! So, what about the autograph?

M: Did your grandma drink much? Because that looks a lot like the ink off a Burger King placemat.

W: Oh…so I guess it's worth--

M: Bupkis. Move on.

[camera pans left to two men sitting at a table, tossing water-filled baggies back and forth]

1^st guy: So, can you tell us the story behind these?

2^nd guy: Well, my dad was a plastic surgeon out in Hollywood.

1^st guy: Did he do many celebs?

2^nd guy: Oh, yeah, all the big ones. He sometimes had to reverse the procedures that didn't work out. So these are--

1^st guy: Pamela Anderson's implants! OH YEAH! [squeezes fake boobie bags] WHOA BAAAAABY!

2^nd guy: Hooyah. Uh…

1^st: Quiet! [squeezes boobies again] Oh, Pam, Pam, oh, Pamelaaaaaaa…

2^nd guy: Excuse me--

1^st guy: OK, dammit, OK! How much you want for these babies?

2^nd guy: [gets up, taking implants and moves to leave]

1^st guy: WAIT! WAAAAAAIT! I'll trade you the panties Brittney Spears forgot to wear! A Brad Pitt nipple ring--!! [men converge on him and restrain him as camera fades to black]

This has been The Antiques Roadsnore!

See you next week!

One of my favorite writers is George MacDonald. If you're unfamiliar with him, let me throw you a few gems from an anthology of his works compiled and edited by C.S. Lewis…enjoy.

Love is the law of our condition, without which we can no more render justice than a man can keep a straight line, walking in the dark.

*****

There is endless room for rebellion against ourselves.

*****

It is the heart that is not yet sure of its God that is afraid to laugh in His presence.

*****

As soon as a man begins to make excuse, the time has come when he might be doing that from which he excuses himself.

*****

But how can we love a man or woman who…is mean, unlovely, carping, uncertain, self-righteous, self-seeking, and self-admiring?--who can even sneer, the most inhuman of faults, far worse in its essence than mere murder? These things cannot be loved.

The best man hates them most; the worst man cannot love them. But are these the man?…Lies there not within the man and the woman a divine element of brotherhood, of sisterhood, a something lovable and lovely--slowly fading it may be--dying away under the fierce heat of vile passions, or the yet more fearful cold of sepulchral selfishness, but there?…It is the very presence of this fading humanity that makes it possible for us to hate. If it were an animal only, and not a man or a woman, that did us hurt, we should not hate: we should only kill.

*****

I thought about some of Doug's blogs when I reread this one:

That no keeping but a perfect one will SATISFY God, I hold with all my heart and strength; but that there is none else He cares for, is one of the lies of the enemy. What father is not pleased with the first tottering attempt of his little one to walk? What father would be satisfied with anything but the manly step of the full-grown son?

*****

The White Stone (And I will give to him a white stone, and on the stone a new name having been written, which no one knows except the one receiving it. --Rev. 2:17)

The name is one "which no man knows saving he that receiveth it." Not only then has each man his individual relation to God, but each man has his peculiar relation to God. He is to God a peculiar being, made after his own fashion, and that of no one else. Hence he can worship God as no man else can worship Him.

For each, God has a different response. With every man He has a secret--the secret of a new name. In every man, there is a loneliness, an inner chamber of peculiar life into which God only can enter. I say not it is the innermost chamber.

There is a chamber also…a chamber in God Himself, into which none can enter but the one, the individual, the peculiar man--out of which chamber that man has to bring revelation and strength for his brethren. This is that for which he was made--to reveal the secret things of the Father.

And this commentary of mine, written in the margin years ago, about MacDonald's thoughts on The White Stone: Yet there are those who, like the foolish virgins, come to others to seek the oil they themselves should be giving to others FROM within themselves. Second hand revelation is often corrupted revelation, since each one of us is meant to shine in our OWN way. The revelations we share with others are signposts on the journey, but are never meant to take the place of taking the journey yourself. Those who look for this will be disappointed in those they seek it from, since it was never that person's purpose to begin with.

In this respect, those whose truth is bought at God's feet owe it to no one but themselves. It is given of God to them alone, and would not profit another man if he had it. It only impoverishes the one who lost or never had it.

****

Like any great writer, Old Mac isn't the sum of all knowledge, but a great jumping off point for our own deeper thought. Any thoughts on what you've read here you'd like to share? Or maybe you have another favorite writer and some thoughts on his writings..?