Falwell that ends well

Joe commented on my last rant about Jerry (sweet cheeks) Falwell with a quote from Rob Bell. “How we treat the creation reflects how we feel about the Creator”.

And this is exactly the problem. When you see God as some kind of cosmic gift dispensing machine (I think he probably looks like one of those old cigarette vending machines where you had to put your money and and pull that weird knob, or maybe that game where you put in your quarter and then try to operate the three pronged claw on a rope to retrieve your prize) you don’t have to respect what he has created because you don’t really have to respect him. Not in any relational sense anyway. God gets reduced to a force of nature. A case of cause and effect. Do the right things, get the right result. If that’s all you see when you see God there’s not reason to think he might be hurt, saddened or wounded by the things we do to his creation. [sarcasm]After all it’s not like he’s emotionally invested in the place.[/sarcasm]

We really do have to invent a sarcasm font.

Title credits to Jae

13 thoughts on “Falwell that ends well

  1. Jeremy, I share your frustrations, I think it’s tragic that this guys proclaims this stuff, distorting the nature of the gospel and the church…
    but can I ask why you need to personally trash a guy by calling him an ass clown online?

  2. “Need” is probably not the right word, “enjoy” might be more appropriate.

    Listen I can admit it, I sometimes feel better about myself when I put other people down. I’m shallow like that.

    Anyway, you’re probably (re: absolutely) right, so I’ll make the edit before I offend too many more people.

    Besides I kind of thought “ass clown” sounded a bit like a term of endearment, sort like “sweet cheeks” but funnier… because of the clown.

  3. love the sarcasm tags – funny/brilliant!

    Jae – also hilarious is your editing out “buttocks” and spelling out “mofo” :P Plus probably the wrong forum for this, but is it true that there are an equal force of arguments for and against God in philosophical circles?

  4. Jer, that’s cool…
    I undertsnad your shallowness… I can relate – it feels good to slam someone with hard words instead of light ones.
    just for the record, I still agree with your initial argument, we fail to honor God by not honoring his world.

  5. I’m not sure if that question was directed at me, but I’ll throw out an answer.

    The expedient answer is: yes
    The long answer is: it depends

    It depends on who you ask, what you mean by argument, and how you would define “argument force”.

    There are several theist (and deist) professors that consider “the force” of argument to be slightly (Richard Swinburne) or largely (William Lane Craig) in G-d’s favour.

    Generally though, most “philosophers” (including myself) believe there is no arguments for or against that can bridge the logical gap to objective knowledge of G-d’s existence.

  6. rad post
    this month I will be using this post in my sermon and I used your green video as well. I guess I should send some royalties?

  7. I thought ass clown was an appropriate term of endearment for falwell. Sooner or later I’ll get tired of trying to defend my faith from people like him and call myself something other than Chistian. Maybe we could start an ass clowns anonymous.

  8. Ass Clowns Anonymous could also be the answer to your search for a new name for the emergent church. It beats Post Modern!

  9. Makes me think of Deep Thoughts “To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kind of scary. I’ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.” -Jack Handy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>