Skip to comments.Three Ugly Truths Exposed by the Tebow Assault
Posted on 12/27/2011 5:21:08 AM PST by rhema
The ongoing imbroglio with Denver Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow has made plain three really unflattering facts about the secular-progressive ("sec-prog") movement in this country. Tebow's straightforward and unapologetic Christianity has been received by NFL mensae magnae (contradiction in terms?) as a type of threat. These folks have responded by building upon the previously gathered strength of the anti-Christian movement in this nation. Such a movement, by the way, is far more prevalent than it formerly appeared.
First truth: the sec-progs have meatier game in sight than we used to think. That is, when sec-progs start out declaring that they aim merely to set a plain whereupon all religions can fairly "coexist," they really contemplate an end-game where religions fade permanently out of view. Have a look at the emergent history of the jurisprudence: "No federal religion" became "no state religions"; this became "no government entanglement with religion"; this became "no governmental support for religion"; this became "no governmental mention of religion"; this led to the phase that the Tebow debacle currently evinces: "no popular mention of religion in any public sphere, including private affairs which get viewed on TV." One can easily imagine the last few steps in this phenomenology of disappearance.
Coming back to Tebow, let's remember that his comparatively subtle iconographic decorum has managed to stir up the hornets' nest to a startling degree: recent betrayals by active (Lions players Stephen Tulloch and Tony Scheffler) and especially retired (Merrill Hodge and Jake Plummer) players lack all response-to-stimulus proportionality and sound more like personal defensive responses to some governmental actor threatening the players' own religious liberty. That is, all such ugliness over Tebow taking to his own knee in thanks, or occasionally mentioning the J-word after a game, exposes a fetid, rotten sort of secularism at the heart of
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Same accusation was made of Jesus about Judaism.. but he dealt with his accuser well..
Wrong. He was extremely knowledgeable, even as a child. No one ever accused him of not knowing the tenets of Judaism; He knew the Talmud inside and backward. They had a real problem, later during His ministry, with His interpretations and apparent disrespect of the church's heirarchy.
Judaism during Jesus time (and before) was dysfunctional and corrupt(Talmud).. and fleshly.. still is.. Pretty much as what Christianity has become..
Litergy [sic] of all types and ceremony is Kabuki Theater.. Posturing, masks, makeup, costumes, and strange sounds.. the Holy Spirit has become a Doofus there..
That's the worst sort of straw-man argument. You asserted that Christianity wasn't a religion. I challenged you on that point. Now, you offer nothing to support your contention; you merely bitch about the nature of the church today (as you see it; guess they didn't consult you). Totally different topic.
The Christian church is far from perfect, and I could spend hours pointing out its problems (especially with certain denominations and creeds that I will not name here). To me, and I do know what I'm talking about as a Christian for decades, the purest form of Christianity today can be found in good (not all) non-denominational, charismatic churches. They....get it.
That said, if you want to debate the shortfalls in the current Christian religion, fine. That wasn't your original statement, so if you still want to stick to your guns on Christianity not being a religion, let's hear your argument on THAT point.
It Mocks what it once was.. and is no more.. (mostly but not completely)..
Guess you haven't studied much on the early church. It was a total mess with sect after sect vying for the mantle of the one REAL, TRUE, by God CHURCH. The only surprise is that the Christian religion made it at all.
I live in LA county where we don’t even have a NFL franchise.
Naw, I don’t care for government use of eminent domain to make stadiums. LA has an Olympic stadium, the Rose Bowl, and the stadium used by the former Irvin Raiders. I think it is bad policy. If it makes sense to build a stadium, the private sector can buy the land. In most cases it makes sense to lease an existing stadium such as that available at the numerous colleges. Heck, as a policy matter, I don’t think that government high schools, government/state colleges should have football teams. There goes Nebraska, Oklahoma, OSU, (Beat) Cal, Penn, etc. And imagine: I used to live in Sealy Tx!
In general, as a legal matter, State governments are not limited to enumerated powers, unless that unusual provision is in the state constitution, or there is a limitation to the state constitution such as that in Article 4 of the federal constitution, or federal Amendment 2 as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
[ Guess you haven’t studied much on the early church. It was a total mess with sect after sect vying for the mantle of the one REAL, TRUE, by God CHURCH. The only surprise is that the Christian religion made it at all. ]
Nothing as changed.. except it has gotten worse..
Sheep pens are sheep pens whether they are baptist, catholic or boy scouts.. or the Moose Hall..
-OR- Buddists, Muslims or Hindu..
-OR- Animists, Cargo Cultists or Mormons..
A real God would have no need for a religion.. any religion..
AND its you that is ignoring my precepts..
One definition of “Pagan” refers to the common belief of the country folk, or rustics, as opposed to the more nuanced and refined beliefs of the court. Of course at that time the court beliefs of the rarefied elite at the court were that of the Christians. The rarefied elite selected fairly new texts that served as their received texts, thus defining what was the ‘New Testament’.
Only later did the Jews settle on what documents were excluded from the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic church differed from the Jews, and so some books (like Tobit and Sirach) (and sections of Daniel) are retained in the RC bible, and excluded from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings accepted by the Jews.
Today the rarefied elite is atheist. The common folk adhere to ancient virtues of the ‘G-ds of the Copybook Headings’ as rendered by Kipling’s poem and recently promulgated by Glen Beck. They often arrive at their justification of ancient virtues by analysis of ancient texts.
The cynics of the rarefied elite don’t care to be restricted by such virtues and texts. I look at them as the heirs of the Sadducees, or later of the Christian bishops of the court of Constantinople.
Some disagree with the Sadducees and would add more rules, restrictions upon restrictions, blocking the easy path to virtue and salvation provided by our limited understanding of the Divine will. Such are the heirs to the Pharisees. In like manner previous practices of veneration of icons were rejected by adherents of Islam. Perhaps after losing a few debates, the iconoclasts moved to the center of power, and soon became as corrupt as their predecessors.
And then there are the rest of us, trying to pass Charybdis and Scylla. As you may recall, Ulysses/Odysseus was counseled that it was better to accept a small loss to Scylla than loss of all to Charybdis. So we fools err on the side of virtue, such as we can perceive it.
It’s still crony capitalism, just like Solyndra and ethanol, and far too many conservatives, including and especially Rush Limbaugh, turn a blind eye to it.
Your use of Wikipedia is impressive but let’s try this one more time: Do you stand behind your statement that Christianity is a pagan religion? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I’m calling you out. Put up or shut up.
For the third time, yes I do.
Gosh, how many times do I have to answer your silly question? I wish you would read some of the answers.
So what brand of religion do you hold?
“I’m calling you out. Put up or shut up.”
I agree that it is bad policy.
I think the proper remedy at present is an informed and active electorate, rather than: (1) turning the matter over to judges, or (2) assassination.
I do wish the informed and active electorate would insist on more rigorous ethical rules. I don't see a cure to having the various legislative bodies make up their own ethical rules, as handing it off to another body would make that process even more subject to corruption and manipulation. No, I am not a Gingrich fan.
So, I am on the side of thinking that payments to WFB Morse to string his telegraph wire, or the development of the Springfield Arsenal, or the building of the transcontinental railroad were, at the time, good things.
That doesn't mean that all such ideas are always good things, or that even most of them are. Most of them should be voted down.
One thing I do is turn off the spectator sports. I used to be an NFL fan to the degreee that my Sundays and Monday nights were spoken for in the fall. In the 1972 season, the longest playoff game which was between the Dolphins and the Chiefs was played on Christmas day, I refused to show up at the dinner table until the game was over. It created a lot of controversy, because I wasn’t the only one.
I gradually lost interest, and when the local TV stations succeeded in forcing DirecTV to drop network programming, I couldn’t get NFL games except for the ESPN games, so I quit watching altogether, and when DirecTV was able to give us local stations, I found I really didn’t miss it.
I was hoping they would go on strike.
You attenmpt, and fail miserably, to analyze Christianity, yet fail to include what Christianity is.
It is Jesus Christ, the Son of God....
...crucified and risen for us.
Your socio-cultural methodology is mere absorption of the high priests of secular academia.
You can’t analyze Christianity without the focus being on Jesus the Christ. Well, you can, but it is useless.
“A real God would have no need for a religion.. any religion..
AND its you that is ignoring my precepts..”
I suppose he could leave it all up to the anarchy of ignorance, of which you well demonstrate.
Religion, for the Christian, is about God becoming man and appealing to our weaknesses and sinfulness. His Church was set up for us, to hear and worship Him.
[ His Church was set up for us, to hear and worship Him. ]
Jesus never used the word “the Church”..
The modern churches are in effect synagogues..
“Ekklesia” does not mean church.. but those called out of synagogues.. (Jn ch 10)
Jews and Gentiles seem to prefer Synagogues.. Whether Baptist, Buddist or Moose/Mason Hall..
“Jews and Gentiles seem to prefer Synagogues..”
I think you may want to explain this analysis of the Church of hosepipe lol.
Of course most Christians were Jews...but indeed they met together in Church to worship Jesus Christ. When they gathered, whether by 2 or 3 or 30, was it not Church?
Eventually larger communities gathered, Christians together celebrating and worshiping Jesus Christ’s Son, in Church.
“Jesus Christ, Son of God, in Church”
Once anything is added to the sacrifice of Christ for salvation, that individual no longer is a believer, but is dependent upon their own good works for admittance to heaven. The Church is much bigger than any list of members of recognized denominations. Read Mega Shift to discover how little we know of the Body of Christ in Muslim lands, and how surprised we will be at His coming.
[ When they gathered, whether by 2 or 3 or 30, was it not Church? ]
The “church” is a club.. The flock needs no clubs.. it needs only the Shepard.. The “church”/flock is an individual thing not a corporate thing each sheep follows the Shepard.. As Jesus said, “Wherever two or three congregate”.. The first two is YOU and the Holy Spirit..
In John ch 10 Jesus calls them out of the sheep pen and into the pasture.. (Ps 23)
The modern church are synagogues.. probably because thats the way Paul related to “gathering”.. My opinion (true) but thats the way I see it..
The “club” or Church came before Scripture. If there is no Church we have no Scripture.
Only many volumes of misinterpretations and argument.
There was Christ, then His Church, then Scripture.
Actually the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ are two metaphors that refer to the same thing in different aspects..
They are not churches they are organic in vision.. but since they both are spiritual they are not fleshly.. In my view the whole bible trys to convert “the chosen” from a fleshly point of view to a spiritual point of view of reality..
Its not easy either.. my own adventure from a fleshly point of view to a spiritual one is long and hard won.. Probably some or even most of the Apostles went thru the same thing.. It is indeed a metamorphosis like from a worm to a butterfly.. All denominations I have visited and studied have a fully developed fleshly identity.. and they are many.. Some maybe most are bound to remain a worm.. Which is OK.. must be, thats the way its supposed to be..
God I think is not a doofus..