“Not with a bang but with a whimper” was T. S. Eliot’s revisionist idea of the world’s end in The Hollow Men. He was almost right. Not with a whimper, but with a million whimpers, each more feeble and bathetic than the last, is the way we seem to be slouching toward oblivion.
Whimper du jour: a pitch for a new reality show … starring Levi Johnson … making a run for mayor of Wasilla. From Variety:
Johnston will run for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska — yes, the same job that propelled Sarah Palin to governor of that state (and later, the vice presidential nomination) — in a new reality project being pitched by Stone and Co.
“Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor’s Office” will center on Johnston’s newfound fame as the baby daddy to Palin’s grandson, Tripp.
Johnston will trade on that notoriety to make his run for Wasilla City Hall—when he’s not pursuing a career in Hollywood, of course.
Stone and Co. are already shooting the show’s pilot and have started pitching the show to networks.
For a perfect storm of nihilistic absurdity and banality, a convergence of politics, tabloid journalism and reality television seems hard to beat. Johnston, meanwhile, seems an ideal poster boy for a culture of meaninglessness. A young man whose sole achievement to date is knocking up a girl whose mother has become a poster girl for something else, Johnston saw a meal ticket in caddishness and has been tucking in with both fists. That his photograph was ever published on a magazine cover is damning enough, never mind that it sold any.
Johnston appears eager to brand himself in any way he can, whether it’s appearing in a music video and attending the Teen Choice Awards with some female singer or starring in a reality TV series. Apparently several networks have pitched concepts for a reality show co-starring Johnston and Bristol Palin, but Palin, to her possible credit, has declined such offers. (Let’s not be too quick to credit anyone with anything here. Just in case, like me, you were lucky enough to have missed it, Johnston and Palin were apparently engaged again like last week, but it’s off again.)
Perhaps the key point here is that the idea of Johnston running for office wasn’t something he pitched to the entertainment industry, or even his own idea at all. It was something the entertainment industry pitched to him:
Johnston admitted that he wasn’t thrilled at first about the mayoral campaign concept, which was pitched to him by Stone’s Scott Stone and David Weintraub.
“But the more I think about it and look into it, I think there’s a possibility we can make it happen,” Johnston said of his political prospects. “It’s something that I want to do.”
Like many “reality” show premises, then, Johnson’s bid for public office has nothing to do with the non-televised world in which those of us who aspire to be human try to live. It is only “reality” in the trivial sense that if the premise is as successful as the producers would hope, Johnston will actually be the mayor of Wasilla. (By way of context, the Variety piece helpfully points out that Wasilla’s current mayor won in 2008 with 466 votes—less than 100 from his nearest competitor, who received 373. If only the ratings are in a similar range.)
Johnston believes this show may reveal him as a complex, inscrutable soul whose depths and aspirations a breathless American public has barely begun to plumb:
“It’s hard to figure me out … You’ve got to follow me around. I’m very different. I lead a crazy life. But it will basically be both worlds, my life in Hollywood and back home, the real country boy that I am.”
Johnston said he knows his reputation “is love and hate right now… but we’re trying to flip that around.” This show, he added, will “send a message to America about who I really am and what I want to do with my life.”
Coincidentally, that’s just the sort of revelation the producers want to deliver too:
Stone and Co. promise a “no-holds-barred” look at Johnston’s attempts at raising son Tripp with Bristol Palin, as well as “looking for love and taking care of business for his fellow Wasillians.
“He will give us a real inside look into who he is as a father, a skilled hunter, an avid dirt biker and his journey down the road of small-town politics ... right after he gets his high school diploma,” the company said in its description of the show.
The entertainment industry and politics can both be pretty corrosive forces, and their intersection is seldom a pretty place to be. Still, one occasionally encounters new peaks and new lows. I’ll think of a peak some other time.
Sometimes, though not always, hitting a new low can be a wake-up call that shocks people to their senses. If it does, we call it hitting rock bottom; if it doesn’t, it’s just one more whimper on the slide into oblivion.
Awhile back I blogged that audience indifference to the recent glut of sequels, remakes and franchise adaptations may have been the wake-up call Hollywood needed regarding their dearth of originality. Could “Loving Levi” provoke enough disgust and apathy to amount to a wake-up call for the networks? It would be pretty to think so.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, none of this is happening in a hurry. The next Wasilla mayoral election isn’t slated until 2012.
When, of course, the world is scheduled to end.
Comments
Post a Comment
In light of this earth-shattering news, I will be spending the rest of the day chugging Draino.
Uuugh. The previous line is likely to be more intelligent than anything this show will feature.
The Apocalypse will not go better with Coke.
The Apocalypse will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The Apocalypse will be no hour-long comedrama, brothers.
The Apocalypse will be filmed live.
“The Wanderer Oress”???
Seriously, if you’re going to spam a combox at least get the friggin’ URL right.
Yay! Combox spam removed… only now my comment above makes no sense (and I guess this one doesn’t either).
My favorite quote is the one where Johnston says his reputation “is love and hate right now… but we’re trying to flip that around.” Instead of love and hate, he would prefer hate and love, then?
The horror here is not just that this young man (no true country boy he; there’s a term—in fact a variety of terms—for individuals who act like this) would behave so foolishly and insensitively toward his son and his son’s mother and her family.
The horror includes the fact that the people involved with the “reality” show would try to so exploit a foolish young man into making truly colossal mistakes at such an important juncture in his life, when he is just starting out. Presumably, the people pitching the show—and who pitched the whole mayoral thing to him—are older and therefore *ought* to be wiser.
Perhaps the problem is that people from the entertainment industry haven’t grasped the fact that real people are not fictional characters and that making real people do revolting and foolish things is not the same as making fictional characters do them in a story.
I’d even go so far as to say we don’t want to encourage fictional characters to do revolting things unless there’s some greater narrative purpose that can be wrought out of it (as Judd Apatow manages somehapatow to do in his pictures). Anyway, God only knows what greater narrative purpose is behind this latest sad situation.
Word is that Levi’s and Sara’s press agents had a pillow fight at Spago (Hollywood restaurant) over who stole who’s idea…..
I noticed that there is a picture of a face of a statue at the very top of this blog page. Im glad there is honesty on this blog, let people know where you stand. Thanks
What?
Yeah, I didn’t understand wayne’s comment either.
But here’s another reality show scandal (in the canonical sense of the word) for you: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/wthuston/2010/08/12/new-reality-tv-show-incendiary-father-pfleger-friend-of-obama-runs-for-chicago-mayor/
Never mind. It’s not a real show idea. Ignore my previous comment.
I think he might be pointing out how we papist idolators worship statues especially of Our Goddess Mary. And how it’s good that we’re truthful about it.
As I write, there is an ad (though it’s in the sidebar, not at the top of the page) for a “Guide to the Rosary” and the image is plainly a white-marble or -plaster face of Mary.
Victors rite. It was an add
It was an ad for a catholic college. Truth in advertising. I stopped asking ‘why all the graven images’ long ago. I know why. But it doesnt seem to bother most folks. It doesnt matter how many times i see religious “objects”.It always amazes me. The angels cant see what we see and are desirous to see, but they can only see the spirit world. I get to see things mentioned in scripture prophesy and they cant. Speaking of the apocalypes, i believe i saw the face of the anti-christ. No its not Obama or Bush.They dont have the backbone.
Wayne, how do you know that angels can only see the spirit world?
As Bruce Wayne told Alfred in Batman Begins, sometimes people need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. Perhaps this series will be the dramatic example of uselessness that helps Americans recover their senses. “Levi” is not the reality series we need. Sadly, it’s the one we deserve.
You did a good thing, Mr. Greydanus.
Brother Steven, its in the bible , that angels wish to see what we see. im getting ready to go off to work and dont have time to find the verse.I promise to find it when i get back. Here is some advise bro Steve, spend more time in the bible than in the writings of men.
Ok, since im the boss, i took some time to find the verse. there might be a better one, im not sure. I Peter 1;12. The angels desire to see these things, but they cant.No one desires something the already have. aits not elaborated on because its not important in the scheme of salvation. being born again is all there is. Nothing can add to that.
My dear brother Wayne, there’s nothing wrong with your advice, but you have no idea how much time I spend in the word of God or the writings of men.
Do you really think this verse teaches that angels see the spiritual world only? Just wondering.
Bro Steve, we know angels have appeared once in a while to men.I guess they see what is there. But the bible can and should be taken at face value. ‘things into which angels long to look.” Why do they long to look? Because they cant see the physical world. We cant see the spirit world.You might want to ask: well how do they save us from a car crash or something? God sees. Angels mainly keep the evil ones at bay. There is a war in the spirit world. Satan wants to see us torn apart and go to hell with him.Jesus let Peter in on a scecret. He told Peter that satan wants to sift him like wheat. Peter would never have known this, cause he cant see into the spirit world, just like you and i cant. Angels know scripture. They want to see the beast and the israel of today and the idols men bow to. So what? They get to see heaven and god and his throne and the 24 elders and the 4 creatures and the ark and what have you. We cant.
“aits not elaborated on because its not important in the scheme of salvation.”
But yet it’s important enough in the scheme of something or other for you to tell others to be absolute iconoclasts, a position that, to put it as generously as possible, has never been widely accepted in the church (visible or invisible, East or West).
“Why do they long to look? Because they cant see the physical world.”
(1) That angels have occasionally participated in th physical world is as Biblical as the verse you cite, so appealing to “sola scriptura” doesn’t help you. All you’re really doing is privileging Verse X and then ignoring / throwing up your hands at Verse(s) Y which plainly disputes the conclusion you try to draw from Verse X and say “well, Verse X says it.”
(2) Your conclusion doesn’t even follow. Where is it written in scripture that “we can only long for that which we CANNOT have,” your unstated minor premise. Where does even “evident reason” (something Luther acknowledged as authoritative at Worms) imply such a thing. “We can’t have it” is one common reason to long for something, granted. But simple English usage also tells us we can also long for something in the past, something we are temporarily separated from or even for a destination we are on the road toward, or for more of something we have.
Hi Victor. I didnt say we long for what we ccannot have. I said we long for what we DONT have. The bible says angels long to see. Angels see your spirit and whats inside it and report it to god.An angel is not some good looking white blond person with wings. Your angel faces god continually.
An angel is a created being. They have no physical body until god puts them in one to come here and make a personal appearence. My angel bit was just a passing thought. I had no idea someone would be so big on that subject. So Victor, which verse am i ignoring? I didnt know i was ignoring a verse. Yes Victor my friend, bible only for me. Oh, i read the telephone book and believe it, and my math books and my chess books(with a grain of salt). But i dont look anywhere else for the gospel than the bible. Men are liars. therfor i leave what they think to the unsaved. Some people rely heavy on what men say. Ive seen people quote from men almost exclusively. Thats cause whats in the bible is foreign to them. The unsaved are blind to the ways of the spirit. Jesus said so
I break up my posts cause my computer has this glitch that erases what i have typed befor i finish my speel. Have you seen folks who quote men to prove or make a spiritual point? They love what man says. Jesus says satan savorest the things that be of men and not the things of god. Budha, Krishna, old writers from the catholic past, they all have something nice to say but toss in falsehoods along the way.Victor, thats why its bible only for me, and lots of others i know.
Wayne, the reason I’m asking about your ideas on angels is that you seem to think all your ideas are from the Bible, and actually you are influenced without knowing it by a long history of Christian philosophy and tradition, both Catholic and Protestant.
1 Peter 1:12 states that there are things into which angels long to look, but it doesn’t state that angels are pure spirits without bodies or that they don’t sense the physical world the same way that we do. Those ideas come from early and medieval Christian theologians who developed those ideas not based on the Bible alone but also on sacred tradition.
The Apostles and other early followers of Jesus followed the same principle of sacred scripture together with sacred tradition. For instance, my namesake St. Stephen, the first martyr, making his defense to the Jewish Sanhedrin, goes through the Old Testament salvation history known to them all, ending by saying that the Jewish leaders have murdered and betrayed the Messiah—“you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
The idea that the law of Moses was delivered by angels is also found in Galatians Paul (Galatians 3:19) and in the book of Hebrews (Hebrews 2:2). Where does it come from? It is not stated in the Old Testament. Was it perhaps some special revelation to the early Christians? No. For one thing, Stephen clearly expects his hearers to know what he is talking about; Paul and the writer to the Hebrews also talk as if this is common knowledge. And in fact it was: It was Jewish tradition in the first century, which Stephen, Paul and the writer to the Hebrews all accepted as an accurate and authoritative account of how God gave the Torah to Moses.
What a debate. The only thing I would like to add is that God doesn’t need a report from angels about His people. That is also a thought you are not getting from the Bible.
Johnston said he knows his reputation “is love and hate right now… but we’re trying to flip that around.” ...
... to “hate and love”?
Here is some advise bro Steve, spend more time in the bible than in the writings of men.
So, the Bible penned itself? And the Bible plopped down from heaven in a nice leather-bound cover all by itself too? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and James were not men (not to mention Isaiah, Danile and the others in the OT)? I m afraid you are not making being consistent bro Wayne.
Hi Matt, i find that religious people believe in a weak god. A god that gave us a book but we humans cant understand it, that we need special humans to tell us these private interpretations. Or that the bible was written by men and needs outside help fron enlightened humans.
Tell me bro Matt, who wrote Genesis? God or Moses? Paul says all scripture is giving by inspiration of the holy ghost. Men just penned it. So yes, it just dropped out of the sky. Maybe you think different.Hi Steven, I peter 1;12 doesnt say angels cant see the physical world, correct. It also doesnt say not to send Wayne all your money.What do you do in that situation?
I remember talking to this person, i said that the new test never anywhere says Peter went to Rome. The brilliant answer was ” it didnt say Peter didnt go to Rome”. Going to Rome would have been a big enough deal to mention in the scriptures, cause Rome was the seat of christian persecution and idolatry. Even Paul, a Roman citizen didnt have good luck there.
I dont know why we got sidetracked on angels. I think my original point was that im getting to see the end times in living color. Its time to take sides.For or against the Lord. God wants people to worship in spirit and truth. Not with objects that you can see and touch, you know, worship aids. These have no fellowship with Christ.
I find that people who criticize “religious” people believe in a weak god. A god that sent his Son to bring salvation and bring public revelation to an end, but who was too weak to prevent the message of salvation from being buried under idolatry and false gospels for over a thousand years until eventually special humans called the Reformers rediscovered the truth.
I also find that they have more faith in their own interpretations of scripture than in the work of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years before they came along.
Incidentally, why do you use “religion” as a bad word? Where does the Bible support that?
Tell me bro, who wrote 1 Corinthians? God or Paul? If Paul just penned it, does that mean that in 1 Corinthians 1:16 God couldn’t remember how many people Paul had baptized? And in 1 Corinthians 7:12 when God says “I, not the Lord,” is that one member of the Trinity talking about another?
As Catholics, we believe that the Bible, like Jesus, is both fuilly divine and fully human. Just as the living Word of God became human like other men in every way except sin, so the noetic word of God became human literature like other human literature in every way except error.
Incidentally, what about the fallible men who gathered together the NT canon in the third and fourth centuries? Is it possible that fallible men made a mistake? Or are you certain that they acted without error?
I remember talking to a lot of people who have said a lot of things. Let me ask you a question: Why do you believe that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? If so, why? The books themselves don’t tell us who wrote them.
I use my judgment on sending Wayne my money, and I ask Bible-only believers who seem sure about things that aren’t in the Bible like what angels can or can’t see why they’re so sure about that.
Going to Rome also would have been a big enough deal not to mention in the scriptures, cause Rome was the seat of christian persecution and idolatry. Think about it. Then investigate the early Christian use of “Babylon” as a code word.
Where does it say that in the Bible?
If objects you can see and touch have no fellowship (communion) with Christ, why did Christ command us to keep going back again and again to this bread and wine business? And why does St. Paul tell us that the bread we break is a communion in the body of Christ, and the cup we drink is a communion in his blood (cf. 1 Cor 10:16ff)? How can the bread and the cup which you can see and touch (and eat and drink) be a communion or fellowship in the body and blood of Christ if things you can see and touch have no fellowship with Christ? Who is right, you or Paul (assuming Paul was doing anything more than holding the pen)?
Why does Jesus tell his disciples to practice an initiation ablution rite with water, which, again, you can see and touch? And why does St. Paul say that “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” (Rom 6:3)? And why does St. Peter say “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21)? How can we be “baptized into Christ Jesus” or “baptized into his death” if visible things like water have no fellowship with Christ?
Hey Steven, wow, you picked me apart pretty good. Ill answer the last first cause i think i can answer that better than the rest. Jesus said to break bread and remember him and what he did. Remember me as oft as ye do this. People eat bread. The bread itself is nothing to idolize, and the act itself is not a ritual. You have to be careful not to place any special powers on the breaking of bread, because there is none in the act. This might sound clanish, but, even though the apostols werent born again at that time, Jesus meant this act for the saved to do in his honor til he return, not the unsaved. If the unsaved do it, its meaningless. They attach all kinds of ideas and strange doctrines to it
Concerning water baptism, once again, it was meant for born again folks. Once a person accepts Jesus and is transformed, then this person wants to show the world he is a new creature.Then he goes for water baptism, not the other way around. Again, the unsaved have built all kinds of wierd powers to water baptism, even that water baptism makes you born again. This is hard for me to put in words. The new test is usless for the unsaved. Get saved then read it. Jesus promised to blind people to the scriptures who are not born again. Thats why the unsaved have all these odd ideas about the bible, cause they cant understand it. So they rely on a few enlightened ones who are the only ones to be able to interpret scripture. Spooky.
Where is religion a bad word? Follow Jesus in his day to day accounts. You must have heard how he came down on the sadusees and pharisees, called them vipers and told them that when they enlist someone into their religion, that person becomes twofold the child of hell as themselfs. Who wrote the book of Luke? Well, lets see, since the title is the book of Luke, my first guess would be….LUKE. You can tell by the perspective of his writing that he was a doctor. Who wrote Matthew? Well, my best guess is..Matthew, and so forth. All scripture is inspired by god, no need to make poor old wayne account for this. He wasnt around when the books were written. Its your choise to believe it or not.
Why, how sweet of you to say so! :-)
I don’t know what you mean by “The act is not a ritual.” What exactly do you mean by “ritual”?
Anyway, you haven’t answered my questions. If God is only interested in spiritual worship and doesn’t care about physical objects, why did Jesus give us a ritual (sorry, but that’s what it is) using bread and wine? Why not just tell people to remember him in their hearts, and not bring physical objects into it?
Also, what does it mean to say that the cup is a “sharing,” or “participation,” or “communion” in the blood of Christ, and the bread is a sharing / participation / communion in Christ’s body?
You have it exactly backwards. To be “born again” in the NT means nothing other than being baptized. To be “born again” MEANS “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3-5). This was the UNIVERSAL understanding of being “born again” in the early church. Is your God strong enough to ensure that those who were born again knew what this meant? Or do you think that no one was born again for centuries and centuries?
Ah, but he criticizes them, not for being “religious,” but for being hypocrites. He does NOT say “when they enlist someone into their religion.” He says “when you make a convert.” So if anything you should conclude that being a “convert” is a bad thing.
It was men who lived centuries after Luke who gave the book that name. There is no evidence that Luke signed or titled his work. The reason people believe it was written by Luke is that early Christian writers said so, and people trust them as giving trustworthy historical testimony. Same reason Catholics believe that Peter went to Rome.
Wayne, if there are no “special powers” associated with the breaking of this particular bread or the drinking of this particular wine, then why does Paul write in I Corinthians 11:30 that some members of the church have become sick and even *died* because they ate the bread and drank the wine unworthily? Doesn’t that suggest that there is something “special” about communion, roughly analogous to, e.g., the way people were struck dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant?
Bro Steve, i knew this wouldnt sit well with you and your readers. Anyone can be water baptised. And billions have been. But only a pitifull few are going to heaven. Why is that? Because ye must be born again. No one ascends to heaven except he who came down from heaven. Jesus gives you a new spirit from heaven the instant you are born again. This spirit knows Jesus peronally.My sheep know my voice and another they will not follow. Hey,why dont you ask to be born again.That way you can see what im yackin about.Find a quiet time and ask for this spirit Wayne is talkin about. Ask and ye shall recieve.
Wow bro Peter, you bit of one of the worst passages to understand.Eating and drinking unworthily. Thats explainable. But like i maintain, looking at this with religion colored glasses makes it impossible to understand.
You still aren’t answering the questions on the table, Wayne.
In many respects, what you’re saying here is not far from what I might have said many years ago. I have prayed with many people to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. I’ve prayed that prayer myself. I love Jesus, and I know that it’s his love inside me, not something I worked up in myself.
The churches I worshiped in as a boy and a young man—that I led Bible studies in, taught Sunday School in, in one case preached in, and was otherwise actively involved in— might look a lot like the church you go to. Of course that doesn’t mean I was saved, but I know that I was.
Every day I ask to live by the Spirit, and I believe God hears me. I can’t quite muster up the boldness or foolishness of Paul to boast of my quiet times before the Lord, either in my Protestant days or today as a Catholic, but suffice to say you aren’t speaking to someone who is ignorant of what you’re talking about.
God used the compilers of the bible to put togeather the book he wanted, just like he uesd a donkey to talk to whats his name in the a old test, forgot his name, Baalim, or Balaam or something. Catholics are fond of pointing out that the catholic church compiled the bible. Some have gone as far as to tell me that the Cc wrote the bible.Now theres a real catholic. My religion right or wrong. Thats faith. Nothings wrong with that. But keep in mind that as this religion grew , its leaders took another look at this book they compiled.Well, the compilers were dead and buried. But church leaders noticed things in there they didnt want their flock to see. So when you look back in pride that the Cc compiled the bible, you must also look back in horror of the people it burned alive for posessing one of these bibles
Oh man, bro Steve, im not a protestant, but was raise that way i guess.If protestant means not catholic. Protestants dont really have an agenda or rituals per se. But what made you go catholic instead of just following the Lamb? Sounds like you were right there at the door.
Wayne, the Bible you describe, the “Balaam’s Bible,” would be only divine, not human. That’s not like Jesus. Fully divine AND fully human.
When God spoke through Balaam’s donkey, the donkey had no vocabulary, no grammar, no sense of logic or irony or rhetoric. God had to supply all of this. That’s not how it was with the biblical writers.
God made use of the writers’ individual writing skills, sense of style, cultural background, etc. That’s why different books of the Bible have different literary style. It’s why Mark is written in a direct, plain style and Hebrews is written in a polished, elegant style, etc.
“Took another look”? “Noticed things”? When do you suppose this was? Take another look at the history. In every century Catholic leaders quoted, expounded upon and promoted the sacred scriptures. It was Catholic monks and scholars who painstakingly copied the Bible down through the centuries so that it was there for the Reformers when they came along. It was Catholics who translated the Bible into vernacular languages long before the Reformers ever came along.
When was anyone burned alive simply for possessing the Bible? There were times when specific translations or editions were condemned for certain deficiencies. That’s a different matter. That doesn’t mean that I don’t look back in horror at people being burned. But the record isn’t as simple as you make out.
I still don’t know what you mean by “rituals” and why you don’t consider baptism and communion rituals. As for “agenda,” how about sola scriptura and sola fide? Two phrases not found in the Bible, except where the Bible condemns justification by faith alone, in James 2.
At the door? I was in the house, I lived and ate and drank and slept it. Short answer, I followed the Lamb, and this is where He led me. I became Catholic because I followed Jesus and I wanted to keep following Him.
There are still a lot of questions above I’d like to see your answers to, including Peter’s question. What does it mean to eat and drink unworthily so that people die?
Steve bro, just using what i read in acts and so forth, god acted swiftly in those early days. Remember, the apostols were there and had all the power jesus had, except the powers Jesus has as Godhead. So people got jacked quick. Like the husband and wife team that lied about how much their house sold for. People dont drop dead for lieing much anymore
Dr. Gene Scott went over the unworthily thing yrs ago. Its not partaking in an unworthy manner peter meant, its being unrepenentant, or hating someone, or having cheated someone. Go make ammends if possible, then partake in communion. I guess you can call that ritual. But it has no punch, it doesnt do anything for you. Neither does observing passover. Its just to remember the Lords last supper for generations. Passed down until he comes again. See, again, the unsaved turn it into some big deal with all kinds of weird trappings, cause they dont know the Lord personally.
What does sola fide mean? Anyway, all kinds of nuts walk into church and take commumion. The pastor doesnt do a background check. Its for remembering the last supper. The only thing that matters is Christ and him crucified. Thats it. If water baptism was essential, how come Paul did only 3, to the best of his memory. Because its not what saved you. Thats religious legalism to insist on performing acts to get salvation. When someone is following the Lamb, thats all you need to do, is follow.He leads you to still waters. No need for a to do list. And, i dont want to get much deeper into the burning of christians by the CC. Catholics say it never happened, so, there is no conclusion to make. Written history is full of that sort of stuff but if you dont believe it, we;;, its a free country
I will say one thing for the inquisition, i went inside a chamber used by the agents of the pope to torture and kill people for various reasons. None of the reasons were good. I was 14. The tour guide was talking but i wasnt listening much. After the first 30 seconds of the tour i started to become nausious and was gonna throw up my lunch. I had to step outside cause i was ready to toss it up. They did these things to people? Live people? Men and women? I still to this day get chills when i think of those devices and people in or on them. Thats gods religion? No the freak way man. That stuff was out of the pits of hell. I dont even like thinking about it.
Wayne, you keep telling us what you believe, or in what case what Gene Scott said, but not what the scriptures mean. Paul says “He who eats and drinks unworthily”—his words, not my interpretation. You say “Its not partaking in an unworthy manner [Paul] meant,” it’s something else. In other words, Paul didn’t mean what he said. What you don’t explain is, why did he say it? What did he mean? Why say “He who eats and drinks unworthily” if you mean something else? Why use those words? What can you tell me about the actual words Paul used?
Incidentally, Paul goes on to say “He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks condemnation to himself, not discerning the body and blood of the Lord.” What does that mean?
Same thing with you saying that physical objects “have no fellowship with Christ.” St. Paul says the cup we drink is a communion (or fellowship, or sharing) in the blood of Christ, and the bread we eat is a communion (or fellowship, or sharing) in the body of Christ. You tell us what you believe, but you don’t explain what Paul meant or why he said what he said.
Back before I became a Catholic, I started to get frustrated with answers like this from my fellow non-Catholic Christians. I knew we believed that only God could forgive sins, so I was puzzled when Jesus said to his disciples, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” I asked various pastors and Bible teachers about this. They said things like, “Jesus means that the disciples can declare the forgiveness of God; God is the one doing the forgiving.” But if you read the words it says the disciples are doing the forgiving—or not forgiving. What does that mean? Why does he say that? No one could answer me.
This kind of non-explanation of the text is a fallacy. At the time I called it the “You can’t get there from here” fallacy.
Hey Bro Steven. Paul was talking to the born-again folks. The new test is a letter to the saved, not the unsaved. Thats why you have been getting all the weird answers to your questions. You are asking the unsaved the ways of the spirit.Paul meant unworthily, but again, hes talking to folks that have a new spirit placed in them, a spirit from heaven that knows Christ personally. The natural man will read and just become more confused as he reads. Its hard to find a natural man that doesnt think they have got it down.They all think they got things hammered. Thinking your saved because you did some ritual, and being saved are two different things. Its hard to find a christian soul that hasnt been water baptised. Yet the bible is clear that only i tiny tiny few humans make it to heaven. So, what went wrong with all these baptised folks? Ill make it simple for you my friend….they didnt know Jesus personally
Wayne, why do you call me “Bro” if you don’t regard me as a brother in Christ? It seems insincere.
As far as I can tell, what you’re saying to me boils down to this.
I have loved Jesus all my life. I have prayed to accept Jesus into my heart, and prayed with other people to accept Jesus into their hearts. From the time I was young I was very clear that there is a difference between knowing someone personally and knowing about them, and knowing Jesus personally was all that mattered to me. I have studied and loved the Bible my whole life. I have belonged to a number of lovely Christian communities full of lovely Christian people where the Bible was preached and Jesus was praised. I have prayed and praised God with brothers who laid down their lives for me in ways I couldn’t begin to explain to you. I have sat at the feet of many very good Bible teachers and learned a lot. I spent countless hours in seminary libraries researching Bible teaching. I have seen the hand of God in my life and in my family in countless ways. I can see how I have been led by God and am being led by him right now. And I’m thrilled to see the Holy Spirit working in the lives of my children.
You, though, seem to have no problem saying that neither I nor apparently anyone I have ever known have actually known Jesus personally. Here in this blog combox, for the first time, I have met a real Christian who actually knows Jesus and understands the Bible. It’s a claim I’ve heard before. It’s the same thing Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons tell me when they come to my door. Other people after you will tell me the same thing again.
I’m sorry, Wayne, but I would rather trust the work that Jesus has done and is doing in my life, my family and my church than trust you when you tell me that you know the truth and God is not working in my life. Jesus is more real to me than you are.
Incidentally, when I call you brother, I mean it. I greet you as my brother in Christ even if you don’t return the greeting. God bless you, brother.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.