DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... PDR's olive branch/challenge to Christians

This story made me understand the whole relationship between God the Father, Jesus the Christ and Mankind...



The Man and the Birds

-- Author Unknown --

Now the man to whom I'm going to introduce you was not a scrooge, he was a kind, decent, mostly good man. Generous to his family, upright in his dealings with other men. But he just didn't believe all that incarnation stuff which the churches proclaim at Christmas Time. It just didn't make sense and he was too honest to pretend otherwise. He just couldn't swallow the Jesus Story, about God coming to Earth as a man. "I'm truly sorry to distress you," he told his wife, "but I'm not going with you to church this Christmas Eve." He said he'd feel like a hypocrite. That he'd much rather just stay at home, but that he would wait up for them. And so he stayed and they went to the midnight service.

Shortly after the family drove away in the car, snow began to fall. He went to the window to watch the flurries getting heavier and heavier and then went back to his fireside chair and began to read his newspaper. Minutes later he was startled by a thudding sound. Then another, and then another. Sort of a thump or a thud. At first he thought someone must be throwing snowballs against his living room window. But when he went to the front door to investigate he found a flock of birds huddled miserably in the snow. They'd been caught in the storm and, in a desperate search for shelter, had tried to fly through his large landscape window.

Well, he couldn't let the poor creatures lie there and freeze, so he remembered the barn where his children stabled their pony. That would provide a warm shelter, if he could direct the birds to it. Quickly he put on a coat, galoshes, tramped through the deepening snow to the barn. He opened the doors wide and turned on a light, but the birds did not come in. He figured food would entice them in. So he hurried back to the house, fetched bread crumbs, sprinkled them on the snow, making a trail to the yellow-lighted wide open doorway of the stable. But to his dismay, the birds ignored the bread crumbs, and continued to flap around helplessly in the snow. He tried catching them. He tried shooing them into the barn by walking around them waving his arms. Instead, they scattered in every direction, except into the warm, lighted barn.

And then, he realized, that they were afraid of him. To them, he reasoned, I am a strange and terrifying creature. If only I could think of some way to let them know that they can trust me. That I am not trying to hurt them, but to help them. But how? Because any move he made tended to frighten them, confuse them. They just would not follow. They would not be led or shooed because they feared him. "If only I could be a bird," he thought to himself, "and mingle with them and speak their language. Then I could tell them not to be afraid. Then I could show them the way to safety ... to the safe warm barn. But I would have to be one of them so they could see, and hear and understand."

At that moment the church bells began to ring. The sound reached his ears above the sounds of the wind. And he stood there listening to the bells - Adeste Fidelis - listening to the bells pealing the glad tidings of Christmas. And he sank to his knees in the snow.....

I heard he has recently converted to Catholicism and has taken a vow of silence.

Yeah, I've encountered this story before. It's cute, but false to the character of Jesus. It gives the impression that Jesus's message was/is so obvious, and it's the fault of stubborn, ignorant human beings that the message is not accepted. How then do you explain the following:

Mark 4:11-12
10 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.
11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."

And I'm not just cherry-picking here. The Gospels are full of evidence that Jesus's message is one of exclusion. He said it himself -- he came to Earth, not to bring peace, but the sword. This John 3:16 Christianity that you, YTown, and others are pushing is a historically specific belief system. It doesn't accurately portray what Jesus was all about.

I looked around and asked around and this is the best answer I found for your question...

Christ knew that some of these people would NEVER turn to Him, and I'm sure He mourned over them. . .in fact, Scripture tells us how He mourned for "Jerusalem' which included all those oh-so-sure-they-were-on-the-fast-track people. Prophecy doesn't say that Christ wouldn't mourn and that He wouldn't have 'let them hear' if they had only asked Him. Prophecy just notes that some WILL NOT hear, due to the hardening of their own hearts and their own choices. And what the verses say is that it is all due to the free choice of the people,

for IF they indeed listened with their ears, they WOULD repent. . .and that's the tragedy of evil, that at any point until death, evil could repent and choose good and eternal life. . .but won't. Evil "listens but hears not, sees and perceives not'. . .because evil chooses to do so.

To your other point, Jesus came to earth to fix what had become of God's people. They were the Jews and many were about to become the Christians. This was going to upset everyone in power. Even though it was the continuation of what had been from the beginning, not all would accept the update.

At the church I attend every Sunday (the Rocky Hill Congregational Church) the pastor says "There is no place we can be where God is not".

That's because God is inside us.

Even atheists have to admit that God is in our minds.

Let's look more closely at that chapter of Mark:

4 Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

9 Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that it is those people themselves who will never turn and be forgiven, but not something that Jesus does to them. They are a ground so hardened, their hearts are so hard, that they cannot accept His teachings. The Word never penetrates at all. That is their decision, They have embraced the world, and as such, Satan, to such an extent that they will not soften enough for any seed to do anything except be eaten by the birds, or be blown away by the wind.

However, using a similar example, the Word of God, and His Holy Spirit, can also be like a long, steady rain against that same path, and can turn that rock hard dirt pathway into a slough, a whole area where concrete-like ground becomes mud as the water slowly, and surely begins to penetrate the ground. Cracks begin to appear, and the water gets in even deeper, and after days, or weeks, of such an onslaught, the rain begins to wear away every trace of the hard ground, and allows a seed to penetrate and take root.

That seed is still fragile, and without proper care it may still die, but at that point it has a chance.

Further, I don't think that Jesus ever meant for His message to mean that we should decide which people are so lost that they will never be redeemed. (and I think that is a real danger in your interpretation) There may be those who will never be redeemed, but there are others who only appear to be in such a condition, so we must work even harder to help save them. I think that Jesus was just pointing out the realities of life. Some people will never listen. Others will listen, but their enthusiasm will fade with time. Others still will fall back into worldly desires. However, others still will accept the Word, and will become a crop far beyond what was sown ..... bringing many others to God.

We are not to decide who gets saved and who does not. If we look at the New Testament in its entirety, there are many examples of redemption. Matthew was a tax collector, routinely cheating people out of what they owned while collecting Roman taxes. He returned all that he had taken from people. He was a man of great wealth, but gave that up to follow Jesus.

Paul was the ultimate "hardened path". Here was a man so set in his ways that he was out murdering Christians, because he felt that they were corrupting his faith. He would have Christians stoned to death, at his word. Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, and redeemed him.

These are the types of people who are unlikely to be redeemed, yet are. The Bible if full of these kinds of examples. Heck, look at how the church spread following the death of Jesus. Look at all of those different churches. Some stayed on the path Paul set them on, while others faltered. Some were fertile soil, and others were choked with brambles and weeds, and needed to be weeded.

I also think that Jesus knew that not all people would come to His message, and He did not want His disciples and followers to become discouraged when some would not hear, and others still fell away. I think that he wanted them to know that this was normal, and should not make them think that they had failed in some manner.

My NIV Study Bible has a different interpretation of that verse. They opine that the verse is intended to be directed towards the religious leaders of the time, whose hard hearts were really necessary so that Jesus' purpose on earth could be fulfilled. If they suddenly converted to the message of Jesus, they would never call for the crucifixion of the Messiah. Further, the Jewish people, throughout history, have have a history of hard hearts, and God used that to His purposes. I think that, in part, that message from Jesus could be to let His disciples know that the hard hearts of the Israelis would play a huge part in the events that must still come.

And this is so true for even if we took the time to show them the proof of Jesus's life and his Miracles, they would reject it because their hearts are hardened.

This thread has turned "Texas"

I'm very happy and satisfied to admit God is in your mind, but I would ask for you to respect me enough to not make statements about my beliefs.

So..... PDR. Are you ever going to respond to this thread you started? It's okay to ignore most of what's been written here; just talk to me. I want to know what you thought this thread would accomplish and what you think of my original post.

I made a point, perhaps not explicitly, that I wanted to let this thing take it's own course before I responded.

But this query is probably a good point to speak my piece, so give me some time to draw up a statement, which was my original intent.

This thread is sort of an experiment of mine to pose a question, ponder responses and from there take the time to write a considered thesis.

I found that too often I and others post threads merely to announce a point and then announce it repeatedly, using quotes from opposite opinions to reinforce their own. I intended for this to be a raw or naive attempt to go against the grain of that.

I will respond soon.

Oh how will we sleep tonight as we await the words of gods?
pfft

Generally, gods don't describe themselves as naive.

So......surely that isn't your thesis.

Speaking of thesis, are you really going to write a thesis, on a Browns message board, about Christianity?

Mantis, I submit the last two responses as to why refraining from speaking for a period and considering salient points made is a far better option (or at least attempt) than delving into the immediate impulse to respond to the old guys from the balcony on "The Muppets".

Well, you did start this on 1-21-14.

But kudos to you, you actually came up with a new "jibe". Took a while, as most of your slams are well known and oft repeated.

Keep working on the thesis. So many of us can't wait for your supreme guidance. Hey, you aren't the short fat guy from N. Korea, are you?

I've spent years and years watching guys just epically bomb on stages during open mic stand ups.

On one level, it's funny, and on another level, it makes your skin crawl. It's like a trainwreck - you want to gawk and wince all at once.

That's a very good approximation of the feeling I get when you attempt witty digs.

So, you don't have your thesis done yet?

You expected it in 11 minutes?

You started this thread on 01/21/15 11:54 PM.

Surely, with the leading question you ended your first post with, you had an idea, didn't you?

Your only replies since then have been snarky, "look at me and my superiority" type posts.

Ssdly, I didn't expect much more from you.

And by the way, this is your post from 8:53 pm tonight. It is now 10:10 pm. That's hardly 11 minutes, even for a person of your profound stature.

You felt that 11 minutes and 77 minutes was a considerable enough discrepancy to warrant not one but two digs?

You're embarrassing yourself trying to take haymakers and missing. It's foolish enough when we go toe to toe in an argument of wits, but this is just desperate.

14 days. But go on, we await your "considered thesis". Talk about embarrassing........by the way, no haymakers involved here. I'm not embarrassing myself. It's you.......

Is that why you're still posting? Ugh. Condescending is PDR's shtick, don't make it yours.

You're right. I'm better than that.

I'll stop.

I know I'm asking this of a man who has a tendency to fly off the handle and blurt out his immediate thoughts without contemplation...

...but do you honestly feel that 14 days is an inordinate and/or laughable amount of time for one to consider a thesis statement? To the point where one should feel embarassed?

If so, why?

And how does this trump the embarrassment of a man who attempts to take witty and/or pithy digs while failing to possess the witticism or pertinent truths to make them biting?

I know I am replying to a person that is condescending and belittling and has an ego problem......but do you honestly think anyone cares about your so called "considered thesis" statement?

How DOES that align with someone that feels they are witty, and intelligent? Go ahead, write your considered thesis. Quit trying to be condescending and belittling. Enlighten us.

Thanks in advance. (seriously, there IS help for people like you. You just need to admit you need it.)

It's a Browns message board...."considered theses" should be saved for school. Are you attending?

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the time, probably not, though that won't ever stop me from expressing my opinion.

In this specific instance, one poster asked if I would address an issue/query I posed, so I responded.



It's spelled 'thesis', and it's definition is 'a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved'.

That actually happens here pretty much every day.

Some of us tend to get angry and threaten to fight others, which is not a thesis statement, but many do present opinions or theories to be considered by others, which often leads to maintaining, bolstering, and in occasional cases, proving an argument.

Theses is the plural of thesis.

If arch had said "a considered theses", then you would have been correct, but he left off the "a", which would have expressed s single thesis, thus he was correct in his usage of the word.

Just saying .....

Might want to try reading comprehensio for your first class. I totally understand a "thesis", what it is, and that the word is singular. What you failed to understand is that I was talking about the plural - theses.....there are plenty of sites that will explain that to you.

Singular: thesis. Plural: Theses. Here's one site. http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/thesis.html

There are many others. Damn......that's got to be embarrassing for you.........

Why would it be embarrassing for me?

You put the term "considered theses" in quotation marks, which would signify that you were quoting me directly.

At no point in the history of this board have I offered to deliver multiple considered theses, so therefore your quotation of the plural when discussing my words could easily and understandably be inferred as either a misspelling, or a misquote.

Technically and semantically, I guess you could've also gone with "considered [theses]", but any way you slice it, I fail to see why a simple misspelling or misquotation on your part would embarrass me. If you would like to explain further, I'm all ears.

(Again, witty semantics isn't your game, friend. Stay in your lane).

That is a really lame explanation. Many use that particular device as an emphasis, rather than a direct quote. If we quote directly, we use the quote feature. I use it quite often, and I cannot you ever "objecting" to it when I have done it, and I have posted here for a little while now.

This is what I mean about you never being able to admit you were wrong. Just take a deep breath, and admit it.

In an attempt to outsmart each other you guys are all arguing about spelling and grammar on the internet. Congratulations.

Read, in context, and understand.

YOU have said you will write a "considered thesis".

I have said/questioned if a Browns message board is the place for theses (plural, by intention) to be written.

Wow, for someone like you to not get it......I wonder. Reading comprehension must not be a forte for you. Perhaps if you'd take time away from condescension and demeaning, you might get it.

Still waiting for your thesis. (singular).

One other thing: I think tonight you are finding out "you ain't all that". Not from me, but from others.

Check the ego, it'll keep the egg off your face. At least, it will keep more egg of your face.

You aren't so great at witticism either.

When people put things in quotation marks, it is almost always a direct quote of their words.

Quotation marks.

Marks meaning indicators. Indicative of what?



Funny, you use those exact words, because it made me remember the last time you leveled them at me.

You claimed that blacks were inherently prone to violence and crime. I said that it was the most racist declaration I had ever heard openly expressed on the boards, as it was, and then you scrambled to put together some woeful attempt to argue that 'inherent' meant 'learned from enviornment'. And you kept on and and kept on. You demanded apologies and at one point said that I should "just take a deep breath, and admit [I] was wrong".

It was - to this day - one of the most spectacular failures of someone refusing to just man up and admit they were wrong in the history of these boards. The only two other instances I can think of are Diam and Quinn and Vers and Okafor.

All you had to do was say 'I didn't understand the word', or at worst 'I misread you'. But you were so bent on being right that you couldn't do it.

You tend to think what you wish to be true, but, no, I feel no better or worse about myself in regards to my DT chatter this evening.



I make a pretty good living off of it.

If you don't think I'm good at it, that's OK. That's your opinion.

This is kinda funny.

"PDR, you're a juvenile, condescending, know-it-all."
"I know."
"One more thing."

I've always respected that PDR owns his entire persona. I'm not sure what the point of attacking him is. We've been on this board for quite some time now and are all aware of his habits.

I know he's been going after 40 for what seems like a long time, but there's really no need to shed hard skin for soft.

HELLO, hello....is there anybody IN there?

Man, this is too precious. Read those words.....then relate them to what I said... You were going to write a "thesis" (notice the quotation marks) and I replied that a Browns message board might not be the place for (plural) "theses".......

All you had to do was say "I didn't understand the word." Or "I misread you"....... Yet you can't.

Always have to be right, right?

And seriously, if you make a living off your writing, it must be a miserable life, or a miserable audience you pander to.

Dayum.......you make it so easy, yet you don't see how 2 faced you are.

You continue to twist things. Amazing.

Can to debate definitions again as well?

Congratulations, you have dragged me into some of the most inane debates and arguments I have ever had in my entire life. (which I sometimes think is your goal ..... by taking things out of context, and the idiocy with definitions of words, and so on)

Oh well ..... mirror. Seriously.