a picture of who stole Pastor Joel Osteen Lakewood Church’s $600,000

joel osteen lakewood church tithes stolen cartoon by nakedpastor david hayward

You heard the story about the $600,000 that was stolen from the safe of Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church. Pretty major.

Money and religion. Always complicated.

What popped into my head is a bigger theological picture: if Christians believe God is Lord over all, then he had a hand in it. And his help.

I wonder if he’ll be brought in for questioning.

newsletter    art     community     books

COMMUNITY       TALK       BOOKS       ART       TEES

THE COMMENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT OR EXPRESS THE OPINION OF THIS BLOG, NAKEDPASTOR, OR THE WRITER, DAVID HAYWARD, BUT ARE SOLELY THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY THE WRITER OF THE COMMENT.

You may also like...

66 Responses

  1. Jason says:

    Now that’s deep.

  2. Alison says:

    So this was divine intervention? God resorting to thievery? God causing someone to sin to take Joel Osteen down a peg? Maybe, if God weren’t already omnipotent and easily able to dry up those collections in a flash. Why would anyone suggest that God would approve of this?

  3. Michael says:

    So God causes/creates/commits evil. Wow. What the hell kind of theology is this? No wonder so many people leave or are discontented with churches/pastors. Even in the jokes, the implied message is that there is “something evil about God”. Why don’t you pack it up and just give up? Your theology doesn’t work.

  4. admin says:

    Give up what?

  5. kris799 says:

    I have heard people say “everything that happens in God’s will” which includes things a lot worse than robbery. So yeah, it could be.

  6. Mark says:

    God causes evil, Wow – that is what you got from this little post. Can’t you read. Is God Lord of All or not? If so then he had a hand in if not then this is sarcasm. I am seriously beginning to doubt intelligent design <- just in case you don't get it that is more sarcasm.

  7. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Both Alison and Michael need to back off a little. I am more than willing to bet (and i’d bet all of my loan debt, all $60k of it) that these two, and anyone willing to object to this comic while completely missing the point that they’ve said things like “It’s in God’s plan” if someone is raped, or mugged, or gets a cancer diagnosis, or anything extraordinarily painful and traumatic.

    The whole idea is that so much of the Olsteen ministry is about money. They’re focused on the money aspect, on SELLING a message.

  8. JenDOC says:

    Was it not stolen from God in the first place?

  9. Gary says:

    Wow…so much anger at your brilliant post. Some people are so threatened by anything that might make them THINK.

    I don’t know for sure if my take on it is what you had in mind…but I see it as a humorous illustration that if God were to get any use out of the money “given” to Him in some of these mega churches, He would literally have to take it away from the ministries who collect it.

    Brilliant!!

  10. Michael says:

    It was Osteen that caused the evil by tempting someone else to take it.

    Humans brought evil and temptation into the universe, not God, as some may “think” from your so-called “deep” cartoon, which, in actuality, is deeply offensive. .

    Frankly, you are more like an atheist, a wolf in sheep clothing, or an attention seeker, but certainly not like a pastor. This is not pastoring. Not by a longshot. A pastor leads folks to Christ, not away from Christ. As far as cartoons go, this is just as offensive to a Christian as it would be for an Islamist to see Mohammed with a nuke on his head. If you were an Islamist, and this would be Mohammed, you wouldn’t last one day.

  11. admin says:

    Michael… your logic astounds me.

  12. Gary says:

    I’m beginning to think Michael is trolling. Because if he is acting like this while remaining completely ignorant of David or his blog…then I too might start questioning intelligent design. LOL

  13. Gun Nordström says:

    Excellent cartoon! – suggesting: Did the nonphysical eternal part of this pastor know that a robbery was the “right” thing to happen and that it did happen in an alignment with someone creating “insecure” feelings having to do with issues regarding money in this church?

    Some interesting and clarifying videos of how we create our own relity can be found on

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCIV9HcEBmY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPOAt_45WU4

  14. admin says:

    Gun: This site is not for the promotion of Abraham Hicks, so I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that. Thanks.

  15. Michael says:

    Logic? Your logic is that God – “Who is Lord of All”, had a hand in the theft. Wow. You’re serious, aren’t you? That God is more like “Robin Hood”, than God. That he helps take from the evil rich pastor and gives to someone less fortunate than the pastor. I even detect envy in the cartoon. You probably wouldn’t care to disclose how much money is laying around in your safe, would you? I’ll bet you have a minimum monetary net worth similar to the cartoon or more. Gosh. I wonder if God would know. You think?

    Bottom line – this cartoon tells its viewers far more about you and your relationship with God than it does anything about Osteen, and how he reacts to the loss

  16. admin says:

    Michael: If you could buy a sense of humor I’d give you the money.

  17. Michael says:

    uh huh, thought so. You (Mark/Admin) now know this cartoon was a mistake, and have nothing to say about it other than making gibe, defensive and derogatory comments to anyone seeing it for what it really is.

    Face the reality. It is what it is. Be honest. You are as close to atheism as it’s ever going to get. Why not stop faking it and make the jump now.

  18. Gary says:

    Damn…this is getting downright entertaining. Michael, dude, you are totally cracking me up. :-)

  19. Gun Nordström says:

    I have respect for your wish. My intent was only to share wisdom from a source that is of great value for me as is also the wisdom found here on your site.

  20. admin says:

    no problem. thanks gun. it’s just that my spam detector kept alerting me to your comments because you were including links.

  21. Hazel says:

    So funny!!! This might be one of my favourites so far.

  22. admin says:

    Thanks Hazel!

  23. David says:

    I love this one! To me, it was like God trying to get to “his” money before the pastor and administrators of the ministry squandered it all on themselves. Thanks David….always refreshing.

  24. Tim says:

    If I were God, I’d be tempted to “steal” some of the money given to me, too.

    But I’d probably be in two minds about that – or even three!

  25. Mark Anderson says:

    I like it. When I first saw the drawing, I thought “What the heck?” but yeah. The brothers three sure didn’t do anything to stop it. And hey, it’s God’s money anyway, right? Maybe he just took it and cut out the middleman.

  26. kris799 says:

    There are Christians who are happy that it is easier to evangelize in war-torn countries where people are being maimed, raped and killed than in others were people are “too comfortable” and not interested in Christianity. There are Christians who simply want to tell others who are suffering that their reward will be great in Heaven which is as nice way to have to avoid dealing with the issues that cause them suffering in the first place. There are Christians who say that the OT God commanding the Israelites to kill in order to take land does not make what they did murder. There are Christians who think everything that happens in God’s will and try to make every event in life about God’s will. So if you believe everything is God’s will maybe one of God’s “prophet of profit” getting robbed is God’s will as well.

  27. Michael says:

    There are artists who feel it is God’s will to caricature God as a criminal.
    There are artists who feel it is God’s will to make fun of people who always say “it’s God’s will”.
    There are artists who feel it is God’s will to fight evil with evil.

    It has never been about Gods will alone.
    It is always about God’s will with our will.
    And no matter what, God will honor it, even if it leads to hell.

    Sorry, you can’t buy me.

  28. admin says:

    Oh Michael. Lighten up!

  29. Cecilia Davidson says:

    The one you call Christ did not get nailed to the cross to put up with your BS, Michael. LET IT GO

  30. Michael says:

    By the way, Cecilia, you owe me $60K. Pony up.

  31. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Yeah, like you DIDN’T prove my point, Michael :)

  32. Michael says:

    O but I did. You and the cartoonist are making fun of everyone who says the familiar but wrong sola scriptura-based Calvinist-origin statement “its in God plan”, even to all kinds of perversities as you described.

    I do not subscribe to the “God alone” mentality, nor would I ever be so stupid to say what you described. In reality it’s always about “Its in God’s and MY plan”, as I described. You don’t even know me but accused me willing rape, torture and cancer on others with. Neither I nor the God I know would ever will that on anyone. That’s a false accusation. In fact I agree with the cartoonist, just not that he used God in the cartoon, . This cartoon could easily have been drawn by an atheist. It’s totally perverse to even think that God would be involved on a sin, when God doesn’t sin, only humans sin.

    In any case, I have no doubt that the cartoonist, if he has even an ounce of “Christianity” left,, deeply regrets this cartoon. He can’t defend it. Nor can you.

    You owe me $60k. But I’ll take an apology. So let’s see if you have an ounce of Christianity left, or decide to follow your now as-good-as-atheist unrepentent cartoonist friend What will it be?

  33. Gary says:

    Michael, Your condescending arrogance and trumped up indignation is one of the many reasons I left the church. You are a disgrace to your faith.

    And many still wonder why people are, in greater and greater numbers, looking at the so called representatives of Christ and saying…well fuck that.

  34. Michael says:

    And here’s another thought, while I wait for that apology or a cash reward. Why have I been light on Osteen during this discourse? Because maybe, just maybe, Osteen may yet prove his Christianity with this thievery incident, all perverse schadenfreude-based perverse cartoons aside.

    The correct response is to be silent and pray with God when bad things happen to people.

  35. Michael says:

    Excellent response, Gary! When you say No, say it loud and clear! Real conviction there!

  36. Gary says:

    Oh trust me…I have learned to reject your kind of bullshit with great clarity. It is a poison to be avoided at all costs.

  37. Michael says:

    Bravo Gary! Say it with passion! Get all that “maybe-ness” out of your system!

  38. Gary says:

    And you still believe your mockery represents Christ HOW exactly??

  39. Michael says:

    Mockery? In fact I admire your ability to just say No to Christ and salvation!

    What Christ wants most of all is a decision. A yes or No decision. Enough with the “Maybe-ness”. I hate it. So does God. At least scripture says so, not that you care. .

    The fact is, I greatly admire folks who say with passion, “Yes or No”. Doesn’t matter whether our answers differ. I just admire your passion to say a resolute No. And if it’s a Yes, we’re brothers.

    We’re not brothers.

    As a No-goer, Just think of all the freedom you have now that you have the No passion juices flowing. To really go after, make fun of, and jeer anti-gay marriage homophobes and anti-women anti-choicers in nakedimposter cartoons. With this kind of passion the sky’s the limit: Like gay marriage and 9 month unfettered access to abortion rights in all 50 states. Look how much power you have with your passion. Join hands with the Naked Imposter and Go For It. You too can make a difference.

  40. Gary says:

    Actually Michael…you know nothing of my faith or beliefs. But that seems to be a pattern for you…passing judgment in ignorance.

    I actually am a follower of Christ…just not the religion which has produced so much of your style of corruption to the gospel of good news.

  41. Gary says:

    And yes your condescension and mockery is laced through every comment. Your denial of such is merely another product of your “religion”…deceit.

  42. Michael says:

    Enough of the boring anti-intellectual, anti-religion, anti-church rants, howling and complaining.

    It’s Cecilia’s turn to answer.

  43. Gary says:

    Enough?? Seriously? If you believe you have the power over me to simply declare enough and I’ll just slither away with my tail between my legs and whimper and wait for you to allow me audience again you are quite fucking delusional. (As if that wasn’t self evident already…lol)

    I think what is most telling in our exchange is the way you proceed…as if you have some sort of moral high ground and can chastise and correct everyone else. Such arrogance is also one of the ugly by-products of religion.

    Well guess what Einstein…you ain’t all that!

    LMFAO

  44. Michael says:

    Okay, Gary, so you have implied an invitation toward further discourse. Let’s have a discussion. Everyone else can get popcorn, if anyone else, like Cecelia, is reading.

    1. Does God exist? This is a yes or no.
    2. What is your testimony/background with religion? Tell me why you are anti-religious.
    3. Is there an original sin? Describe it, if so, or not. Define sin. Define what humans share in common or not with Adam and Eve.
    4. Does heaven and hell exist?
    5. What is redemption? What is salvation? Are they the same, or not? Define the Christian meanings.
    5. Is there an afterlife? What is your view.
    6. Define your views on creationism and evolution. If you support one or the other, both or none.

    You are not obligated to answer any question. After you answer, I can answer the same, or your own questions toward me.

    You said you didn’t have enough. So here you go. Let’s get it going.

    Do you still perceive I am being arrogant? If so, then there is no need to answer any question.

  45. Gary says:

    Cute…Of course I did NOT say I had not had enough. Rather I told you that you don’t get to dictate to me when is enough. I think the distinction is rather significant. Interestingly though…now you either want to know more…or are simply looking for fuel for another attack. I guess we shall see.

    In the mean time…I’ll answer some of your questions.

    1. – Yes I believe in God. But the answer is most certainly not limited to a simple yes or no. What is defined as “God” has many variations and much disagreement. This black and white dualistic thinking represent a real hurdle to understanding.

    2. – Without spending too much time and energy. I was raised Wesleyan and then spent 30 years in Southern and Independant Baptist churches. All of them very fundamental and evangelical. I spent two years pastoring a mission church. I have spent more than 25 years teaching the bible to adults. I am anti-religious because I have come to believe that the “religion” of Christianity bears very little resemblance to the gospel message of Jesus. (Though bears a striking resemblance to the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked so strongly) I totally reject Calvinism and original sin.

    3. – See above

    4. – I still believe in an afterlife (Of some kind) but do not believe in some Dante’s Inferno version of a Hell. (Neither did the original church BTW)

    5. – I believe Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God. I believe the bible has been greatly polluted by man over the centuries and any truth within it must be evaluated by the one great teaching of Jesus…the law of love. Anything not living up to that standard (biblical or otherwise) I believe represents man’s influence.

    5 – (The 2nd one) See above

    6 – I embrace science is a tool to help us better understand God and creation. Evolution is proven…to deny such is to be willfully ignorant. It is only the exact workings of it that we refer to as theory…much like the theory of gravity. We know gravity exists but are still sorting out the quantum mechanics of it. To me evolution simply represents the method God chose.

    As for present beliefs…yeah they have changed much. I most certainly do not embrace the bible as perfect or inerrant…even in the original manuscripts. I have spent too many years studying it to willingly embrace that nonsense (biblioletry) any longer. I do however believe there is both wisdom and inspiration within its pages. But I long ago rejected the god of vengeance portrayed in much of the OT and some of the NT. The monstrous atrocities attributed to the warrior god simply cannot be reconciled with the message of Christ and therefore must be recognized for what they are; a bronze age era struggle to understand God by a very warring and blood thirsty people. I am universalist in my understanding of God’s love. If the cross was necessary…it was more than adequate for all. Though frankly…I no longer think Jesus came TO to die…I think He chose to come with the good news in spite of the fact He knew He would die. The price He paid (for me if you will) was to deliver the message even knowing the cost. Original sin, by its very nature, makes God out to be an unjust bastard by any and every standard. That is not the God I believe in.

    And to answer your final question; YES, I still perceive you as arrogant.

  46. Michael says:

    I can see why you are angry.

    It seems the central focus of your anger is original sin, and the theology of it.

    I both agree with you and don’t agree with you. So let’s hash it out.

    I agree that traditional theologians are wrong in saying that we suffered from the sin committed in Genesis.

    But I invite to you to read it again. Have you ever wondered why God and Adam were not exactly cozy and chummy before the temptation? “Distant” would be the best way to describe it. And that after the temptation, the relationship/communication was really no different than before the temptation?

    Have you ever wondered about that? And what about that angel? There was no description of a created angel in the early verses. It was, all of a sudden, “there”. And why would God struggle to make the cosmos in 7 days, if God is God? And had you noticed that the blame game started then, and continues up to now (blame religion…etc). Wouldn’t you agree that blaming others, or religion, is a cop-out? How about WE take personal responsibility for our own existence – why we are here?

    I invite you to understand a new perspective, instead of thinking I’m “arrogant”.

    In my view, Adam’s sin is Adam’s sin, not ours. But we share a deeper similarity. What if Adam, Eve, and every conceived person all share in an “originitive sin”, ex-nihilo (out of nothing)? That means “before” there was time and space, God said “Be”, but we said “Maybe”. To me, it is implied throughout the Bible, especially Genesis. What if we didn’t need to enter existence? But an infinitely perfect and loving God so loved us, that he sent his only son – one who gave a solid YES answer. to come into existence, out of nothing, to die so that we may be redeemed. What if this creation, one in which we are made out of something (in Genesis, clay and rib, for us sperm and egg), was made by God from the energy of our imploded primary matter in a Big Bang of Persons, and every other molecule preceding it, was like shrapnel or a shockwave going out? This begs the question. Did we come from animals? Or did animals come from us? In this perspective, it’s the latter.

    Have you ever noticed that creationists and evolutionists share one hugely overlooked factor? That, in both cases, humans came from out of “some… thing” (ex -aliquo)? They both share a “process” mentality. They both fall short. In this new perspective, we were created in a first creation ex-nihilo finitely perfect, and with perfect freedom, with no temptation otherwise, to choose to “Be”, because God called us to “Be”. But we failed, at least partially. While angels could only respond with a Yes or No, along with some humans, who chose a perfect Yes or No (and had no need to be redeemed…), we chose “Maybe”. Therefore, the created universe, was made by God from what could only be fractured human energy. We, as persons, imploded into existence, while the universe exploded as “subpersonal excidents”. The “How” we came together as primary matter (ie, evolution, clay, rib…) is really quite a secondary consideration. It should not be our primary focus as it has been.

    Instead, what have we? Repression of who we are. In the first creation -perfect, finite persons, with the problem of wanting, to one degree or other, to be like God – infinite. That will not do. Maybe won’t do, but it will get one into existence.

    So here we are. Redeemed. Every person ever conceived, from 8 seconds to 80 years. With one primary objective: to say Yes to salvation.

    This, in a nutshell, is a new perspective. You may ridicule it. You may call it cultish, or gnostic, still say I’m arrogant, or what have you. But don’t forget. We both agree. Original sin won’t do. It is this one doctrine of original sin that is the culprit for so many being turned off to Christianity. Such a pity. So I offer you a new perspective. One that is quite in line with freedom, perfect will, and God’s love for us.

  47. Gary says:

    I am looking forward to responding to this comment. Thank you for the respectful tone. However I must now leave for my 2nd job as an adjunct professor at a regional Christian University. (Ironic huh? No…I do not teach religion…lol) I will get back to the discussion later this evening or sometime tomorrow.

  48. Michael says:

    Cool. Looking forward too. And when you respond, let me know what you teach,so I might possibly use or adapt to some of your language. Me, I’m just a small business owner. But I’m also known by my mentors as a qualified ontology theologian; an Independent Scholar.

  49. Gary says:

    I teach Marketing and Organizational Behavior primarily. Though my university certainly offers ministry degrees, it is not what you would call a bible college. They are a fully accredited university with the full gamut of science, business, and arts degrees as well. This allows me to teach secular courses and avoid some of the conflict between our beliefs. Even still…they would fire me if they knew how my views have changed in recent years.

    But regarding your comment…it intrigues me. Though not likely for the reasons you think it does. It appears we have both come to the point of not accepting traditional calvinistic views, but what we have done with that belief has been radically different it seems. While I have evaluated the belief system itself and accepted its failings, you seem to have created some fantastical scenario where you can somehow make it work.

    It is a little bit like what I see happen in some of science. I love scientific progress and seek to allow it to help mold my understanding of reality. But I have no illusion that it will ever prove or disprove that which is beyond the purely physical. Many have walked my path and ended up atheists and that is understandable. After all, once they find their religious beliefs to be faulty they embrace that which is pure to them and reject their old beliefs entirely. But there have been some brilliant scientific minds who have come to a different conclusion, accepting that science provides facts and a framework from which to evaluate what they physically experience, but that it comes up a bit short in answering some of their questions. I see some of the theories pertaining to multiple universes and alternate yet simultaneous realities as a way to try to grapple with that which they cannot reconcile without creating fantastical explanations beyond what I believe to be rational. The math of our universe as we understand it simply does not support life if it exists without the presence of infinite possibilities outside of the constructs of the universe itself. To me…that represents a very rational reason to believe in a creator providing some fine tuning if you will. But science, by its very paradigm, cannot accept or even postulate such as a valid theory. I am ok with that because I believe that belief in such is outside the realm of science anyway, and frankly should be. To me science should only be about observing and understanding that which we physically encounter…nothing more.

    Where I see your theory as being similar is in the limitations of your paradigm. It seems to me you are unwilling to evaluate the core elements of your religion even though they create unresolvable conflicts in justice and the nature of love. You have been willing to pick some of the more troubling components (original sin) and challenge what you have been taught. But you still are left with such extreme inconsistencies in your faith that you have to step outside of any boundaries at all (not necessarily a bad thing) and postulate a rather fantastical view in order to try to reconcile that which defies reconciliation.

    I am not attacking what you have shared no matter how wild I may perceive it to be. But I am suggesting that sometimes we will go to extreme lengths to protect our paradigm.

    As for why I am angry…I think you are not so correct in your assessment. Calvinism and original is not the target of my anger. They are simply unresolvable conflicts in the faith I used to have which eventually forced me to change. No my anger at religion is much more palpable. The results of religious beliefs, albeit admittedly primarily those based on the calvinistic mindset, has so often produced attitudes and behaviors among religion’s followers that are grossly destructive and completely contrary to the very core principle Jesus taught (Love) that the religion itself becomes the destroyer of that which it aspires to. My anger is reserved for those who abuse, who attack, who mock, who engage in a variety of behaviors which are the byproducts of a belief system that tells them they are “saved” or “redeemed” while others are not. Evangelism proceeds from the abusive viewpoint of arrogance, believing that only by believing and/or accepting the paradigm, can others be accepted. I no longer believe that.

  50. Michael says:

    Gary, thanks for your insight. Am on the road. Will respond by end of evening.

  51. Michael says:

    I appreciate your assessment so far.

    Fantastic is your chosen word to describe it. The word I choose is more like “shocking”. Besides the originitive sin ex-nihilo, and what I’ve already described, here are a few other descriptions of what the theology implies:

    1. God doesn’t exist. Existence is time and space. Jesus was God. Maybe Christians ought to know better? As in Mt 28, when Jesus left the scene? Why do Christians argue for God’s existence in this present age? Kant was right. Think about it. God/Jesus said, “I am the I AM”. That’s an ontological statement, not an existential one. Descartes’ “I think, therefore, I am” was imbalanced. What’s balanced is “I am, therefore I am”.
    2. Jesus was both God and not God. Anybody who finds offense in this can get an inkling “why we’re here”. But they have been saying it all along – Jesus was both fully God and fully human. We can never be fully God, as God is infinite, while we’re finite. However, we can be “unlimited” persons.
    3. God is both in us and not in us. I surmise this is the work of the Holy Spirit, and an existential/ontological entanglement. The continued use of .”both….and”, rather than “either…or” is pervasive to describe God.
    4. Every molecule in the universe that is not human – the “subpersonal excidents” I discussed, has partial humanity in it. This suggests a whole new field of physics, and a revolution of the natural sciences.
    5. By our ex-nihilo “maybe” saying we caused existence. We caused evil, and temptation. What played out in Eden was a mirror event, an echo of the ex-nihilo “Maybe”.
    6. Heaven and hell don’t exist either. They are infinitely more than existence. They too, like God, ontologically “Are”.
    6. Salvation is absolute key. We choose our own body, our own parents. Coming into existence, the ontological person may put up “barriers”, so to speak, to help avoid temptation. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. And if a healing doesn’t take place, so be it. Read Gun’s reply above. The man was not at all far off the mark, and I never quote Hicks. The fact is, existentially we may be hazy about it, but our ontological entanglement not in space and time knows better. Salvation is *everything*.

    Of course, the above is useless information if we aren’t pre-conscious and active in the Christian practice of love. We can identify four loves – storge, eros, agape and philia. But the shocker is that none of them are meaningful unless a fifth love is generated. That fifth love can best be called “affirmation”. Affirmation is a “feeling”. A feeling generated from receiving the emotions, also called the “E-motors”, as energy. All of the emotions can be received as energy, including anger, fear, even hate, all of which are normally regarded as “negative” emotions. They are all pure, human energy, and when received as such, instead of being repressed or sublimated, or impulsively acted out, the power to affirm another person is born, in one of those four ways to express love.

    That’s the feeling I speak about. Without the generated feeling, storge, eros, agape or philia mean little. Affirmation – the fifth love is the Christian love that units all the loves. Google the work of Conrad Baars and Anna Terruwe for more information on this authentic Christian form of psychological study.

    When you speak of Christian love and justice, you are probably asking how the concept of sexual activity fits into the Christian concept of salvation. The answer is in a almost profound way. In this deeper perspective, the brain is the primary sexual organ, expressing sexuality in spiritual, intellectual, creative, communicative, physical, and emotional ways. The power of prayer is to receive these feelings – to just let them “be”. Likewise, when the received energy is expressed, we receive another as that person is – unconditionally. A sexually active person is one who receives the emotions and responsively expresses them. The practice of heterosexuality and homosexuality are not cerebrocentic, these actions are genitocentric. The words were invented in 1860 to describe the practice of genitocentrism, or deviant sex practices – adultery, sodomy or what is described in Ovid’s “The Art of Love”. For a Christian, there is no “:justice” in practicing them., as they are not Christian practices. They are passive, impotent practices,in contrast to the active Christian form of cerebrocentric sexual activity.

    What I describe is a revolutionary, new perspective- a deepening of the Christian theology. Not a turning away from it. To the sideline seekers of this Naked Pastor website, I present ontology theology, an answer to the shallowness of Calvinist and Arminianist theology, and a way to inspire one to turn away from the brutal and unrelenting trend toward atheism.

  52. Gary says:

    Yes…and “may the force be with you”. (Sorry…couldn’t resist)

    Before I pursue this discussion any further I would like you to answer a preliminary question. If you embrace ontological theology, it seems very odd to me that your initial posts in this thread were so full of righteous indignation over questioning your god. Why would you attack those who ask questions and seek to defend some rather rigid views of God? It is a bit difficult to not see the contrast as anything but disingenuous.

  53. Michael says:

    Anger is, in this perspective, not a negative emotion. It is energy. My aim was to break the ice, stir up energy, and see where it goes. If I can help shape into a perfect vortex of energy, it may, at that point, be deemed as beneficial to those who felt initially felt the anger. Recall that God used the rather crude substances of clay, and rib to get us going. No different. How it ends is more important than how it commences.

  54. Gary says:

    Well frankly, I am not that interested in the abstract of ontological theology. Especially your peculiar views of pre big bang “fractured human energy” resulting from some sort of collective conscious decision regarding some god figure, as the substance of the entire physical universe and a kind of rationalization of Calvinism or the Armenian variant of it.

    BTW – the word I chose was “fantastical” , not fantastic. But either way…I’ll stick with it.

    fantastic (fantastical)
    1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
    2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
    3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.

    And as far as your explanation for your very objectionable posts in the earlier part of this thread…nah…not buying it. “Perfect vortex of energy”?? Uhm…no…your initial attacks are not analogous with the creation story. (WOW!!)

    Sorry, but I think I have come about as far and invested about as much energy into your “fantastical” ramblings as I am willing to.

  55. Michael says:

    Which brings me to my last point. That all-encompassing prover of who is a follower of Christ. Forgiveness.

    One of the great things I enjoyed being a boy was getting into a fistfight in the backyard and getting exhausted. Then, finding a new friend in the process out of the dust and torn clothes. I saw this with other boys too, in the schoolyard.

    Not with us. No philia here. Just, how should I describe – “coldness”. Nothing warm here.

    Good thing I can move to agape love as a substitute. Yes, I can love my enemies, and with an affirming love feeling as well. God is good, infinitely good.

    I sure miss being a boy. It was much more fun. With adults, it truly gets complicated. But so be it….

    Lastly, my background is not Calvinist or Arminianist, which, by the way, is not a country in southern Europe.

    Take care, Gary.

  56. Gary says:

    And the attacker is back…once again making allegations based on nothing it seems. As for forgiveness…you seem to forget that I engaged you in respectful dialogue AFTER you came in with guns a blazing…lol. It really cracks me up how you seek to couch your venom in the cloak of being a vessel of love. I should not have to remind you that attack has been your chosen method of approach…so you can spare me the bullshit about all of your “agape”. And philia requires a level of respect which you have most certainly not demonstrated.

    From what I can tell…this is all a game to you. I am done playing.

  57. Michael says:

    It’s curious. The more I reflected today about the word you chose – fantastical – the more I realized how right you were.

    What’s really interesting is how we differ in attaching the word to the two theories.

    You attached the word to my story of an ex-nihilo originitive creation – the way I described it- and which you don’t buy into.

    What intrigues me is that word fantastical applies much more deeply so to the creationist and evolutionist processes. I mean, here’s a God that had to resort to making us out of something so we could exist. Clay, rib, sperm, egg. One celled organism on up, etc. Fantastical. What an imagination God has to get us here, so we can be redeemed, and given a 2nd chance to “Be”. But to “Be”, first we have to “Be-come”. In existence.

    This :”made out of something” in existence process, however way we see it, is way out there in comparison to being created finitely perfect out of nothing. I can’t see anything fantastical about being created perfectly finite, with perfect free will, perfect freedom, and with no exposure to temptation, by an infinitely perfect, infinitely perfect God. Nothing strange about that. Thankful, yes. Odd, no.

    Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for the word fantastical. I will remember that word next time I talk about how we arrived in the cosmos. I will even give credit to a guy named Gary, whoever or wherever you are.

  58. Caryn says:

    Jesus and God did not take part in this- read scripture. We are promised trials and tribulations… That’s why bad things can happen to good people. It’s all about how one reacts to the evils we (Christians or not Christians) are given to deal with. The thieves will be uncovered OR suffer an even greater loss for this sin. God help these thieves… And bless those who followed scripture in this situation. God is too big to not have a good purpose in this. It’s only a matter of time the blessing is revealed to the public.

  59. David Waters says:

    There is no God. This simple statement explains EVERYTHING!

  60. Gary says:

    That is one possible explanation David.

  61. Scott says:

    Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  62. Gary says:

    Ecclesiastes 1:1-2

    The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
    “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
    says the Teacher.
    “Utterly meaningless!
    Everything is meaningless.”

    Boy…that proof texting is really helpful ain’t it Scott?

    LOL

  63. MistiPearl says:

    Well, m’dear David, I should visit more often. It is a delight to see how the Holy Spirit chooses to work through your writing/cartoons. God Bless Brother! :)

  64. Oh my goodness MistiPearl it’s been a while. So good to see you again!

  1. March 16, 2014

    […] tradition of three-self trinitarian art continues, in the cartoons of “nakedpastor.” The way your portray a self, is generally by portraying the type of self we’re most […]

  2. April 25, 2014

    […] nakedpastor: a picture of who stole Pastor Joel Osteen Lakewood Church’s $600,000 […]

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>