Rush Limbaugh: The mockery of mockers

I have never been a follower or listener of Rush Limbaugh. I have not become one. His message may be different but his mindset is no different than the likes of Howard Stern. Over the years I doubt seriously if my total listening time of Rush Limbaugh amounts to one hour.

He may imagine himself, even as some Christians do, to speak of or for the faith that is in Christ Jesus, but that is his delusion. He may speak for conservatives, as some of them claim, but the designations of conservative or liberal,whether touted or rejected, hardly serve as biblical describers of what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus; one who has crucified the flesh. These are the matters of the world in which many a disciple entangles himself. These are the terms taken up and embraced by many to clothe themselves as righteous or right, but which can blithely and easily amount to mockery.

My first comment to one of Rush Limbaugh's rants was concerning President Obama speaking at a Miami fundraiser. Limbaugh was incensed at what he described as Obama's mockery of the American tax payer. What neither Limbaugh nor many self-professed Christians, of conservative and liberal variety, recognized was Limbaugh's own mockery of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. This from a man (I don't know if he still does) mockingly boasts he is, "on loan from God." Limbaugh likened one of the Obama administration's measures with these words to a particular miracle sign performed by Jesus: "The recovery act stimulus bill it's more like loaves and fishes." . . . "It is all bogus." Limbaugh effectively mocked the miracle of Jesus. He equated the miracle of the loaves and fishes with the stimulus bill describing these as bogus.

Now his mockery on government subsided birth control is being eaten up like loaves and fishes by many for whom Limbaugh speaks. I heartily concur with him that one whose choice to engage in sex should hardly be the responsibility of the American citizen to fund the cost of birth control measures that person incurs for themselves.

As a margin note I refute the argument of politicians who wonder if coverage of medicine may fall on employers' chopping block under the guise of religious belief: Well, we believe in prayer. This does not equivocate with funded birth control. By way of an illustration, the enslaving vices of tobacco and alcohol are not similarly funded. There are two noteworthy points of distinction between these and birth control. When those who are enslaved to tobacco and alcohol determine to be free of these vices they may, as some are able, severe cleanly and abruptly their use of tobacco and alcohol. Others can seek medical solutions or support groups to aid them in their quest to be free of their addiction. The choice tobacco and alcohol users made years before and which they maintained over the years was not dependant on and did not require the necessary engagement and participation of another person as in sexual unions for which some demand the entitlement of birth control.

There's litte reason to doubt Christians (those professing themselves as conversative or liberal) heartily embrace this latest rant of Limbaugh of alleged mockery on Americans. There's another mockery, I allege. Since Limbaugh's rant concerns sexual promiscuity I will reference the passage in the gospel according to John 8. A woman caught in the act of adultery, hence, the sexual promiscuity, was brought before Jesus. I allege there is a mockery, not only by Limbaugh, but by those who have been stirred without discernment to rally behind him, much like the Pharisees who brought the woman to Jesus. They were no more interested in keeping the law of Moses than to see the restoration to faith of their fallen sister. If their interests were truly in keeping the law they would have stoned the woman, according to their law, without consulting Jesus. Their consultation of Jesus was a mockery. Their supposed interests created a carnival spectacle around the adulteress not unlike the insipid voyeurism of recorded video sex demanded by Limbaugh mockingly from the sexually promiscuous on supposedly on behalf of the American taxpayer in exchange for funded birth control.

If you can state unequivocably your interests to restore those enslaved as much to tobacco and alcohol as sex than in all likelihood you are not so blithely or easily taken in by the mockery of mockers.

Read More

The Trinity Delusion: a response

(See my blog article.
The Devil's Delusion
God is one: On a Unitarian and Trinitarian Debate)
If God Existed
An Incomplete and Disingenuous Apologetic
Is the Resurrection of Jesus a Falsifiable Prediction
Jesus: The Father is Greater than I
He Has Explained
God is One: On a Unitarian and Trinitarian Debate
This is my brief comment on an extract from the article The Trinity Delusion by Adam Pastor in the Adoni Messiah blog. The article content is the usual rehash on the Shema ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"). The points from both sides of the discussion table about God usually fixate on the same: quantitative values of singular and plural pronouns. Of course, the original Deuteronomy 6 passage can't be beat, not because it was, as some cheer for their side, seemingly championed by Jesus. The quotation of the Shema in Mark 12 by Jesus is seized upon by some as an endorsement by Jesus of their particularly numeric, quantitative take on God. What, you might wonder is the Jewish awareness and response to that plurality? Rabbi Goldmark summons it up this way: "We just ignore it." Amazing. There is a gag reflex which overcomes some at the mere sound of a non-biblical term (which is equally unnecessary and non-useful to my understanding and my contribution to the discussion [for those who may not know it that term is, "trinity"]) which is suggestive of a plurality concerning God. One can hardly blame a man for not thinking clearly when he is gagging.

The default interpretation of the Shema from the Jews adapted by

Read More