Friday, December 17, 2010

Digital Nativity



This is a bit of fun.

What a difference a few thousand years make.

It brings to mind that Tim Rice lyric of Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar:
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication...

31 Comments:

Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you, Your Grace!

17 December 2010 at 16:30  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Perhaps more people would have turned up , if street view had been on papyrus

17 December 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

If he'd come today he wouldn't have been allowed on the BBC. And he would probably have been "investigated" by the "Equalities" commission for being "homophobic", sexist, racist, etc.

17 December 2010 at 19:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Not really a topic for parody.

Never let me see another complaint from you about The life of Brian.

17 December 2010 at 23:00  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

You never have.

17 December 2010 at 23:27  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Roger Pearse.

Christ came at the appointed time.

A time of faith in Israel, as witnessed by Mary and Joseph.

A time when Israel chose through the Sanhedrin and the mob.

When Rome chose through Pontious Pilate.

When Israel was at the crossroads of the known world.

A time when man chose and Christ made His choice.

What choice today?

Who do YOU chose?

18 December 2010 at 01:21  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

If I haven't seen one, then I'm disgusted.

Is the nativity a source of entertainment?

Should those who know better capitulate to the 'Cowelliasation' of everything sacred?

Christ is no joke.

Laugh all you like, tears will folllow.

18 December 2010 at 01:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chancellor More

Interesting post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RURmj-u8QTU&feature=related

Is today really any different? Whatever time He came the outcome would have been the same. Mind you, without the beacon of Christianity would there even be a 'modern world'

18 December 2010 at 01:47  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

"It is accomplished."

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

18 December 2010 at 01:57  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"Is today really any different?"

A person can look at His Grace's post, and ask that question? Seriously?

Maybe I'm beginning to find an explanation for the expression "blank irony"!

18 December 2010 at 02:24  
Blogger Gnostic said...

English Viking, even this grumpy old agnostic can appreciate the contents of a message, especially this particular one, are the same no matter how it's delivered. It is certainly relevant to the technological zeitgeist we have today.

I don't see this as a joke. I see it as a warm, humerous and clever way of communicating something people will take notice of. It's a very charming retelling of the most important event in the Christian calendar. It certainly made me smile and what's wrong with that? I don't recall ever reading that JC was averse to humour and you can achieve so much more with wit and laughter than any amount of dry sermonising from a pulpit.

Thank you for the smile, Your Grace. I'm going to need it when I trudge to the shops through all the global warming that fell deep and crisp and even overnight :0)

18 December 2010 at 09:27  
Blogger Gnostic said...

O/T Your Grace but interesting.

Maggie T advised UKIP and suggested they approach Lord Monckton.

iDave won't be happy to hear about this, especially in the wake of the Stuart Wheeler affair. I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy to hear about it. What is Your Grace's opinion on this?

18 December 2010 at 10:02  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Personally, I enjoyed this post.

Seems to it was reverential and informative. And I do agree Christ would not disapprove. He was the supreme communicator. Aferall, many of His messages were delivered as parables to challenge the mindsets of His time.

No harm in respectful humour.

18 December 2010 at 11:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Eman,

You are quite right. Unlike some religions, we have a God who smiles and laughs, who delights and takes pleasure. That theological fact appears to have bypassed Mr English Viking, who is as dour as a religion that can admit no humour.

18 December 2010 at 11:44  
Blogger Crusader said...

I don't know how to open it! Being a simple man, all this new technology confuses me.

18 December 2010 at 11:45  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Thank you 'Archbishop'.

People need to remember Christ's first documented miracle was at a wedding feast in Canaan. And there does seem to have been a touch of humour and kindness in His words to His mother.

Without wishing to be offensive, Mr English Viking's remarks do seem to have a puritanical flavour.

This a time of joy and celebration.

18 December 2010 at 11:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

The only laughing I can find God doing in the scriptures is that of derision.

Christ is never recorded as laughing.

That aside, I agree that humour and laughter is a God-given gift, one which lightens a heavy heart, now and then. It's just that I feel that the purpose of the Gospel is not to entertain.

Gnostic,

If you are an agnostic, as you claim, then you need to change your screen-name, as gnostics were most certainly decided as to the existence of God.


Ecclesiastes 7 vv 3,4.

18 December 2010 at 12:17  
Blogger John said...

English Viking

Just to correct you, if I may.

Gnostics believe in the God of the New Testment. It's just that they understand the message to be hidden to those without an ecsoteric knowledge of Jesus' words.

An agnostic believes in God but can't make his mind up whether this God can be known through revelation.

From my reading of the Holy Word, there is an undercurrent of humour throughout the Gospel. Jesus showed a kind, gentle humour towards the Apostles on many occassions and a sardonic humour towards the Pharisees.

Sometimes people overlay the words of Christ with what's in their own hearts.

Lighten up brother. God loves and God laughs, as did His Son.

18 December 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

My child, English Viking, Jesus never showed derision towards anyone. A contemptable human quality.

Your comments do make me wonder about your comprehension of scripture and reinforce my doubts about the wisdom of the protestant insistance on permitting individual interpretation of the Bible without guidance and instruction.

Our Lord and Saviour demonstrated a justified anger towards those who used their religious status for their own ends. He also showed compassion and love. Do you suppose He was stern towards the children He sat on His knee? More likely He played humourously with them and laughted.

18 December 2010 at 12:55  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mr. English Viking. I have no idea whether or not god exists. I do perceive that some sort of power of creation exists for are we not all here? If some people want to call that power god then I don't have a problem with that. I prefer to call it nature.

To be honest, I'm really not into organised religion but I don't have a downer on anyone who is. People should be free to chose how they practice or not practice belief. I don't think any less of you for being a Christian. Why should I? After all I used to regularly attend church with my family. On official forms I still class myself as C of E because I'm not an atheist and I have never renounced my baptism or confirmation. Nor will I because it's part of what I am. I was bought up to respect Christian values and I have yet to find a better alternative. However, there is no place for religious dogma in my life.

As for my chosen handle, the choice is up to me, is it not? Gnosis derives from the greek word for knowledge or enlightenment. One does not have to be of a religious persuasion to possess either of these qualities. A small conceit on my part, n'est pas?

18 December 2010 at 13:17  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Pray tell, I am correct in understanding that the rainbow, a sign of God's covenant with Noah, and the adjective gay, denoting a state of joy, has degenerated into symbols of the sin of homosexuality?

Could someone explain what the condition of 'trans sexuality' and bi-sexuality is?

The affairs of man appear to have become so complicated, or are these all the same transgressions and rebelliousness as in my time?

18 December 2010 at 15:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

John,

I'm afraid you may not (well, you could have done, if I was wrong).

An agnostic is of the opinion that it is not possible to know whether God actually exists or not, not that He does exist but it is not possible to know him.

Chancellor More,

I don't normally talk to traitors, but it is Christmas, so I'll make an exception.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 59 speak of God holding very large numbers of people 'in derision'. You are not going to tell me that the God of the OT is somehow a different character to God incarnate in the NT are you?

It is not a Protestant insistence that a man should study the scriptures, and come to his own understanding of the truth contained therein, it is a Godly insistence.

The men of Berea refused to take even the Apostle Paul's word for matter, 'searching the scriptures daily, to see if these things were so'.

Taking your instruction from the Pope is not a recipe for success, as centuries of contradiction, falsehoods and downright lies will prove to an honest enquirer. I am not Protestant, BTW. I'm not your 'child', either.

I never said that Christ never laughed, I noted that the Spirit of God chose not to record such a matter in His word, an omission which is, in my opinion, instructive. He is never recorded as running either, which is, again to my mind, equally instructive.

Gnostic,

You are correct Sir (or Madam), your screen-name is entirely a matter for yourself. I must learn to mind my own business.

We agree on the evils of organised religion and I can assure you, I am most certainly not religious.

18 December 2010 at 16:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For Heaven's sake ! This charming video was sent to me by an ex-nun - and she knows full well I am atheist. But I can still appreciate humour and the Christian culture which surround us.

18 December 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Gnostic @ 13.17:

All rather nicely put.

18 December 2010 at 16:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

My comment has disappeared. It was posted, but now has gone.

I know you are not the type to indulge in redaction, so I'd be awfully grateful if you would find it for me and re-post.

Ta very much.

18 December 2010 at 17:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

His Grace is getting rather tired of mysterious missing comments (he very rarely removes comments, and when he does, Blogger clearly states: "Removed by the Blog Administrator").

Do you mean this one:

English Viking has left a new comment on your post "Digital Nativity":

John,

I'm afraid you may not (well, you could have done, if I was wrong).

An agnostic is of the opinion that it is not possible to know whether God actually exists or not, not that He does exist but it is not possible to know him.

Chancellor More,

I don't normally talk to traitors, but it is Christmas, so I'll make an exception.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 59 speak of God holding very large numbers of people 'in derision'. You are not going to tell me that the God of the OT is somehow a different character to God incarnate in the NT are you?

It is not a Protestant insistence that a man should study the scriptures, and come to his own understanding of the truth contained therein, it is a Godly insistence.

The men of Berea refused to take even the Apostle Paul's word for matter, 'searching the scriptures daily, to see if these things were so'.

Taking your instruction from the Pope is not a recipe for success, as centuries of contradiction, falsehoods and downright lies will prove to an honest enquirer. I am not Protestant, BTW. I'm not your 'child', either.

I never said that Christ never laughed, I noted that the Spirit of God chose not to record such a matter in His word, an omission which is, in my opinion, instructive. He is never recorded as running either, which is, again to my mind, equally instructive.

Gnostic,

You are correct Sir (or Madam), your screen-name is entirely a matter for yourself. I must learn to mind my own business.

We agree on the evils of organised religion and I can assure you, I am most certainly not religious.

18 December 2010 at 18:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

That's the one. You are most kind.

18 December 2010 at 18:20  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Ummm ... probably best left where it was in my humble opinion!

So much anger and narrow mindedness. An early Nordic characturistic no doubt.

I agree with Chancellor More, Jesus never once showed derision. Yes, the OT refers to God scoffing in derision at the rebelliousness of man. However, Jesus did reveal a deeper understanding.

St Paul reasoned with the men of Berea to show them the errors in their understanding of the Messiah. Teaching involves engagement.

Your comments about Saint Thomas More are illinformed. He was a man of honour, loyal to his country and his earthly King but "God's Servant First". Where is the evidence he was a traitor? He refused in good conscience to take an oath reversing this order. I believe he is venerated as a saint by Anglicans as well as Roman Catholics.

Your comments on Catholic history are inaccurate too.

19 December 2010 at 00:07  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Eman,

Starting your post with 'ummm' is childish and patronising, stop it.

The fact he (More) was executed for treason should provide one with enough evidence of his treachery.

When Christ speaks of 'spewing people out of his mouth', is this not derisive? He's not a hippy, and there will be a bloodbath on his return. If you don't believe me, read Revelation. Now your 'Papa' says it's OK to have a Bible in your own language this should not be difficult.

As I have stated previously, I am neither Catholic nor Anglican, hence I revere none but Christ, His Father and the Spirit.

You would do well to do as all good children do; speak only when spoken to.

19 December 2010 at 01:48  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Re Sir Thomas More: Where is the evidence he was a traitor? It all depends how you read his letters and other writings (They have been published in recent years). I was a great admirer of his until I did so, especially after Bolt's film and play. But the documents inclined me to view him as a traitor. Like the shower in control now - he gave his loyalty to a foreign power, believing that it should rule us.

Based on his letters to his daughter, Margaret Roper, I also gather that he expected to die of kidney disease anyway. So it's possible - even probable - that he acted as he did to make Henry responsible for a death that was already assured. [Always remembering that they had no transplants, dialysis, antibiotics, etc.]

So I rather went off him.

19 December 2010 at 01:52  
Blogger Mark Beach said...

I don't usually find myself in agreement with your Grace, but thank you for this....

19 December 2010 at 17:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older