Real Jock StephenOABC Finds Another Public Figure: Gordon Keith. Topic: Spirituality: God, the Invisible Man

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2014 9:22 PM GMT
    I've had this June 27-July 3, 2013 page 23 of the Dallas Observer tear sheet, well, since, about July 3, 2013. Today, I just had to do something about it. So, here we go. The article said Gordon has written on God, a specialty of mine as I fill my book of knowledge for being an expert in the historical accuracy of the Bible.

    Gordon Keith:

    Robert Jeffress implies that Tim Tebow is a wimp for not standing up for God’s truth.

    He wants Tebow to stand up for Jeffress’ understanding of God’s truth.

    Do you remember the old black-and-white movie The Invisible Man? The defining characteristic of the Invisible Man wasn’t that he was a Crimson Tide fan or that he got political at open-bar Christmas parties. His defining quality was that he was invisible. So in the movie, the Invisible Man had to be wrapped in bulky Ace bandages, cinched trench coats, and novelty-store sunglasses. He looked ridiculous, but since we can only see the Invisible Man when we put clothes on him, it was a good workaround. But we should never mistake the clothes for the man.

    God is like our Invisible Man. Through the ages, we’ve draped many suits on him, then spent a lifetime mistaking our clothes for the real him. It’s no surprise we pick the stuff from our wardrobe that appeals to our psyches the most. Anne Lamott once said, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Show me a person who emphasizes the judgment of God, and I’ll show you a person who likes making judgments. Show me a person who goes on and on about God’s view on sexuality, and I’ll show you someone who is very interested in the goings on of sexuality. It’s all understandable, but I don’t think many realize that they do it.

    Jeffress has taken the palette of the Bible and painted his portrait of God, and he thinks it’s correct because it’s “biblical.” The problem is that the Bible is a collection of other men’s portraits of God. All instructive. All important. All of them portraits.

    When I read your words, Gordon, "The problem is that the Bible is a collection of other men's portraits of God," I'd prefer instead of, "The problem is," "one problem is the Bible is a collection of other men's portraits of God." A bigger problem is using the skin of a defeated, limited, local God and repeatedly assigning its name to notions of God beyond its capacity. The God of Moses did not place the Israelites outside the zone of Egyptian influence. Second, when did this local God raise its people to empire status before the destruction of the Temple?

    All the portraits of God in the Bible are not all-instructive and all-important relative to better renderings and interpretations of events.

    Gordon Keith:

    People are very scared to question the Bible. I don’t know why. I’ve never understood why we let the patina of antiquity lend authority to things we’d never accept without it. When we fetishize antiquity, we blunt our ability to listen to the word of God currently being written. In books, plays and prayers. If God is still whispering into the hearts of men and women, why is it a stretch to think that humans can no longer transcribe that dictation? If we lose our blind allegiance to antiquity, we will gain a more useful portrait of a meaningful God through fresh Scripture.

    Let's take a break and look at Gordon Keith's Facebook Page. He says this is his nude body:


    Good looking picture. Join
    Break over.

    Gordon Keith:

    I contend that the Bible is still being written.

    Yes and no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2014 9:31 PM GMT
    Mark Spence

    In Genesis 1:26-27, God tells us through his Word that humanity is made in the image of God. What Gordon Keith is doing, by encouraging us to “Work out a portrait of God that you can love and that can love you back” is inviting us to make a god in the image of ourselves.

    History tells us this is nothing new. The Israelites created a god at the foot of Mount Sinai, the Pharisees created a god out of their panoply of laws, many a church has created a god out of their traditions, and I have created a god of myself when I excuse away my wrongs.

    Either you worship the God that has made us in his image or you worship a god made in your image. One has the ability to save and redeem you. The other does not. Be careful the God you worship in case it turns out to be yourself.

    Simply stated, God is God of the universe…not you or me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2014 12:48 AM GMT
    Gordon Keith

    If the Bible as we know it is the thing keeping you from our immanent God, let go of the Bible. Work out a portrait of God that you can love and that can love you back. Yes, you’re allowed to do that. That’s what men have always done. Whether it’s Paul the Apostle, Luke the physician or anyone else in the distant past who used the limits of language to clothe a limitless God. Don’t worry. There won’t be chaos without the absolute authority of the Bible. God is bigger than the sum of all those jots and tittles.