The Black Theologian goes Rogue

Isn't it an interesting sign of a church's priorities when it is more concerned with membership attendance and online views, and more than those- its revenue from donations, than answering deep questions
e.g.
why would a good God inflict the Wuhan flu on humanity?
how should Christians live according to their faith in the midst of this pandemic?

Or they can always ask in Church Inc.:
How do we keep the turnover low and the revenue high?

So yesterday, yours truly read a naughty post shared by a most naughty theologian who quoted the Parable of the Lost Sheep as the basis for racial discussion.

The 1 lost sheep was equated to the plight of the Black people in USA while we are left to assume that the 99 would be the Whites (and others?), leaving us with the saccharine message that Black Lives Matter instead of All Lives Matter. Truly a naughty, naughty theologian! Context was thrown aside and discarded in a dumpster fire although Jesus very clearly said that the 1 lost sinner is in more need of salvation than the 99 righteous who do not, referring to personal, spiritual salvation, and not material need nor social security or protection.

We are left to assume that the shared post meant that the Blacks are the lost sinners while the Whites (and others? Hello, there are also Middle Easterners, Asians, and Samoans, y'know?) aren't, because we're like the holy riders on the righteous hallelujah train. Truly, a naughty theology was practiced that day!

In response, here is a passage from Proverbs which is colour-blind and avoids elevating any one race above the others (otherwise it would be, in the most correct context of the word- racist):

Proverbs 3:27-32

Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
when it is in your power to do it.

Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again,
tomorrow I will give it”—when you have it with you.
Do not plan evil against your neighbor,
who dwells trustingly beside you.
Do not contend with a man for no reason,
when he has done you no harm.
Do not envy a man of violence
and do not choose any of his ways,
for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord,
but the upright are in his confidence.
The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked,
but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
but fools get disgrace.

Now this hits the sweet spot, this hits the nail on the head.

Abuse of authoritative power to cause violence, bodily harm, and death? Boom,
[Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
when it is in your power to do it.]

Seeming delay in enforcing justice when you can pursue due process immediately? Boom,
[Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again,
tomorrow I will give it”—when you have it with you.]

Organised police countermeasures that was obviously planned to crush the protest? Violent backlash from shameless opportunists who exploit social injustice to cause looting, mayhem and violence? Boom,
[Do not plan evil against your neighbor,
who dwells trustingly beside you.]

Again, back to the officer who knelt on the unarmed dead man's neck?
Boom,
[Do not contend with a man for no reason,
when he has done you no harm.]

What about those who glory in what the police officer did?
Boom,
[Do not envy a man of violence
and do not choose any of his ways,
for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord,
but the upright are in his confidence.]

What about his colleagues and those who stood with him, protecting him?
Boom,
[The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked,
but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
but fools get disgrace.]

The Lucan passage in question, Luke's 15th chapter, deals with parallel parables that answer the central theme of the non-Hitlerian Jewish question, as in, how do the Jews factor in the Kingdom of Heaven/Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus vs how do the Gentiles factor in the kingdom. To the Jews, the Gentiles did not count, but apparently to Jesus, they did. While the Jews prided themselves on being the Children of Abraham, they assumed it would be a free pass for them into Paradise, while the filthy, uncircumcised, Godless Gentiles, wouldn't. Not so, says Jesus, and opened the membership into God's family by Gentile adoption. Needless to say, the Jews were not exactly pleased, leading to their endless skirmish with Saul of Tarsus regarding who holds the coveted title of Daddy's favorite child- Jews, or Christian Jews and Gentiles.

Now THIS is how Theologians who are not naughty theologise our times.
*drops mic*

On the question of if the Him in John 3:16 refers to the Father or the Son:

Greek is a language whose words changes its suffix when it is applied to refer to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons. It also changes its suffix when it denotes the object of the phrase and the subject of the phrase. Note that in the verse referenced, God (Theos) has the -os ending, designating it as the object. The other nouns are subjects that are mentioned in relation to Theos, and have the -on ending, eg. Kosmon (world), and most importantly Huion (Son). This indicates that God is the object and Son is the subject. The second step is to observe the rules of Greek grammar in which the nouns must agree with their references. Auton (Him) which is the concern of the question ends with the suffix that agrees with Huion and not Theos. If the "Him" referred to Theos, it would agree with the form of the noun and become Autos not Auton.

Therefore the Him refers to the Son, not the Father

Bet you came here to stalk me because you disagree with me.

LMAO kindly
go get a life.

The past couple of months has been a ride.

Naughty Theologians haven't learnt their lesson, so it's back to work:

Look, y'all can't do sermons on 1 John and not read it in context. It's just wrong, plain wrong, and downright theologically dishonest.

What's the point of rocking the stage instead of rocking the scripture?
Why harp on pressing others into service when you have in plain sight rejected the ones who volunteered themselves into service?

Y'all don't want co-workers in Christ,
Y'all just want obedient slaves and lap-dogs.

Don't aim to grow big.
Instead, grow up.

While the latest iteration of the Black Theologian is more polemic than its former primarily apologetic iteration, it by no means has its blade dulled.

Today we shall discuss love.
Someone commented to the Black Theologian offline, stating that they felt God's love is true yet illogical.

Not so, replied the Black Theologian, the only ones who opine thus had not truly understood it.
How so? came the reply.
Well listen up, said the Black Theologian.

God's love will seem illogical if one thinks of God as a single person.
But it all makes sense when God is a collective name for a number of three persons.
Ergo Trinitarian theology.

A solo godhead would result in overbearing narcissism, an all powerful and demanding man-child tyrant, viewing all creation as inferior objects and playthings.

A dual godhead would result in a cosmic binary struggle between the two persons as they vie for supremacy. Any even number and they can be evenly divided.

It would take an odd number of three, or five, or seven persons in the godhead to achieve a balance of power, ensuring peace and harmony, much less love. And unlike the other polytheistic religions, Christianity settled for the magic number in maths for balance, 3.

And then the Black Theologian asked-
Who is God's first love?
Came the expected answer- humans.
Replied the Black Theologian: Good try but it's not so. Think again. The first love of God is God.
A God cannot know love if He were alone from the very beginning. He could only know love if He were in fact, of themselves and in themselves a coherent and homologous They.
The first love of God is the other persons of the Trinity. Out of their mutual love comes the basis for all other loves. For that also justifies the definition that God is love, the Trinity being the model for love, and weddings being man and wife and God, as being modeled after Trinitarian love.

And having established the premise for the argument, the Black Theologian asked, why were we made- was it for us or was it for the other two persons in the Trinity?
Came the reply - for us.
Not so, said the Black Theologian.
We were made, and we were saved, not out of antropocentricity, but out of the love shared for each other in the Trinity.

A hint is found in the Father-Son exchange in Gethsamane.
Son: I don't want to do it. But because You want it to be done, I will do it.
Suffering was the chosen path of the Son in the Trinity. But why?
One could theorise that it was out of obedience and fear of a superior power of the other. But that would have been out of congruence with the portrayed character of the Son in all his other interactions.

Another theory, a more viable and plausible one, would be that the Son did it more out of the love for the Father than his love for us.

While it is a bitter pill to swallow, it does not negate the truth of God's love for humanity. But God did not love humanity for the sake of humanity alone. God loves humanity because we are a joint project of their creation, and because of their mutual love for each other, they chose to love us. That love is in no way illogical then.

And yes, the Black Theologian is a Trinitarian Theologian.

Plot twist-
Christian said this at a Satanic black mass.

Yeah just because the audience isn't the object of worship does not necessarily mean that God is worshipped either lol lol.

Conducting theological audit is like going for dental surgery- one tends to expect it to hurt way more than it appears, and it often usually does.

Yesterday, it was a sad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, the logical fallacy of claiming that because the rooster crows the sun rises.

Well in this theologically dishonest case study,
The preacher claimed onstage that mobile computer use eg. Tablets and Smartphones are responsible for the breakdown of familial communication at the dining table.

Were we to abide by such sloppy use of correlation mistaken as causation, shall we then conclude that since all cancer patients consume water, the consumption of water causes cancer?

One would think that perhaps the breakdown in communication at the familial level has very much more to do with the dysfunctional dynamics within the said family and that mobile computing devices are merely an avenue of escape from that reality.

For far too long, sinners have distanced themselves from the responsibility of their sins by blaming someone or something else, and in the past they used a scapegoat which was literally a black goat that was blamed. Today, we do the same with mobile phone use.

Preachers should not play phychoanalysts without prior professional training, lest they cross paths with the Black Theologian gone rogue, the naughty naughty theologians.

He sniffs out idiots like a bloodhound on a hunt. He's on the hunt for sound theology.

Why are we not taught that Zoroastrianism predates JudeoChristianity, and that it introduced the concept of the duality of good and evil to the Judeochristian faith?

Today, we visited another site for a theological audit.
Same problem, different hell.