7.29.2003 

The question is, who is a bigger P-I-M-P in the 1980's, Tom Selleck or David Hasselhoff? Its a question that has been debated for years and I am going to attempt to address it and perhaps shed some light on this situation. I would first like to thank my friends Matt Piland and Chris Bell who so willingly shared their insights and wisdom on the subject. Without their help, my conclusion would not have much scientific backing or hard evidence. But through the help of their studious research, hopefully I will be able to come to a conclusion that we can all be proud of. It is also important to note that the question refers only to the 1980s and not the subsequent years. This would disallow all BayWatch and BayWatch nights in David Hasselhoff's defense and all Friend's episodes from Tom Selleck's defense (although any man who could be Monica Gellar's man-friend deserves some slight consideration just because she is one of the more annoying people on tv). With all of that as a framework, let us now begin the process of weighing out all of the pros and cons of both P-I-M-Ps. We will begin by taking a look at David Hasselhoff. Since this is only a 1980s contest, our source material will be KnightRider and a few made-for-tv movies. As easy as it would be to factor in BayWatch, where David clearly holds a higher P-I-M-P-ology degree than Tom, we simply can not afford the luxury of going down that road. I think it is a wide enough belief that Hasselhoff's work on Baywatch and the not so successful Baywatch nights (where he was lifeguard by day and P.I. by night) was more than just acting, but it was pure art wrapped in a little bit of bliss. But alas . . . only the 80s can be used in our decision making process. So with that in mind, lets take a look at David's work on KnightRider. The obvious evidence for Hasselhoff for being a P-I-M-P would be his upper chest hair that always gently petruded from his shirt, but never in a distasteful or raunchy way, but it was almost as if he was teasing us with his chest hair. Only showing us enough to tickle our fancy for that particular hour of television. He also is the only man that I know of that could pull of black jeans, a darker colored shirt (usually black), a black belt, black shoes, and a black leather jacket. That is a tough fashion assignment for any man to pull off, but David did it week in and week out. He also had a car that talked. This is an obvious pro. After all, not many of us have a car named KIT who communicates with us on a daily basis. However, this is also a con for some as dealing with the hassles of a talking car can be more of a pain than a pleasure. And let us not forget the 18-wheeler with the old man and the hot lady. That is definitely P-I-M-P. With that being said, let us now move onto Tom Selleck. Obviously Magnum did not have a talking car, but lets be honest, his car was still in the upper echelon of cool cars. And who can forget in the opening credits of Magnum P.I. the leaves blowing everywhere when the car pulls in to Higgin's driveway? Obviously in his defense, Tom had one of the top 3 mustaches of the 1980s. It was a pristine piece of hair. And like Hasselhoff, Mr. Selleck was not at a loss for chest hair either. Fortunately for Tom and the world alike, by nature of living in Hawaii, we got to see his chest hair on a more frequent basis. And sometimes, we would get a little bonus treat, like a fat kid getting an extra dessert, by seeing Magnum's leg hair when the camera would pan down. God bless OP shorts and god bless the camera pan down. Only one word can describe that scene . . . glorious. He was also named after a gun. Which is most definitely P-I-M-P. He also lived in a mansion for free, got to talk to a man named Higgins, had ladies all the time, and like previously stated, wore OP shorts. But even if you threw all of that evidence out the window, you would still have the biggest and most incriminating sign of all . . . . in the opening credits . . . we see Tom Selleck holding a girl in his arms . . . in the ocean . . . while she snorkels. Now if that is not P-I-M-P then I for one do not know what is. That right there, along with the other evidence is enough for me to definitively say that Tom Selleck is a bigger P-I-M-P than David Hasselhoff in the 1980s. While Hasselhoff might win the contest in the 1990s, Selleck is the hands down winner of the title of "Biggest P-I-M-P of the 1980s". Congratulations Mr. Selleck and may we all strive to be the kind of life-changing P-I-M-P that we got to get small glimpse of in Mr. Selleck's work.

7.24.2003 

The world is a vampire. Just kidding. I've just always wanted to quote a Smashing Pumpkins song in my journal. Anywho . . . lets see. Today was my last day as intern. I might be working at NP in the Fall but it'll probably end up being in the Spring. So we'll see. I may be going back to the print shop but I'm not quite sure if there are enough hours for me there now. So to be honest, I'm not sure where I'll be working. But I'm not really worried right now. It'll all take care of itself. At least thats what I hope. But other than that, not a whole lot has been going on. Just staying busy with work, school, life, friends, 4-wheelers . . . the usual. So when something exciting starts to happen or something profound comes to my head, I shall write again. Until then . . . I shan't (what a great contraction)!

7.18.2003 

To Jennifer, Sam, & Shana: REMEMBER THE RULES!!! That is of course if you're even reading this.

7.16.2003 

What I'm Reading This Week: A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway What I'm Listening To This Week: Coldplay - both albums, Pete Yorn, Blue October, Minibar

7.14.2003 

I wonder what its going to take for me not to screw up? Life is so complicated and yet so simple. I wish I could just turn down the noises and circumstances that distract and distort the simplicity. Here's to discerning the complicated . . . and whats with all the "dis" words in a row?

7.08.2003 

What I'm Reading This Week: The Story We Find Ourselves In by Brian McLaren, Like A Rock by Andy Stanley What I'm Listening To This Week: Weezer - Blue, Weezer - Maldraoit, Weezer - Green, Dashboard Confessional, and Gangsta Mix Volume IX

7.06.2003 

An article written for Survey of Theology II in regards to the "atonement". Limited or unlimited atonement? That is the question. And can I be honest and share with you how beautifully freeing it is to say �I don�t know!� I honestly have no idea. Five years ago, I would have said one thing. A year ago I would have said another. Today I say one thing. Tomorrow I might believe another. And 20, 30, 40 years from now. On my death bed . . . who knows? And since I�m not going to know one way or the other before I enter into the glorious presence of the only One who does know, I�m not going to spend a lot of time, nor passion supporting one position or another. But for the sake of this class, and my all important grade, I will briefly touch on what this ignorant 22 year old might tend to lean towards at this present moment. I might begin by sharing that I approach all of theology and the �touchy� subjects such as this one, in the way the author of Hebrews wrote about as he made reference to the �mercy seat� as a foreshadowing of the �atonement� cover. Hebrews 9:5 reads, �. . . But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.� While this in no way discounts my need to study and �show myself approved� and to �be able to give account� for what I believe, I believe there are many �grey� areas that we have arrived at in our interpretations. And since we have what we call finite minds, I can rest easy not knowing everything. I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we try and prove God is one way or the other (which I think is what Eli was alluding to) instead of allowing there to be some open space for us to let some things just be unexplainable, even a mystery. This may blow some people by surprise, but everything is not always cut and dry, black and white, either/or. The theological discussion regarding limited or unlimited atonement is one of the areas where it�s a little stickier, a little grey, both/and. I often wonder why we have to make God be �either/or� instead of �both/and�. G.K. Chesterton in his book �Orthodoxy� has a wonderful chapter about the paradox of God. Is it so hard to believe that God, because of his completeness and fullness, can hold in the same hand both grace and law? Beauty and pain? Election and choice? Realizing that God is both/and, unexplainable and mysterious at times, gives me great hope because it lets me know that He is not a man-made God that thinks and acts like us humans. Instead He operates on a different plane, a different level of reasoning and logic. When we begin to make it an �either/or� issue, it shows to me that we are trying to cram God into one of our logical boxes. We have to leave some space in there for God to be God and do things differently than the way we would do it. There has to be some tension. Some unexplainable left in our theology. For if not, we will have defined the Indefinable. Put the Transcendent in a box. And I myself am not prepared to do that. How do you come to a conclusion one way or the other when there are two verses that seem to lead to different conclusions? How do you reconcile 1 Timothy 2:6 where Paul writes that Jesus �gave himself as a ransom for all men� and Christ�s specific prayer for �those whom the Father had given him�, in John 17? How does the backend of a verse like Hebrews 2:9 where it says, �that he might taste death for everyone� mesh up with a passage like Romans 9:11-27 where Paul discusses that God specifically and purposefully hardens hearts and softens others, where Paul writes that some were created for �noble purposes� and others �destruction�? You could take the position of unlimited atonement like Charles Ryrie as he writes, �The death of Christ pays for the sins of all people.�1 Or you could take the position of Louis Berkhof as quoted by Millard Erickson, �since Christ prays only for those whom the Father has given him, it must be only for them that he died.�2 But it is precisely because �He is who he is that He does what He does�3 that makes the paradox beautiful. I think that is where Paul finally landed after he wrote the words that set up the framework for much of our present day theology in Romans 1-11. In his �doxology�, glory statement, I think Paul was still trying to understand what the Spirit had led him to write. I think Paul was floored and taken back with what had just been written, especially chapters 9-11. And in 11:33-36, I think that�s why he writes, �Oh, what a wonderful God we have! How great are his riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his methods! For who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who knows enough to be his counselor? And who could ever give him so much that he would have to pay it back? For everything comes from him; everything exists by his power and is intended for his glory. To him be glory evermore. Amen.� Sadly, instead of leaving some things as unexplainable we move into the dangerous place of wasting our time by inventing great big words like �supralapsarians and infralapsarians�. But since making up big words and using them to define a bunch of finite theories and opinions makes us feel better, we continue to march down the road of ignorance seeking to arrive at the perfect, complete ORTHODOXY instead of attempting to live the perfect, complete ORTHOPRAXY. My question for the class is this, what right do we think we have to tell the potter what to do with his clay (Romans 9:20-21)? For what reasons do we need to know? Is it even possible to know this side of heaven? 1. C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 373. 2. M. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 844. 3. J. Stott, Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 273.

7.05.2003 

God is not a science to be proven or dissected, but poetry to be experienced, lived, and enjoyed.

About Me

  • I'm Josh
  • From Atlanta, Georgia
Profile
  • The NT & the People of God
  • The Secret Message of Jesus

Powered by Blogger