Just a thought on King George and the Rubber Ducky (which I haven’t seen). If the objection to it is that it subverts the message of its intended Biblical counterpart, then that’s a fair criticism. If, on the otherhand, the objection is that stealing a rubber ducky is too trivial compared to David’s sin, well . . . is not even minor theft an affront to a righteous and holy God, and a rejection of his kingship, and therefore worthy of his just condemnation? Perhaps a three, four or five year old, is quicker to see this than we are! Oh, and how did they handle David’s murder of Uriah etc. in the Veggie Tales account?
Bob
The good go to Heaven
Sermon two in a series entitled 'Answering Wrong Assumptions' delivered by Simon Manchester at St…




Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi