Ship of Fools: The terror of the Incarnation

Thread: The terror of the Incarnation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023323

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

The shooting in Denver has me thinking about the Incarnation. And when I think about the Incarnation for too long, I start to think that we've got it all wrong. In December, we'll sing carols, and children will dress up for pageants, and we'll give gifts to our friends, and feast, and have a wonderful time celebrating the Incarnation.

But I think instead of celebrating it, perhaps we should be terrified by it.

Because Christ chose to become one of us, to share our human nature, joining it to his divine nature in his singular Person, everything that we do to another human being, and everything we say about them, is also being said and done to Him.

In the Orthodox Church, we understand that the veneration we give to the icons passes through the image to the Prototype. Our Lord told us that any good we do to another human being -- a cup of cold water given to a thirsty person -- is received by Him. In exactly the same way, any evil we do to or say about another person is received by Christ.

And it's so easy, when someone commits an unfathomable evil, to say that they're trash, that they're a monster, that they're subhuman. But they are, and remain, an icon of the Most High. When we say that another human is trash, we are saying that of Christ.

When we pass by a homeless man holding a cardboard sign, and look the other way, it is Christ that we're looking away from.

When we revile our political opponents, when we call them thugs or thieves or assholes or fools, we are in danger of judgment. We know that from the Scriptures. And the reason is clear: when we revile a human being, that contempt is received by Christ.

If we understood this, in our heart of hearts, the Incarnation would be a source of terror for us. It would change everything.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Anyone who did shooting, and I mean anyone from John Wilkes Booth to the man who did the deed last night can not be a monster. Just disturbed .
And maybe a broader undersdtanding of the Incarnation would get us to damp down how we discribe our fellow beings. [Votive]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

But you can't stay terrified forever. At least I can't. Sooner or later you make peace (or have peace made upon you) with the fact that you're (Okay, I'm] a radical screw-up who is basically spitting in God's face and stepping on his toes every minute of the day, and not able to stop that no matter how I try--and he STILL loves me--and then I relax. Not that it doesn't matter, it does; but tying myself into knots about it isn't doing anything but hurting me and probably frustrating the Lord.

Which is all a longwinded way of saying that I think you have to come to terms with the fact of being a sinner, end.stop.period. And accept grace. And THEN get on with life, and loving your neighbor.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Thanks Josephine, everything you said is true, as I'm beginning to realise.

I think it all boils down to judgement. We are all to quick to think we understand people (even other christians) and try to catagorise them into "types." I guess we have Freud to thank for that (in the west), but it is never-the-less judging them and avoiding the effort of finding out where they are really coming from.

The Incarnation was an act of Love on God's part, not just for Orthodox (or southern baptists) but for the Whole World! Whilst I think it is right we should be eternally joyful and thankful for this Gift, we will become better icons of God if we reflect this Gift in our attitudes to ALL other people.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine
And it's so easy, when someone commits an unfathomable evil, to say that they're trash, that they're a monster, that they're subhuman. But they are, and remain, an icon of the Most High. When we say that another human is trash, we are saying that of Christ.

A certain man, with his accomplice, lured an innocent young woman onto the moors near Manchester and then slit her throat. I am referring to the mass murderer Ian Brady. This man - now in his 70's and serving a life sentence - has shown no remorse for his crimes, and it is likely that if he were released he would kill again. Do I consider this man a monster? Absolutely I do. I think he is a devil. This is a term Jesus himself used of Judas.

Do I feel guilty at thinking like this? No. Do I feel that I am "hurting Jesus" by thinking this? No. Why? Because this is what God thinks of those who are totally, wilfully and unrepentantly evil.

Brady may be loved by God - the God who demands that he repent. But I would suggest that this is the greatest terror for him. But it cannot be a terror to anyone to call evil by its proper name, and to regard those who reject all that is good in their proper light. He is, of course, a human being, but he has chosen to reject humanity, so therefore he has made himself "sub-human". That is why he should be caged like an animal for the rest of his life.

Sorry, but this approach is called "truth and reality", and I'll be blown if anyone is going to make me feel "terrified" for thinking like this!

If it's a choice between giving a damn about people like Brady or protecting innocent people, then it's a no brainer - "icon of the Most High" or not!

[ 21. July 2012, 09:00: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
and grace my fears relieved...

Yes, maybe we should fear God more. It is after all, a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Or, as was said about Aslan (the Christlike lion in the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe) - 'He's good but he's not safe.'

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very interesting OP. Yes, I think seeing the other as the Christ, or at least, partly, is quite an amazing exercise. I think Bonhoeffer somewhere says that the next person you meet is Christ. I would say a very uncomfortable idea, as we often want to wall God off in churches and so forth!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Another 'terror' of the Incarnation is the risk that God took in giving his Son to us. Had it happened now, Jesus could be one of those who was shot.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

In his book 'Letters to Malcolm - Chiefly on Prayer' C.S. Lewis writes that he once met a 'continental pastor' who had once met Hitler 'and had small cause to love him'. 'What did he look like?' Lewis asked. 'Like all men,' was the reply. 'That is, like Christ.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Brady did a lot more than that one murder, EE, as you well know ... (shudders) ...

I think Josephine's onto something and it makes me feel bad for the way I can diss people on these Boards at times. She's right. The Incarnation should be a 'terrible' thing to contemplate.

Mudfrog is right too, coming at it from a slightly different angle.

'Wretch that I am! Who shall save me from the body of this death?'

The Incarnation is terrible, but it is also our only hope (yes, Mudfrog, along with Christ's death and resurrection of course, which is included within the whole 'Christ-event').

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

If we understood this, in our heart of hearts, the Incarnation would be a source of terror for us. It would change everything.

Not in the terms you are describing.

Because Jesus didn't go around killing people.

If everbody was Christ, then we could all do whatever we wanted.

And the Kingdom of God would certainly not ensue.

I'm with EE on this one.

The incarnation redeems the idea that humans and all of creation is bad.

It does not, however, ignore that some parts are still bad.

Erstwhile Jesus would have had nothing to say.

If you want to express the incarnation to this bloke in Denver, you put him in jail and attempt restorative justice.

Wise as serpents, gentle as doves.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think that we should both celebrate and be humbled by the Incarnation. I'm not convinced that we should be terrified of God unless we are deliberately embracing and enjoying what is evil, in which case of course we must be confined if we're not safe to live near other people.

I've never met anyone who was completely evil or completely good. Everyone has their flaws and their gifts. Some have progressed to be able to control harmful tendencies more than others, but we all have them.

Jesus washed the feet of Judas, knowing the evil in his heart. If we follow Jesus, we must be ready to do the same, to love all other people as ourselves. Tough teaching, but it's no more than we're asking of God.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I've met 2 people in which nothing about them suggested even a least spark of good. Such cold evil exists that can swallow of all warmth. Trust me. If you haven't met anyone like this, it is hard to know that it is true and that they exist. Once you do meet such a person, it is inescapable to understand. I was surprised, did not want to believe it. [Personal note, this has nothing to do with recent experience, and it would have been easier if it was the same sort of person.]

This is far different from the all too common motivated acts of violence or deliberate causing of pain. The comparison to any other perception of people is tremendously difficult. I remember consulting my priest about it, and having the discussion that 'now I understand what I didn't before'. It was really through a glass darkly before meeting such a person.

The incarnation is about potential, with choice always present. That is probably why we have clear info about it, and if not verifiably factual, clearly demonstrative of it symbolically in the bible. Like Jesus being offered kingship of the world during the 40 days, and the 'take this cup from me' sequence in the garden.

[ 21. July 2012, 13:40: Message edited by: no_prophet ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

There is a creative tension in the Church's anthropology, "understanding of humanity." On the one hand, humanity is created in the image of God, made with the purpose of shepherding and tending creation with care and love.

On the other hand, humans are sinful and are prone to reject God's will.

The Incarnation is God the Son becoming human, dwelling with us, redeeming us in our very material condition. However, until the age to come, the sanctification of humanity continues. In some cases, when we are dealing with people who commit horrific acts of violence, it is our duty to prosecute them and ensure that they are held accountable, because other people are also made in the image of God as well as the perpetrator. We harm THEM if we do not do everything possible to prevent evil. But at the same time, no one is ever irredeemably lost and we do not know how God works in every individual. So, no, we cannot pronounce anyone's eternal fate.

With God's help, we struggle to deal with evil, while at the same time not becoming overwhelmed with hatred and revenge, which itself contributes to the cycle of violence.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Another 'terror' of the Incarnation is the risk that God took in giving his Son to us. Had it happened now, Jesus could be one of those who was shot.

The analogy would have only worked if Jesus had been one of a number in the crowd who were randomly rounded up and crucified. Jesus deliberately placed himself in the firing line, as it were and was more than just being in the wrong place when a senseless killing took place.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ian Brady. This man - now in his 70's and serving a life sentence - has shown no remorse for his crimes, and it is likely that if he were released he would kill again. Do I consider this man a monster? Absolutely I do. I think he is a devil. This is a term Jesus himself used of Judas.

And he called Peter Satan to his face.

Harsh rhetoric. And not the only time he was harsh.

But I think we have to be careful going there. In church law, as I understand it, back when customary forms of discipline were physical harsh, and superiors could strike their inferiors with absolute impunity, a bishop could be deposed for striking another person. The fact that Jesus made a whip and drove the moneylenders from the temple did not give them license to go and do likewise.

Seeing Christ in a man like Ian Brady in mind is hard. I'm not denying that. I'm not saying that I could do it in fact, even if I think it's important in theory. And I'm not saying that giving him the regard that is his due as a human being, as a living, breathing icon, means that he isn't dangerous, or that people can't or shouldn't be protected from him. He clearly is dangerous, and people must be protected from him.

And he must be protected from himself as well. His evil acts (and the acts truly are evil) harm him as truly as they harm others. Allowing him to continue to do evil would be a sin against everyone he harmed (they, too, are icons, and must be treated as we would treat Christ himself -- protecting their safety seems like the very least we should be doing for them), and it would be a sin against him.

It's what a priest I know has told women in abusive relationships. To stay and allow the abuse to continue is to sin against the abuser by allowing him to continue to damage his own soul. If there is any charity at all towards the one who harms others, allowing the harm to continue isn't part of it. Stopping their behavior is.

quote:
If it's a choice between giving a damn about people like Brady or protecting innocent people, then it's a no brainer - "icon of the Most High" or not!

I think we're required to do both. In the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity chose to share our human nature. That means that each of us, every single one of us, is of one nature with him. So we have to give a damn about them. And we have to protect anyone that they might harm.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think that we should both celebrate and be humbled by the Incarnation. I'm not convinced that we should be terrified of God unless we are deliberately embracing and enjoying what is evil, in which case of course we must be confined if we're not safe to live near other people.

I don't so much mean being terrified of God, although that's perhaps part of what I mean.

But imagine for just a moment that you are the king once upon a time in a kingdom far away. At your child's birth, the old witch that you didn't invite to the christening party came anyway, and laid a spell on you and your child, so that any harm you did to another person would be visited on your child.

At first you might not think anything of it. You're a good person, a decent person, you don't hurt other people. But then, as they do in fairy tales, things start happening. You strike a servant, and a bruise appears on your child's cheek. You are in a hurry, speeding to some important event, and because you're the king, you expect everyone to get out of your way. And an old lady is knocked down, and injured, and the wares she was taking to market are broken so that she has nothing to sell, and so nothing to eat. And your daughter, whom you love more than you love life itself, is injured, and cannot eat, and cries from hunger.

Would you not be terrified? Not of your child -- of course not! But of the consequences that your actions are having on the child that you love?

That's the terror that I'm talking about. If you love Christ, then knowing that when you treat someone else badly, it affects him, that if you leave someone else hungry or homeless or sick or in pain, that he is sharing in that hunger and pain -- knowing that has to hurt. You have to want it to stop. It has to frighten you. Or at least, it begins to frighten me.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Another 'terror' of the Incarnation is the risk that God took in giving his Son to us. Had it happened now, Jesus could be one of those who was shot.
The analogy would have only worked if Jesus had been one of a number in the crowd who were randomly rounded up and crucified. Jesus deliberately placed himself in the firing line, as it were and was more than just being in the wrong place when a senseless killing took place.

It is NOT an 'analogy' and i was talking about now, so crucifixion doesn't apply.

God took a risk because we have free will. Jesus could of died at birth, of disease etc.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This stuff about Ian Brady being the devil is very bizarre. He was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic quite a while ago; and in fact, this is a point at issue, as he was being force-fed. If he was a normal prisoner, he would not be force-fed, and would be allowed to die on hunger-strike.

Anyway, are people saying that schizophrenia is the devil at work? Gulp. I'm glad I don't go to that church!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think EE was being literal, Q' ...

I can see the point he's making. On the whole, I don't think it does to demonise people, but neither would I hold that Brady's paranoid schizophrenia absolves him of responsibility for his actions.

It's always a tricky one with debates of this kind. Josephine's point still stands, that all of us are made in the image of God, even if that image becomes so marred as to be almost unrecognisable. Heck, even the 'blackest' TULIP Calvinist wouldn't assert that people are incapable of any good whatsoever - the doctrine of 'total depravity' means that people are incapable of saving themselves without divine grace not that they are all depraved psychos ...

I would suggest that Josephine's point about the Incarnation would hold within any soteriological schema - whether Orthodox, RC, Wesleyan, Calvinist or whatever else there might be.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

A priest once preached this statement:

"Your attitude towards the one you dislike the most reveals your genuine love towards Our Lord."

If this is so, many of us have a terrible time of loving Our Lord.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Another 'terror' of the Incarnation is the risk that God took in giving his Son to us. Had it happened now, Jesus could be one of those who was shot.

I don't agree with this - see Luke 4: 28-30, where the crowd wanted to throw Jesus off a cliff, but he just walked straight through them and went on his way.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So Jesus was somehow protected until God shafted him at the cross?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Jesus was somehow protected until God shafted him at the cross?

You see, how does one argue against this shallow and misinformed (though I'm certain you are, in fact, neither of these things) comment?

God did not 'shaft' Jesus on the cross.

If he did that would suggest adoptionism or that Jesus was merely a puppet of 'God', rather than being the Incarnation of God.
It doesn't take into account Christ's own declarations and decision-making.
It doesn't take into account the truth that God was in Christ reconciling the world or that Jesus said 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'

It was a cheap comment that doesn't bear the most cursory of theological glances.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Jesus was somehow protected until God shafted him at the cross?

Yes.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Jesus was somehow protected until God shafted him at the cross?

Yes.

Correction - ignore this, see Mudfrog's post above.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Mudfrog said: [quote]Jesus said 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'[quote]

He may have done this (where does he say it?), but if he isn't thus vulnerable, in what sense does he take on humanity?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God did not 'shaft' Jesus on the cross.

If he did that would suggest adoptionism or that Jesus was merely a puppet of 'God', rather than being the Incarnation of God.
It doesn't take into account Christ's own declarations and decision-making.It was a cheap comment that doesn't bear the most cursory of theological glances.

Human beings in the 3rd world have very few decision making powers.

The idea that God sent Jesus to die on the cross is the 'puppet' theology.

I did a sermon last Maundy Thursday about God shafting Jesus - as PM gets a copy.

If we take incarnation and risk seriously, then we have to accept that it could all go horribly wrong. That is what God's outrageous gift is al about.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Or possibly God is sovereign over his creation, Leo, and the whole Cross thing was God's plan the whole time. Instead of calling Jesus a puppet, we could say "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

God 'shafted' Jesus? Really?

Shaft:
- to defeat someone through trickery or deceit

So you're saying that God tricked him, deceived him, betrayed, abused and 'used' him?

I think your thinking on this one is extremely flawed.

Would the Father who said that he was 'well-pleased' with his 'beloved son' actually shaft him? What a low opinion of the Father you have - I have to say that it verges on the blasphemous; to ascribe such a horrible and devious action to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is just astonishing; and to preach that on Maundy thursday!

Have you not read that Jesus said, 'I come to do the will of my Father'? That he said, 'I am in my Father'? Jesus said that he was 'one with the Father.' So how can you say that God shafted him?

John 10:18

quote:
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think EE was being literal, Q' ...

I can see the point he's making. On the whole, I don't think it does to demonise people, but neither would I hold that Brady's paranoid schizophrenia absolves him of responsibility for his actions.

It's always a tricky one with debates of this kind. Josephine's point still stands, that all of us are made in the image of God, even if that image becomes so marred as to be almost unrecognisable. Heck, even the 'blackest' TULIP Calvinist wouldn't assert that people are incapable of any good whatsoever - the doctrine of 'total depravity' means that people are incapable of saving themselves without divine grace not that they are all depraved psychos ...

I would suggest that Josephine's point about the Incarnation would hold within any soteriological schema - whether Orthodox, RC, Wesleyan, Calvinist or whatever else there might be.

Seriously, you are saying that a severe mental illness still leaves someone responsible for their actions? So you must think the law is wrong then?

More gulping.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Mudfrog said: [quote]Jesus said 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'[quote]

He may have done this (where does he say it?), but if he isn't thus vulnerable, in what sense does he take on humanity?

John 10: 17 & 18

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Josephine, if you ever write a book of theological reflections, or become a preacher (i think the Orthodox don't have women preach, if I understand correctly), please let me know. You seem to have a knack of making me think and rethink and reflect upon God, which is somethinfg I haven't been doing lately.
Your OP gives me something to repent of and strive for without making me think you're setting yourself above it.
Thank you.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

I can see Christ in another person who is a grievous sinner only in that Christ, in the Incarnation, assumed the humanity of both of us and the fact that as a fallen human being I am equally capable of committing grievous sin myself. Yes, there are people who show no remorse for the deeds they have done. I prefer to leave their destiny up to God; there's not much else that I or anyone else can do with or for them. There are others who have committed horrible deeds because, to put it tersely, they're badly screwed up. These people I can work at forgiving, in the recognition that to some degree I'm in the same boat they're in. As are most of us.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Or possibly God is sovereign over his creation, Leo, and the whole Cross thing was God's plan the whole time. Instead of calling Jesus a puppet, we could say "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Philippians was written AFTER the event.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God 'shafted' Jesus? Really?

Shaft:
- to defeat someone through trickery or deceit

So you're saying that God tricked him, deceived him, betrayed, abused and 'used' him?

I think your thinking on this one is extremely flawed.

Would the Father who said that he was 'well-pleased' with his 'beloved son' actually shaft him? What a low opinion of the Father you have - I have to say that it verges on the blasphemous; to ascribe such a horrible and devious action to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is just astonishing; and to preach that on Maundy thursday!

Have you not read that Jesus said, 'I come to do the will of my Father'? That he said, 'I am in my Father'? Jesus said that he was 'one with the Father.' So how can you say that God shafted him?

John 10:18
quote:
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

John's writings are generally thought to be a theological reflection rather than the actual words of Jesus.

Jesus seems to have felt deserted by God in mark's gospel.

My Maundy Thursday sermon was one of best, according to two of the clergy who were there.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God 'shafted' Jesus? Really?

Shaft:
- to defeat someone through trickery or deceit

So you're saying that God tricked him, deceived him, betrayed, abused and 'used' him?

I think your thinking on this one is extremely flawed.

Would the Father who said that he was 'well-pleased' with his 'beloved son' actually shaft him? What a low opinion of the Father you have - I have to say that it verges on the blasphemous; to ascribe such a horrible and devious action to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is just astonishing; and to preach that on Maundy thursday!

Have you not read that Jesus said, 'I come to do the will of my Father'? That he said, 'I am in my Father'? Jesus said that he was 'one with the Father.' So how can you say that God shafted him?

John 10:18
quote:
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.
John's writings are generally thought to be a theological reflection rather than the actual words of Jesus.

Jesus seems to have felt deserted by God in mark's gospel.

My Maundy Thursday sermon was one of best, according to two of the clergy who were there.

Yes indeed John's gospel is a theological reflection but it's not 'generally' thought to be a work of fiction!

The words of Jesus are not made up, composed or invented an d put into the mouth of 'Jesus'. If they are, then maybe John was the one we should be putting our faith in as the word who has 'the words of eternal life'!

Many scholars believe that much of John's gospel is in fact eyewitness accounts placed and commented on, to make make the truth of the Gospel known.

The Father may well have turned away from the Son upon the cross but that is not Jesus being 'shafted' - especially when the Father also suffered the loss of his only Son in those moments.

Jesus bec=ing shafted suggests strongly that he was duped, tricked and deceived by God. That is not true.

Your friends who congratulated you on a good sermon evidently had their 'itching ears' scratched. They obviously didn't hear the Gospel and couldn't recognise that fact so i doubt their credibility in passing favourable judgment on a sermon so evidently not rooted in scripture.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." You are maintaining your narrative by simply ignoring those parts that have inconvenient information, Leo. You don't get to choose what parts are in the bible and which ones aren't.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

Many scholars believe that much of John's gospel is in fact eyewitness accounts placed and commented on, to make make the truth of the Gospel known

Who are these "many scholars"? From my cursory view of New Testament scholars, it seem that most, trained in the historical-critical method, are skeptical of the historicity of John, especially since it is so different from the Synoptic Gospels. This doesn't mean that John is not rooted in some history, but its primary motive is theological, not historical.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Many scholars believe that much of John's gospel is in fact eyewitness accounts placed and commented on, to make make the truth of the Gospel known......

Jesus bec=ing shafted suggests strongly that he was duped, tricked and deceived by God. That is not true.

So why so different from the synoptics?

Only conservative scholars (plus J A T Robinson) regard the 4th gospel as eye-witness stuff.

'Shafted' down south obviously means something different from up north - mainly to do with sex but also about being 'let down'.

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

With dozens of people still in the hospital, their lives still in the balance, and hundreds of people still grieving, I think it is WAYYYY too soon to start expressing any kind of compassion for the killer in Aurora, Colorado.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." You are maintaining your narrative by simply ignoring those parts that have inconvenient information, Leo. You don't get to choose what parts are in the bible and which ones aren't.

Everyone else does!

Anyway, it isn'[t about 'ignoring' and neither about 'information.

The bible is not that sort of book (collection of books, rather).

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

Many scholars believe that much of John's gospel is in fact eyewitness accounts placed and commented on, to make make the truth of the Gospel known
Who are these "many scholars"? From my cursory view of New Testament scholars, it seem that most, trained in the historical-critical method, are skeptical of the historicity of John, especially since it is so different from the Synoptic Gospels.

One of my favorite NT scholars, Paula Fredricksen, argues for the Johnine timeline for Christ's ministry as being more probable than the synoptic one in Jesus of Nazareth:King of the Jews. I'm not sure I agree with her on this, but she is such a thoughtful scholar that it gives me pause. She sees, e.g., the failure to pursue the disciples after Christ's crucifixion as strong indication that the authorities had some prior understanding of the threat (or lack thereof) that Jesus and His disciples posed to the empire. FWIW

--Tom Clune

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't see that God "lets Jesus down" in any of the New Testament, and it soundly contradicts the view of God and of his plan of salvation throughout the whole Bible. Jesus is God's chosen one, in whom he is well pleased. Jesus gives every indication of knowing full well what was coming in the Gospels. Like Luke says, "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

How about - if the early church tried to come to terms with a crucified messiah and searched the prophets so that they could develop a theoloogy of 'It was God's plan all along.'

I can't see how god has any 'plan' for anyone, given that we have free will, than that we may had abundant life.

(And was it God's 'plan' for Judas to betray Jesus? Poor Judas? Is God morally right to use people like that?)

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Ok, since we're not going to agree on the eyetwitness accounts in John, let's go to Mark - earliest Gospel, the record of Peter's preaching.

Leo, you say strongly that Jesus was 'shafted' by God - which if I am not mistaken is another way of saying he was buggered by God, metaphorically speaking (!) [Mad]

and 'let down'.

Using Mark's Gospel, you need to address the point made in a couple of places above, that Jesus knew what was comimng, accepted what was coming, deliberately went towards it with his eyes wide open and, in unity with the Father, laid down his life of his own free will.

He was not shafted, buggered, tricked, deceived, duped, conned, used, abused or even 'let down.'

I don't know what your sermon was about on that Maundy Thursday and your two cronies may have liked it (which says a lot about them) but it was evidently not a God-honouring sermon seeing that in it you have accused God of basically taking the devil's role and deceiving Jesus.

It's no wonder the church is in the state it's in!

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Can't we agree that people have different theologies about atonement and stop hurling insults at leo for maintaining his particular theology? I think his idea of God "shafting" (i.e., letting down, or one might say, abandoning) Jesus refers to what Jesus as a human being must have felt. And whaddya know, Jesus himself said something similar, praying the Psalm: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is often called the "cry of dereliction." Is anyone here really saying Jesus didn't, in some way, feel abandoned by God on the Cross? - whether or not he really was abandoned by God (which to me is nonsensical, given the doctrine of the Trinity, but to each her own).

Now, about seeing Christ in other people:

First of all, this thread has shafted - I mean shifted [Biased]

- in the direction of the most extreme examples, and that's often helpful for finding where the boundaries are. But I think that could leave out part of the OP's poignancy: how do we treat each other on an everyday basis? How do we treat our spouses, co-workers, family, friends, and random strangers with whom we interact? Is the bus driver or check-out clerk or farm worker or janitor just a human-like robot whose services can be taken for granted, or are they people like us, on whose toil we depend?

Whether or not you can appreciate mitigating circumstances for a murderer's actions, most of us could probably do a better job of charitably interpreting our coworkers' or family members' actions when they annoy us or let us down.

[And as a mentally ill person myself, I'd like to ask that people remember it is precisely the organ that makes choices which is diseased. We need really good support systems - family or friends who will help us see when we might need to see a doctor or adjust our meds, and access to affordable health care - in order to get by with minimal problems. People who lack those supports might still manage, but they might not. It doesn't mean their illness will take the form of violence, but sometimes it does. I can tell you - and I'm just a type 2 bipolar - that sometimes it feels like you're helplessly watching yourself do what you don't want to do.]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The Creed states that Jesus descended into Hell.

One interpretation that I've heard is that Jesus descended into the utter depths of despair and suffering which includes the reality of being forsaken by God. Is Hell not the absence of God? Therefore, Jesus must experienced fully that alienation and pain or else humanity cannot be redeemed. God either experiences the full reality of the human condition or else the human condition is not redeemed.

The fact that God did not truly forsake the Son comes into realization in the light of the Resurrection when God raises the Son into new life, affirms the entirety of his Incarnation and Passion, and in doing so, raises humanity into glory.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's so easy, when someone commits an unfathomable evil, to say that they're trash, that they're a monster, that they're subhuman. But they are, and remain, an icon of the Most High. When we say that another human is trash, we are saying that of Christ.

That's just pious tosh. Satan himself is an angel. That he has angelic nature doesn't stop him from being an evil asshole, so why should having human nature stop humans from being evil assholes? James Holmes may be an icon of the Most High qua human nature, but that does in no way or form mean that I must ignore what he has done. Actually he is probably more very, very sick than simply "human trash", but the idea that we need to treat everybody as "image of Christ" no matter what they say or do is just plain bollocks. Is shooting dead plenty of innocent people a conceivable "image of Christ"? Nope. So why pretend otherwise?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

So where do you draw the line?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is shooting dead plenty of innocent people a conceivable "image of Christ"? Nope. So why pretend otherwise?

We were all made (or procreated) in the image of God, and can never cease to be such. What we can become is a very bad, distorted, corrupted image of God. Salvation is therefore to restore us to what we were intended to be all along.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's so easy, when someone commits an unfathomable evil, to say that they're trash, that they're a monster, that they're subhuman. But they are, and remain, an icon of the Most High. When we say that another human is trash, we are saying that of Christ.
That's just pious tosh. Satan himself is an angel. That he has angelic nature doesn't stop him from being an evil asshole, so why should having human nature stop humans from being evil assholes? James Holmes may be an icon of the Most High qua human nature, but that does in no way or form mean that I must ignore what he has done. Actually he is probably more very, very sick than simply "human trash", but the idea that we need to treat everybody as "image of Christ" no matter what they say or do is just plain bollocks. Is shooting dead plenty of innocent people a conceivable "image of Christ"? Nope. So why pretend otherwise?

Who said that what he did is in any way at all an image of Christ? Or that we must ignore what he's done? It certainly wasn't me.

A human being is never an evil asshole, IngoB. Not even you. You might act like an asshole; in fact, you seem to do it regularly, and with great relish. But that doesn't change what you are. You are an icon, bearing the image of God. If you had been at an Orthodox church this morning, the deacon would have censed you when he censed the icons, to acknowledge and venerate what you are.

When people become so badly damaged that they are a danger to others, the rest of us are obliged to take action, as best we can, to keep the others from being harmed. But we don't have to dehumanize the dangerous person to protect others.

We don't have to, and we shouldn't, and we mustn't. God has prohibited us from returning evil for evil. We are to love our enemy, and to do good to those who do us harm. If that doesn't apply to James Holmes, can you tell me who it does apply to?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

There are plenty of evil assholes in every age. That is a simple empirical fact. It is true that God turns with love and mercy to all mankind, but let's not fool ourselves about just whom he's offering His mercy to.

Does not the Orthodox Church stress the concept of theosis? The Son became incarnate in order to make us like himself. We are all made in the image of God, but it is only through living according to God's Word and in the sacramental life of the Church that a human becomes the fullest icon of God.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Does not the Orthodox Church stress the concept of theosis?

Indeed. And many of the disciplines that are recommended to assist us on our path to theosis have to do with treating other people better than we think they deserve to be treated, regarding ourselves as the first among sinners, and refraining from judging the sins of others.

quote:
The Son became incarnate in order to make us like himself. We are all made in the image of God, but it is only through living according to God's Word and in the sacramental life of the Church that a human becomes the fullest icon of God.

That is true. God will not save us if we refuse to be saved. But the fact that another person may be refusing to be saved doesn't have any bearing at all on how I am to work out my salvation, as far as I can see. I doubt that, at the final judgment, there will be many of us being refused entry to the Kingdom because we treated people who were undeserving of our kindness too well.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
That is true. God will not save us if we refuse to be saved. But the fact that another person may be refusing to be saved doesn't have any bearing at all on how I am to work out my salvation, as far as I can see. I doubt that, at the final judgment, there will be many of us being refused entry to the Kingdom because we treated people who were undeserving of our kindness too well.

It is precisely because we are so malicious, so far from the image of God, that God is so merciful to love us anyway. In the course of our own theosis, then, we love others, even if they are far gone from the image of God. Charity loves others unconditionally, as God offers his grace unconditionally.

Unconditional love does not love others because all others are so holy, but regardless of anyone's holiness or lack thereof.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Let's back up a bit. I said that every human being is made in the image of God, and therefore, no matter how evil they are, we are required to do good to them. Jesus said that he receives the good we do to others as if it is done to him; I inferred that he also receives the evil we do to others as if it is done to him.

IngoB and Zach and a few others reacted pretty strongly against that idea.

Why?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Cross-post with Zach. Give me a minute to sort out where we are in the conversation!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Okay, Zach, I think I had mistaken your POV, and I think that we pretty much agree with each other.

Am I right?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am not sure. I am proposing that the image of God in us makes us charitable, you seem to be saying that the image of God in others demands charity towards them. It really gets down to a pretty fundamental distinction in moral theology between good and right. Rightness would say things like "Moral principles demand this sort of action." Goodness would say "We ought to be this way."

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not sure. I am proposing that the image of God in us makes us charitable, you seem to be saying that the image of God in others demands charity towards them. It really gets down to a pretty fundamental distinction in moral theology between good and right. Rightness would say things like "Moral principles demand this sort of action." Goodness would say "We ought to be this way."

I'll have to think on that a while. I think it might be both/and rather than either/or.

Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
So where do you draw the line?

I don't draw one line. I draw many, many lines. By the time when you are engaged in mass murder, you simply have crossed most of them.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We were all made (or procreated) in the image of God, and can never cease to be such. What we can become is a very bad, distorted, corrupted image of God. Salvation is therefore to restore us to what we were intended to be all along.

So? I've stated myself that we are by human nature an image of the Most High. You are not your nature, though. Satan isn't his angelic nature either. Unless you are another universalist (a theology which I consider corrupted in the beginning, middle and end), you will have to admit that some images of the Most High are going to burn in hell for eternity. That you have human nature isn't going to release you from your personal responsibility for your life. In fact, it is your human nature that binds you to this responsibility by virtue of understanding.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A human being is never an evil asshole, IngoB. Not even you. You might act like an asshole; in fact, you seem to do it regularly, and with great relish. But that doesn't change what you are. You are an icon, bearing the image of God. If you had been at an Orthodox church this morning, the deacon would have censed you when he censed the icons, to acknowledge and venerate what you are.

Firstly, I do not in fact regularly act like an asshole, with great relish. You may pretend to yourself that you were making a theological point there, but since I consider that point to be fairly void, I simply hear a Hellish attack.

Secondly, if some Orthodox deacon started to venerate me, I would punch him. Well, since I am more mild-mannered sissy than prophet, I would probably just politely disengage. But I should punch him, because that act would signify its own message - a sacramental punch, so to speak, and a richly deserved one, too.

You are fairly safe to venerate the pictures of Orthodox saints, since the sins of wood and egg tempera are small and those of dead Orthodox saints are likely to have been forgiven. But in general we incense stuff and people to make them holy enough to stand before God, not because they are holy enough in their own right. And the priest gets incensed a lot more than the people, typically; not because he is such a better image of God, but because he is going to draw particularly near to God. So his rotten stink needs a lot more covering up than ours.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But we don't have to dehumanize the dangerous person to protect others.

Why would the proper attribution and evaluation of their acts "dehumanize" a person? Pol Pott sure as hell was a human being. If I say that he was possessed by a demon, I actually in a sense try to be nice to him. But in all likelihood, he was just a deeply, deeply evil human being. That I should not do terrible things to him as he has done unto others is more a function of what I am than of what he is. That he is a human being qualifies him, indeed qua image of the Most High, to be in a different moral category for my acts. He is not like a hole in the road that I'll just fill with concrete, or like a vicious dog that I might put down (with a bit more hesitation). But that I consider his potential in my acts does not mean that I have to blind to his actuality.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Let's back up a bit. I said that every human being is made in the image of God, and therefore, no matter how evil they are, we are required to do good to them. Jesus said that he receives the good we do to others as if it is done to him; I inferred that he also receives the evil we do to others as if it is done to him. IngoB and Zach and a few others reacted pretty strongly against that idea.

Nonsense. What you summarize there is not under debate, at least not from me. What is under debate is the false identification of "nature" and "person" or perhaps the false association of moral (or worse: holy) status with nature rather than person. As a human being, you are in a different moral category than a table or a horse. True. It follows that I need to deal differently with you. True. The Lord has given us some pretty clear instructions that go beyond natural morals as far as human beings are concerned. True. Therefore nobody can ever be evil to the bone. False. They precisely can be evil to the bone, though not further (even Satan is good as far as his existence per se is concerned).

The problem with the words "human trash" is not what they signify as such, but what they usually signify as intention of the speaker. We expect that a person saying such things will then do something evil to these people, having justified their own evil act with this dismissive label. That is a moral falsehood, and un-Christian. However, it does not follow that we have to blind ourselves to what people say and do. It does not follow that everybody is "morally and saintly equal", not among us now and not eventually before God. Remember the occasion where Christ spoke of transferring our acts onto others to Himself: Christ was busy sorting the sheep and goats (Matt 25:31-46).

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think one of the problems most Shippies would have understanding James Holmes is that they are nowhere near being criminally insane.

Of course, it is possible to repent of grievous sins, such as the murderer of St Maria Goretti did, but I would contest he was sane and thus capable of what we understand as repentance.

The Incarnation, Life and Resurrection of Jesus Christ should, I think, give us Hope rather than terror. There is such a thing as Holy Awe and I think we should be afraid of God's anger and possible punishment if we do something seriously wrong, but all I can feel about Christ is immense Joy.

What punishment the Almighty may have in the afterlife for Holmes, or anyone else, is not really my concern. God knows best.

Christ, or, with His Grace, a great saint, such as St Seraphim of Sarov, might be able to understand Holmes, and, even do something for him but I think the average Christian is just a bit lost here.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Seriously, you are saying that a severe mental illness still leaves someone responsible for their actions? So you must think the law is wrong then?

More gulping.

I have a severe mental illness, and those who need to know about it are fully informed so that they can treat me appropriately as the vulnerable adult I am. However, I remain responsible for whatever I do, and if it happens to harm anyone else, then I am accountable for that.

I may be sent to prison, or I may be sent to Broadmoor, but I would certainly be held accountable.

This is consistent with the law. Mentally ill people are not given licence to do what they like when they like to whom they like, and then walk away without suffering any consequences.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
With dozens of people still in the hospital, their lives still in the balance, and hundreds of people still grieving, I think it is WAYYYY too soon to start expressing any kind of compassion for the killer in Aurora, Colorado.

I am afraid I disagree. Compassion is the only way to find healing after such a terrible, terrible event. It cannot begin too soon.

We start with compassion for the victims, for their families and loved ones, then for the people of that town, then for the people of the county, then for the whole population of the US, then for the family of the perpetrator, and eventually even for the perpetrator himself.

And why would I have compassion on him? Because I would rather be the parent of a murdered child than him. And it would destroy my life completely to be the parent of a murdered child.

Therefore, compassion, while always reserving the right to throw the proverbial book at anyone convicted of such a terrible, terrible crime.

Lord have mercy on us all.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

If we understood this, in our heart of hearts, the Incarnation would be a source of terror for us. It would change everything.

I am not sure terror is a particularly useful emotion, tbh. Change that to compassion and I would agree wholeheartedly.

When we can find a way to have compassion even for the most challenging people, and when we can recognise that there are no monsters; there are only people, we might start to get somewhere.

We are all of us damaged to some extent; some of us more than others. I happen to be particularly damaged, to the extent that I am not able to work, and probably not able to recover. The choice is to pass that damage on to others or to contain it in myself; there really are no other choices. It takes a lot of strength to contain what has been done, and not pass it along. I suspect that many people simply do not have the resources or the ability to contain what has happened to them, and sometimes they are let down to the society around them, which does not help them to find those resources.

I am not condoning what has happened, but it has been caused somewhere along the line. People simply do not turn into monsters overnight.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

When people become so badly damaged that they are a danger to others, the rest of us are obliged to take action, as best we can, to keep the others from being harmed. But we don't have to dehumanize the dangerous person to protect others.

I agree.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think one of the problems most Shippies would have understanding James Holmes is that they are nowhere near being criminally insane.

I am (sometimes) quite close to insane; does that count?

quote:

Of course, it is possible to repent of grievous sins, such as the murderer of St Maria Goretti did, but I would contest he was sane and thus capable of what we understand as repentance.
Sanity is not a constant. A person can be insane one moment and sane the next. Even someone who commits an insane act can be capable of having the sanity to repent of it afterwards; in fact, this is probably true of most of us, to some extent.

quote:

Christ, or, with His Grace, a great saint, such as St Seraphim of Sarov, might be able to understand Holmes, and, even do something for him but I think the average Christian is just a bit lost here.

I think even the average Christian could think, 'There but for the Grace of God go I', and be thankful for that.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Brady may be loved by God

What sort of God do you believe in that there should be the slightest doubt about this? Of course he is loved by God, as was Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.. etc..

It's just that we humans build a really tough shell around ourselves and God, albeit all-powerful, finds it hard to break through that sometimes. If those of us who are at least trying to listen to God find it hard to believe, how hard must it be for the so-called 'monsters'?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I find that 'may' really odd. Why would a severely mentally ill man not be loved by God? Because he has done terrible things?

Suddenly, a whole new theology of God's love beckons to me, and I am enthralled. God's love is on a sliding scale! How does it work?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Seriously, you are saying that a severe mental illness still leaves someone responsible for their actions? So you must think the law is wrong then?

More gulping.
I have a severe mental illness, and those who need to know about it are fully informed so that they can treat me appropriately as the vulnerable adult I am. However, I remain responsible for whatever I do, and if it happens to harm anyone else, then I am accountable for that.

I may be sent to prison, or I may be sent to Broadmoor, but I would certainly be held accountable.

This is consistent with the law. Mentally ill people are not given licence to do what they like when they like to whom they like, and then walk away without suffering any consequences.

Surely, psychotic people, who have committed grave crimes, generally do not stand trial, but, as you say, they may be removed from society.

I think the Breivik case is showing this, as he wants to be charged legally, but I think he has been ruled psychotic by psychiatrists.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was very interesting, as I remember that the judge said he was 'bad not mad', but subsequently, he has been diagnosed as psychotic, and placed in Broadmoor.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I think even the average Christian could think, 'There but for the Grace of God go I', and be thankful for that.

Exactly! That's why I would never consign the vilest offender to hell - because I don't know for sure what I may be capable of. Do some of us deserve Salvation, but a few not?

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
With dozens of people still in the hospital, their lives still in the balance, and hundreds of people still grieving, I think it is WAYYYY too soon to start expressing any kind of compassion for the killer in Aurora, Colorado.
I am afraid I disagree. Compassion is the only way to find healing after such a terrible, terrible event. It cannot begin too soon.

We start with compassion for the victims, for their families and loved ones, then for the people of that town, then for the people of the county, then for the whole population of the US, then for the family of the perpetrator, and eventually even for the perpetrator himself.

And why would I have compassion on him? Because I would rather be the parent of a murdered child than him. And it would destroy my life completely to be the parent of a murdered child.

Therefore, compassion, while always reserving the right to throw the proverbial book at anyone convicted of such a terrible, terrible crime.

Lord have mercy on us all.

OK then. When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.

Meantime, I'll be watching the skies for flying pigs. [Roll Eyes]

[ 23. July 2012, 15:13: Message edited by: windsofchange ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.

What kind of psycho shit is this? Are you entitled to the bile and pettiness of every person on the planet's hurt, whether you have endured their hurt or not? How can such a perspective be anything other than sick and vengeful? If this actually reflects what is in your heart, I would urge you to seek professional help ASAP.

--Tom Clune

[ 23. July 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
OK then. When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.

Meantime, I'll be watching the skies for flying pigs.

Well no. I can well understand that anyone the victim of a horrendous crime finds it hard, even impossible, to forgive the perpetrator. I can feel deep compassion for such a person as clearly you do too. But not being directly involved in the tragedy means I should be able to look at it more objectively and not be blinded by understandable anger against the attacker.

That's different from going round to the victim's house asking them to sign a petition for the release of the murderer.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
OK then. When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.

Meantime, I'll be watching the skies for flying pigs.

Such things have been known. I've heard mothers and fathers say they forgive the perpetrators of vile crimes against their children, even when they have been murdered.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

Look, I am a Christian too; but I just don't understand this insistence that we must forgive and have compassion on the perpetrator of a horrible crime before the bodies of his victims have even been buried. Couldn't we wait at least a week?

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.
What kind of psycho shit is this? Are you entitled to the bile and pettiness of every person on the planet's hurt, whether you have endured their hurt or not? How can such a perspective be anything other than sick and vengeful? If this actually reflects what is in your heart, I would urge you to seek professional help ASAP.

--Tom Clune

Seriously? You think I need to seek professional help because I am angry at a lunatic who shot up a movie theater full of innocent people less than 3 days ago?

OK, you know what? If this is what being a Christian is all about, then I am not a Christian anymore. See how easy that was? No professional help required. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
...Seriously? You think I need to seek professional help because I am angry at a lunatic who shot up a movie theater full of innocent people less than 3 days ago?

But it wasn't done to you, or your family - so why are you so out for revenge?

quote:
OK, you know what? If this is what being a Christian is all about, then I am not a Christian anymore. See how easy that was? No professional help required.

You don't mean that surely? You mean your faith isn't strong enough to withstand an onslaught from others on a message board? It wasn't even personal, people just strongly disagreed with your theology and way of thinking.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
OK then. When Ashley Moser - the young mother who not only lost her 6-year-old daughter, but may also be paralyzed for the rest of her life - is ready to say that the person who caused all this damage to her family is not a monster, and is in some way Jesus incarnate, I will consider doing that too.

Meantime, I'll be watching the skies for flying pigs.

I do hope you are entering the Olympic event for overblown righteous indignation.

If not, I really think you should.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Look, I am a Christian too; but I just don't understand this insistence that we must forgive and have compassion on the perpetrator of a horrible crime before the bodies of his victims have even been buried. Couldn't we wait at least a week?

Compassion and forgiveness are not the same thing.

I may have compassion on all concerned, but I do not have the authority to forgive the alleged perpetrator, because he has not hurt me. Forgiveness is in the hands of those who have been hurt, and it is their decision whether to offer it, and when.

In the meantime, any compassion that we may happen to feel does not benefit the perpetrator; it benefits us.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, psychotic people, who have committed grave crimes, generally do not stand trial, but, as you say, they may be removed from society.

Yes, that is right. Someone who is truly psychotic would not be fit to stand trial. I would not be myself, I suspect. (I am not psychotic, but what I have is pretty well indistinguishable from psychosis at times. The only difference is, I know when it is happening that it is not right.)

quote:

I think the Breivik case is showing this, as he wants to be charged legally, but I think he has been ruled psychotic by psychiatrists.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was very interesting, as I remember that the judge said he was 'bad not mad', but subsequently, he has been diagnosed as psychotic, and placed in Broadmoor.

It is very difficult to see how anyone could commit such acts and be sane. Otoh, most of the defendants at Nuremberg were found to be sane before standing trial, convicted and subsequently hanged.

I would not like to have to make such judgements myself.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Look, I am a Christian too; but I just don't understand this insistence that we must forgive and have compassion on the perpetrator of a horrible crime before the bodies of his victims have even been buried. Couldn't we wait at least a week?

Bless you for your humanity and honesty. And for only wanting a week.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, psychotic people, who have committed grave crimes, generally do not stand trial, but, as you say, they may be removed from society.
Yes, that is right. Someone who is truly psychotic would not be fit to stand trial. I would not be myself, I suspect. (I am not psychotic, but what I have is pretty well indistinguishable from psychosis at times. The only difference is, I know when it is happening that it is not right.)

quote:

I think the Breivik case is showing this, as he wants to be charged legally, but I think he has been ruled psychotic by psychiatrists.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was very interesting, as I remember that the judge said he was 'bad not mad', but subsequently, he has been diagnosed as psychotic, and placed in Broadmoor.
It is very difficult to see how anyone could commit such acts and be sane. Otoh, most of the defendants at Nuremberg were found to be sane before standing trial, convicted and subsequently hanged.

I would not like to have to make such judgements myself.

Agreed. It is very interesting, although I suppose going a bit off-topic. I think different criteria have been applied. For example, the distinction between right and wrong is a traditional one, and I believe that some psychotic people are reckoned to pass that one.

Another one is the distinction between fantasy and reality; and even, the ability to understand what a trial is. I think for example, that someone on a manic high might think that the trial was a theatrical event designed to show their importance. I suppose that is unlikely today, as they would be pumped full of drugs to bring them down.

An interesting one, (sorry if this sounds a bit clinical), is that someone may be so severely depressed, that they want to be found guilty, hence put up no defence, but again, I guess medication would often reduce that.

But I think there are loads of other factors, e.g. being very suggestible, being unable to process information, having very poor memory, but in such cases, I think extra help may be given to a defendant.

Also, decision making ability is quite important. Anyway, enough.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was interesting, as the judge seemed to be reflecting the 'plain man in the street', who might say, enough of all this psychiatric nonsense, the man is evil, end of. Thus when Hindley died, the Sun headline was 'Rot in hell!', which shows a kind of populist theology, I suppose. Do Sun readers believe in hell?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.

This.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.
This.

Except that the alternatives are not limited to a single event distinct from all our lives or some kind of crystal-hugging spiritualism. There is a long tradition within the faith of our being made in God's image, and of interpreting Christ's favorite self-referential description "Son of Man" as reflecting in part a recognition that Christ showed us how to be the human that we were created to be. Imitation of Christ has a very long theological history in the faith, whether it fits your personal approach to the faith or not.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

If I see an injured, wet, muddy, twisted, twitching little kitten, staggering and falling as he drags himself down the roadside -- half his fur gone from disease, dragging a mostly-detached leg and some intestine behind him, because he was just run over by a car --

I immediately feel immense compassion for him, such a tidal wave of compassion that I am almost knocked down buy its impact on my heart. After a quick analysis of the situation, I see that the most compassionate thing to do for him may just be to kill him quick.

If he seems to have any kind of light in his eyes, if he appears to be fighting to live, if I can get him to a vet who is willing to help him, maybe I'll do that (if he doesn't die on the way); but just going by experience, I'm more likely to put him down.

If I translate those thought processes and feelings about the pitiful kitty onto the warped people to pull an Aurora Theater or a Columbine or a VA Tech, it fits surprisingly well.

And that's even after I factor in the there-but-for-the-grace-of-God and the made-in-the-image-of-God emphases.

Also even after I factor in the idea that my own personal sins and errors and cherished flaws have hurt the Lord and my relationship to Him as badly as if I'd taken a machete to Him, spiritually speaking.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.

Maybe. But whether or not the former is a true way of looking at the incarnation, it doesn't affect the truth that we are all, flawed human beings though we might be, made in the image and likeness of God.

[ 23. July 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.

I am fairly sure that is heresy. Chalcedon said that he joined humanity - OK it was via a specific person called Jesus but he took on the humanity of all and raised it at his ascension.

Which specialism are you doing in theology?

[ 23. July 2012, 17:47: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There is a long tradition within the faith of our being made in God's image, and of interpreting Christ's favorite self-referential description "Son of Man" as reflecting in part a recognition that Christ showed us how to be the human that we were created to be. Imitation of Christ has a very long theological history in the faith, whether it fits your personal approach to the faith or not.

But of course. I'd I wouldn't want to have implied otherwise.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.
I am fairly sure that is heresy. Chalcedon said that he joined humanity - OK it was via a specific person called Jesus but he took on the humanity of all and raised it at his ascension.

Which specialism are you doing in theology?

Which are you doing? What Chalcedon actually says of Jesus is that He is:

quote:
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood

How does Zach's point above fall foul of that exactly?

[ 23. July 2012, 18:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange
Seriously? You think I need to seek professional help because I am angry at a lunatic who shot up a movie theater full of innocent people less than 3 days ago?

OK, you know what? If this is what being a Christian is all about, then I am not a Christian anymore. See how easy that was? No professional help required.

I'm a Christian. I am also one of those funny "Bible believing" Christians. And, like you, I don't buy into all the "unconditional forgiveness" bullshit, which is bandied around by certain of the "we don't give a shit about the victims only the criminals" bleeding heart brigade.

If there is one message that comes across loud and clear in the Bible it is that God does NOT forgive those who refuse to repent.

If that means that I need to seek professional help, then so be it. So also does God. We'll go and see the shrink together.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I'm a Christian. I am also one of those funny "Bible believing" Christians. And, like you, I don't buy into all the "unconditional forgiveness" bullshit, which is bandied around by certain of the "we don't give a shit about the victims only the criminals" bleeding heart brigade.

If there is one message that comes across loud and clear in the Bible it is that God does NOT forgive those who refuse to repent.

If that means that I need to seek professional help, then so be it. So also does God. We'll go and see the shrink together.

I think it is fair to say that we should be wary of such soundbites as "unconditional forgiveness" and "all-embracing love", because they suggest that "God forgives all, no matter what we do, so, hey, why not go out and do whatever you like, God loves you anyway." Everyone should know that this is bad theology.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Forgiveness is a two-way process. Love isn't, necessarily. You can't forgive someone who refuses to accept forgiveness, but you can (and must, we are told) love someone who refuses to accept love.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You can't forgive someone who refuses to accept forgiveness

This is not true. Someone cannot be forgiven unless you are forgiving in the first place.

We can only be forgiven because Jesus took the initiative and said, 'Father forgiove them for they know not what they do.' Forgiveness was given and then we responded with repentance and faith.

[ 23. July 2012, 20:56: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I would like to amend my final sentence:

Forgiveness was made possible and then we responded with repentance and faith.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We're ALL monsters, some more helplessly monstrous faces, ikons of Jesus that others.

The socially irredeemable, indeed better off dead for all concerned, WILL be better off dead.

[ 23. July 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You can't forgive someone who refuses to accept forgiveness
This is not true. Someone cannot be forgiven unless you are forgiving in the first place.

Of course. But if they don't accept it, or are not willing to admit their need of it, it is ineffective. Forgiveness needs an answering response.

Love, on the other hand, is love whether or not the object of it responds.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, I do not in fact regularly act like an asshole, with great relish. You may pretend to yourself that you were making a theological point there, but since I consider that point to be fairly void, I simply hear a Hellish attack.

I don't have time at the moment to respond to the content of this or any other post on this thread (I hope I can get back to it tonight!), but I do want to note that my comment was indeed inappropriate for Purgatory, and as I had no intention of starting a Hell call, I should not have made the comment at all.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...Forgiveness was made possible and then we responded with repentance and faith.

I'd never thought of that, but I think you are right. I figured that it was nonsense to talk of forgiving someone who never asked to be forgiven, nor acknowledges he has done anything to be forgiven for... now it looks like I need to think again on this one.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We can only be forgiven because Jesus took the initiative and said, 'Father forgiove them for they know not what they do.' Forgiveness was given and then we responded with repentance and faith.

I've just noticed where you edited your last line - but I think you were right in the first place, because Jesus asked His Father to forgive them, despite them not knowing what they were doing.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

From James Holmes' rather bizarre appearance in court I suspect there is something very strange going on. I would love to know what a full psychiatric examination reveals. I would contest whether he actually bears much resemblance to the average seriously mentally ill person.

Forgiveness really needs to come from his victims still alive or their survivors. I would suggest, at this stage, they would need to come to terms with their grief and the sheer horror of what happened. It would IMO be obscene to subject them personally to the sort of sermonising out of personal reflection some Shippies are doing here. It's not something either vague and theoretical or about "you" or "me" personally. To consider it so, IMO, would be extremely narcissistic. Any Chaplain attempting to take this line with the recently bereaved would, hopefully, be immediately relieved.

There are enough mini John Donnes out there. We need to hear the bell toll for the victims and all of us in respectful silence. Perhaps then we might actually "hear" what it is saying. [Votive]

[ 23. July 2012, 22:02: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Incidentally, I thought this by Obama (and the audience at 2:56!) was doing America proud. Chapeau!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.
I am fairly sure that is heresy. Chalcedon said that he joined humanity - OK it was via a specific person called Jesus but he took on the humanity of all and raised it at his ascension.

Which specialism are you doing in theology?
Which are you doing? What Chalcedon actually says of Jesus is that He is:
quote:
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood
How does Zach's point above fall foul of that exactly?

I was thinking about 'anhypostasis' but I think what I was trying to say was spelt out by Hilary of Poitiers in Tractatus super Psalmos - that Christ saves humanity by assuming every single person into his body in the incarnation - there is a long paper about it at http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=dissertations_mu

I think that Luther disagreed with this and argued that there is no such thing as ‘humanity’ as such, only individuals. Luther sounds a bit like Mrs. Thatcher.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I think that Luther disagreed with this and argued that there is no such thing as ‘humanity’ as such, only individuals. Luther sounds a bit like Mrs. Thatcher.

Or must someone who knew a thing or two about metaphysics.

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
From James Holmes' rather bizarre appearance in court I suspect there is something very strange going on. I would love to know what a full psychiatric examination reveals. I would contest whether he actually bears much resemblance to the average seriously mentally ill person.

Forgiveness really needs to come from his victims still alive or their survivors. I would suggest, at this stage, they would need to come to terms with their grief and the sheer horror of what happened. It would IMO be obscene to subject them personally to the sort of sermonising out of personal reflection some Shippies are doing here. It's not something either vague and theoretical or about "you" or "me" personally. To consider it so, IMO, would be extremely narcissistic. Any Chaplain attempting to take this line with the recently bereaved would, hopefully, be immediately relieved.

There are enough mini John Donnes out there. We need to hear the bell toll for the victims and all of us in respectful silence. Perhaps then we might actually "hear" what it is saying.

THANK YOU! I was starting to think I was the only one who felt this way. Which is a very depressing feeling indeed. Especially when you are not 100% sure of your faith to begin with. [Frown]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I think that Luther disagreed with this and argued that there is no such thing as ‘humanity’ as such, only individuals. Luther sounds a bit like Mrs. Thatcher.
Or must someone who knew a thing or two about metaphysics.

What is your specialist in theology?:

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Apparently the one that doesn't study extremely obscure, generally discredited doctrinal theories found in 283 page dissertations.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Agreed Sir P, windsofchange. Those who've suffered appalling loss don't need lessons in forgiveness or anything else, not even the assurance of the restitution of all things, they need us to weep with them.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.
I am fairly sure that is heresy. Chalcedon said that he joined humanity - OK it was via a specific person called Jesus but he took on the humanity of all and raised it at his ascension.

Which specialism are you doing in theology?
Which are you doing? What Chalcedon actually says of Jesus is that He is:
quote:
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood
How does Zach's point above fall foul of that exactly?
I was thinking about 'anhypostasis'

While you were thinking about anhypostasis and Lutheran nominalism (and, for all I know, monothelitic mongoose-farming), what you actually accused Zach of was being a Chalcedonian heretic. Do you want to modify that or justify it at all?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It seems he thinks anhypostasis is a doctrine of Chalcedonian significance, though the fact that there isn't even a Wikipedia article on it would indicate otherwise. If anything it's anti-Chalcedonian. The Son became human, a human, which means He is as much a particular human as me or Leo. Otherwise he is not fully human.

Whether or not the Son took on the metaphysical abstraction humanity on top of his particular manhood has nothing to do with Chalcedon, and I would be astonished to see how he works it out as a biblical doctrine when Neo-Platonism wouldn't be imagined until centuries after the texts were written.

[ 24. July 2012, 17:55: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It seems he thinks anhypostasis is a doctrine of Chalcedonian significance

So it would appear. I suppose the whole an/enhypostasis debate is one attempt to "flesh out" (pun fully intended) the Chalcedonian doctrine, but to insist that Hilary's hypothesis is required by Chalcedonian orthodoxy is simply absurd.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention when studying Christology, but the anhypostasis/enhypostasis debate is completely foreign to me. But looking at treatments of the debate (which gives the impression of being a rather obscure one), I can't really work out how it means Christ took on "all humans" instead of humanity.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention when studying Christology, but the anhypostasis/enhypostasis debate is completely foreign to me. But looking at treatments of the debate (which gives the impression of being a rather obscure one), I can't really work out how it means Christ took on "all humans" instead of humanity.

He became one of us, not all of us!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
He became one of us, not all of us!

Quite right.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't so much mean being terrified of God, although that's perhaps part of what I mean.

But imagine for just a moment that you are the king once upon a time in a kingdom far away. At your child's birth, the old witch that you didn't invite to the christening party came anyway, and laid a spell on you and your child, so that any harm you did to another person would be visited on your child.

At first you might not think anything of it. You're a good person, a decent person, you don't hurt other people. But then, as they do in fairy tales, things start happening. You strike a servant, and a bruise appears on your child's cheek. You are in a hurry, speeding to some important event, and because you're the king, you expect everyone to get out of your way. And an old lady is knocked down, and injured, and the wares she was taking to market are broken so that she has nothing to sell, and so nothing to eat. And your daughter, whom you love more than you love life itself, is injured, and cannot eat, and cries from hunger.

Would you not be terrified? Not of your child -- of course not! But of the consequences that your actions are having on the child that you love?

That's the terror that I'm talking about. If you love Christ, then knowing that when you treat someone else badly, it affects him, that if you leave someone else hungry or homeless or sick or in pain, that he is sharing in that hunger and pain -- knowing that has to hurt. You have to want it to stop. It has to frighten you. Or at least, it begins to frighten me.

Thank you for your explanation. I understand the point you're making, but no it doesn't frighten me. As I love Christ, of course I want to do everything to please Christ and nothing to harm Christ. As a result of loving Christ, I love other people, and I want to do nothing to harm them and everything to please them.

As a human being with harmful tendencies as well as beneficial tendencies, I know that by following Christ and co-operating with the Holy Spirit I'll persevere and overcome the harmful tendencies. As I mature, the fruit of the spirit will be apparent, self-control being one of those fruits.

It would be scary if I thought that I must jump through the hoop overnight and become mature before relationship with Christ were possible. To the contrary, however, I know that I can't mature without such a relationship and that I'm already forgiven for all the blows received along the way, and loved enough to allow me to become conscious of the blows so that I may ask for that forgiveness.

At the same time, the beneficial tendencies in action will with the multiplying factor of the Holy Spirit cause the Kingdom of God to grow, so pleasing Christ the King.

It's the road travelled that's of vital importance, the intentions and goals and attitude. Fear makes way for the love of God.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Quite wrong.

He became all of us. We're ALL in Him. ALL atoned for. ALL forgiven. EVERYTHING. All we have to do is say thank you. Assent. Bow the knee. If we can't, He'll break it. Do whatever is necessary to love the hell out of us.

Bethsaida, Chorazin, Capernaum, Sodom, Gomorrahs, Sidon, Tyre.

Every face there is His.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention when studying Christology, but the anhypostasis/enhypostasis debate is completely foreign to me. But looking at treatments of the debate (which gives the impression of being a rather obscure one), I can't really work out how it means Christ took on "all humans" instead of humanity.

Me neither. But, heck, I had to google the terms myself after encountering "anhypostasis" for the very first time from thr fingers of leo. I'm still working out if I should feel grateful.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Thought for today ...

Because of the oneness of the believer and the Christ -- I can understand the idea that the Lord feels what you feel, so far as sufferings, joys, whatever.

I even succeed when I picture myself dragging Jesus uncaringly by the hand behind me into sin, (I don't always do sin, but when I do, I prefer to bring Jesus...) , forcing Him to decide if He can stay with me or not.

Looking back at the OP, though, I still bounce back into what it says about me, if I despise someone or vilify him or rail against him, both when he "deserves" it and especially when he doesn't. I see less, or not at all, what I do to another = hurting the Lord or violating Him in some way. I suppose one could make a case for some kind of "dishonoring of Jesus" going on, if I spitefully use an innocent. I suppose it hurts the Lord the same as any suffering anywhere makes Him sad... I see more, though, me hurting Him as He valiantly tries to live in me, when I do something rotten.

I may pour my spite out all over the place with no effect on the person I'm making a judgement about. S/He might be 1,000 miles away, or 1,000 years away. Whether that tears Jesus up... I dunno. I do know it portrays what I'm like and how I am spiritually, unfortunately. And what I do -- what I am -- anything in me that's twisted away from the Lord's loving ideal, can hurt Him. I can see that; Scripture gives me enough framework to think of it that way.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We're ALL monsters, some more helplessly monstrous faces, ikons of Jesus that others.

The socially irredeemable, indeed better off dead for all concerned, WILL be better off dead.

I'm sorry, but I do not think that is true.

I am not a monster, neither do I know anyone who is. Being an imperfect icon of the Lord, who is himself a perfect icon of the Living God, does not constitute being a monster. Far from it.

One day all Christians will be 'better off dead', but in the meantime, until God calls us home, this is where we belong.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Agreed Sir P, windsofchange. Those who've suffered appalling loss don't need lessons in forgiveness or anything else, not even the assurance of the restitution of all things, they need us to weep with them.

I suspect myself that those who have suffered appalling loss have better things to worry about than opinions expressed here or anywhere else about forgiveness and restitution. It is a bizarre kind of argument to imply that such people would not like what is being said and therefore we ought to desist out of some kind of respect for their grief. Nobody has said anything disrespectful of them or their loved ones. What has been said is about us; our reaction to enormities, and our reaction to those who perpetrate them. Most importantly, whether our reaction to those who are far too easily labelled 'monsters' damages our relationship with Christ.

This is a good question, imo, and it does not disrespect anyone.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's part of the question ACR. And what kind of beings murdered Jesus ? Not monsters ? We don't know ourselves. Don't know the half of it. How close to the veneer our murderous hearts are.

May be it's just me ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think it's simply inaccurate to say that Jesus is incarnate in all humanity. Jesus is incarnate as a particular human. The incarnation is a historical fact, not a vague, spiritual truism.
I am fairly sure that is heresy. Chalcedon said that he joined humanity - OK it was via a specific person called Jesus but he took on the humanity of all and raised it at his ascension.

Which specialism are you doing in theology?
Which are you doing? What Chalcedon actually says of Jesus is that He is:
quote:
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood
How does Zach's point above fall foul of that exactly?
I was thinking about 'anhypostasis'
While you were thinking about anhypostasis and Lutheran nominalism (and, for all I know, monothelitic mongoose-farming), what you actually accused Zach of was being a Chalcedonian heretic. Do you want to modify that or justify it at all?

I did not so 'accuse' - i said, 'I am fairly sure (sic) this is heretical.'

[ 25. July 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I did not so 'accuse' - i said, 'I think 9sic) this is heretical.'

Since you haven't justified what you wrote, I think the proper term is "You feel this is heretical." Thinking has nothing to do with it.

Precision precision.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did not so 'accuse' - i said, 'I am fairly sure (sic) this is heretical.'

And if I said I was fairly sure you'd nicked a fiver from my wallet, what would that be?

Can I take it you're happy to drop the suggestion that what Zach said (and I endorsed) was heretical, or would you like to pursue this further?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I did not so 'accuse' - i said, 'I think 9sic) this is heretical.'
Since you haven't justified what you wrote, I think the proper term is "You feel this is heretical." Thinking has nothing to do with it.

Precision precision.

Not sure I understand the difference between 'think' and 'feel' but it is interesting that you replied to my post above before i edited to read 'fairly sure' rather than 'think'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Apparently the one that doesn't study extremely obscure, generally discredited doctrinal theories found in 283 page dissertations.

Hilary of Poitiers was a doctor of the church so hardly obscure or discredited..

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Hilary of Poitiers was a doctor of the church so hardly obscure or discredited.

You still haven't explained why what I said was heretical. No, linking to a 283 dissertation doesn't count.

quote:
Not sure I understand the difference between 'think' and 'feel'

Oh, I know.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did not so 'accuse' - i said, 'I am fairly sure (sic) this is heretical.'
And if I said I was fairly sure you'd nicked a fiver from my wallet, what would that be?

Can I take it you're happy to drop the suggestion that what Zach said (and I endorsed) was heretical, or would you like to pursue this further?

Not so much 'happy' as lacking time to check this out. It is certainly commonly held that the incarnation was limited to the man Jesus of Nazareth.

I think East and West see things differently.

It is also the case that I was wrong to pin this on Chalcedon.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Not so much 'happy' as lacking time to check this out.

I googled anhypostasis and couldn't see how it meant what I said was heretical. I'm not reading a 283 dissertation on the subject. Stop being lazy and make your case already.

quote:
I think East and West see things differently.

Why does every hack western theologian say this?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

One of the reasons we in the West misunderstand a lot of patristics is because of our stress on the individual over the corporate.

Hilary has been accused of Platonism but the paper I linked to argues that this is not the case. Tertullian, Cyprian an Hilary have not been declared heretics. Some brief quotations below:

quote:
De Trinitate 2.25: “but we needed that God should become flesh and dwell in us, that is, that by the assumption of the flesh of one, He might dwell within all flesh” …….

The theology of the incarnation that Hilary shares with Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria has been given various names, some with a more pejorative connotation than others. This understanding of Christ’s assumption of all humanity receives various titles including an “extended view” or a “universal theory” of the incarnation, or the “Greek physical” or “mystical” theory of redemption…..

Raymond Schwager in “Salvation” in the Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, vol. 3, ed. Jean-Yves Lacoste, (New York: Routledge, 2005), “Theologians of the first millennium emphasized the divine efficacy by understanding salvation first from the incarnation and including by way of analogy—against a Platonist background—the whole of humankind in the humanity of Christ” (1426)……

“Christ, who assumed the body of us all, and by the condition of the assumed body was made a
neighbor to each of us,” In Matthaeum 19.5…..

Burns shows secular Latin uses of the terms corpus, ciuitas, and congregatio that extend the definitions of these words to express a unity of the human race. These terms, and their extended use expressing a unity of humanity, were picked up by Christian Latin writers such as Tertullian, Cyprian and Lactantius. Burns Christology of Hilary …..

the paper I referred to above

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why does every hack western theologian say this?

It is 40 years since I did patristics and it isn't a field that I need in daily life.

Whilst nowhere near as clever as Bishop Richard Harries, I prefer the term he used recently on BBC Thought for the Day, 'jobbing theologian'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It seems he thinks anhypostasis is a doctrine of Chalcedonian significance, though the fact that there isn't even a Wikipedia article on it would indicate otherwise. If anything it's anti-Chalcedonian. The Son became human, a human, which means He is as much a particular human as me or Leo. Otherwise he is not fully human.

Whether or not the Son took on the metaphysical abstraction humanity on top of his particular manhood has nothing to do with Chalcedon, and I would be astonished to see how he works it out as a biblical doctrine when Neo-Platonism wouldn't be imagined until centuries after the texts were written.

How do you read 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ....'

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0